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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18 years old was never meant to be an inflexible bright line for prosecution as an adult vs. a minor. The penalties for minors are soft; that’s why we give prosecutors discretion to prosecute as an adult in serious cases like this one. When a prosecutor declines to exercise that discretion and charges everyone a day under 18 as a minor, we’re going to see more and more cases like this, where the offender gets an extremely light penalty with virtually no long-term consequences.

I am glad this occurred two months before the election, though I doubt it will make a difference. There’s too much outside money funding these prosecutors.

This case didn’t meet the criteria.

Disagree. Why are comments from people who were at the sentencing getting deleted? Honest question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18 years old was never meant to be an inflexible bright line for prosecution as an adult vs. a minor. The penalties for minors are soft; that’s why we give prosecutors discretion to prosecute as an adult in serious cases like this one. When a prosecutor declines to exercise that discretion and charges everyone a day under 18 as a minor, we’re going to see more and more cases like this, where the offender gets an extremely light penalty with virtually no long-term consequences.

I am glad this occurred two months before the election, though I doubt it will make a difference. There’s too much outside money funding these prosecutors.

This case didn’t meet the criteria.

She’s never prosecuted a single minor as an adult. There are no criteria anymore. Like most homicide cases involving a 17 year old, this case meets all of the criteria that prosecutors have traditionally used.

Good. No cases have met the criteria, including this one, and she hasn't made exceptions based on public pressure.

[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.

It’s not even my kid who was killed, and I don’t know this family, but I still think a 1 year sentence for a drunk driving killing is completely absurd. It’s not based on “emotion” or a “cry for blood,” it’s based on the fact the punishment in no way reflects the severity of the crime. And FWIW while this is an egregious case, there are plenty of others where people are given pittance of sentences for killing someone while drunk driving. We are soft on DUIs in this country, which makes no sense, because the dangers of driving drunk are so well known and it’s so entirely avoidable to drink and drive. It’s a crime with one of the highest recidivism rates and yet we continue to give slaps on the wrist over and over. Not even a felony the first 2 times in Virginia. I think legislatively something needs to change.

I completely agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18 years old was never meant to be an inflexible bright line for prosecution as an adult vs. a minor. The penalties for minors are soft; that’s why we give prosecutors discretion to prosecute as an adult in serious cases like this one. When a prosecutor declines to exercise that discretion and charges everyone a day under 18 as a minor, we’re going to see more and more cases like this, where the offender gets an extremely light penalty with virtually no long-term consequences.

I am glad this occurred two months before the election, though I doubt it will make a difference. There’s too much outside money funding these prosecutors.

This case didn’t meet the criteria.

She’s never prosecuted a single minor as an adult. There are no criteria anymore. Like most homicide cases involving a 17 year old, this case meets all of the criteria that prosecutors have traditionally used.

Good. No cases have met the criteria, including this one, and she hasn't made exceptions based on public pressure.

It’s good to have a prosecutor with integrity who doesn’t let her decisions be driven by the blood lust on full display here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right, that 60 days until he turned 18 would have made all the difference in the world. This spoiled McLean kid was just an innocent little lamb who didn’t know smoking pot, drinking alcohol, and driving 100 mph was a bad idea.

Sorry, but plenty (the vast majority) of 17 year old kids have their act together enough not to engage in reckless manslaughter. This isn’t a 14 year old we’re talking about. I was still 17 when I moved away to college (I have a later summer birthday) and I knew at that point that driving drunk was dangerous. And I sure as heck expect more from my teens, they certainly wouldn’t have access to a car if they were in and out of rehab. Ridiculous.

And the entirety of 17 year olds are minors. Not adults.

I responded to this before and I guess someone reported me. So I will re-state it in terms that hopefully Jeff won’t erase. Most 17 year olds are not killing their peers, so the fact they are minors is irrelevant. That the defendant got blitzed and drove 100 mph in a residential area proves he was an outlier of a 17 year old. This wasn’t kid pranks or shoplifting. This was highly egregious, aberrant behavior that even minors understand is wrong. This deserves adult consequences, not kiddie gloves.

Most of the time when that happens, people don’t get killed.

People don't get killed when someone is going 94 in a 30? Don't you remember the Oakton crash last year? This part of Old Dominion is curvy and dangerous.

Ok. Those were the only two times that happened in the last two years. Most of the time people don’t get killed.

Your logic is bonkers, most of the time people do not drive 94 in a 30. And BTW these two happened within 6 months.

I’m sorry you struggle with math.

Most drivers don’t drive that fast.

Most of time when drivers do go that fast, they don’t kill people.

According to which statistics?

I drove OD multiple times per day and people fly on it when there isn’t traffic.

As for stats, in VA in 2018:
https://www.simmsshowerslaw.com/examining-virginia-traffic-data-for-reckless-driving-speeding/
98,000 people faced charges for driving at least 80 miles per hour;
2,135 people faced charges for driving between 100 and 129 miles per hour; and
17 people faced charges for driving at least 130 miles per hour.

Say 1% of those going 80+ were in Arlington: 980
Say 1% of those were residential: 9

And those are just the people who were caught and charged.

We don’t have 9 fatal accidents a year so most don’t result in killing someone.

80 in a 55-65 mph is bad, but it’s the majority of drivers in the left lane on the Toll Rd, 495, 95, etc..don’t even get me started on MD roads.

80-90mph on a 25-mph residential road is a different beast completely with kids, dogs, bikes, scooters, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of speeding driver used to be a lobbyist for NRA. Only in DMV would ultra-liberal CA give him a slap on the wrist.

She was not a lobbyist for the NRA. Her bio is all over the internet. She’s with Delta now. Prior to that she was with MetLife for years. Never with the NRA

Keep looking

I found the person in the first description. Was not hard to find the kid’s name either. Internet is crazy!

I think I found him too. Looks like he plays baseball. Social media is locked down for the family. Tail between their legs I’m sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Arlington County DA is known for being SOFT on crime. IMO, she doesn't give AF about criminals running the streets.

Vote her out in June!! She is defiant when faced with evidence that crime is on increase under her watch and it rose quickly. She is dragging this county down due to her arrogance and lack of concern for law abiding citizens of this county.

The guy running against her agrees with her. The crime didn't meet the criteria to charge him as an adult.

+1

“By and large, when a kid shows up in the justice system, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has specifically told us the focus needs to be on rehabilitation and getting them on a trajectory out of the system and I agree with that.”
-Katcher, her opponent

Full quote “Candidly, I can think of a few examples in which a kid could potentially be certified as an adult,” he said. “By and large, when a kid shows up in the justice system, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has specifically told us the focus needs to be on rehabilitation and getting them on a trajectory out of the system and I agree with that.” - Katcher

Did Katcher agree that this was a juvenile that could potentially be certified as an adult?

Not if he's follows the guidelines.

"State code allows juveniles to be transferred to adult court in limited situations and after considering several factors, such as the severity of the crime and if the child has committed other crimes in the past.

Factors that could lead to transfer include if the offense was premeditated and a weapon was used, Dehghani-Tafti said. Factors that may argue against transfer include the mental health of the defendant and the availability of services."

You don't have enough info to say whether this meets the guidelines. First of all, go to the actual guidelines not just a news article. Second you have to know all the facts of the case and the defendant's backround. None of us have that info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18 years old was never meant to be an inflexible bright line for prosecution as an adult vs. a minor. The penalties for minors are soft; that’s why we give prosecutors discretion to prosecute as an adult in serious cases like this one. When a prosecutor declines to exercise that discretion and charges everyone a day under 18 as a minor, we’re going to see more and more cases like this, where the offender gets an extremely light penalty with virtually no long-term consequences.

I am glad this occurred two months before the election, though I doubt it will make a difference. There’s too much outside money funding these prosecutors.

This case didn’t meet the criteria.

She’s never prosecuted a single minor as an adult. There are no criteria anymore. Like most homicide cases involving a 17 year old, this case meets all of the criteria that prosecutors have traditionally used.

Good. No cases have met the criteria, including this one, and she hasn't made exceptions based on public pressure.

It’s good to have a prosecutor with integrity who doesn’t let her decisions be driven by the blood lust on full display here.

It's fine until her kid is killed by a drunk and high driver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18 years old was never meant to be an inflexible bright line for prosecution as an adult vs. a minor. The penalties for minors are soft; that’s why we give prosecutors discretion to prosecute as an adult in serious cases like this one. When a prosecutor declines to exercise that discretion and charges everyone a day under 18 as a minor, we’re going to see more and more cases like this, where the offender gets an extremely light penalty with virtually no long-term consequences.

I am glad this occurred two months before the election, though I doubt it will make a difference. There’s too much outside money funding these prosecutors.

This case didn’t meet the criteria.

She’s never prosecuted a single minor as an adult. There are no criteria anymore. Like most homicide cases involving a 17 year old, this case meets all of the criteria that prosecutors have traditionally used.

Good. No cases have met the criteria, including this one, and she hasn't made exceptions based on public pressure.

It’s good to have a prosecutor with integrity who doesn’t let her decisions be driven by the blood lust on full display here.

It's fine until her kid is killed by a drunk and high driver.

Yeah, some of these posters drive drunk or their kids drive drunk, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18 years old was never meant to be an inflexible bright line for prosecution as an adult vs. a minor. The penalties for minors are soft; that’s why we give prosecutors discretion to prosecute as an adult in serious cases like this one. When a prosecutor declines to exercise that discretion and charges everyone a day under 18 as a minor, we’re going to see more and more cases like this, where the offender gets an extremely light penalty with virtually no long-term consequences.

I am glad this occurred two months before the election, though I doubt it will make a difference. There’s too much outside money funding these prosecutors.

This case didn’t meet the criteria.

She’s never prosecuted a single minor as an adult. There are no criteria anymore. Like most homicide cases involving a 17 year old, this case meets all of the criteria that prosecutors have traditionally used.

Good. No cases have met the criteria, including this one, and she hasn't made exceptions based on public pressure.

It’s good to have a prosecutor with integrity who doesn’t let her decisions be driven by the blood lust on full display here.

“Blood lust” meaning, apparently, wanting a sentence of longer than one year for killing 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: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.

Right, that 60 days until he turned 18 would have made all the difference in the world. This spoiled McLean kid was just an innocent little lamb who didn’t know smoking pot, drinking alcohol, and driving 100 mph was a bad idea.

Sorry, but plenty (the vast majority) of 17 year old kids have their act together enough not to engage in reckless manslaughter. This isn’t a 14 year old we’re talking about. I was still 17 when I moved away to college (I have a later summer birthday) and I knew at that point that driving drunk was dangerous. And I sure as heck expect more from my teens, they certainly wouldn’t have access to a car if they were in and out of rehab. Ridiculous.

And the entirety of 17 year olds are minors. Not adults.

I responded to this before and I guess someone reported me. So I will re-state it in terms that hopefully Jeff won’t erase. Most 17 year olds are not killing their peers, so the fact they are minors is irrelevant. That the defendant got blitzed and drove 100 mph in a residential area proves he was an outlier of a 17 year old. This wasn’t kid pranks or shoplifting. This was highly egregious, aberrant behavior that even minors understand is wrong. This deserves adult consequences, not kiddie gloves.

Most of the time when that happens, people don’t get killed.

People don't get killed when someone is going 94 in a 30? Don't you remember the Oakton crash last year? This part of Old Dominion is curvy and dangerous.

Ok. Those were the only two times that happened in the last two years. Most of the time people don’t get killed.

Your logic is bonkers, most of the time people do not drive 94 in a 30. And BTW these two happened within 6 months.

I’m sorry you struggle with math.

Most drivers don’t drive that fast.

Most of time when drivers do go that fast, they don’t kill people.

According to which statistics?

I drove OD multiple times per day and people fly on it when there isn’t traffic.

As for stats, in VA in 2018:
https://www.simmsshowerslaw.com/examining-virginia-traffic-data-for-reckless-driving-speeding/
98,000 people faced charges for driving at least 80 miles per hour;
2,135 people faced charges for driving between 100 and 129 miles per hour; and
17 people faced charges for driving at least 130 miles per hour.

Say 1% of those going 80+ were in Arlington: 980
Say 1% of those were residential: 9

And those are just the people who were caught and charged.

We don’t have 9 fatal accidents a year so most don’t result in killing someone.

80 in a 55-65 mph is bad, but it’s the majority of drivers in the left lane on the Toll Rd, 495, 95, etc..don’t even get me started on MD roads.

80-90mph on a 25-mph residential road is a different beast completely with kids, dogs, bikes, scooters, etc.

No doubt, but most of the times when it does happen no one dies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18 years old was never meant to be an inflexible bright line for prosecution as an adult vs. a minor. The penalties for minors are soft; that’s why we give prosecutors discretion to prosecute as an adult in serious cases like this one. When a prosecutor declines to exercise that discretion and charges everyone a day under 18 as a minor, we’re going to see more and more cases like this, where the offender gets an extremely light penalty with virtually no long-term consequences.

I am glad this occurred two months before the election, though I doubt it will make a difference. There’s too much outside money funding these prosecutors.

This case didn’t meet the criteria.

She’s never prosecuted a single minor as an adult. There are no criteria anymore. Like most homicide cases involving a 17 year old, this case meets all of the criteria that prosecutors have traditionally used.

Good. No cases have met the criteria, including this one, and she hasn't made exceptions based on public pressure.

It’s good to have a prosecutor with integrity who doesn’t let her decisions be driven by the blood lust on full display here.

“Blood lust” meaning, apparently, wanting a sentence of longer than one year for killing someone.

People have wished him dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of speeding driver used to be a lobbyist for NRA. Only in DMV would ultra-liberal CA give him a slap on the wrist.

She was not a lobbyist for the NRA. Her bio is all over the internet. She’s with Delta now. Prior to that she was with MetLife for years. Never with the NRA

Keep looking

I found the person in the first description. Was not hard to find the kid’s name either. Internet is crazy!

I think I found him too. Looks like he plays baseball. Social media is locked down for the family. Tail between their legs I’m sure.

I'd be ashamed too

[Anonymous]

This family is clearly loaded. I hope that did not have anything to do with the outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18 years old was never meant to be an inflexible bright line for prosecution as an adult vs. a minor. The penalties for minors are soft; that’s why we give prosecutors discretion to prosecute as an adult in serious cases like this one. When a prosecutor declines to exercise that discretion and charges everyone a day under 18 as a minor, we’re going to see more and more cases like this, where the offender gets an extremely light penalty with virtually no long-term consequences.

I am glad this occurred two months before the election, though I doubt it will make a difference. There’s too much outside money funding these prosecutors.

This case didn’t meet the criteria.

She’s never prosecuted a single minor as an adult. There are no criteria anymore. Like most homicide cases involving a 17 year old, this case meets all of the criteria that prosecutors have traditionally used.

Good. No cases have met the criteria, including this one, and she hasn't made exceptions based on public pressure.

It’s good to have a prosecutor with integrity who doesn’t let her decisions be driven by the blood lust on full display here.

Integrity, hmmm? "Kehoe noted the "final insult" from the prosecutor was her absence at the final sentencing hearing." Parisa didn't even attend the sentencing.

"She did not have to hear our family give our victim impact statements about our grief that continues to come in waves and will for the rest of our lives. That she could not be moved to appear in the courtroom to oversee the resolution of the criminal case involving the death of a child in her community speaks volumes."