Family of Braylon Meade says justice was not served in deadly drunk driving incident

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A civil suit for anything more than the insurance policy limits will be tough unless they can show the parents were negligent by letting their son drive, e.g. if they knew he drove drunk or had a suspended license and continued to let him drive. I would like to see the parents suffer financially, especially given the lack of meaningful criminal penalties, but I don’t think it will happen.

In a case like this, I think the parents are at real risk of that exact scenario. Supposedly the kid had a history of alcohol and drug abuse. If that is correct, the evidence was certainly more than the gossip of some friends. So possibly medical records, school records, other police encounters, etc. And if the parents had software on the car or on their phone showing where there kid was or how fast the car was going, that's all admissible.

Add in that Meade's parents might not be motivated by money, but a desire to obtain the justice that they didn't receive in the criminal process and you have a massive liability case because the Meades will not want to settle. It's possible that they extract a settlement, but if they do it will be entirely on their terms if the liability is clear.

I agree this is entirely possible. Based on his mom speaking out to local news, I have a feeling there isn’t a lot of motivation to take a sum of money and go away quietly. They didn’t get justice for their son, so I wouldn’t be surprised if civil court becomes an opportunity to air all the dirty laundry of the killer’s family. If they can get their names out there with all the ugly history of substance abuse at least the defendant won’t just be able to live out his life as if nothing happened. I would want to create a Google trail about him (I am assuming the press wouldn’t protect the name of a now-adult once the proceedings are civil vs. criminal? Or at the least the parents’ names wouldn’t be protected).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A civil suit for anything more than the insurance policy limits will be tough unless they can show the parents were negligent by letting their son drive, e.g. if they knew he drove drunk or had a suspended license and continued to let him drive. I would like to see the parents suffer financially, especially given the lack of meaningful criminal penalties, but I don’t think it will happen.

In a case like this, I think the parents are at real risk of that exact scenario. Supposedly the kid had a history of alcohol and drug abuse. If that is correct, the evidence was certainly more than the gossip of some friends. So possibly medical records, school records, other police encounters, etc. And if the parents had software on the car or on their phone showing where there kid was or how fast the car was going, that's all admissible.

Add in that Meade's parents might not be motivated by money, but a desire to obtain the justice that they didn't receive in the criminal process and you have a massive liability case because the Meades will not want to settle. It's possible that they extract a settlement, but if they do it will be entirely on their terms if the liability is clear.

I agree this is entirely possible. Based on his mom speaking out to local news, I have a feeling there isn’t a lot of motivation to take a sum of money and go away quietly. They didn’t get justice for their son, so I wouldn’t be surprised if civil court becomes an opportunity to air all the dirty laundry of the killer’s family. If they can get their names out there with all the ugly history of substance abuse at least the defendant won’t just be able to live out his life as if nothing happened. I would want to create a Google trail about him (I am assuming the press wouldn’t protect the name of a now-adult once the proceedings are civil vs. criminal? Or at the least the parents’ names wouldn’t be protected).

There will never be “justice” for losing a kid.

Should he get a longer sentence, as a minor? Sure. But they are pushing for something they will never achieve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. A 17y old is not an adult and should not be tried as one. I feel very sorry for the victim’s family, but trying this juvenile as an adult would not bring the victim back ir do squat for the family’s pain.

And I’m just SURE you would feel the same way if your own child was murdered by a drunk.

Liar.

DP, but that's the point. Victim's families are too close to the matter emotionally to make these decisions. If it were my kid, I would be devastated and probably cry for blood...that's why I wouldn't be on the jury, or be the judge and prosecutor.

Law and justice is not about emotion, in the end, or it shouldn't be.

But the criminal justice system, when it works properly, is supposed to result in punishments that are appropriate and proportionate to the crime. In this instance, policies that are generally designed to yield a balanced result, failed the victim’s family and the community miserably. Because there has been no criminal accountability for an incredibly serious crime, you will see outrage in the community and from the victim’s family and possibly lawsuits so driven by passionate anger that there is no room to settle or do anything other than seek some sort of legal or public consequence that the criminal justice system failed to deliver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was ever a time to try somebody under 18 as an adult, it would be this one. However, in my opinion, there is never a time to try a child as an adult. Any age cutoff is going to be imperfect but 18, while arbitrary, is the best we have for a dividing line.

Are you serious? So if a 17 year old catfished someone online, got them out to a wooded area, and then tortured/murdered them, you’d think yup, perfect case for juvie and back out on the streets by age 21?

C’mon. I don’t understand all you people acting like anyone under 18 who commits a crime just need some rehab and a hug to set them on the right path. The fact is sh!tty people who deserve to be locked away start making bad choices before adulthood and can’t be (or shouldn’t be) redeemed. Low expectations leads to bad outcomes. It’s not good for kids to grow up with adults who constantly make excuses for them and give chance after chance. I personally don’t want to live in a country full of entitled criminals who know the law won’t hold them accountable.

Sounds like the killer of Braylon Meade kept getting time away at rehab and then handed the car keys like nothing had happened. Maybe he wouldn’t be in this situation if an adult had actually stepped up and given him harsh consequences.

The guidelines that exist today give an exception for someone who premeditated torture/murder.

You have no idea what happened so stop speculating about this family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. A 17y old is not an adult and should not be tried as one. I feel very sorry for the victim’s family, but trying this juvenile as an adult would not bring the victim back ir do squat for the family’s pain.

And I’m just SURE you would feel the same way if your own child was murdered by a drunk.

Liar.

DP, but that's the point. Victim's families are too close to the matter emotionally to make these decisions. If it were my kid, I would be devastated and probably cry for blood...that's why I wouldn't be on the jury, or be the judge and prosecutor.

Law and justice is not about emotion, in the end, or it shouldn't be.

But the criminal justice system, when it works properly, is supposed to result in punishments that are appropriate and proportionate to the crime. In this instance, policies that are generally designed to yield a balanced result, failed the victim’s family and the community miserably. Because there has been no criminal accountability for an incredibly serious crime, you will see outrage in the community and from the victim’s family and possibly lawsuits so driven by passionate anger that there is no room to settle or do anything other than seek some sort of legal or public consequence that the criminal justice system failed to deliver.

If he were an adult.

He’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was ever a time to try somebody under 18 as an adult, it would be this one. However, in my opinion, there is never a time to try a child as an adult. Any age cutoff is going to be imperfect but 18, while arbitrary, is the best we have for a dividing line.

Are you serious? So if a 17 year old catfished someone online, got them out to a wooded area, and then tortured/murdered them, you’d think yup, perfect case for juvie and back out on the streets by age 21?

C’mon. I don’t understand all you people acting like anyone under 18 who commits a crime just need some rehab and a hug to set them on the right path. The fact is sh!tty people who deserve to be locked away start making bad choices before adulthood and can’t be (or shouldn’t be) redeemed. Low expectations leads to bad outcomes. It’s not good for kids to grow up with adults who constantly make excuses for them and give chance after chance. I personally don’t want to live in a country full of entitled criminals who know the law won’t hold them accountable.

Sounds like the killer of Braylon Meade kept getting time away at rehab and then handed the car keys like nothing had happened. Maybe he wouldn’t be in this situation if an adult had actually stepped up and given him harsh consequences.

The guidelines that exist today give an exception for someone who premeditated torture/murder.

You have no idea what happened so stop speculating about this family.

The kids in this community and at MHS, YHS, and WL know what happened and who it is. There were boys in the car with the driver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. A 17y old is not an adult and should not be tried as one. I feel very sorry for the victim’s family, but trying this juvenile as an adult would not bring the victim back ir do squat for the family’s pain.

And I’m just SURE you would feel the same way if your own child was murdered by a drunk.

Liar.

DP, but that's the point. Victim's families are too close to the matter emotionally to make these decisions. If it were my kid, I would be devastated and probably cry for blood...that's why I wouldn't be on the jury, or be the judge and prosecutor.

Law and justice is not about emotion, in the end, or it shouldn't be.

But the criminal justice system, when it works properly, is supposed to result in punishments that are appropriate and proportionate to the crime. In this instance, policies that are generally designed to yield a balanced result, failed the victim’s family and the community miserably. Because there has been no criminal accountability for an incredibly serious crime, you will see outrage in the community and from the victim’s family and possibly lawsuits so driven by passionate anger that there is no room to settle or do anything other than seek some sort of legal or public consequence that the criminal justice system failed to deliver.

If he were an adult.

He’s not.

Juveniles aren’t outside the justice system, they are simply treated with special considerations given their age/development. We may strike the balance differently when adjudicating the rights of a minor to take this into account, but the community still has the right to expect significant consequences for heinous crimes. Whatever was delivered here was inadequate and the justice system failed to serve its crucial role of demonstrating to the community that there are real consequences for doing horrible things. The kid who bit my son in kindergarten was treated more harshly than the driver in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. A 17y old is not an adult and should not be tried as one. I feel very sorry for the victim’s family, but trying this juvenile as an adult would not bring the victim back ir do squat for the family’s pain.

And I’m just SURE you would feel the same way if your own child was murdered by a drunk.

Liar.

DP, but that's the point. Victim's families are too close to the matter emotionally to make these decisions. If it were my kid, I would be devastated and probably cry for blood...that's why I wouldn't be on the jury, or be the judge and prosecutor.

Law and justice is not about emotion, in the end, or it shouldn't be.

But the criminal justice system, when it works properly, is supposed to result in punishments that are appropriate and proportionate to the crime. In this instance, policies that are generally designed to yield a balanced result, failed the victim’s family and the community miserably. Because there has been no criminal accountability for an incredibly serious crime, you will see outrage in the community and from the victim’s family and possibly lawsuits so driven by passionate anger that there is no room to settle or do anything other than seek some sort of legal or public consequence that the criminal justice system failed to deliver.

If he were an adult.

He’s not.

Juveniles aren’t outside the justice system, they are simply treated with special considerations given their age/development. We may strike the balance differently when adjudicating the rights of a minor to take this into account, but the community still has the right to expect significant consequences for heinous crimes. Whatever was delivered here was inadequate and the justice system failed to serve its crucial role of demonstrating to the community that there are real consequences for doing horrible things. The kid who bit my son in kindergarten was treated more harshly than the driver in this case.

Your guilt about that must keep you up at night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, A+ parenting on the part of the drunk's parents...why did he have access to a car?

I don't think this kid should be tried as an adult but it's possible that the parents deserve to be hit with a civil suit. I don't know the details though.

+100 I know it's difficult to deal with a student with a substance abuse problem. My best friend's son is in his 2nd try at rehab but she also did not let him get a driver's license.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. A 17y old is not an adult and should not be tried as one. I feel very sorry for the victim’s family, but trying this juvenile as an adult would not bring the victim back ir do squat for the family’s pain.

And I’m just SURE you would feel the same way if your own child was murdered by a drunk.

Liar.

DP, but that's the point. Victim's families are too close to the matter emotionally to make these decisions. If it were my kid, I would be devastated and probably cry for blood...that's why I wouldn't be on the jury, or be the judge and prosecutor.

Law and justice is not about emotion, in the end, or it shouldn't be.

But the criminal justice system, when it works properly, is supposed to result in punishments that are appropriate and proportionate to the crime. In this instance, policies that are generally designed to yield a balanced result, failed the victim’s family and the community miserably. Because there has been no criminal accountability for an incredibly serious crime, you will see outrage in the community and from the victim’s family and possibly lawsuits so driven by passionate anger that there is no room to settle or do anything other than seek some sort of legal or public consequence that the criminal justice system failed to deliver.

If he were an adult.

He’s not.

Juveniles aren’t outside the justice system, they are simply treated with special considerations given their age/development. We may strike the balance differently when adjudicating the rights of a minor to take this into account, but the community still has the right to expect significant consequences for heinous crimes. Whatever was delivered here was inadequate and the justice system failed to serve its crucial role of demonstrating to the community that there are real consequences for doing horrible things. The kid who bit my son in kindergarten was treated more harshly than the driver in this case.

Your guilt about that must keep you up at night.

I don’t even understand your sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

The CA asked for the max sentence, and the judge did not grant it! That means the judge (who is not Parisa) saw evidence that this child did not need to punished the full extent of the law.

Is this story still incredibly tragic for the Meade family? Yes. His loss is simply awful. And I am sorry they felt they weren't heard. But it seems like there's mostly rumors etc about the teen driver, when the judge's job is to look at FACTS and make a decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tragedy for all, but this seems so wrong.

https://www.arlnow.com/2023/04/11/family-of-braylon-meade-says-justice-was-not-served-in-deadly-drunk-driving-incident/

Wow. In our area a 22 year old drunk drove wrong way on the interstate and killed a family of three. He got 30 years.

[Anonymous]

On a separate note, my friend's son is doing driver's ed at a public school. My friend says there are so many kids in this class, they only take 1 driving class each. Upon completion of the class they are eligible to get driver's license automatically.

With 1 driving class? Wth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tragedy for all, but this seems so wrong.

https://www.arlnow.com/2023/04/11/family-of-braylon-meade-says-justice-was-not-served-in-deadly-drunk-driving-incident/

Wow. In our area a 22 year old drunk drove wrong way on the interstate and killed a family of three. He got 30 years.

These sentences seem to be all over the place. I know someone in the DMV who killed two people while driving under the influence and only ended up serving 3 years--for two deaths. It makes no sense, but it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On a separate note, my friend's son is doing driver's ed at a public school. My friend says there are so many kids in this class, they only take 1 driving class each. Upon completion of the class they are eligible to get driver's license automatically.

With 1 driving class? Wth?

They don’t even have to pass a DMV-administered test?! That seems crazy.