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

[Anonymous]

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

She’s an apologist for criminals who can’t be bothered to show up at a sentencing hearing for a child killed in her community. Nothing heroic about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The law provides that the offender could have been charged as an adult because he was over 14 and he committed a felony. That it wasn’t premeditated or intentional IS A FACTOR in exercising discretion to not charge as an adult. That he was under the influence of multiple controlled substances after having been to rehab and driving 93 MPH resulting in the death of another minor IS A FACTOR IN FAVOR of exercising discretion and charging as an adult. The CA weighed the factors and exercised her prosecutorial discretion to not charge as an adult. Nonetheless, every element required under the law to charge as an adult was met. Stop acting like this wasn’t 100% her sole choice or that some guideline wasn’t met when it clearly was.

That the judge was boxed in on sentencing is totally derivative of the CA’s charging decision and he explained as much according to other posters in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think there are some friends of the killer’s family on here trying to make excuses about how it wasn’t premeditated or intentional. But the law can infer all sorts of intent from actions. If you shoot a gun into a room full of people you may not intend to kill, but you intended an act that had a good chance of killing someone. When you drive your car like a missile in a residential area we can infer you don’t give a crap if someone dies.

Sorry, but the killer wasn’t just doing some stupid kid stuff. My 8 year old knows drinking and speeding are dangerous and could get someone killed. One year of jail time and hiding behind a juvenile sentence isn’t a fair consequence and I just don’t see how this kid will ever actually be able to redeem himself as a worthwhile human being without taking accountability for his actions. He will likely keep his identity hidden and go on living his life as if nothing actually happened. There will be no story of redemption here, just a spoiled rich kid who goes on living his useless spoiled rich kid life without concern for others. Stop trying to stick up for this waste of a human with the oh he’s just a kid who didn’t mean to hurt anyone nonsense. He was a 17 year old given every privilege in the world who DGAF who he hurts so long as he can do what he pleases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

The drinking and drug use sure was premeditated. What was he intending when he drove 94 mph?

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the driver’s family has a crisis management / PR attorney helping them navigate this. If so, I can only assume they would tell the family and the family’s friends not to post disparaging accusatory things about the victim’s family’s response to the nearly non-existent criminal consequence imposed on the drunk driver. It increases outrage and reinforces the optics that the victim’s family’s interests were not taken into adequate consideration. Defending the prosecutor has the same effect, even if it’s motivated by a desire to show that the prosecutor’s decision was in line with what other prosecutors would have done. For purposes of persuading the posters here - that’s never going to be a winning argument. This is a website heavily populated by local parents, and can I tell you what every parent’s worst nightmare is? Having their child killed by a drunk driver and the driver all but getting away with it. Probably best to let the victim’s family freely air their grievances even if you think you have some great counter argument about rational decisions and juvenile Justice etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The law provides that the offender could have been charged as an adult because he was over 14 and he committed a felony. That it wasn’t premeditated or intentional IS A FACTOR in exercising discretion to not charge as an adult. That he was under the influence of multiple controlled substances after having been to rehab and driving 93 MPH resulting in the death of another minor IS A FACTOR IN FAVOR of exercising discretion and charging as an adult. The CA weighed the factors and exercised her prosecutorial discretion to not charge as an adult. Nonetheless, every element required under the law to charge as an adult was met. Stop acting like this wasn’t 100% her sole choice or that some guideline wasn’t met when it clearly was.

That the judge was boxed in on sentencing is totally derivative of the CA’s charging decision and he explained as much according to other posters in this thread.

Yes, the person posting over and over again defending this rich druggie kid is either with the CA’s office or a friend of the family of said rich druggie. Too bad they were such bad parents that a good kid had to lose his life over their enabling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The drinking and drug use sure was premeditated. What was he intending when he drove 94 mph?

Choosing to drink and drive fast is not the same thing as choosing to kill someone.

People drink and drive fast fairly often and most of the time it does NOT result in death.

He wasn’t doing it with the intention of killing someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The law provides that the offender could have been charged as an adult because he was over 14 and he committed a felony. That it wasn’t premeditated or intentional IS A FACTOR in exercising discretion to not charge as an adult. That he was under the influence of multiple controlled substances after having been to rehab and driving 93 MPH resulting in the death of another minor IS A FACTOR IN FAVOR of exercising discretion and charging as an adult. The CA weighed the factors and exercised her prosecutorial discretion to not charge as an adult. Nonetheless, every element required under the law to charge as an adult was met. Stop acting like this wasn’t 100% her sole choice or that some guideline wasn’t met when it clearly was.

That the judge was boxed in on sentencing is totally derivative of the CA’s charging decision and he explained as much according to other posters in this thread.

Yes, the person posting over and over again defending this rich druggie kid is either with the CA’s office or a friend of the family of said rich druggie. Too bad they were such bad parents that a good kid had to lose his life over their enabling.

You do realize what you’re posting makes no sense, right? You want to conflate everyone who has respect for the legal system into one set of “bad parents” in order to make yourself feel better about your own unhinged, irrational hatred.

+1

I have an indirect connection to the Meades and don’t know the defendant/CA at all. But I can still recognize hurting families who are lashing out and making irrational comments. I can also recognize the timing with elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the driver’s family has a crisis management / PR attorney helping them navigate this. If so, I can only assume they would tell the family and the family’s friends not to post disparaging accusatory things about the victim’s family’s response to the nearly non-existent criminal consequence imposed on the drunk driver. It increases outrage and reinforces the optics that the victim’s family’s interests were not taken into adequate consideration. Defending the prosecutor has the same effect, even if it’s motivated by a desire to show that the prosecutor’s decision was in line with what other prosecutors would have done. For purposes of persuading the posters here - that’s never going to be a winning argument. This is a website heavily populated by local parents, and can I tell you what every parent’s worst nightmare is? Having their child killed by a drunk driver and the driver all but getting away with it. Probably best to let the victim’s family freely air their grievances even if you think you have some great counter argument about rational decisions and juvenile Justice etc.

Oh I’m sure they have some sort of PR strategy, the mom is a lobbyist. Her LinkedIn profile shows she’s still active by the way. Looks like there was about a month where she didn’t post 5 months ago (likely in the immediate aftermath of Braylon’s death). But then she’s right back to smiling photos about her job. Gotta keep up appearances to cash those paychecks $$$ to pay the lawyers to keep her kid from experiencing any actual consequences.

It makes me feel ill to think about. And tbh as a parent myself, I’m not sure I could just keep on posing for photos and living on normally knowing other parents are in grief because my child selfishly killed hers. All because I couldn’t tell my druggie kid no to having the car keys. I’m guessing the murderer didn’t hear no often. But life continues as normal for his family.

The funny thing is I think if he actually had to face the music and was charged as an adult/spend a few years in prison, public perception would be more in their favor and that justice had been done. The boy could have paid the price, turned his life around, issued some public apologies and spent time teaching HS kids about the dangers of drunk driving. I remember before my prom someone who had killed someone in a DUI came and did a presentation in our auditorium.

But the way things are going so far it just comes off as the killer’s family circling the wagons around him, and the CA downplaying the charges. He will carry the stench a la Brock Turner of being an entitled piece of garbage because he didn’t have to actually own up to his actions in any meaningful way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The drinking and drug use sure was premeditated. What was he intending when he drove 94 mph?

Choosing to drink and drive fast is not the same thing as choosing to kill someone.

People drink and drive fast fairly often and most of the time it does NOT result in death.

He wasn’t doing it with the intention of killing someone.

By saying this 12 times on this thread doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the driver’s family has a crisis management / PR attorney helping them navigate this. If so, I can only assume they would tell the family and the family’s friends not to post disparaging accusatory things about the victim’s family’s response to the nearly non-existent criminal consequence imposed on the drunk driver. It increases outrage and reinforces the optics that the victim’s family’s interests were not taken into adequate consideration. Defending the prosecutor has the same effect, even if it’s motivated by a desire to show that the prosecutor’s decision was in line with what other prosecutors would have done. For purposes of persuading the posters here - that’s never going to be a winning argument. This is a website heavily populated by local parents, and can I tell you what every parent’s worst nightmare is? Having their child killed by a drunk driver and the driver all but getting away with it. Probably best to let the victim’s family freely air their grievances even if you think you have some great counter argument about rational decisions and juvenile Justice etc.

Huh? The Meades made the choice to speak out publicly about it. Other people in the community, some who aren’t overcome by emotion, are certainly able to voice their opinions too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The drinking and drug use sure was premeditated. What was he intending when he drove 94 mph?

Choosing to drink and drive fast is not the same thing as choosing to kill someone.

People drink and drive fast fairly often and most of the time it does NOT result in death.

He wasn’t doing it with the intention of killing someone.

Maybe he didn’t intend it, but he also didn’t not intend it. You can’t drive almost 100 mph and then cry whoops I didn’t mean to hurt anyone! The second his foot pressed down that hard on the pedal he made it clear he didn’t care if someone died.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The drinking and drug use sure was premeditated. What was he intending when he drove 94 mph?

Choosing to drink and drive fast is not the same thing as choosing to kill someone.

People drink and drive fast fairly often and most of the time it does NOT result in death.

He wasn’t doing it with the intention of killing someone.

By saying this 12 times on this thread doesn't make it true.

Shall we go through the numbers again?

Do you ever drive on OD?

I’m sorry that you don’t want to face reality but drinking and driving and speeding are very common. Unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The drinking and drug use sure was premeditated. What was he intending when he drove 94 mph?

Choosing to drink and drive fast is not the same thing as choosing to kill someone.

People drink and drive fast fairly often and most of the time it does NOT result in death.

He wasn’t doing it with the intention of killing someone.

Maybe he didn’t intend it, but he also didn’t not intend it. You can’t drive almost 100 mph and then cry whoops I didn’t mean to hurt anyone! The second his foot pressed down that hard on the pedal he made it clear he didn’t care if someone died.

As a kid, he probably can’t evaluate risks/consequences as well as an adult. There is a reason why many rental car companies don’t rent <25.