DUI and Death on Harrison

[Anonymous]

Can we go back to, legally, why isn’t he out on bond? There are so many local attorneys who would know - is this typical?

[Anonymous]

My first Halloween in Arlington I was shocked at how many parents I encountered who were in various degrees of “not sober” while out TOT with their kids. From flasks to one couple wheeling a “bar” in a kid’s red wagon. **Many** Arl parents are drinking a ton and not suggesting their kids act differently. It’s really weird to me

Anonymous wrote:I’ve replied and am totally amazed at how women - fellow moms - characterize the driver as a victim. Is it a cultural shift?

When I was in HS, MADD and other groups presented to the junior and senior classes. This was when the dinosaurs roamed in the 90s, before wine culture became more diffuse, with the health arguments (resveratrol in red wine, the French paradox) contributing to us feeling like we could mature as Americans and drink in a balanced way. And then that kind of plunged into other things, wine mommies, bad art from Marshall’s about wine o’clock, etc. is it that? Because I can’t imagine the moms who loved and nurtured and corrected us when I was a teen writing some of these justifications out, hitting submit, and being like job well done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we go back to, legally, why isn’t he out on bond? There are so many local attorneys who would know - is this typical?

It’s really unusual.

[Anonymous]

I think so, too. But why?

[Anonymous]

I am wondering this too. It is my understanding that bond should be presumed unless certain other factors are present. Without knowing anything other than what's been in the paper, it's not apparent that adequate reasons exist not to grant bond.

I know it's a different court, but I read that the guy who maliciously attacked the Metro employee at Braddock Road was released on his own recognizance. Ridiculously that guy was charged with a misdemeanor, but he was on the loose following this incident, he has prior violent offenses and would appear to be a danger to society, particularly if he did know the victim.

I just don't get why the court hasn't granted the defendants request for bond. I did graduate from law school, but I'm definitely not a criminal lawyer nor am I a litigator so I'm not quite clear on how it all works.

Note: this is not a post about finding fault. It is strictly about court procedure and how it applies to this case.

[Anonymous]

If the Rados family has the misfortune of stumbling on this this thread please know that there are many of us grieving Nick and you. We are heartbroken too.

[Anonymous]

There were not enough seat belts for all the passengers. Talk to your kids re not wearing a seat belt and don’t accept or ride or give rides when a passenger wouldn’t have a seat belt. Kid was not ejected from the car. This entire thing is just awful for everyone involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There were not enough seat belts for all the passengers. Talk to your kids re not wearing a seat belt and don’t accept or ride or give rides when a passenger wouldn’t have a seat belt. Kid was not ejected from the car. This entire thing is just awful for everyone involved.

Was NOT ejected from the car? I don't understand....is that a typo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe his parents are pissed. My family rule is we dont bail you out until at least 72 hours in jail unless you make your own arrangements.

Same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were not enough seat belts for all the passengers. Talk to your kids re not wearing a seat belt and don’t accept or ride or give rides when a passenger wouldn’t have a seat belt. Kid was not ejected from the car. This entire thing is just awful for everyone involved.

Was NOT ejected from the car? I don't understand....is that a typo?

Correct. Not a typo. Not ejected. I don’t want to go into more detail. There are more lessons here than just don’t drive drunk.

[Anonymous]

I hope he rots in jail zero empathy.

Driving drunk is a choice

[Anonymous]

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/18-year-old-arrested-after-crashing-car-killing-19-year-old/3739971/ so "apparently was ejected" is incorrect?

[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.

Not in Arlington.
Not without prior record.
Not without the intent to harm others.

Driving drunk is intent. It is knowingly reckless behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were not enough seat belts for all the passengers. Talk to your kids re not wearing a seat belt and don’t accept or ride or give rides when a passenger wouldn’t have a seat belt. Kid was not ejected from the car. This entire thing is just awful for everyone involved.

Was NOT ejected from the car? I don't understand....is that a typo?

Correct. Not a typo. Not ejected. I don’t want to go into more detail. There are more lessons here than just don’t drive drunk.

Were opioids involved?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/18-year-old-arrested-after-crashing-car-killing-19-year-old/3739971/ so "apparently was ejected" is incorrect?

All news outlets reported ‘ejected’. And 5 in the car. What car only has 4 seatbelts? What was the model?