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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this is upsetting. I feel awful for Braylon’s family, can you even imagine someone getting 1 year of jail time for recklessly killing your child? DUI sentencing is such a joke in this country, but this is just beyond insulting to Arlington citizens. And I’m guessing charging as a minor will keep his name from being released. Dollars to donuts the perpetrator goes on to commit some other crime, he already had a history of drug use and 94 mph is insanely egregious. You have to be a sociopath to drive like that. I just can’t find myself hoping for his rehabilitation when he doesn’t even have actual significant consequences to deal with.

I don’t think people should get severe sentences and especially not the sentence I would want in the throes of grief for my child. That’s not the kind of society I think we should have.

Ok but sentencing should also be about more than simply trying to rehabilitate the criminal. There needs to be a deterrent effect (is it really a good thing for teens to know they can drive blazed out of their minds at 95 mph near a residential low speed area, kill someone, and receive a slap on the wrist and their name sheltered from the media so they can resume their normal lives in 1 year time)? There is also the sense of justice the public expects from those elected to enforce our laws when crimes are committed. Clearly a lot of people in this community who are the constituents of the Commonwealth’s Attorney do not feel justice has been served. There’s also public safety. I think keeping someone like this off the streets for a significant period of time would be in the interest of not getting other children killed. Because for all the prosecutor’s focus on the “child” defendant, there is little concern for the fact a child of our own county was violently killed by essentially a giant speeding missile. I would like to keep this person from killing other people’s children (and adults).

And yes to some extent I think the victim’s family deserve some sort of sense of the victim experiencing adequate consequences for their crime. One year for taking a life in a willful manner (which is what driving drunk at 95 mph is) is an absolute joke of a sentence.

It’s many things, but not “willful”.

Oh I’m sorry you’re right. Getting drunk and behind the wheel of a car is like being struck by lightning. Just a total random occurrence that involves no willful activity at all, and the consequences of which are not at all foreseeable. Nothing to see here. The poor driver just had no control over it. Nothing willful involved here.

My god, you people who excuse drunk drivers as not being engaged in a willful crime that can very foreseeably cause death are just ignorant. But lemme guess, you identify with the crime a little too much because you enjoy having a couple glasses of wine and driving home from dinner. It’s harmless because you’ve made it home safely before so if you did crash into someone and kill them it certainly wouldn’t be a willful crime!

[Anonymous]

The judge didn't even give this boy the highest juvenile sentence (3 years, which was what Parisa went for). That tells you that the facts weren't there for an adult conviction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this is upsetting. I feel awful for Braylon’s family, can you even imagine someone getting 1 year of jail time for recklessly killing your child? DUI sentencing is such a joke in this country, but this is just beyond insulting to Arlington citizens. And I’m guessing charging as a minor will keep his name from being released. Dollars to donuts the perpetrator goes on to commit some other crime, he already had a history of drug use and 94 mph is insanely egregious. You have to be a sociopath to drive like that. I just can’t find myself hoping for his rehabilitation when he doesn’t even have actual significant consequences to deal with.

I don’t think people should get severe sentences and especially not the sentence I would want in the throes of grief for my child. That’s not the kind of society I think we should have.

Ok but sentencing should also be about more than simply trying to rehabilitate the criminal. There needs to be a deterrent effect (is it really a good thing for teens to know they can drive blazed out of their minds at 95 mph near a residential low speed area, kill someone, and receive a slap on the wrist and their name sheltered from the media so they can resume their normal lives in 1 year time)? There is also the sense of justice the public expects from those elected to enforce our laws when crimes are committed. Clearly a lot of people in this community who are the constituents of the Commonwealth’s Attorney do not feel justice has been served. There’s also public safety. I think keeping someone like this off the streets for a significant period of time would be in the interest of not getting other children killed. Because for all the prosecutor’s focus on the “child” defendant, there is little concern for the fact a child of our own county was violently killed by essentially a giant speeding missile. I would like to keep this person from killing other people’s children (and adults).

And yes to some extent I think the victim’s family deserve some sort of sense of the victim experiencing adequate consequences for their crime. One year for taking a life in a willful manner (which is what driving drunk at 95 mph is) is an absolute joke of a sentence.

It’s many things, but not “willful”.

Oh I’m sorry you’re right. Getting drunk and behind the wheel of a car is like being struck by lightning. Just a total random occurrence that involves no willful activity at all, and the consequences of which are not at all foreseeable. Nothing to see here. The poor driver just had no control over it. Nothing willful involved here.

My god, you people who excuse drunk drivers as not being engaged in a willful crime that can very foreseeably cause death are just ignorant. But lemme guess, you identify with the crime a little too much because you enjoy having a couple glasses of wine and driving home from dinner. It’s harmless because you’ve made it home safely before so if you did crash into someone and kill them it certainly wouldn’t be a willful crime!

He didn’t “willfully” take a life.

I don’t drink, but I do know how to use words properly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this is upsetting. I feel awful for Braylon’s family, can you even imagine someone getting 1 year of jail time for recklessly killing your child? DUI sentencing is such a joke in this country, but this is just beyond insulting to Arlington citizens. And I’m guessing charging as a minor will keep his name from being released. Dollars to donuts the perpetrator goes on to commit some other crime, he already had a history of drug use and 94 mph is insanely egregious. You have to be a sociopath to drive like that. I just can’t find myself hoping for his rehabilitation when he doesn’t even have actual significant consequences to deal with.

I don’t think people should get severe sentences and especially not the sentence I would want in the throes of grief for my child. That’s not the kind of society I think we should have.

Ok but sentencing should also be about more than simply trying to rehabilitate the criminal. There needs to be a deterrent effect (is it really a good thing for teens to know they can drive blazed out of their minds at 95 mph near a residential low speed area, kill someone, and receive a slap on the wrist and their name sheltered from the media so they can resume their normal lives in 1 year time)? There is also the sense of justice the public expects from those elected to enforce our laws when crimes are committed. Clearly a lot of people in this community who are the constituents of the Commonwealth’s Attorney do not feel justice has been served. There’s also public safety. I think keeping someone like this off the streets for a significant period of time would be in the interest of not getting other children killed. Because for all the prosecutor’s focus on the “child” defendant, there is little concern for the fact a child of our own county was violently killed by essentially a giant speeding missile. I would like to keep this person from killing other people’s children (and adults).

And yes to some extent I think the victim’s family deserve some sort of sense of the victim experiencing adequate consequences for their crime. One year for taking a life in a willful manner (which is what driving drunk at 95 mph is) is an absolute joke of a sentence.

It’s many things, but not “willful”.

Oh I’m sorry you’re right. Getting drunk and behind the wheel of a car is like being struck by lightning. Just a total random occurrence that involves no willful activity at all, and the consequences of which are not at all foreseeable. Nothing to see here. The poor driver just had no control over it. Nothing willful involved here.

My god, you people who excuse drunk drivers as not being engaged in a willful crime that can very foreseeably cause death are just ignorant. But lemme guess, you identify with the crime a little too much because you enjoy having a couple glasses of wine and driving home from dinner. It’s harmless because you’ve made it home safely before so if you did crash into someone and kill them it certainly wouldn’t be a willful crime!

He didn’t “willfully” take a life.

I don’t drink, but I do know how to use words properly.

Okay fine. He “willfully” did something that had a very high probability of killing someone (and likely wasn’t his first time driving drunk based on what we know about past history). So we can at least agree this person knew there was a good chance of killing someone and was ok with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, this is upsetting. I feel awful for Braylon’s family, can you even imagine someone getting 1 year of jail time for recklessly killing your child? DUI sentencing is such a joke in this country, but this is just beyond insulting to Arlington citizens. And I’m guessing charging as a minor will keep his name from being released. Dollars to donuts the perpetrator goes on to commit some other crime, he already had a history of drug use and 94 mph is insanely egregious. You have to be a sociopath to drive like that. I just can’t find myself hoping for his rehabilitation when he doesn’t even have actual significant consequences to deal with.

I don’t think people should get severe sentences and especially not the sentence I would want in the throes of grief for my child. That’s not the kind of society I think we should have.

Ok but sentencing should also be about more than simply trying to rehabilitate the criminal. There needs to be a deterrent effect (is it really a good thing for teens to know they can drive blazed out of their minds at 95 mph near a residential low speed area, kill someone, and receive a slap on the wrist and their name sheltered from the media so they can resume their normal lives in 1 year time)? There is also the sense of justice the public expects from those elected to enforce our laws when crimes are committed. Clearly a lot of people in this community who are the constituents of the Commonwealth’s Attorney do not feel justice has been served. There’s also public safety. I think keeping someone like this off the streets for a significant period of time would be in the interest of not getting other children killed. Because for all the prosecutor’s focus on the “child” defendant, there is little concern for the fact a child of our own county was violently killed by essentially a giant speeding missile. I would like to keep this person from killing other people’s children (and adults).

And yes to some extent I think the victim’s family deserve some sort of sense of the victim experiencing adequate consequences for their crime. One year for taking a life in a willful manner (which is what driving drunk at 95 mph is) is an absolute joke of a sentence.

It’s many things, but not “willful”.

Oh I’m sorry you’re right. Getting drunk and behind the wheel of a car is like being struck by lightning. Just a total random occurrence that involves no willful activity at all, and the consequences of which are not at all foreseeable. Nothing to see here. The poor driver just had no control over it. Nothing willful involved here.

My god, you people who excuse drunk drivers as not being engaged in a willful crime that can very foreseeably cause death are just ignorant. But lemme guess, you identify with the crime a little too much because you enjoy having a couple glasses of wine and driving home from dinner. It’s harmless because you’ve made it home safely before so if you did crash into someone and kill them it certainly wouldn’t be a willful crime!

He didn’t “willfully” take a life.

I don’t drink, but I do know how to use words properly.

Shooting a gun into a crowd and hitting someone with a bullet may not be a “willful” killing. But it was sure a heck totally reckless enough we can infer the shooter DGAF about other people. This is no different just because it is a car.

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that the parents of the defendant have willfully enabled him to do whatever he wants with few consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge didn't even give this boy the highest juvenile sentence (3 years, which was what Parisa went for). That tells you that the facts weren't there for an adult conviction.

Well none of us will ever know the facts because the public and the family of the victim have been totally disregarded. Why even have a criminal justice system? Let’s just set up a rehabilitation center to cater to people who want to commit crimes without having to deal with big boy consequences?

Honestly the thought of this killer going on to be “rehabilitated” and living out his life as if nothing happened makes me feel sick. I can’t even imagine how awful the victim’s family feels. He better devote his life to sobriety and teaching others about the dangers of drunk driving if he wants to be considered an actual human being in this world. Otherwise he’s a monster hiding behind mommy and daddy’s money and the robe of the Judge who gave him this BS sentence. This actually makes me wish we elected judges here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that this defendant has already been to rehab several times?

If true, I hope the victim’s family sues the parents who allows their known train wreck of a child to access their vehicle. I’d love to see a lawsuit that names the adult parents so this family doesn’t get off without any public shaming whatsoever. I’m tired of rich people getting to hide behind their money.

I completely agree. Someone has to know who he and his enabling parents are.

It's known in the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge didn't even give this boy the highest juvenile sentence (3 years, which was what Parisa went for). That tells you that the facts weren't there for an adult conviction.

Well none of us will ever know the facts because the public and the family of the victim have been totally disregarded. Why even have a criminal justice system? Let’s just set up a rehabilitation center to cater to people who want to commit crimes without having to deal with big boy consequences?

Honestly the thought of this killer going on to be “rehabilitated” and living out his life as if nothing happened makes me feel sick. I can’t even imagine how awful the victim’s family feels. He better devote his life to sobriety and teaching others about the dangers of drunk driving if he wants to be considered an actual human being in this world. Otherwise he’s a monster hiding behind mommy and daddy’s money and the robe of the Judge who gave him this BS sentence. This actually makes me wish we elected judges here.

If anyone actually attended the sentencing and listened to the judge they would know exactly what the facts were and why the sentence came down the way it did. The judge was bound by the JUVENILE sentencing guidelines. Once Tafti made the decision to stick with juvenile court, that sharply limited the judge's options, and he complained openly about how dissatisfied he was with the options he had under the JUVENILE sentencing regime. Because the defendant had so many substance abuse issues, the Judge decided that sending the kid to a detention facility in Richmond for 3 years likely wouldn't make a dent in those issues and he'd come home with a driver's license and a clean record at age 21, putting everyone at risk. At least by keeping him on probation he'd be able to attend treatment and meet with the judge regularly.

The facts were absolutely there for a conviction, and people should stop speculating otherwise. The government had the breathalyzer showing BAC, they had the blood test showing THC, they had the event data recorder from the car, and they also caught him in several lies told to the police the night of the accident. A motivated prosecutor would have absolutely steamrolled him in adult court, which is why the defense attorney kept playing up the "childhood trauma/substance abuse/woe to this immature child" routine. The defense knew they had to keep it in juvenile court or they would lose, badly.

If you're unhappy with the outcome, don't blame the judge. Blame Tafti, who didn't even try to move the case to adult court out of ideological rigidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the criminal justice system failed the community in this instance. All the general public knows is that an almost-man got a slap on the wrist for a very adult crime that stole the life of someone else’s child. I’m not saying the answer is to lock up every teenager - or even this one - when they mess up. But most of us only know who the victims are, not the responsible parties, and we’re left with rumors that the driver comes from a wealthy family that was prepared to lawyer up or whatever. In reality, that family may be experiencing immense grief and hardship of their own, and the kid who did this may be deeply remorseful, but the community only sees certain very unsympathetic facts, and privacy practices leave us with no opportunity to evaluate the bigger picture. We just know one of our kids was killed under outrageous circumstances and there’s been almost no criminal consequences. That, and some of the prosecutor’s statements come across as dismissive of the legitimate retributive role of our Justice system. If my child had been killed under these circumstances, I would demand some heightened and visible accountability. As an Arlington resident, I think we all deserve something more than what we got.

I agree with this. The fashionable view among our political leadership seems to be that punishment is illegitimate, period, and the only role of the criminal justice system is rehabilitation. I understand the impulse, but it doesn’t work. It’s turned into a pathological disregard of victims and a narrow focus on the interests of offenders, rather than taking into account the victims’, and society’s in general, interest in seeing some measure of justice done. The long term consequence is continued erosion of the legitimacy of the system, more crime, and ultimately more ungovernable private retaliation.

Sounds very MAGA.

But of course. Let me quote that first notable MAGA-tard, Thomas Hobbes, writing in 1651:

“But I have also shown formerly that before the institution of Commonwealth, every man had a right to everything, and to do whatsoever he thought necessary to his own preservation; subduing, hurting, or killing any man in order thereunto. And this is the foundation of that right of punishing which is exercised in every Commonwealth. For the subjects did not give the sovereign that right; but only, in laying down theirs, strengthened him to use his own as he should think fit for the preservation of them all: so that it was not given, but left to him, and to him only; and, excepting the limits set him by natural law, as entire as in the condition of mere nature, and of war of every one against his neighbour.” Leviathan, Chapter XXVIII.

You can call names all you want, but ignorance of the lengthy philosophical tradition exploring the relationship between people and government isn’t particularly persuasive to anyone. The sovereign (correctly) demands that its subjects forswear private vengeance, but in so doing, it has undertaken a duty to dispense justice on their behalf. If it disavows this duty, people revert closer to a state of nature where that kind of thing occurs more often, which is bad for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge didn't even give this boy the highest juvenile sentence (3 years, which was what Parisa went for). That tells you that the facts weren't there for an adult conviction.

Well none of us will ever know the facts because the public and the family of the victim have been totally disregarded. Why even have a criminal justice system? Let’s just set up a rehabilitation center to cater to people who want to commit crimes without having to deal with big boy consequences?

Honestly the thought of this killer going on to be “rehabilitated” and living out his life as if nothing happened makes me feel sick. I can’t even imagine how awful the victim’s family feels. He better devote his life to sobriety and teaching others about the dangers of drunk driving if he wants to be considered an actual human being in this world. Otherwise he’s a monster hiding behind mommy and daddy’s money and the robe of the Judge who gave him this BS sentence. This actually makes me wish we elected judges here.

If anyone actually attended the sentencing and listened to the judge they would know exactly what the facts were and why the sentence came down the way it did. The judge was bound by the JUVENILE sentencing guidelines. Once Tafti made the decision to stick with juvenile court, that sharply limited the judge's options, and he complained openly about how dissatisfied he was with the options he had under the JUVENILE sentencing regime. Because the defendant had so many substance abuse issues, the Judge decided that sending the kid to a detention facility in Richmond for 3 years likely wouldn't make a dent in those issues and he'd come home with a driver's license and a clean record at age 21, putting everyone at risk. At least by keeping him on probation he'd be able to attend treatment and meet with the judge regularly.

The facts were absolutely there for a conviction, and people should stop speculating otherwise. The government had the breathalyzer showing BAC, they had the blood test showing THC, they had the event data recorder from the car, and they also caught him in several lies told to the police the night of the accident. A motivated prosecutor would have absolutely steamrolled him in adult court, which is why the defense attorney kept playing up the "childhood trauma/substance abuse/woe to this immature child" routine. The defense knew they had to keep it in juvenile court or they would lose, badly.

If you're unhappy with the outcome, don't blame the judge. Blame Tafti, who didn't even try to move the case to adult court out of ideological rigidity.

Don’t blame the judge for the lighter sentence he decided over the DA’s recommendation?

That’s some obvious political BSing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the criminal justice system failed the community in this instance. All the general public knows is that an almost-man got a slap on the wrist for a very adult crime that stole the life of someone else’s child. I’m not saying the answer is to lock up every teenager - or even this one - when they mess up. But most of us only know who the victims are, not the responsible parties, and we’re left with rumors that the driver comes from a wealthy family that was prepared to lawyer up or whatever. In reality, that family may be experiencing immense grief and hardship of their own, and the kid who did this may be deeply remorseful, but the community only sees certain very unsympathetic facts, and privacy practices leave us with no opportunity to evaluate the bigger picture. We just know one of our kids was killed under outrageous circumstances and there’s been almost no criminal consequences. That, and some of the prosecutor’s statements come across as dismissive of the legitimate retributive role of our Justice system. If my child had been killed under these circumstances, I would demand some heightened and visible accountability. As an Arlington resident, I think we all deserve something more than what we got.

I agree with this. The fashionable view among our political leadership seems to be that punishment is illegitimate, period, and the only role of the criminal justice system is rehabilitation. I understand the impulse, but it doesn’t work. It’s turned into a pathological disregard of victims and a narrow focus on the interests of offenders, rather than taking into account the victims’, and society’s in general, interest in seeing some measure of justice done. The long term consequence is continued erosion of the legitimacy of the system, more crime, and ultimately more ungovernable private retaliation.

Sounds very MAGA.

But of course. Let me quote that first notable MAGA-tard, Thomas Hobbes, writing in 1651:

“But I have also shown formerly that before the institution of Commonwealth, every man had a right to everything, and to do whatsoever he thought necessary to his own preservation; subduing, hurting, or killing any man in order thereunto. And this is the foundation of that right of punishing which is exercised in every Commonwealth. For the subjects did not give the sovereign that right; but only, in laying down theirs, strengthened him to use his own as he should think fit for the preservation of them all: so that it was not given, but left to him, and to him only; and, excepting the limits set him by natural law, as entire as in the condition of mere nature, and of war of every one against his neighbour.” Leviathan, Chapter XXVIII.

You can call names all you want, but ignorance of the lengthy philosophical tradition exploring the relationship between people and government isn’t particularly persuasive to anyone. The sovereign (correctly) demands that its subjects forswear private vengeance, but in so doing, it has undertaken a duty to dispense justice on their behalf. If it disavows this duty, people revert closer to a state of nature where that kind of thing occurs more often, which is bad for everyone.

That’s some A+ Republican fearmongering. Nice work on the philosophical hysteria.

[Anonymous]

So many bad decisions - defendant, friends in the car with defendant, parents of defendant for allowing him to continue to drive, Tafti, Chick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge didn't even give this boy the highest juvenile sentence (3 years, which was what Parisa went for). That tells you that the facts weren't there for an adult conviction.

Well none of us will ever know the facts because the public and the family of the victim have been totally disregarded. Why even have a criminal justice system? Let’s just set up a rehabilitation center to cater to people who want to commit crimes without having to deal with big boy consequences?

Honestly the thought of this killer going on to be “rehabilitated” and living out his life as if nothing happened makes me feel sick. I can’t even imagine how awful the victim’s family feels. He better devote his life to sobriety and teaching others about the dangers of drunk driving if he wants to be considered an actual human being in this world. Otherwise he’s a monster hiding behind mommy and daddy’s money and the robe of the Judge who gave him this BS sentence. This actually makes me wish we elected judges here.

If anyone actually attended the sentencing and listened to the judge they would know exactly what the facts were and why the sentence came down the way it did. The judge was bound by the JUVENILE sentencing guidelines. Once Tafti made the decision to stick with juvenile court, that sharply limited the judge's options, and he complained openly about how dissatisfied he was with the options he had under the JUVENILE sentencing regime. Because the defendant had so many substance abuse issues, the Judge decided that sending the kid to a detention facility in Richmond for 3 years likely wouldn't make a dent in those issues and he'd come home with a driver's license and a clean record at age 21, putting everyone at risk. At least by keeping him on probation he'd be able to attend treatment and meet with the judge regularly.

The facts were absolutely there for a conviction, and people should stop speculating otherwise. The government had the breathalyzer showing BAC, they had the blood test showing THC, they had the event data recorder from the car, and they also caught him in several lies told to the police the night of the accident. A motivated prosecutor would have absolutely steamrolled him in adult court, which is why the defense attorney kept playing up the "childhood trauma/substance abuse/woe to this immature child" routine. The defense knew they had to keep it in juvenile court or they would lose, badly.

If you're unhappy with the outcome, don't blame the judge. Blame Tafti, who didn't even try to move the case to adult court out of ideological rigidity.

Thank you for sharing this information. What was the BAC? What were his lies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge didn't even give this boy the highest juvenile sentence (3 years, which was what Parisa went for). That tells you that the facts weren't there for an adult conviction.

Well none of us will ever know the facts because the public and the family of the victim have been totally disregarded. Why even have a criminal justice system? Let’s just set up a rehabilitation center to cater to people who want to commit crimes without having to deal with big boy consequences?

Honestly the thought of this killer going on to be “rehabilitated” and living out his life as if nothing happened makes me feel sick. I can’t even imagine how awful the victim’s family feels. He better devote his life to sobriety and teaching others about the dangers of drunk driving if he wants to be considered an actual human being in this world. Otherwise he’s a monster hiding behind mommy and daddy’s money and the robe of the Judge who gave him this BS sentence. This actually makes me wish we elected judges here.

If anyone actually attended the sentencing and listened to the judge they would know exactly what the facts were and why the sentence came down the way it did. The judge was bound by the JUVENILE sentencing guidelines. Once Tafti made the decision to stick with juvenile court, that sharply limited the judge's options, and he complained openly about how dissatisfied he was with the options he had under the JUVENILE sentencing regime. Because the defendant had so many substance abuse issues, the Judge decided that sending the kid to a detention facility in Richmond for 3 years likely wouldn't make a dent in those issues and he'd come home with a driver's license and a clean record at age 21, putting everyone at risk. At least by keeping him on probation he'd be able to attend treatment and meet with the judge regularly.

The facts were absolutely there for a conviction, and people should stop speculating otherwise. The government had the breathalyzer showing BAC, they had the blood test showing THC, they had the event data recorder from the car, and they also caught him in several lies told to the police the night of the accident. A motivated prosecutor would have absolutely steamrolled him in adult court, which is why the defense attorney kept playing up the "childhood trauma/substance abuse/woe to this immature child" routine. The defense knew they had to keep it in juvenile court or they would lose, badly.

If you're unhappy with the outcome, don't blame the judge. Blame Tafti, who didn't even try to move the case to adult court out of ideological rigidity.

Thank you for clarifying. I was under the impression the judge was sympathetic to the defendant in giving the least restrictive punishment. At least that was the way it seemed with the Commonwealth’s Attorney throwing the judge under the bus saying she was disappointed in the defendant not getting 3 years. Can’t wait to vote for Katcher in the next election.

Do you happen to know whether the defendant could face more significant jail time if he violates probation as an adult? Seems that would be a new charge and he’d be over 18. So no more hiding his identity.

What an absolute disgrace of a human being. I can’t believe he had access to a car. If my kid were a known drug user/drunk I’d have all car keys locked away in a safe and/or install a breathalyzer ignition device. Sounds like the family had the money to take these precautions, it’s what even a mediocre to decent parent would do with a kid like this. Wow did they drop the ball on raising their garbage son.