DUI and Death on Harrison

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Remind your kids not to ever get in a car with a driver who has been drinking. Uber. Walk. Call your mommy.
4 people got into that car as passengers.


Yup. And wear your freaking seatbelt.

So many bad decisions that night.


It was more than 4. I know of at least one passenger who was dropped off just before they crashed. Every single person who got in that car that night made a horrible decision, not just the driver.


Exactly.


You are allowed to be drunk and a passenger in a car. It can show poor judgement of course. It is in no way on any planet with sane people analogous to driving while drunk. Come on lady.


You have no idea why that kid ended up behind the wheel vs any of the other kids.


Because he made the choice. It doesn't matter what led to that choice, he made it and he executed the choice. He's to blame.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Remind your kids not to ever get in a car with a driver who has been drinking. Uber. Walk. Call your mommy.
4 people got into that car as passengers.


Yup. And wear your freaking seatbelt.

So many bad decisions that night.


It was more than 4. I know of at least one passenger who was dropped off just before they crashed. Every single person who got in that car that night made a horrible decision, not just the driver.


Exactly.


You are allowed to be drunk and a passenger in a car. It can show poor judgement of course. It is in no way on any planet with sane people analogous to driving while drunk. Come on lady.


You have no idea why that kid ended up behind the wheel vs any of the other kids.


You need to say more about why this is important to you. You’re getting ripped apart, but there must be some logic to what you’re saying and thinking.


I hate judgmental a-holes jumping to conclusions.


I can see taking that position when people comment on the parents or parenting decisions leading to this moment. No one, even people who knew them in real life, know what went on in their home and in their family. But arguing that particulars of the evening leading up to who drove the car are relevant and may somewhat exonerate the driver is not a winning argument.


No good comes from jumping to conclusions.

Certainly not when there are crazies trying to publicly shame anyone they can.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:None of your business.


He killed someone on a public street. It is very much our business. By definition. This is not a private affair.


Whether or not a teenager is on suicide, watch (as was asked) is none of your business whether or not they committed a crime on a public street.


DP. He's an adult. It's 100000% ok to speculate about adults that kill other people (and endangered many others) due to their selfish, reckless choices.

I'm so effing tired of people suggesting empathy for drunk drivers.


You have no idea what led to him being behind the wheel that night.

Normal people don’t get off on persecuting people without any facts.



A gun was pointed to his head? Please, do share your facts.


The point is we have no facts.

And some people are all ready to lynch the kid.


The only way you believe there are no facts is if you think Arlington police framed the kid. Is that what you're suggesting?


I’m suggesting that you let the police and justice system do their work before you start publicly persecuting this kid and his family.

Go find some other way to get off.


The family hire you. You’re awfully defensive. Not much to know here. Clear he broke the law and someone is dead because of it


Calling him a KID is a misnomer; Bares is a legal adult. 18.


He’s a kid. He was in college. Do you plan to cut off your kids the second they turn 18?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:None of your business.


He killed someone on a public street. It is very much our business. By definition. This is not a private affair.


Whether or not a teenager is on suicide, watch (as was asked) is none of your business whether or not they committed a crime on a public street.


Bullshit. I am entitled by right to know the details of this case. If he's a suicide risk and that's the reason bond is being denied, I have a right to know. You can eff right off with that bullshit.


No, you are not “entitled” to any of that info.

WTF is wrong with you?


I sure am. By law, anything in court is public record. What is wrong with YOU? Are you just naturally stupid or poorly educated or what?


Not true.


Anything said in open court absolutely is public record. Filings are public record. Even discovery is public record. Only things under seal are not public record.

You seem to believe the victim and/or his family deserve privacy. They do not. They DO deserve a good, publish shaming, however.

The accused murdered is legally entitled to the same rights as any other criminal suspect, but we the people have a right to know the details of the proceedings, including the particulars of why bond may or may not be granted.


Shame the driver…sure. But the family doesn’t deserve to be abused online. As stated in this post, he is an adult not a child. Stop dragging the family through the mud for his poor choices.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Remind your kids not to ever get in a car with a driver who has been drinking. Uber. Walk. Call your mommy.
4 people got into that car as passengers.


Yup. And wear your freaking seatbelt.

So many bad decisions that night.


But really, one, big, very, very bad decision.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The young man who passed away was his parents' only child. So very, very sad.


Yes- basically the same age as this case--only a few months separation in age.


So turning 18 actually has legal consequences? Who knew?


Everyone.


Exactly. I don’t get why people were so upset that they treated the minor…as a minor.

That’s how it works.


It may have been the technically correct decision to try him as a minor, but it doesn't take much imagination to understand why people wanted his adult conduct to be met with adult consequence, especially given that he was almost 18.


It wasn’t adult conduct, by definition. Teens can do terrible things before they turn 18, but that doesn’t generally result in their being charged as adults. In this case, the driver is legally an adult, and that has different consequences under the law.


Oh stop with your definitions.I know this case is different from a legal standpoint. I'm just talking about why many people were upset when the other almost-adult had almost no consequences. That's why in my first post I said "technically" correct. We all saw what he did, and this wasn't some little kid just using bad judgment. It wasn't even just drunk driving. It was drunk driving and deciding to speed like a maniac. It was egregious. This was an almost-man taking a stranger's life engaging in reckless conduct that goes beyond just having a drink and getting behind the wheel. That's why it felt outrageous. I'm not trying to win the argument in court - I'm talking about why people were outraged.


What was outrageous was a handful of people expecting the law to be disregarded and for a minor to be treated like an adult because the victim and his parents were from their own social circle. They tried to make it into a basis to unseat county officials who were just doing their jobs and following the law, and failed.

In this case the alleged drunk driver is legally an adult, so it will be handled differently.


We’re never going to agree on this one. Almost 18 year olds are frequently tried as adults under egregious circumstances. This particular juvenile killed a child. The prosecutor stuck to her promise and tried him as a juvenile. Nothing outrageous about the community disagreeing with her decision and expressing a view about how an elected official carries out her duties.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Remind your kids not to ever get in a car with a driver who has been drinking. Uber. Walk. Call your mommy.
4 people got into that car as passengers.


Yup. And wear your freaking seatbelt.

So many bad decisions that night.


It was more than 4. I know of at least one passenger who was dropped off just before they crashed. Every single person who got in that car that night made a horrible decision, not just the driver.


Exactly.


You are allowed to be drunk and a passenger in a car. It can show poor judgement of course. It is in no way on any planet with sane people analogous to driving while drunk. Come on lady.


You have no idea why that kid ended up behind the wheel vs any of the other kids.


You need to say more about why this is important to you. You’re getting ripped apart, but there must be some logic to what you’re saying and thinking.


I hate judgmental a-holes jumping to conclusions.


I can see taking that position when people comment on the parents or parenting decisions leading to this moment. No one, even people who knew them in real life, know what went on in their home and in their family. But arguing that particulars of the evening leading up to who drove the car are relevant and may somewhat exonerate the driver is not a winning argument.


No good comes from jumping to conclusions.

Certainly not when there are crazies trying to publicly shame anyone they can.


I guess we'll agree to disagree because I think focusing your energy on defending an 18 year old drunk driver is morally repugnant. And I wonder if he didn't look like what he looked like and wasn't from where he's from if you would feel this passionately about not jumping to conclusions. But there I go jumping to conclusions about you.
Anonymous
if he was an 18 year old Mexican, he'd be a MAN for sure
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Remind your kids not to ever get in a car with a driver who has been drinking. Uber. Walk. Call your mommy.
4 people got into that car as passengers.


Yup. And wear your freaking seatbelt.

So many bad decisions that night.


It was more than 4. I know of at least one passenger who was dropped off just before they crashed. Every single person who got in that car that night made a horrible decision, not just the driver.


What was the make of the car to have that many people?



They were sitting on laps
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The young man who passed away was his parents' only child. So very, very sad.


Yes- basically the same age as this case--only a few months separation in age.


So turning 18 actually has legal consequences? Who knew?


Everyone.


Exactly. I don’t get why people were so upset that they treated the minor…as a minor.

That’s how it works.


It may have been the technically correct decision to try him as a minor, but it doesn't take much imagination to understand why people wanted his adult conduct to be met with adult consequence, especially given that he was almost 18.


It wasn’t adult conduct, by definition. Teens can do terrible things before they turn 18, but that doesn’t generally result in their being charged as adults. In this case, the driver is legally an adult, and that has different consequences under the law.


Oh stop with your definitions.I know this case is different from a legal standpoint. I'm just talking about why many people were upset when the other almost-adult had almost no consequences. That's why in my first post I said "technically" correct. We all saw what he did, and this wasn't some little kid just using bad judgment. It wasn't even just drunk driving. It was drunk driving and deciding to speed like a maniac. It was egregious. This was an almost-man taking a stranger's life engaging in reckless conduct that goes beyond just having a drink and getting behind the wheel. That's why it felt outrageous. I'm not trying to win the argument in court - I'm talking about why people were outraged.


What was outrageous was a handful of people expecting the law to be disregarded and for a minor to be treated like an adult because the victim and his parents were from their own social circle. They tried to make it into a basis to unseat county officials who were just doing their jobs and following the law, and failed.

In this case the alleged drunk driver is legally an adult, so it will be handled differently.


We’re never going to agree on this one. Almost 18 year olds are frequently tried as adults under egregious circumstances. This particular juvenile killed a child. The prosecutor stuck to her promise and tried him as a juvenile. Nothing outrageous about the community disagreeing with her decision and expressing a view about how an elected official carries out her duties.


DP. We don’t have to drag this all out again but their behavior was outrageous. The campaign ad? Yuck.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The young man who passed away was his parents' only child. So very, very sad.


Yes- basically the same age as this case--only a few months separation in age.


So turning 18 actually has legal consequences? Who knew?


Everyone.


Exactly. I don’t get why people were so upset that they treated the minor…as a minor.

That’s how it works.


It may have been the technically correct decision to try him as a minor, but it doesn't take much imagination to understand why people wanted his adult conduct to be met with adult consequence, especially given that he was almost 18.


It wasn’t adult conduct, by definition. Teens can do terrible things before they turn 18, but that doesn’t generally result in their being charged as adults. In this case, the driver is legally an adult, and that has different consequences under the law.


Oh stop with your definitions.I know this case is different from a legal standpoint. I'm just talking about why many people were upset when the other almost-adult had almost no consequences. That's why in my first post I said "technically" correct. We all saw what he did, and this wasn't some little kid just using bad judgment. It wasn't even just drunk driving. It was drunk driving and deciding to speed like a maniac. It was egregious. This was an almost-man taking a stranger's life engaging in reckless conduct that goes beyond just having a drink and getting behind the wheel. That's why it felt outrageous. I'm not trying to win the argument in court - I'm talking about why people were outraged.


What was outrageous was a handful of people expecting the law to be disregarded and for a minor to be treated like an adult because the victim and his parents were from their own social circle. They tried to make it into a basis to unseat county officials who were just doing their jobs and following the law, and failed.

In this case the alleged drunk driver is legally an adult, so it will be handled differently.


We’re never going to agree on this one. Almost 18 year olds are frequently tried as adults under egregious circumstances. This particular juvenile killed a child. The prosecutor stuck to her promise and tried him as a juvenile. Nothing outrageous about the community disagreeing with her decision and expressing a view about how an elected official carries out her duties.


No, it was unhinged and outrageous and the charge was led by people who ignored the “child’s” contributory negligence, went after the teen driver especially hard because he lived in a different community, and then tried to exploit the entire sad situation for their own political gain rather than respect the law.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Remind your kids not to ever get in a car with a driver who has been drinking. Uber. Walk. Call your mommy.
4 people got into that car as passengers.


Yup. And wear your freaking seatbelt.

So many bad decisions that night.


It was more than 4. I know of at least one passenger who was dropped off just before they crashed. Every single person who got in that car that night made a horrible decision, not just the driver.


Exactly.


You are allowed to be drunk and a passenger in a car. It can show poor judgement of course. It is in no way on any planet with sane people analogous to driving while drunk. Come on lady.


You have no idea why that kid ended up behind the wheel vs any of the other kids.


You need to say more about why this is important to you. You’re getting ripped apart, but there must be some logic to what you’re saying and thinking.


I hate judgmental a-holes jumping to conclusions.


I can see taking that position when people comment on the parents or parenting decisions leading to this moment. No one, even people who knew them in real life, know what went on in their home and in their family. But arguing that particulars of the evening leading up to who drove the car are relevant and may somewhat exonerate the driver is not a winning argument.


No good comes from jumping to conclusions.

Certainly not when there are crazies trying to publicly shame anyone they can.


I guess we'll agree to disagree because I think focusing your energy on defending an 18 year old drunk driver is morally repugnant. And I wonder if he didn't look like what he looked like and wasn't from where he's from if you would feel this passionately about not jumping to conclusions. But there I go jumping to conclusions about you.


No one is defending him. He should be held accountable for his actions. But that is for the judge/judicial system to decide. Not some angry mob of people who care more about “publicly shaming the family” than waiting for facts.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The young man who passed away was his parents' only child. So very, very sad.


Yes- basically the same age as this case--only a few months separation in age.


So turning 18 actually has legal consequences? Who knew?


Everyone.


Exactly. I don’t get why people were so upset that they treated the minor…as a minor.

That’s how it works.


It may have been the technically correct decision to try him as a minor, but it doesn't take much imagination to understand why people wanted his adult conduct to be met with adult consequence, especially given that he was almost 18.


It wasn’t adult conduct, by definition. Teens can do terrible things before they turn 18, but that doesn’t generally result in their being charged as adults. In this case, the driver is legally an adult, and that has different consequences under the law.


Oh stop with your definitions.I know this case is different from a legal standpoint. I'm just talking about why many people were upset when the other almost-adult had almost no consequences. That's why in my first post I said "technically" correct. We all saw what he did, and this wasn't some little kid just using bad judgment. It wasn't even just drunk driving. It was drunk driving and deciding to speed like a maniac. It was egregious. This was an almost-man taking a stranger's life engaging in reckless conduct that goes beyond just having a drink and getting behind the wheel. That's why it felt outrageous. I'm not trying to win the argument in court - I'm talking about why people were outraged.


What was outrageous was a handful of people expecting the law to be disregarded and for a minor to be treated like an adult because the victim and his parents were from their own social circle. They tried to make it into a basis to unseat county officials who were just doing their jobs and following the law, and failed.

In this case the alleged drunk driver is legally an adult, so it will be handled differently.


We’re never going to agree on this one. Almost 18 year olds are frequently tried as adults under egregious circumstances. This particular juvenile killed a child. The prosecutor stuck to her promise and tried him as a juvenile. Nothing outrageous about the community disagreeing with her decision and expressing a view about how an elected official carries out her duties.


No, it was unhinged and outrageous and the charge was led by people who ignored the “child’s” contributory negligence, went after the teen driver especially hard because he lived in a different community, and then tried to exploit the entire sad situation for their own political gain rather than respect the law.


As I said, we will never agree on this. In deference to the actual topic at hand, I’ll shut up about it now.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:None of your business.


He killed someone on a public street. It is very much our business. By definition. This is not a private affair.


Whether or not a teenager is on suicide, watch (as was asked) is none of your business whether or not they committed a crime on a public street.


Bullshit. I am entitled by right to know the details of this case. If he's a suicide risk and that's the reason bond is being denied, I have a right to know. You can eff right off with that bullshit.


No, you are not “entitled” to any of that info.

WTF is wrong with you?


I sure am. By law, anything in court is public record. What is wrong with YOU? Are you just naturally stupid or poorly educated or what?


Not true.


Anything said in open court absolutely is public record. Filings are public record. Even discovery is public record. Only things under seal are not public record.

You seem to believe the victim and/or his family deserve privacy. They do not. They DO deserve a good, publish shaming, however.

The accused murdered is legally entitled to the same rights as any other criminal suspect, but we the people have a right to know the details of the proceedings, including the particulars of why bond may or may not be granted.


Shame the driver…sure. But the family doesn’t deserve to be abused online. As stated in this post, he is an adult not a child. Stop dragging the family through the mud for his poor choices.


His family isn’t being abused here, and was not being abused on the prior thread. No one posted parent names. No one posted even a public social media profile.

This legal adult killed someone.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Remind your kids not to ever get in a car with a driver who has been drinking. Uber. Walk. Call your mommy.
4 people got into that car as passengers.


Yup. And wear your freaking seatbelt.

So many bad decisions that night.


It was more than 4. I know of at least one passenger who was dropped off just before they crashed. Every single person who got in that car that night made a horrible decision, not just the driver.


Exactly.


You are allowed to be drunk and a passenger in a car. It can show poor judgement of course. It is in no way on any planet with sane people analogous to driving while drunk. Come on lady.


You have no idea why that kid ended up behind the wheel vs any of the other kids.


You need to say more about why this is important to you. You’re getting ripped apart, but there must be some logic to what you’re saying and thinking.


I hate judgmental a-holes jumping to conclusions.


I can see taking that position when people comment on the parents or parenting decisions leading to this moment. No one, even people who knew them in real life, know what went on in their home and in their family. But arguing that particulars of the evening leading up to who drove the car are relevant and may somewhat exonerate the driver is not a winning argument.


No good comes from jumping to conclusions.

Certainly not when there are crazies trying to publicly shame anyone they can.


I guess we'll agree to disagree because I think focusing your energy on defending an 18 year old drunk driver is morally repugnant. And I wonder if he didn't look like what he looked like and wasn't from where he's from if you would feel this passionately about not jumping to conclusions. But there I go jumping to conclusions about you.


No one is defending him. He should be held accountable for his actions. But that is for the judge/judicial system to decide. Not some angry mob of people who care more about “publicly shaming the family” than waiting for facts.


DP, I don't think you understand. We're judging him and ALL drunk drivers, the same way we judge people who shoot a loaded gun into a crowd. Because this behavior puts us ALL at risk.

I will unequivocally judge ALL drunk drivers (and people who drive high), because it is such a needless, selfish danger to all of us.
Forum Index » Off-Topic
Go to: