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: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.

Daily. I live in the neighborhood. No one goes 94 on OD, particularly since where the accident occured is an intersection where the light is usually red. Stop gaslighting.

People frequently do go very fast when there is little traffic - 60+.

If kids were playing around in a fast car you could easily get to 90. It’s definitely unsafe, but people doing it aren’t thinking about the risks.

He didn’t intentionally kill.

I am on this section of road multiple times a day. People are not going 60 (or 100) on OD on the regular in this section of Arlington. This is the section where there is a red light is red at Williamsburg Blvd and then a few blocks later at Little Falls. People do speed on OD on the McLean side but NOT where Braylon was hit.

Expect for the kid that did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Daily. I live in the neighborhood. No one goes 94 on OD, particularly since where the accident occured is an intersection where the light is usually red. Stop gaslighting.

People frequently do go very fast when there is little traffic - 60+.

If kids were playing around in a fast car you could easily get to 90. It’s definitely unsafe, but people doing it aren’t thinking about the risks.

He didn’t intentionally kill.

I am on this section of road multiple times a day. People are not going 60 (or 100) on OD on the regular in this section of Arlington. This is the section where there is a red light is red at Williamsburg Blvd and then a few blocks later at Little Falls. People do speed on OD on the McLean side but NOT where Braylon was hit.

Expect for the kid that did.

Thanks for stating the obvious. Yes, he chose to go 94 in a 30 (uphill) and only applied his breaks for half a second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really and truly hope the Meade family sues the crap about the killer’s family if for not other reason than to bring all the facts of this case fully to light. I think the public deserves to know a full airing of the other family’s dirty laundry. You don’t get to kill someone and then hide away as if nothing happened.

+1

Idiot.

It’s a remedy available to them, there is very likely liability-what’s the problem?

+1

The same posters who seem happy that the criminal system “worked” as they see fit seem against seeing things play out in the civil court system. Seems like the theme is not wanting the driver or his family to suffer any consequences more than any sort of faith in our courts.

How do you “sue the crap about” someone’s family? I think people were just reacting to PP frothing at the mouth again.

As for a civil suit against the driver’s parents, it’s easy enough to educate yourself that parents generally cannot be held liable for the tortious acts of their children under Virginia law, absent a principal-agent relationship, which almost surely didn’t exist here (the parents weren’t asking their reckless teenager to make a late night run to 7-11 on their behalf). And even if it did, it would also undoubtedly be very painful for the victim’s family to be grilled under oath about their own judgment in allowing their teenage son to be out driving at 1 AM, which is something they probably agonize about constantly as it is.

This is a very sad situation but those peddling grief porn and lawsuits without any basis under Virginia law aren’t helping anyone.

You are so poorly informed. Parents do absolutely have liability for teenage drivers. Most of the time the insurance max covers it (and maybe an umbrella policy) but there could be more assets at play here and add in the known substance abuse issues (if it comes out in discovery the driver had in fact been to rehab multiple times), you’re looking at potential negligent entrustment. Whoever supplied the driver alcohol is probably pretty nervous right now too.

I hope this serves as a wake up call to checked out parents who don’t want to actually monitor their teen’s whereabouts or tell them no to driving a car. Don’t unleash your spoiled menace of a brat on the road and expect to not claim any responsibility. Parent your freaking kids.

[Anonymous]

I’ve said it once already on this thread, but it’s worth repeating. Railing against supporters of the grieving family is a losing battle on a thread like this. No matter how right you are on any legal or philosophical level, you always look bad if you rail against the sympathetic victim. No matter what the legal consequences, I think there’s general consensus that it is the driver who committed the bad act. The victim’s family wouldn’t have to say anything at all if the driver hadn’t killed their son. They are not in this position voluntarily. If the law says the driver’s parents can’t be held liable, that will sort itself out in the courts or in a lawyer’s office. Trying to litigate the issue here just makes the driver and his family look worse, even if they’re not the ones initiating the posts. If you stop defending the driver’s side in your posts, you’ll stop prompting all of the outraged responses and the thread can die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support the Meade family but some “friends of friends” on Facebook are sharing posts about “fighting back” that have a kind of “we’re grief-adjacent” tragedy porn angle that might actually be hurting the family’s worthy cause.

It clearly is, although insulting a local prosecutor and judge doing the jobs to which they were elected and appointed is not a "worthy cause."

There are a bunch of pathetic people hopping on board a bandwagon here just so they can show off how their own pitchforks are the sharpest in the crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really and truly hope the Meade family sues the crap about the killer’s family if for not other reason than to bring all the facts of this case fully to light. I think the public deserves to know a full airing of the other family’s dirty laundry. You don’t get to kill someone and then hide away as if nothing happened.

+1

Idiot.

It’s a remedy available to them, there is very likely liability-what’s the problem?

+1

The same posters who seem happy that the criminal system “worked” as they see fit seem against seeing things play out in the civil court system. Seems like the theme is not wanting the driver or his family to suffer any consequences more than any sort of faith in our courts.

How do you “sue the crap about” someone’s family? I think people were just reacting to PP frothing at the mouth again.

As for a civil suit against the driver’s parents, it’s easy enough to educate yourself that parents generally cannot be held liable for the tortious acts of their children under Virginia law, absent a principal-agent relationship, which almost surely didn’t exist here (the parents weren’t asking their reckless teenager to make a late night run to 7-11 on their behalf). And even if it did, it would also undoubtedly be very painful for the victim’s family to be grilled under oath about their own judgment in allowing their teenage son to be out driving at 1 AM, which is something they probably agonize about constantly as it is.

This is a very sad situation but those peddling grief porn and lawsuits without any basis under Virginia law aren’t helping anyone.

You are so poorly informed. Parents do absolutely have liability for teenage drivers. Most of the time the insurance max covers it (and maybe an umbrella policy) but there could be more assets at play here and add in the known substance abuse issues (if it comes out in discovery the driver had in fact been to rehab multiple times), you’re looking at potential negligent entrustment. Whoever supplied the driver alcohol is probably pretty nervous right now too.

I hope this serves as a wake up call to checked out parents who don’t want to actually monitor their teen’s whereabouts or tell them no to driving a car. Don’t unleash your spoiled menace of a brat on the road and expect to not claim any responsibility. Parent your freaking kids.

Do you ever bother to read what you write?

Parents do not "absolutely have liability for teenage drivers." They may have liability in very narrow circumstances, under a few theories, but the hurdles to establish liability in Virginia are extremely high. You might want to consider moving to a different state where the law is more aligned with your sweeping personal preferences when it comes to parental liability.

[Anonymous]

It seems that Rose Kehoe, Meade's mother, has invited the scrutiny by very publicly attacking Barbara Favola for supporting Parisa Dehghani-Tafti's re-election campaign, and attacking Dehghani-Tafti herself.

While Kehoe's grief is understandable, she is simply out of line here. Dehghani-Tafti did her job in accordance with the law, and in return she has rightly earned the support of Favola and others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Rose Kehoe, Meade's mother, has invited the scrutiny by very publicly attacking Barbara Favola for supporting Parisa Dehghani-Tafti's re-election campaign, and attacking Dehghani-Tafti herself.

While Kehoe's grief is understandable, she is simply out of line here. Dehghani-Tafti did her job in accordance with the law, and in return she has rightly earned the support of Favola and others.

Well, let’s just let the voters decide if they like what she has done in office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support the Meade family but some “friends of friends” on Facebook are sharing posts about “fighting back” that have a kind of “we’re grief-adjacent” tragedy porn angle that might actually be hurting the family’s worthy cause.

It clearly is, although insulting a local prosecutor and judge doing the jobs to which they were elected and appointed is not a "worthy cause."

There are a bunch of pathetic people hopping on board a bandwagon here just so they can show off how their own pitchforks are the sharpest in the crowd.

Can we insult federal prosecutors and judges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve said it once already on this thread, but it’s worth repeating. Railing against supporters of the grieving family is a losing battle on a thread like this. No matter how right you are on any legal or philosophical level, you always look bad if you rail against the sympathetic victim. No matter what the legal consequences, I think there’s general consensus that it is the driver who committed the bad act. The victim’s family wouldn’t have to say anything at all if the driver hadn’t killed their son. They are not in this position voluntarily. If the law says the driver’s parents can’t be held liable, that will sort itself out in the courts or in a lawyer’s office. Trying to litigate the issue here just makes the driver and his family look worse, even if they’re not the ones initiating the posts. If you stop defending the driver’s side in your posts, you’ll stop prompting all of the outraged responses and the thread can die.

The kid committed a crime and should face consequences. He’s a minor though and doesn’t fit guidelines to be tried as an adult. It wasn’t intentional, just a reckless dumb accident that he caused. His sentencing isn’t out of the ordinary. If you don’t like it, work to make systemic change.

The family could also sue the parents - they are responsible for their son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems that Rose Kehoe, Meade's mother, has invited the scrutiny by very publicly attacking Barbara Favola for supporting Parisa Dehghani-Tafti's re-election campaign, and attacking Dehghani-Tafti herself.

While Kehoe's grief is understandable, she is simply out of line here. Dehghani-Tafti did her job in accordance with the law, and in return she has rightly earned the support of Favola and others.

Well, let’s just let the voters decide if they like what she has done in office.

So this outage is all a political ploy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Daily. I live in the neighborhood. No one goes 94 on OD, particularly since where the accident occured is an intersection where the light is usually red. Stop gaslighting.

People frequently do go very fast when there is little traffic - 60+.

If kids were playing around in a fast car you could easily get to 90. It’s definitely unsafe, but people doing it aren’t thinking about the risks.

He didn’t intentionally kill.

I am on this section of road multiple times a day. People are not going 60 (or 100) on OD on the regular in this section of Arlington. This is the section where there is a red light is red at Williamsburg Blvd and then a few blocks later at Little Falls. People do speed on OD on the McLean side but NOT where Braylon was hit.

The speed limit is 35 in that section. People were going 50 there with medium traffic on Friday. I checked specifically because of this thread.

With no traffic, it’d be much easier to go faster.

An inexperienced driver may not be aware that there is a light just past the bend.

Many people speed. And many drink & drive. It’s not some rare event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really and truly hope the Meade family sues the crap about the killer’s family if for not other reason than to bring all the facts of this case fully to light. I think the public deserves to know a full airing of the other family’s dirty laundry. You don’t get to kill someone and then hide away as if nothing happened.

+1

Idiot.

It’s a remedy available to them, there is very likely liability-what’s the problem?

+1

The same posters who seem happy that the criminal system “worked” as they see fit seem against seeing things play out in the civil court system. Seems like the theme is not wanting the driver or his family to suffer any consequences more than any sort of faith in our courts.

How do you “sue the crap about” someone’s family? I think people were just reacting to PP frothing at the mouth again.

As for a civil suit against the driver’s parents, it’s easy enough to educate yourself that parents generally cannot be held liable for the tortious acts of their children under Virginia law, absent a principal-agent relationship, which almost surely didn’t exist here (the parents weren’t asking their reckless teenager to make a late night run to 7-11 on their behalf). And even if it did, it would also undoubtedly be very painful for the victim’s family to be grilled under oath about their own judgment in allowing their teenage son to be out driving at 1 AM, which is something they probably agonize about constantly as it is.

This is a very sad situation but those peddling grief porn and lawsuits without any basis under Virginia law aren’t helping anyone.

You are so poorly informed. Parents do absolutely have liability for teenage drivers. Most of the time the insurance max covers it (and maybe an umbrella policy) but there could be more assets at play here and add in the known substance abuse issues (if it comes out in discovery the driver had in fact been to rehab multiple times), you’re looking at potential negligent entrustment. Whoever supplied the driver alcohol is probably pretty nervous right now too.

I hope this serves as a wake up call to checked out parents who don’t want to actually monitor their teen’s whereabouts or tell them no to driving a car. Don’t unleash your spoiled menace of a brat on the road and expect to not claim any responsibility. Parent your freaking kids.

Do you ever bother to read what you write?

Parents do not "absolutely have liability for teenage drivers." They may have liability in very narrow circumstances, under a few theories, but the hurdles to establish liability in Virginia are extremely high. You might want to consider moving to a different state where the law is more aligned with your sweeping personal preferences when it comes to parental liability.

You are really wrong and I hope you’re not relying on your theory at all bc there are *countless* examples to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve said it once already on this thread, but it’s worth repeating. Railing against supporters of the grieving family is a losing battle on a thread like this. No matter how right you are on any legal or philosophical level, you always look bad if you rail against the sympathetic victim. No matter what the legal consequences, I think there’s general consensus that it is the driver who committed the bad act. The victim’s family wouldn’t have to say anything at all if the driver hadn’t killed their son. They are not in this position voluntarily. If the law says the driver’s parents can’t be held liable, that will sort itself out in the courts or in a lawyer’s office. Trying to litigate the issue here just makes the driver and his family look worse, even if they’re not the ones initiating the posts. If you stop defending the driver’s side in your posts, you’ll stop prompting all of the outraged responses and the thread can die.

The kid committed a crime and should face consequences. He’s a minor though and doesn’t fit guidelines to be tried as an adult. It wasn’t intentional, just a reckless dumb accident that he caused. His sentencing isn’t out of the ordinary. If you don’t like it, work to make systemic change.

The family could also sue the parents - they are responsible for their son.

With all due respect, isn’t public outcry the first step towards making systemic change? Also, this is a little closer to murder than just a “dumb accident” in most people’s eyes. Referring to it as a dumb accident is in poor taste. It ignores the intentional acts that led to the predictable horrific outcome. Did the prosecutor view this as just a dumb accident? Maybe that’s why the family is so frustrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Daily. I live in the neighborhood. No one goes 94 on OD, particularly since where the accident occured is an intersection where the light is usually red. Stop gaslighting.

People frequently do go very fast when there is little traffic - 60+.

If kids were playing around in a fast car you could easily get to 90. It’s definitely unsafe, but people doing it aren’t thinking about the risks.

He didn’t intentionally kill.

I am on this section of road multiple times a day. People are not going 60 (or 100) on OD on the regular in this section of Arlington. This is the section where there is a red light is red at Williamsburg Blvd and then a few blocks later at Little Falls. People do speed on OD on the McLean side but NOT where Braylon was hit.

The speed limit is 35 in that section. People were going 50 there with medium traffic on Friday. I checked specifically because of this thread.

With no traffic, it’d be much easier to go faster.

An inexperienced driver may not be aware that there is a light just past the bend.

Many people speed. And many drink & drive. It’s not some rare event.

Just because you keeping reply yourself doesn’t make it true. #gaslighter