Josh Katcher just became Commonwealth’s Attorney in Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I said it was his drunk driving and speeding that killed another child. If that characterization sounds harsh to you, it’s not because I need therapy.

You refer to "another child" here, but not in your prior posts, which have a decidedly different tone.

Yes, I think that you would benefit from therapy, or at least a sustained time-out from this discussion to reflect on why you have been posting as you have.

Lol!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I wonder if Parisa spoke down to Braylon’s mother like this, mocking her anger and grief and lecturing her about how she should be more understanding of the drunk driver who killed her son. More concerned about how the drunk driver was risking his own life. Telling her to take a time out from the conversation or seek therapy because she was too emotional to understand the criminal Justice system. I’m starting to understand what drove her to speak out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I wonder if Parisa spoke down to Braylon’s mother like this, mocking her anger and grief and lecturing her about how she should be more understanding of the drunk driver who killed her son. More concerned about how the drunk driver was risking his own life. Telling her to take a time out from the conversation or seek therapy because she was too emotional to understand the criminal Justice system. I’m starting to understand what drove her to speak out.

You are disconnected from reality. DP.

Parisa handled the case appropriately.

Using the mom’s grief as political fodder is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I wonder if Parisa spoke down to Braylon’s mother like this, mocking her anger and grief and lecturing her about how she should be more understanding of the drunk driver who killed her son. More concerned about how the drunk driver was risking his own life. Telling her to take a time out from the conversation or seek therapy because she was too emotional to understand the criminal Justice system. I’m starting to understand what drove her to speak out.

You are disconnected from reality. DP.

Parisa handled the case appropriately.

Using the mom’s grief as political fodder is disgusting.

Even if the case was handled appropriately, something was clearly lacking in her treatment of the victim’s family or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I wonder if Parisa spoke down to Braylon’s mother like this, mocking her anger and grief and lecturing her about how she should be more understanding of the drunk driver who killed her son. More concerned about how the drunk driver was risking his own life. Telling her to take a time out from the conversation or seek therapy because she was too emotional to understand the criminal Justice system. I’m starting to understand what drove her to speak out.

You are disconnected from reality. DP.

Parisa handled the case appropriately.

Using the mom’s grief as political fodder is disgusting.

Even if the case was handled appropriately, something was clearly lacking in her treatment of the victim’s family or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Which has zero to do with this election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I wonder if Parisa spoke down to Braylon’s mother like this, mocking her anger and grief and lecturing her about how she should be more understanding of the drunk driver who killed her son. More concerned about how the drunk driver was risking his own life. Telling her to take a time out from the conversation or seek therapy because she was too emotional to understand the criminal Justice system. I’m starting to understand what drove her to speak out.

You are disconnected from reality. DP.

Parisa handled the case appropriately.

Using the mom’s grief as political fodder is disgusting.

Even if the case was handled appropriately, something was clearly lacking in her treatment of the victim’s family or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Which has zero to do with this election.

That’s where we disagree, but maybe it’s that attitude that leads to sidelining the voices of victims. The way an elected prosecutor treats a victim’s family when acting in her capacity as prosecutor is directly relevant to whether our community wants her to continue in that role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I wonder if Parisa spoke down to Braylon’s mother like this, mocking her anger and grief and lecturing her about how she should be more understanding of the drunk driver who killed her son. More concerned about how the drunk driver was risking his own life. Telling her to take a time out from the conversation or seek therapy because she was too emotional to understand the criminal Justice system. I’m starting to understand what drove her to speak out.

You are disconnected from reality. DP.

Parisa handled the case appropriately.

Using the mom’s grief as political fodder is disgusting.

Even if the case was handled appropriately, something was clearly lacking in her treatment of the victim’s family or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Which has zero to do with this election.

That’s where we disagree, but maybe it’s that attitude that leads to sidelining the voices of victims. The way an elected prosecutor treats a victim’s family when acting in her capacity as prosecutor is directly relevant to whether our community wants her to continue in that role.

I disagree with you, too. It’s not the CA’s job to hold a victim’s hand or the hands of a family’s victim. Yes, of course, the CA (really the CA’s line personnel handling the case) should be courteous and respectful. But being warm and fuzzy enough is not necessarily part of the job. At the end of the day, people are most pissed at the result - not a strong enough punishment - and that is a larger issue with the system, not just Parisa.

In terms of the criticisms that Parisa gets for not attending sentencing or not handling the case herself, that’s what a manager does. They let their staff handle their cases, whether big or small. Parisa doesn’t seem to handle any sentencing hearings because the line prosecutors appropriately do so. So why has this become an issue in Braylon’s case? While the situation was tragic, what is so special about his case that he merits different treatment than other victims in Arlington and Falls Church? In general, I haven’t heard these complaints until an affluent white kid died and now North Arlington is up in arms because Parisa wasn’t nice enough or didn’t care enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I wonder if Parisa spoke down to Braylon’s mother like this, mocking her anger and grief and lecturing her about how she should be more understanding of the drunk driver who killed her son. More concerned about how the drunk driver was risking his own life. Telling her to take a time out from the conversation or seek therapy because she was too emotional to understand the criminal Justice system. I’m starting to understand what drove her to speak out.

You are disconnected from reality. DP.

Parisa handled the case appropriately.

Using the mom’s grief as political fodder is disgusting.

There's a difference between being the Commonwealth's Attorney and being a grief counselor. Both have valid, and important, roles, but let's not kid ourselves that Katcher would necessarily have done a single thing differently. Judging from his campaign, he exudes opportunism and personal ambition, not empathy.

[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:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I wonder if Parisa spoke down to Braylon’s mother like this, mocking her anger and grief and lecturing her about how she should be more understanding of the drunk driver who killed her son. More concerned about how the drunk driver was risking his own life. Telling her to take a time out from the conversation or seek therapy because she was too emotional to understand the criminal Justice system. I’m starting to understand what drove her to speak out.

You are disconnected from reality. DP.

Parisa handled the case appropriately.

Using the mom’s grief as political fodder is disgusting.

Even if the case was handled appropriately, something was clearly lacking in her treatment of the victim’s family or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Which has zero to do with this election.

That’s where we disagree, but maybe it’s that attitude that leads to sidelining the voices of victims. The way an elected prosecutor treats a victim’s family when acting in her capacity as prosecutor is directly relevant to whether our community wants her to continue in that role.

I disagree with you, too. It’s not the CA’s job to hold a victim’s hand or the hands of a family’s victim. Yes, of course, the CA (really the CA’s line personnel handling the case) should be courteous and respectful. But being warm and fuzzy enough is not necessarily part of the job. At the end of the day, people are most pissed at the result - not a strong enough punishment - and that is a larger issue with the system, not just Parisa.

In terms of the criticisms that Parisa gets for not attending sentencing or not handling the case herself, that’s what a manager does. They let their staff handle their cases, whether big or small. Parisa doesn’t seem to handle any sentencing hearings because the line prosecutors appropriately do so. So why has this become an issue in Braylon’s case? While the situation was tragic, what is so special about his case that he merits different treatment than other victims in Arlington and Falls Church? In general, I haven’t heard these complaints until an affluent white kid died and now North Arlington is up in arms because Parisa wasn’t nice enough or didn’t care enough.

+1000. Other kids who are victims of intentional violence - in DC and even the other W-L kid who recently got killed in Falls Church - at the hands of other juveniles get 1/100000 of the attention that Braylon Meade has gotten. It's disproportionate to the point where it's starting to get repulsive.

[Anonymous]

As they say, all politics is local.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I wonder if Parisa spoke down to Braylon’s mother like this, mocking her anger and grief and lecturing her about how she should be more understanding of the drunk driver who killed her son. More concerned about how the drunk driver was risking his own life. Telling her to take a time out from the conversation or seek therapy because she was too emotional to understand the criminal Justice system. I’m starting to understand what drove her to speak out.

You are disconnected from reality. DP.

Parisa handled the case appropriately.

Using the mom’s grief as political fodder is disgusting.

There's a difference between being the Commonwealth's Attorney and being a grief counselor. Both have valid, and important, roles, but let's not kid ourselves that Katcher would necessarily have done a single thing differently. Judging from his campaign, he exudes opportunism and personal ambition, not empathy.

+1000

[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:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I wonder if Parisa spoke down to Braylon’s mother like this, mocking her anger and grief and lecturing her about how she should be more understanding of the drunk driver who killed her son. More concerned about how the drunk driver was risking his own life. Telling her to take a time out from the conversation or seek therapy because she was too emotional to understand the criminal Justice system. I’m starting to understand what drove her to speak out.

You are disconnected from reality. DP.

Parisa handled the case appropriately.

Using the mom’s grief as political fodder is disgusting.

Even if the case was handled appropriately, something was clearly lacking in her treatment of the victim’s family or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Which has zero to do with this election.

That’s where we disagree, but maybe it’s that attitude that leads to sidelining the voices of victims. The way an elected prosecutor treats a victim’s family when acting in her capacity as prosecutor is directly relevant to whether our community wants her to continue in that role.

I disagree with you, too. It’s not the CA’s job to hold a victim’s hand or the hands of a family’s victim. Yes, of course, the CA (really the CA’s line personnel handling the case) should be courteous and respectful. But being warm and fuzzy enough is not necessarily part of the job. At the end of the day, people are most pissed at the result - not a strong enough punishment - and that is a larger issue with the system, not just Parisa.

In terms of the criticisms that Parisa gets for not attending sentencing or not handling the case herself, that’s what a manager does. They let their staff handle their cases, whether big or small. Parisa doesn’t seem to handle any sentencing hearings because the line prosecutors appropriately do so. So why has this become an issue in Braylon’s case? While the situation was tragic, what is so special about his case that he merits different treatment than other victims in Arlington and Falls Church? In general, I haven’t heard these complaints until an affluent white kid died and now North Arlington is up in arms because Parisa wasn’t nice enough or didn’t care enough.

So now you’re writing the victim off as an “affluent white kid”? The reason you’re seeing North Arlingtonians upset isn’t because he was “an affluent white kid.” It’s because he was our neighbor, our classmate, our teammate. You’re looking at this from a policy viewpoint, but we’re experiencing this from a very personal perspective, even if you think we should let it go. You’re trying to have a political fight with a grieving community and it’s pointless.This was probably the highest profile case Parisa was dealing with, and she didn’t have the political savvy to even show up to the sentencing hearing? Doesn’t matter if it’s common to delegate to case managers - there are times when you need to show your face and take ownership of the choices that were made. In politics, appearances matter. No matter how many posters come on her saying the case is not relevant, the fact that it is a decisive factor for many voters in the county proves otherwise.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I wonder if Parisa spoke down to Braylon’s mother like this, mocking her anger and grief and lecturing her about how she should be more understanding of the drunk driver who killed her son. More concerned about how the drunk driver was risking his own life. Telling her to take a time out from the conversation or seek therapy because she was too emotional to understand the criminal Justice system. I’m starting to understand what drove her to speak out.

You are disconnected from reality. DP.

Parisa handled the case appropriately.

Using the mom’s grief as political fodder is disgusting.

Even if the case was handled appropriately, something was clearly lacking in her treatment of the victim’s family or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Which has zero to do with this election.

That’s where we disagree, but maybe it’s that attitude that leads to sidelining the voices of victims. The way an elected prosecutor treats a victim’s family when acting in her capacity as prosecutor is directly relevant to whether our community wants her to continue in that role.

I disagree with you, too. It’s not the CA’s job to hold a victim’s hand or the hands of a family’s victim. Yes, of course, the CA (really the CA’s line personnel handling the case) should be courteous and respectful. But being warm and fuzzy enough is not necessarily part of the job. At the end of the day, people are most pissed at the result - not a strong enough punishment - and that is a larger issue with the system, not just Parisa.

In terms of the criticisms that Parisa gets for not attending sentencing or not handling the case herself, that’s what a manager does. They let their staff handle their cases, whether big or small. Parisa doesn’t seem to handle any sentencing hearings because the line prosecutors appropriately do so. So why has this become an issue in Braylon’s case? While the situation was tragic, what is so special about his case that he merits different treatment than other victims in Arlington and Falls Church? In general, I haven’t heard these complaints until an affluent white kid died and now North Arlington is up in arms because Parisa wasn’t nice enough or didn’t care enough.

So now you’re writing the victim off as an “affluent white kid”? The reason you’re seeing North Arlingtonians upset isn’t because he was “an affluent white kid.” It’s because he was our neighbor, our classmate, our teammate. You’re looking at this from a policy viewpoint, but we’re experiencing this from a very personal perspective, even if you think we should let it go. You’re trying to have a political fight with a grieving community and it’s pointless.This was probably the highest profile case Parisa was dealing with, and she didn’t have the political savvy to even show up to the sentencing hearing? Doesn’t matter if it’s common to delegate to case managers - there are times when you need to show your face and take ownership of the choices that were made. In politics, appearances matter. No matter how many posters come on her saying the case is not relevant, the fact that it is a decisive factor for many voters in the county proves otherwise.

No, the grieving family is pushing this into the political arena.

Outside of that small community, most people aren’t moved by grief. They are making more rational decisions. The only differentiator for Katcher is that he’s willing to use this tragedy as campaign tactic.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I wonder if Parisa spoke down to Braylon’s mother like this, mocking her anger and grief and lecturing her about how she should be more understanding of the drunk driver who killed her son. More concerned about how the drunk driver was risking his own life. Telling her to take a time out from the conversation or seek therapy because she was too emotional to understand the criminal Justice system. I’m starting to understand what drove her to speak out.

You are disconnected from reality. DP.

Parisa handled the case appropriately.

Using the mom’s grief as political fodder is disgusting.

Even if the case was handled appropriately, something was clearly lacking in her treatment of the victim’s family or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Which has zero to do with this election.

That’s where we disagree, but maybe it’s that attitude that leads to sidelining the voices of victims. The way an elected prosecutor treats a victim’s family when acting in her capacity as prosecutor is directly relevant to whether our community wants her to continue in that role.

I disagree with you, too. It’s not the CA’s job to hold a victim’s hand or the hands of a family’s victim. Yes, of course, the CA (really the CA’s line personnel handling the case) should be courteous and respectful. But being warm and fuzzy enough is not necessarily part of the job. At the end of the day, people are most pissed at the result - not a strong enough punishment - and that is a larger issue with the system, not just Parisa.

In terms of the criticisms that Parisa gets for not attending sentencing or not handling the case herself, that’s what a manager does. They let their staff handle their cases, whether big or small. Parisa doesn’t seem to handle any sentencing hearings because the line prosecutors appropriately do so. So why has this become an issue in Braylon’s case? While the situation was tragic, what is so special about his case that he merits different treatment than other victims in Arlington and Falls Church? In general, I haven’t heard these complaints until an affluent white kid died and now North Arlington is up in arms because Parisa wasn’t nice enough or didn’t care enough.

So now you’re writing the victim off as an “affluent white kid”? The reason you’re seeing North Arlingtonians upset isn’t because he was “an affluent white kid.” It’s because he was our neighbor, our classmate, our teammate. You’re looking at this from a policy viewpoint, but we’re experiencing this from a very personal perspective, even if you think we should let it go. You’re trying to have a political fight with a grieving community and it’s pointless.This was probably the highest profile case Parisa was dealing with, and she didn’t have the political savvy to even show up to the sentencing hearing? Doesn’t matter if it’s common to delegate to case managers - there are times when you need to show your face and take ownership of the choices that were made. In politics, appearances matter. No matter how many posters come on her saying the case is not relevant, the fact that it is a decisive factor for many voters in the county proves otherwise.

You’re kind of making my point. If Parisa doesn’t attend any sentencing hearings, why should she have attended Braylon’s and no one else’s? Because it’s personal to YOU? What about other victims of crimes, for whom sentencing day is immensely personal? I’m not happy about the disposition of this case, as I feel the penalty was too light. But my vote is about more than one case. It’s about a senior official in a DA’s office standing firm in her beliefs and policies even in the face of enormous political pressure. That’s actually who I want in the CA’s seat because otherwise emotions can lead to really bad outcomes in the law.

I understand this is personal to you. My children also attend the same school as Braylon did. But I hope that, in your outrage about Parisa not attending the sentencing, you are equally outraged that she doesn’t attend anyone else’s sentencing. Braylon was a good kid. He deserved to live. But his life and his case do not deserve an outsized level of attention and support than other crimes where the victims are good and don’t deserve what they get.

I know it sounds callous, but emotions are not the right way to make or enforce policy.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I wonder if Parisa spoke down to Braylon’s mother like this, mocking her anger and grief and lecturing her about how she should be more understanding of the drunk driver who killed her son. More concerned about how the drunk driver was risking his own life. Telling her to take a time out from the conversation or seek therapy because she was too emotional to understand the criminal Justice system. I’m starting to understand what drove her to speak out.

You are disconnected from reality. DP.

Parisa handled the case appropriately.

Using the mom’s grief as political fodder is disgusting.

Even if the case was handled appropriately, something was clearly lacking in her treatment of the victim’s family or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Which has zero to do with this election.

That’s where we disagree, but maybe it’s that attitude that leads to sidelining the voices of victims. The way an elected prosecutor treats a victim’s family when acting in her capacity as prosecutor is directly relevant to whether our community wants her to continue in that role.

I disagree with you, too. It’s not the CA’s job to hold a victim’s hand or the hands of a family’s victim. Yes, of course, the CA (really the CA’s line personnel handling the case) should be courteous and respectful. But being warm and fuzzy enough is not necessarily part of the job. At the end of the day, people are most pissed at the result - not a strong enough punishment - and that is a larger issue with the system, not just Parisa.

In terms of the criticisms that Parisa gets for not attending sentencing or not handling the case herself, that’s what a manager does. They let their staff handle their cases, whether big or small. Parisa doesn’t seem to handle any sentencing hearings because the line prosecutors appropriately do so. So why has this become an issue in Braylon’s case? While the situation was tragic, what is so special about his case that he merits different treatment than other victims in Arlington and Falls Church? In general, I haven’t heard these complaints until an affluent white kid died and now North Arlington is up in arms because Parisa wasn’t nice enough or didn’t care enough.

So now you’re writing the victim off as an “affluent white kid”? The reason you’re seeing North Arlingtonians upset isn’t because he was “an affluent white kid.” It’s because he was our neighbor, our classmate, our teammate. You’re looking at this from a policy viewpoint, but we’re experiencing this from a very personal perspective, even if you think we should let it go. You’re trying to have a political fight with a grieving community and it’s pointless.This was probably the highest profile case Parisa was dealing with, and she didn’t have the political savvy to even show up to the sentencing hearing? Doesn’t matter if it’s common to delegate to case managers - there are times when you need to show your face and take ownership of the choices that were made. In politics, appearances matter. No matter how many posters come on her saying the case is not relevant, the fact that it is a decisive factor for many voters in the county proves otherwise.

The sad thing is that no one can tell what's grief here any longer as opposed to cynical political strategy. Congratulations. Your tears now have about the same impact as a tattered yard sign facing the wrong direction.