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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The drunk driving apologist who seems intent on telling us it’s not unusual for teens to drive almost 3 times the speed limit while under the influence on a residential road in Arlington, and also that there was no reason for the driver to expect it to cause a fatal accident, … do you really believe this? I’m being serious. The level of speed we’re talking about here is the guy flying past you in the passing lane on 95. It’s the speed of a police cruiser in a car chase. Nothing even remotely normal. The concept of drunk driving being fatal is a pervasive message in our society, yet you are telling us this kid was just like, hey, never saw that consequence coming. Who could have guessed? I mean who among us hasn’t gone 90 on a residential road in the middle of the night while drunk and high. We do it all the time and it’s fine. Give me a break.

DP. That person is saying, correctly, that the death was not intentional or premeditated, in the legal sense, that might have argued for trying him as an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The “public outcry” is misdirected if the goal really is changing the system.

Drinking and speeding is common and while they do *increase* the risk of an accident (sometimes fatal), that usually doesn’t happen. It wasn’t predictable. And it’s absolutely not “murder”. The driver didn’t intend to kill anyone. A stupid, reckless kid accidentally ran into something. He wasn’t expecting anyone to be making a u-turn in an intersection. Unfortunately, that accident resulted in the death of another kid.

Well plenty of us in the community think the *increase* in the likelihood of killing someone while drunk and speeding at nearly 100 mph is a pretty egregious risk and causes an absolutely unacceptable and foreseeable chance of harm. You must have your personal reasons for trying to justify the driver’s actions because even most posters who agree with the decision to try him as a minor realize that his actions were incredibly reckless with a good chance of someone being hurt/killed. Why you’re bending yourself into a pretzel to deny otherwise is beyond me.

You know what else doesn’t always lead to death … taking drugs. But we know overdose is a predictable outcome. Shooting a gun into a crowd won’t always kill someone. But again, pretty predictable and foreseeable that it would.

When we tell kids not to drink and drive, and/or speed, it is entirely because someone may be making a U turn, or a kid may fall of their bike, or whatever at the intersection ahead of you that you weren’t expecting. Driving requires the ability to stop at a reasonable distance so stop trying to sneak in blame an unexpected U turn.

And I haven’t seen many (or any) posters call it murder. But it’s homicide, which often carries harsher penalties. That is where the public outcry is coming from. Also you claim drinking and speeding is “common” but I would say it’s only common but so is robbery, rape, etc. Normal, good people are not committing any of those acts. Only a certain criminally aberrant demographic of teen engages in the type of drinking/speeding the killer engaged in. He is a deviant outside the social norm for people his age.

I’m not justifying his behavior at all. Just responding to some of the hysterical, over-the-top comments.

My point was the killing wasn’t premeditated or intentional. Another poster keeps insisting that it was intentional and did call it murder. It was nothing like “shooting a gun into a crowd” - don’t be ridiculous.

And “criminally aberrant demographic”? Please. Risky teen behavior is unfortunately common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The drunk driving apologist who seems intent on telling us it’s not unusual for teens to drive almost 3 times the speed limit while under the influence on a residential road in Arlington, and also that there was no reason for the driver to expect it to cause a fatal accident, … do you really believe this? I’m being serious. The level of speed we’re talking about here is the guy flying past you in the passing lane on 95. It’s the speed of a police cruiser in a car chase. Nothing even remotely normal. The concept of drunk driving being fatal is a pervasive message in our society, yet you are telling us this kid was just like, hey, never saw that consequence coming. Who could have guessed? I mean who among us hasn’t gone 90 on a residential road in the middle of the night while drunk and high. We do it all the time and it’s fine. Give me a break.

Correct, I don’t think this kid thought about the consequences.

And, no, his behavior was not “fine”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The drunk driving apologist who seems intent on telling us it’s not unusual for teens to drive almost 3 times the speed limit while under the influence on a residential road in Arlington, and also that there was no reason for the driver to expect it to cause a fatal accident, … do you really believe this? I’m being serious. The level of speed we’re talking about here is the guy flying past you in the passing lane on 95. It’s the speed of a police cruiser in a car chase. Nothing even remotely normal. The concept of drunk driving being fatal is a pervasive message in our society, yet you are telling us this kid was just like, hey, never saw that consequence coming. Who could have guessed? I mean who among us hasn’t gone 90 on a residential road in the middle of the night while drunk and high. We do it all the time and it’s fine. Give me a break.

DP. That person is saying, correctly, that the death was not intentional or premeditated, in the legal sense, that might have argued for trying him as an adult.

Exactly.

The kid made a huge, fatal mistake and should face serious consequences. No doubt. But given that the death wasn’t premeditated or even intentional he shouldn’t be tried as an adult, per the established guidelines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The drunk driving apologist who seems intent on telling us it’s not unusual for teens to drive almost 3 times the speed limit while under the influence on a residential road in Arlington, and also that there was no reason for the driver to expect it to cause a fatal accident, … do you really believe this? I’m being serious. The level of speed we’re talking about here is the guy flying past you in the passing lane on 95. It’s the speed of a police cruiser in a car chase. Nothing even remotely normal. The concept of drunk driving being fatal is a pervasive message in our society, yet you are telling us this kid was just like, hey, never saw that consequence coming. Who could have guessed? I mean who among us hasn’t gone 90 on a residential road in the middle of the night while drunk and high. We do it all the time and it’s fine. Give me a break.

Correct, I don’t think this kid thought about the consequences.

And, no, his behavior was not “fine”.

He may not have thought about the consequences, but that makes it worse not better. I’m not quibbling about legal standards here. I’m just talking about basic common sense information a 17 year old is equipped with, and basic judgment calls every 17 year old is faced with every day he gets behind a wheel or considers taking a drink. There is nothing normal about what happened, and trying to put it all to rest by framing it under legal intent standards that absolve him of certain legal culpability because he didn’t directly set out to kill another person changes nothing. He made choices that we all know - including him - can cause a fatal accident. The law may draw a line in the sand keeping him out of jail because he didn’t set out to kill, but his reckless indifference to the consequences of his actions have left a deep wound in this community, and it’s unrealistic to expect the community to just shrug off the lack of serious penalty, even if the laws were all properly applied, because it really does not feel like justice was served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The “public outcry” is misdirected if the goal really is changing the system.

Drinking and speeding is common and while they do *increase* the risk of an accident (sometimes fatal), that usually doesn’t happen. It wasn’t predictable. And it’s absolutely not “murder”. The driver didn’t intend to kill anyone. A stupid, reckless kid accidentally ran into something. He wasn’t expecting anyone to be making a u-turn in an intersection. Unfortunately, that accident resulted in the death of another kid.

Well plenty of us in the community think the *increase* in the likelihood of killing someone while drunk and speeding at nearly 100 mph is a pretty egregious risk and causes an absolutely unacceptable and foreseeable chance of harm. You must have your personal reasons for trying to justify the driver’s actions because even most posters who agree with the decision to try him as a minor realize that his actions were incredibly reckless with a good chance of someone being hurt/killed. Why you’re bending yourself into a pretzel to deny otherwise is beyond me.

You know what else doesn’t always lead to death … taking drugs. But we know overdose is a predictable outcome. Shooting a gun into a crowd won’t always kill someone. But again, pretty predictable and foreseeable that it would.

When we tell kids not to drink and drive, and/or speed, it is entirely because someone may be making a U turn, or a kid may fall of their bike, or whatever at the intersection ahead of you that you weren’t expecting. Driving requires the ability to stop at a reasonable distance so stop trying to sneak in blame an unexpected U turn.

And I haven’t seen many (or any) posters call it murder. But it’s homicide, which often carries harsher penalties. That is where the public outcry is coming from. Also you claim drinking and speeding is “common” but I would say it’s only common but so is robbery, rape, etc. Normal, good people are not committing any of those acts. Only a certain criminally aberrant demographic of teen engages in the type of drinking/speeding the killer engaged in. He is a deviant outside the social norm for people his age.

I’m not justifying his behavior at all. Just responding to some of the hysterical, over-the-top comments.

My point was the killing wasn’t premeditated or intentional. Another poster keeps insisting that it was intentional and did call it murder. It was nothing like “shooting a gun into a crowd” - don’t be ridiculous.

And “criminally aberrant demographic”? Please. Risky teen behavior is unfortunately common.

How, exactly, is it different? Or tossing rocks onto a highway off an overpass? Or operating drunk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The “public outcry” is misdirected if the goal really is changing the system.

Drinking and speeding is common and while they do *increase* the risk of an accident (sometimes fatal), that usually doesn’t happen. It wasn’t predictable. And it’s absolutely not “murder”. The driver didn’t intend to kill anyone. A stupid, reckless kid accidentally ran into something. He wasn’t expecting anyone to be making a u-turn in an intersection. Unfortunately, that accident resulted in the death of another kid.

Well plenty of us in the community think the *increase* in the likelihood of killing someone while drunk and speeding at nearly 100 mph is a pretty egregious risk and causes an absolutely unacceptable and foreseeable chance of harm. You must have your personal reasons for trying to justify the driver’s actions because even most posters who agree with the decision to try him as a minor realize that his actions were incredibly reckless with a good chance of someone being hurt/killed. Why you’re bending yourself into a pretzel to deny otherwise is beyond me.

You know what else doesn’t always lead to death … taking drugs. But we know overdose is a predictable outcome. Shooting a gun into a crowd won’t always kill someone. But again, pretty predictable and foreseeable that it would.

When we tell kids not to drink and drive, and/or speed, it is entirely because someone may be making a U turn, or a kid may fall of their bike, or whatever at the intersection ahead of you that you weren’t expecting. Driving requires the ability to stop at a reasonable distance so stop trying to sneak in blame an unexpected U turn.

And I haven’t seen many (or any) posters call it murder. But it’s homicide, which often carries harsher penalties. That is where the public outcry is coming from. Also you claim drinking and speeding is “common” but I would say it’s only common but so is robbery, rape, etc. Normal, good people are not committing any of those acts. Only a certain criminally aberrant demographic of teen engages in the type of drinking/speeding the killer engaged in. He is a deviant outside the social norm for people his age.

I’m not justifying his behavior at all. Just responding to some of the hysterical, over-the-top comments.

My point was the killing wasn’t premeditated or intentional. Another poster keeps insisting that it was intentional and did call it murder. It was nothing like “shooting a gun into a crowd” - don’t be ridiculous.

And “criminally aberrant demographic”? Please. Risky teen behavior is unfortunately common.

How, exactly, is it different? Or tossing rocks onto a highway off an overpass? Or operating drunk?

Who are you arguing with? This is settled law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The drunk driving apologist who seems intent on telling us it’s not unusual for teens to drive almost 3 times the speed limit while under the influence on a residential road in Arlington, and also that there was no reason for the driver to expect it to cause a fatal accident, … do you really believe this? I’m being serious. The level of speed we’re talking about here is the guy flying past you in the passing lane on 95. It’s the speed of a police cruiser in a car chase. Nothing even remotely normal. The concept of drunk driving being fatal is a pervasive message in our society, yet you are telling us this kid was just like, hey, never saw that consequence coming. Who could have guessed? I mean who among us hasn’t gone 90 on a residential road in the middle of the night while drunk and high. We do it all the time and it’s fine. Give me a break.

Correct, I don’t think this kid thought about the consequences.

And, no, his behavior was not “fine”.

He may not have thought about the consequences, but that makes it worse not better. I’m not quibbling about legal standards here. I’m just talking about basic common sense information a 17 year old is equipped with, and basic judgment calls every 17 year old is faced with every day he gets behind a wheel or considers taking a drink. There is nothing normal about what happened, and trying to put it all to rest by framing it under legal intent standards that absolve him of certain legal culpability because he didn’t directly set out to kill another person changes nothing. He made choices that we all know - including him - can cause a fatal accident. The law may draw a line in the sand keeping him out of jail because he didn’t set out to kill, but his reckless indifference to the consequences of his actions have left a deep wound in this community, and it’s unrealistic to expect the community to just shrug off the lack of serious penalty, even if the laws were all properly applied, because it really does not feel like justice was served.

There you go. That is the constructive, rational discussion that our community should have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The “public outcry” is misdirected if the goal really is changing the system.

Drinking and speeding is common and while they do *increase* the risk of an accident (sometimes fatal), that usually doesn’t happen. It wasn’t predictable. And it’s absolutely not “murder”. The driver didn’t intend to kill anyone. A stupid, reckless kid accidentally ran into something. He wasn’t expecting anyone to be making a u-turn in an intersection. Unfortunately, that accident resulted in the death of another kid.

Well plenty of us in the community think the *increase* in the likelihood of killing someone while drunk and speeding at nearly 100 mph is a pretty egregious risk and causes an absolutely unacceptable and foreseeable chance of harm. You must have your personal reasons for trying to justify the driver’s actions because even most posters who agree with the decision to try him as a minor realize that his actions were incredibly reckless with a good chance of someone being hurt/killed. Why you’re bending yourself into a pretzel to deny otherwise is beyond me.

You know what else doesn’t always lead to death … taking drugs. But we know overdose is a predictable outcome. Shooting a gun into a crowd won’t always kill someone. But again, pretty predictable and foreseeable that it would.

When we tell kids not to drink and drive, and/or speed, it is entirely because someone may be making a U turn, or a kid may fall of their bike, or whatever at the intersection ahead of you that you weren’t expecting. Driving requires the ability to stop at a reasonable distance so stop trying to sneak in blame an unexpected U turn.

And I haven’t seen many (or any) posters call it murder. But it’s homicide, which often carries harsher penalties. That is where the public outcry is coming from. Also you claim drinking and speeding is “common” but I would say it’s only common but so is robbery, rape, etc. Normal, good people are not committing any of those acts. Only a certain criminally aberrant demographic of teen engages in the type of drinking/speeding the killer engaged in. He is a deviant outside the social norm for people his age.

I’m not justifying his behavior at all. Just responding to some of the hysterical, over-the-top comments.

My point was the killing wasn’t premeditated or intentional. Another poster keeps insisting that it was intentional and did call it murder. It was nothing like “shooting a gun into a crowd” - don’t be ridiculous.

And “criminally aberrant demographic”? Please. Risky teen behavior is unfortunately common.

I partied a lot as a teen and hung out with people who did stupid stuff, but I don’t know anyone who drove nearly 100 mph in a residential area. Sorry but that is outside the normal bounds of risky term behavior. It just is. The defendant is abnormal to the point of likely narcissism or sociopathy. You cannot possibly lump him in with your average teen who is testing boundaries. His behavior was so far outside the norm it’s comical you’re even trying to compare him to other teen behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The “public outcry” is misdirected if the goal really is changing the system.

Drinking and speeding is common and while they do *increase* the risk of an accident (sometimes fatal), that usually doesn’t happen. It wasn’t predictable. And it’s absolutely not “murder”. The driver didn’t intend to kill anyone. A stupid, reckless kid accidentally ran into something. He wasn’t expecting anyone to be making a u-turn in an intersection. Unfortunately, that accident resulted in the death of another kid.

Well plenty of us in the community think the *increase* in the likelihood of killing someone while drunk and speeding at nearly 100 mph is a pretty egregious risk and causes an absolutely unacceptable and foreseeable chance of harm. You must have your personal reasons for trying to justify the driver’s actions because even most posters who agree with the decision to try him as a minor realize that his actions were incredibly reckless with a good chance of someone being hurt/killed. Why you’re bending yourself into a pretzel to deny otherwise is beyond me.

You know what else doesn’t always lead to death … taking drugs. But we know overdose is a predictable outcome. Shooting a gun into a crowd won’t always kill someone. But again, pretty predictable and foreseeable that it would.

When we tell kids not to drink and drive, and/or speed, it is entirely because someone may be making a U turn, or a kid may fall of their bike, or whatever at the intersection ahead of you that you weren’t expecting. Driving requires the ability to stop at a reasonable distance so stop trying to sneak in blame an unexpected U turn.

And I haven’t seen many (or any) posters call it murder. But it’s homicide, which often carries harsher penalties. That is where the public outcry is coming from. Also you claim drinking and speeding is “common” but I would say it’s only common but so is robbery, rape, etc. Normal, good people are not committing any of those acts. Only a certain criminally aberrant demographic of teen engages in the type of drinking/speeding the killer engaged in. He is a deviant outside the social norm for people his age.

I’m not justifying his behavior at all. Just responding to some of the hysterical, over-the-top comments.

My point was the killing wasn’t premeditated or intentional. Another poster keeps insisting that it was intentional and did call it murder. It was nothing like “shooting a gun into a crowd” - don’t be ridiculous.

And “criminally aberrant demographic”? Please. Risky teen behavior is unfortunately common.

How, exactly, is it different? Or tossing rocks onto a highway off an overpass? Or operating drunk?

Who are you arguing with? This is settled law.

It’s not settled law that driving 100 mph drunk “is nothing like shooting a gun into a crowd.” In fact Alec Baldwin was charged with involuntary manslaughter for discharging a gun on the set or rust. Many other negligent shootings are charged similarly. Same as DUI manslaughter.

Recklessly shooting a gun and driving 100 mph while drunk are absolutely similar in that maybe the person didn’t intend to kill, but they intended to do something so utterly stupid that you can’t justify the behavior as something a normal, reasonable person would ever do. Once you cross that line, you are a deviant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The “public outcry” is misdirected if the goal really is changing the system.

Drinking and speeding is common and while they do *increase* the risk of an accident (sometimes fatal), that usually doesn’t happen. It wasn’t predictable. And it’s absolutely not “murder”. The driver didn’t intend to kill anyone. A stupid, reckless kid accidentally ran into something. He wasn’t expecting anyone to be making a u-turn in an intersection. Unfortunately, that accident resulted in the death of another kid.

Well plenty of us in the community think the *increase* in the likelihood of killing someone while drunk and speeding at nearly 100 mph is a pretty egregious risk and causes an absolutely unacceptable and foreseeable chance of harm. You must have your personal reasons for trying to justify the driver’s actions because even most posters who agree with the decision to try him as a minor realize that his actions were incredibly reckless with a good chance of someone being hurt/killed. Why you’re bending yourself into a pretzel to deny otherwise is beyond me.

You know what else doesn’t always lead to death … taking drugs. But we know overdose is a predictable outcome. Shooting a gun into a crowd won’t always kill someone. But again, pretty predictable and foreseeable that it would.

When we tell kids not to drink and drive, and/or speed, it is entirely because someone may be making a U turn, or a kid may fall of their bike, or whatever at the intersection ahead of you that you weren’t expecting. Driving requires the ability to stop at a reasonable distance so stop trying to sneak in blame an unexpected U turn.

And I haven’t seen many (or any) posters call it murder. But it’s homicide, which often carries harsher penalties. That is where the public outcry is coming from. Also you claim drinking and speeding is “common” but I would say it’s only common but so is robbery, rape, etc. Normal, good people are not committing any of those acts. Only a certain criminally aberrant demographic of teen engages in the type of drinking/speeding the killer engaged in. He is a deviant outside the social norm for people his age.

I’m not justifying his behavior at all. Just responding to some of the hysterical, over-the-top comments.

My point was the killing wasn’t premeditated or intentional. Another poster keeps insisting that it was intentional and did call it murder. It was nothing like “shooting a gun into a crowd” - don’t be ridiculous.

And “criminally aberrant demographic”? Please. Risky teen behavior is unfortunately common.

I partied a lot as a teen and hung out with people who did stupid stuff, but I don’t know anyone who drove nearly 100 mph in a residential area. Sorry but that is outside the normal bounds of risky term behavior. It just is. The defendant is abnormal to the point of likely narcissism or sociopathy. You cannot possibly lump him in with your average teen who is testing boundaries. His behavior was so far outside the norm it’s comical you’re even trying to compare him to other teen behavior.

I didn’t party a lot as a teen and I do know kids who went 100+. Normal kids who liked to drive fast and “goof around” (in their minds). And these weren’t high-performance, luxury cars.

Speeding is unfortunately not “out of the norm”.

[Anonymous]

Going 90 on a residential road isn’t plain vanilla speeding. It is not normal. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The “public outcry” is misdirected if the goal really is changing the system.

Drinking and speeding is common and while they do *increase* the risk of an accident (sometimes fatal), that usually doesn’t happen. It wasn’t predictable. And it’s absolutely not “murder”. The driver didn’t intend to kill anyone. A stupid, reckless kid accidentally ran into something. He wasn’t expecting anyone to be making a u-turn in an intersection. Unfortunately, that accident resulted in the death of another kid.

Well plenty of us in the community think the *increase* in the likelihood of killing someone while drunk and speeding at nearly 100 mph is a pretty egregious risk and causes an absolutely unacceptable and foreseeable chance of harm. You must have your personal reasons for trying to justify the driver’s actions because even most posters who agree with the decision to try him as a minor realize that his actions were incredibly reckless with a good chance of someone being hurt/killed. Why you’re bending yourself into a pretzel to deny otherwise is beyond me.

You know what else doesn’t always lead to death … taking drugs. But we know overdose is a predictable outcome. Shooting a gun into a crowd won’t always kill someone. But again, pretty predictable and foreseeable that it would.

When we tell kids not to drink and drive, and/or speed, it is entirely because someone may be making a U turn, or a kid may fall of their bike, or whatever at the intersection ahead of you that you weren’t expecting. Driving requires the ability to stop at a reasonable distance so stop trying to sneak in blame an unexpected U turn.

And I haven’t seen many (or any) posters call it murder. But it’s homicide, which often carries harsher penalties. That is where the public outcry is coming from. Also you claim drinking and speeding is “common” but I would say it’s only common but so is robbery, rape, etc. Normal, good people are not committing any of those acts. Only a certain criminally aberrant demographic of teen engages in the type of drinking/speeding the killer engaged in. He is a deviant outside the social norm for people his age.

I’m not justifying his behavior at all. Just responding to some of the hysterical, over-the-top comments.

My point was the killing wasn’t premeditated or intentional. Another poster keeps insisting that it was intentional and did call it murder. It was nothing like “shooting a gun into a crowd” - don’t be ridiculous.

And “criminally aberrant demographic”? Please. Risky teen behavior is unfortunately common.

How, exactly, is it different? Or tossing rocks onto a highway off an overpass? Or operating drunk?

Who are you arguing with? This is settled law.

It’s not settled law that driving 100 mph drunk “is nothing like shooting a gun into a crowd.” In fact Alec Baldwin was charged with involuntary manslaughter for discharging a gun on the set or rust. Many other negligent shootings are charged similarly. Same as DUI manslaughter.

Recklessly shooting a gun and driving 100 mph while drunk are absolutely similar in that maybe the person didn’t intend to kill, but they intended to do something so utterly stupid that you can’t justify the behavior as something a normal, reasonable person would ever do. Once you cross that line, you are a deviant.

A “deviant”? Are you just trolling now?

If you can’t see the difference between “shooting a gun into a crowd” and a kid drinking & driving fast then we aren’t going to have a rational conversation. Rage on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Going 90 on a residential road isn’t plain vanilla speeding. It is not normal. Full stop.

It’s not “normal” but it happens. And most of the time people don’t end up dead.

And while it’s a residential area it’s also a major road. It’s not like he was going 90 in a neighborhood (which does happen), but this is a major road that many of us take daily.

Making a u-turn at an intersection also isn’t “normal”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The “public outcry” is misdirected if the goal really is changing the system.

Drinking and speeding is common and while they do *increase* the risk of an accident (sometimes fatal), that usually doesn’t happen. It wasn’t predictable. And it’s absolutely not “murder”. The driver didn’t intend to kill anyone. A stupid, reckless kid accidentally ran into something. He wasn’t expecting anyone to be making a u-turn in an intersection. Unfortunately, that accident resulted in the death of another kid.

Well plenty of us in the community think the *increase* in the likelihood of killing someone while drunk and speeding at nearly 100 mph is a pretty egregious risk and causes an absolutely unacceptable and foreseeable chance of harm. You must have your personal reasons for trying to justify the driver’s actions because even most posters who agree with the decision to try him as a minor realize that his actions were incredibly reckless with a good chance of someone being hurt/killed. Why you’re bending yourself into a pretzel to deny otherwise is beyond me.

You know what else doesn’t always lead to death … taking drugs. But we know overdose is a predictable outcome. Shooting a gun into a crowd won’t always kill someone. But again, pretty predictable and foreseeable that it would.

When we tell kids not to drink and drive, and/or speed, it is entirely because someone may be making a U turn, or a kid may fall of their bike, or whatever at the intersection ahead of you that you weren’t expecting. Driving requires the ability to stop at a reasonable distance so stop trying to sneak in blame an unexpected U turn.

And I haven’t seen many (or any) posters call it murder. But it’s homicide, which often carries harsher penalties. That is where the public outcry is coming from. Also you claim drinking and speeding is “common” but I would say it’s only common but so is robbery, rape, etc. Normal, good people are not committing any of those acts. Only a certain criminally aberrant demographic of teen engages in the type of drinking/speeding the killer engaged in. He is a deviant outside the social norm for people his age.

I’m not justifying his behavior at all. Just responding to some of the hysterical, over-the-top comments.

My point was the killing wasn’t premeditated or intentional. Another poster keeps insisting that it was intentional and did call it murder. It was nothing like “shooting a gun into a crowd” - don’t be ridiculous.

And “criminally aberrant demographic”? Please. Risky teen behavior is unfortunately common.

I partied a lot as a teen and hung out with people who did stupid stuff, but I don’t know anyone who drove nearly 100 mph in a residential area. Sorry but that is outside the normal bounds of risky term behavior. It just is. The defendant is abnormal to the point of likely narcissism or sociopathy. You cannot possibly lump him in with your average teen who is testing boundaries. His behavior was so far outside the norm it’s comical you’re even trying to compare him to other teen behavior.

I didn’t party a lot as a teen and I do know kids who went 100+. Normal kids who liked to drive fast and “goof around” (in their minds). And these weren’t high-performance, luxury cars.

Speeding is unfortunately not “out of the norm”.

100 mph while drunk and high at night on windy residential roads? Umm that sure is not normal.