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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Of course it did. They persuaded the judge to give an even lower sentence. Effective advocacy isn’t cheap. Although the prosecutor’s actions were disgraceful, rich people who commit DUI homicide get away with this everywhere.

The judge decided the sentencing, not the CA.

The CA decided to try to him as minor. That was her decision alone.

Good. Either you're a minor or you're not, and I think people should be tried as minors until they have reached the voting age. You want to lower the age at which someone can be tried as an adult? Fine, lower the voting age.

And again, for the people who don't seem to get it: the CA asked for a longer sentence than the judge gave.

The Meade family is suffering now and will be suffering for years to come. You don't have to deny that to think that they shouldn't be the ones determining the punishment.

There was a great episode of the You're Wrong About poscast recently titled "What even is justice?" which makes the point that our desire for vengeance is linked to our inability to acknowledge and validate grief.

Exactly. I was sympathetic for the Meade family until becoming aware of the toxic way they and their coterie of attack dogs are now behaving. They are the last people I’d want making sentencing decisions.

You are legit a monster.

+1 My faith in humanity is being challenged.

[Anonymous]

Parisi is a heroine for doing what is right rather than capitulating to a mob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.

A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).

While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.

You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )

One is rational. The other is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parisi is a heroine for doing what is right rather than capitulating to a mob.

The legitimacy of the justice system rests, in part, on the idea that private citizens will not take justice into their own hands because the state will step in to provide justice for all—as much as that can be achieved. When the justice system fails to properly balance the interests of all parties, community outrage will result. If it happens enough, the legitimacy of the whole system suffers.

Just as Brock Turner’s sentence (though technically within the guidelines and he appears to have not reoffended) continues to be an outrage, this sentence is an outrage. The community in Palo Alto found an outlet for their outrage by recalling the judge in question.

To be clear, there are many theories of justice. Victim rights are not the only consideration. We’ve come a long way from “an eye for an eye”. But justice is balance and when all theories of justice are not being properly considered, there is no balance and there can be no justice. I’m not sure how anybody can look at this situation and say that all sides were balanced.

Finally, most of us as adults pretty much have our ideologies locked in. Our voting patterns and sense of Justice are locked in but the young people, in particular minors, are watching this injustice play out and forming their own ideas on justice. Just as the 1970s/early 80s led to the tough on crime era, this era is starting to set the stage for reactionaries to reassert themselves in the coming decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.

A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).

While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.

You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )

One is rational. The other is not.

Again, YOU don’t get to decide that the decisions made were the correct ones. Judges and CAs aren’t infallible, they make bad decisions all.the.time. I love that you “respect the legal system” so much and think that it is always right. You must love the recent ruling out of Texas where the judge is trying to limit access to abortion/miscarriage drug mifepristone for the WHOLE COUNTRY by overturning an FDA approval of 20 years. You respect that decision, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.

A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).

While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.

You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )

One is rational. The other is not.

In a nutshell, this.

Again, very thankful we have officials like Parisa who respect the rule of law and govern their actions accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parisi is a heroine for doing what is right rather than capitulating to a mob.

The legitimacy of the justice system rests, in part, on the idea that private citizens will not take justice into their own hands because the state will step in to provide justice for all—as much as that can be achieved. When the justice system fails to properly balance the interests of all parties, community outrage will result. If it happens enough, the legitimacy of the whole system suffers.

Just as Brock Turner’s sentence (though technically within the guidelines and he appears to have not reoffended) continues to be an outrage, this sentence is an outrage. The community in Palo Alto found an outlet for their outrage by recalling the judge in question.

To be clear, there are many theories of justice. Victim rights are not the only consideration. We’ve come a long way from “an eye for an eye”. But justice is balance and when all theories of justice are not being properly considered, there is no balance and there can be no justice. I’m not sure how anybody can look at this situation and say that all sides were balanced.

Finally, most of us as adults pretty much have our ideologies locked in. Our voting patterns and sense of Justice are locked in but the young people, in particular minors, are watching this injustice play out and forming their own ideas on justice. Just as the 1970s/early 80s led to the tough on crime era, this era is starting to set the stage for reactionaries to reassert themselves in the coming decades.

So you want to recall this judge for his meager sentence?

No, you want to misdirect your anger for political purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.

A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).

While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.

You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )

One is rational. The other is not.

Again, YOU don’t get to decide that the decisions made were the correct ones. Judges and CAs aren’t infallible, they make bad decisions all.the.time. I love that you “respect the legal system” so much and think that it is always right. You must love the recent ruling out of Texas where the judge is trying to limit access to abortion/miscarriage drug mifepristone for the WHOLE COUNTRY by overturning an FDA approval of 20 years. You respect that decision, right?

Rational/irrational isn’t about being right/wrong. And there are also irrational decisions made within the judicial system.

In this case, the CA/judge rationally followed guidelines which were established to take emotion/bias out of these decisions.

This kid made a huge mistake with lethal consequences. But it wasn’t premeditated or even intentional. And his punishment wasn’t out of line from similar cases. He isn’t an exception here.

You could make him the poster boy for systemwide change, but you’ll need to change your message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parisi is a heroine for doing what is right rather than capitulating to a mob.

The legitimacy of the justice system rests, in part, on the idea that private citizens will not take justice into their own hands because the state will step in to provide justice for all—as much as that can be achieved. When the justice system fails to properly balance the interests of all parties, community outrage will result. If it happens enough, the legitimacy of the whole system suffers.

Just as Brock Turner’s sentence (though technically within the guidelines and he appears to have not reoffended) continues to be an outrage, this sentence is an outrage. The community in Palo Alto found an outlet for their outrage by recalling the judge in question.

To be clear, there are many theories of justice. Victim rights are not the only consideration. We’ve come a long way from “an eye for an eye”. But justice is balance and when all theories of justice are not being properly considered, there is no balance and there can be no justice. I’m not sure how anybody can look at this situation and say that all sides were balanced.

Finally, most of us as adults pretty much have our ideologies locked in. Our voting patterns and sense of Justice are locked in but the young people, in particular minors, are watching this injustice play out and forming their own ideas on justice. Just as the 1970s/early 80s led to the tough on crime era, this era is starting to set the stage for reactionaries to reassert themselves in the coming decades.

So you want to recall this judge for his meager sentence?

No, you want to misdirect your anger for political purposes.

You’re are not too bright. The outrage is properly directed at the CA. The election should temporarily settle the matter, but even then, she’s ideologically playing with fire here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.

A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).

While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.

You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )

One is rational. The other is not.

Again, YOU don’t get to decide that the decisions made were the correct ones. Judges and CAs aren’t infallible, they make bad decisions all.the.time. I love that you “respect the legal system” so much and think that it is always right. You must love the recent ruling out of Texas where the judge is trying to limit access to abortion/miscarriage drug mifepristone for the WHOLE COUNTRY by overturning an FDA approval of 20 years. You respect that decision, right?

Rational/irrational isn’t about being right/wrong. And there are also irrational decisions made within the judicial system.

In this case, the CA/judge rationally followed guidelines which were established to take emotion/bias out of these decisions.

This kid made a huge mistake with lethal consequences. But it wasn’t premeditated or even intentional. And his punishment wasn’t out of line from similar cases. He isn’t an exception here.

You could make him the poster boy for systemwide change, but you’ll need to change your message.

You’re interpretation, to me, is through rose-colored glasses. The guidelines are precisely that: guidelines designed ultimately to leave prosecutorial discretion with prosecutors. The CA has shown she will not charge any minor as an adult. Many people are rightfully asking they if not in this instance, when?

The CA made an intentional charging decision. A charging decision that boxed in the judge. She’s now hiding behind very carefully crafted lawyer speak hoping people like you will gloss over her decision as if she had no choice in the matter. She is strongly hoping that the voting public will ignore that it was her discretion she exercised in the charging decision. She does this enough, and she’ll set her movement back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.

A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).

While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.

You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )

One is rational. The other is not.

Again, YOU don’t get to decide that the decisions made were the correct ones. Judges and CAs aren’t infallible, they make bad decisions all.the.time. I love that you “respect the legal system” so much and think that it is always right. You must love the recent ruling out of Texas where the judge is trying to limit access to abortion/miscarriage drug mifepristone for the WHOLE COUNTRY by overturning an FDA approval of 20 years. You respect that decision, right?

Rational/irrational isn’t about being right/wrong. And there are also irrational decisions made within the judicial system.

In this case, the CA/judge rationally followed guidelines which were established to take emotion/bias out of these decisions.

This kid made a huge mistake with lethal consequences. But it wasn’t premeditated or even intentional. And his punishment wasn’t out of line from similar cases. He isn’t an exception here.

You could make him the poster boy for systemwide change, but you’ll need to change your message.

You are using semantics here to hide. Respect this ruling because it’s “rational” (you keep telling us) but don’t respect the mifepristone ruling because it’s “irrational.” Same legal system. We know Parisa doesn’t believe in trying minors as adults; that is at the core of her restorative justice practices. Plenty of people disagree, that doesn’t make them irrational. And since it is an option that the County allows, it’s clearly not irrational in the eyes of the law. She had the option of presenting an argument to the judge that the drunk driver should be tried as an adult which she claims no judge would have granted. She was never even going to try this because it goes against her values and the platform she ran on. And as for the judge, please tell me again how one year of home confinement is more rational than three years of jail. The law doesn’t consider three years or more irrational since it falls within the sentencing guidelines.

[Anonymous]

Citation that it’s “one year of home confinement”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.

A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).

While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.

You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )

One is rational. The other is not.

Again, YOU don’t get to decide that the decisions made were the correct ones. Judges and CAs aren’t infallible, they make bad decisions all.the.time. I love that you “respect the legal system” so much and think that it is always right. You must love the recent ruling out of Texas where the judge is trying to limit access to abortion/miscarriage drug mifepristone for the WHOLE COUNTRY by overturning an FDA approval of 20 years. You respect that decision, right?

Rational/irrational isn’t about being right/wrong. And there are also irrational decisions made within the judicial system.

In this case, the CA/judge rationally followed guidelines which were established to take emotion/bias out of these decisions.

This kid made a huge mistake with lethal consequences. But it wasn’t premeditated or even intentional. And his punishment wasn’t out of line from similar cases. He isn’t an exception here.

You could make him the poster boy for systemwide change, but you’ll need to change your message.

You’re interpretation, to me, is through rose-colored glasses. The guidelines are precisely that: guidelines designed ultimately to leave prosecutorial discretion with prosecutors. The CA has shown she will not charge any minor as an adult. Many people are rightfully asking they if not in this instance, when?

The CA made an intentional charging decision. A charging decision that boxed in the judge. She’s now hiding behind very carefully crafted lawyer speak hoping people like you will gloss over her decision as if she had no choice in the matter. She is strongly hoping that the voting public will ignore that it was her discretion she exercised in the charging decision. She does this enough, and she’ll set her movement back.

Maybe when she gets a case that actually meets the criteria.

This wasn’t a premeditated or even an intentional murder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.

A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).

While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.

You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )

One is rational. The other is not.

Again, YOU don’t get to decide that the decisions made were the correct ones. Judges and CAs aren’t infallible, they make bad decisions all.the.time. I love that you “respect the legal system” so much and think that it is always right. You must love the recent ruling out of Texas where the judge is trying to limit access to abortion/miscarriage drug mifepristone for the WHOLE COUNTRY by overturning an FDA approval of 20 years. You respect that decision, right?

Rational/irrational isn’t about being right/wrong. And there are also irrational decisions made within the judicial system.

In this case, the CA/judge rationally followed guidelines which were established to take emotion/bias out of these decisions.

This kid made a huge mistake with lethal consequences. But it wasn’t premeditated or even intentional. And his punishment wasn’t out of line from similar cases. He isn’t an exception here.

You could make him the poster boy for systemwide change, but you’ll need to change your message.

You are using semantics here to hide. Respect this ruling because it’s “rational” (you keep telling us) but don’t respect the mifepristone ruling because it’s “irrational.” Same legal system. We know Parisa doesn’t believe in trying minors as adults; that is at the core of her restorative justice practices. Plenty of people disagree, that doesn’t make them irrational. And since it is an option that the County allows, it’s clearly not irrational in the eyes of the law. She had the option of presenting an argument to the judge that the drunk driver should be tried as an adult which she claims no judge would have granted. She was never even going to try this because it goes against her values and the platform she ran on. And as for the judge, please tell me again how one year of home confinement is more rational than three years of jail. The law doesn’t consider three years or more irrational since it falls within the sentencing guidelines.

There was no reason to go beyond the guidelines here. It wasn’t premeditated or even intentional. His sentence was well within the guidelines.

The mifepristone decision was driven by the judge’s emotion and personal bias. That did not fall within established guidelines.

[Anonymous]

If you are unhappy with his sentence, push for systemwide changes to sentencing.

His sentence was within the guidelines; it wasn’t some rogue decision.