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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So is anyone protesting the judge for his sentence?

No. People aren’t doing much more than venting on an anonymous forum, which apparently is really upsetting to the DUI apologists on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is anyone protesting the judge for his sentence?

No. People aren’t doing much more than venting on an anonymous forum, which apparently is really upsetting to the DUI apologists on here.

Nobody is excusing the kid FFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Justice was served. Some people want to act like they can take justice into their own hands. They can’t, but they can still bluster.

Who precisely is trying to take justice into their own hands? I haven’t seen a single person threaten the defendant in any way. No one is attempting extrajudicial action.

The only thing people have done is discuss the horrible nature of the crime and discuss public policy/criticize the official duties of public officials. This is bound to happen with any highly charged crime, especially when a minor is killed. I’ve seen some people suggest a lawsuit against the parents, which seems warranted especially if rumors are true he had a history of prior DUI + rehab. It seems pretty irresponsible for them to have allowed their son access to their car. Again, this is something that will play out in a court system.

I get you’re mad that many (most) posters disagree with you, but you’re completely full of BS trying to spin it as even remotely anyone taking justice in their own hands or “blustering” to that effect.

DP. There were earlier posts hinting at violence.

This thread was mostly irrational raging. Which is understandable, but let’s not pretend it was a “discussion”.

I’ve been following this thread including posts that were deleted and never saw hints of violence. I’ve seen people advocating for civil suits, but where did anyone threaten any sort of physical violence?

Earlier, when we were discussing the sentencing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Deviant = departing from usual or accepted standards. Are you saying his actions fell within the usual and acceptable standards of behavior for an almost 18 year old? If so, you’re right that we’ll never have a rational conversation.

Obviously, his risky actions were unacceptable. But it wasn’t a premeditated or even intentional killing. Certainly not “deviant” or equivalent to “shooting a gun into a crowd”.

Deviant doesn’t haven’t to mean premeditated. It means behaving in a way that is not normal. The killer’s actions were not remotely normal. It’s bizarre to me anyone is trying to argue otherwise.

Deviant implies much more than that. “Deviant monster”

You added that second word, not me. Deviant can mean all sorts of things outside the norm, like excessive gambling, taking your clothes off in public, etc. It’s anything outside the realm of socially accepted behavior. What the driver did was not your average, normal teen behavior. I’d wager a guess the majority of teens don’t have multiple DUIs with stints in rehab nor drive close to 100 mph while intoxicated.

Maybe he will turn his life around, time will tell. But I’m not optimistic someone like this can ever become a morally functioning human being.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Deviant = departing from usual or accepted standards. Are you saying his actions fell within the usual and acceptable standards of behavior for an almost 18 year old? If so, you’re right that we’ll never have a rational conversation.

Obviously, his risky actions were unacceptable. But it wasn’t a premeditated or even intentional killing. Certainly not “deviant” or equivalent to “shooting a gun into a crowd”.

Deviant doesn’t haven’t to mean premeditated. It means behaving in a way that is not normal. The killer’s actions were not remotely normal. It’s bizarre to me anyone is trying to argue otherwise.

Deviant implies much more than that. “Deviant monster”

You added that second word, not me. Deviant can mean all sorts of things outside the norm, like excessive gambling, taking your clothes off in public, etc. It’s anything outside the realm of socially accepted behavior. What the driver did was not your average, normal teen behavior. I’d wager a guess the majority of teens don’t have multiple DUIs with stints in rehab nor drive close to 100 mph while intoxicated.

Maybe he will turn his life around, time will tell. But I’m not optimistic someone like this can ever become a morally functioning human being.

No, this poster called him that.
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/285/1125421.page#24793740

Won’t be a “morally functioning human”? He’s a freaking kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Deviant = departing from usual or accepted standards. Are you saying his actions fell within the usual and acceptable standards of behavior for an almost 18 year old? If so, you’re right that we’ll never have a rational conversation.

Obviously, his risky actions were unacceptable. But it wasn’t a premeditated or even intentional killing. Certainly not “deviant” or equivalent to “shooting a gun into a crowd”.

Deviant doesn’t haven’t to mean premeditated. It means behaving in a way that is not normal. The killer’s actions were not remotely normal. It’s bizarre to me anyone is trying to argue otherwise.

Deviant implies much more than that. “Deviant monster”

You added that second word, not me. Deviant can mean all sorts of things outside the norm, like excessive gambling, taking your clothes off in public, etc. It’s anything outside the realm of socially accepted behavior. What the driver did was not your average, normal teen behavior. I’d wager a guess the majority of teens don’t have multiple DUIs with stints in rehab nor drive close to 100 mph while intoxicated.

Maybe he will turn his life around, time will tell. But I’m not optimistic someone like this can ever become a morally functioning human being.

No, this poster called him that.
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/285/1125421.page#24793740

Won’t be a “morally functioning human”? He’s a freaking kid.

Well he’s not a kid anymore actually. He was a stone’s throw from adulthood and had already been given multiple chances to clean up his act. Maybe killing an innocent kid will be his wake up call. I sure hope so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Deviant = departing from usual or accepted standards. Are you saying his actions fell within the usual and acceptable standards of behavior for an almost 18 year old? If so, you’re right that we’ll never have a rational conversation.

Obviously, his risky actions were unacceptable. But it wasn’t a premeditated or even intentional killing. Certainly not “deviant” or equivalent to “shooting a gun into a crowd”.

Deviant doesn’t haven’t to mean premeditated. It means behaving in a way that is not normal. The killer’s actions were not remotely normal. It’s bizarre to me anyone is trying to argue otherwise.

Deviant implies much more than that. “Deviant monster”

You added that second word, not me. Deviant can mean all sorts of things outside the norm, like excessive gambling, taking your clothes off in public, etc. It’s anything outside the realm of socially accepted behavior. What the driver did was not your average, normal teen behavior. I’d wager a guess the majority of teens don’t have multiple DUIs with stints in rehab nor drive close to 100 mph while intoxicated.

Maybe he will turn his life around, time will tell. But I’m not optimistic someone like this can ever become a morally functioning human being.

No, this poster called him that.
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/285/1125421.page#24793740

Won’t be a “morally functioning human”? He’s a freaking kid.

Well he’s not a kid anymore actually. He was a stone’s throw from adulthood and had already been given multiple chances to clean up his act. Maybe killing an innocent kid will be his wake up call. I sure hope so.

They were both kids when this horrible and, yes, avoidable accident occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quite a few supporters for Parisa refusing to allow themselves to be intimidated by the ugly mob:

https://twitter.com/parisa4justice/status/1647771960149934080?s=46&t=ZhG9K3561sLGscwuRzxKFA

Fortunately some people still believe in the rule of law.

I do too. So, the next time a "teen" drunk driver hits someone, I hope it's not me but you.

Now we’ve gone beyond hints of violence by the vigilantes.

NP. The post you’re responding to does not “go beyond hints of violence.” There is no threat there, not even close. Your attempt to categorize it that way in order to try and silence others, have posts deleted, etc. is obvious and pathetic. At least have the stones to stand up for your views without resorting to censorship.

PP was stating a legitimate and broadly felt sentiment: Parisa, Chesa Boudin, and every other halfwit Social Justice Studies major that wants to cede our cities and neighborhoods to criminals and drug addicts, all in the name of some half-cocked theory of white liberal guilt, ARE the enemy. They are attempting to destroy a society most of us like. They are consumed by arrogance and as fanatical in their devotion to a perverse secular religion as any Christian or Islamic fundamentalist.

I am not going to undertake any violence or any other unlawful act toward Parisa. Want to make that very clear. I also want to make clear that I genuinely hate the woman, and if she had a family member killed by a drunk driver or in a violent crime, I would enjoy it. Better that the consequences of her asinine policies be visited upon her (or her enablers) than the innocent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quite a few supporters for Parisa refusing to allow themselves to be intimidated by the ugly mob:

https://twitter.com/parisa4justice/status/1647771960149934080?s=46&t=ZhG9K3561sLGscwuRzxKFA

Fortunately some people still believe in the rule of law.

If you are such a big supporter, you wouldn’t be on here fanning the flames. You are her worst enemy with your righteousness. It is adding more visibility to the thread and is really turning off people who might not otherwise been engaged. But sure, get your last word in (as you essentially campaign against Parisa with your rhetoric).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quite a few supporters for Parisa refusing to allow themselves to be intimidated by the ugly mob:

https://twitter.com/parisa4justice/status/1647771960149934080?s=46&t=ZhG9K3561sLGscwuRzxKFA

Fortunately some people still believe in the rule of law.

These types of posts makes Parisa look so bad that I almost think you’re playing some type of complicated mind game to undermine her. If so-mission accomplished!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quite a few supporters for Parisa refusing to allow themselves to be intimidated by the ugly mob:

https://twitter.com/parisa4justice/status/1647771960149934080?s=46&t=ZhG9K3561sLGscwuRzxKFA

Fortunately some people still believe in the rule of law.

These types of posts makes Parisa look so bad that I almost think you’re playing some type of complicated mind game to undermine her. If so-mission accomplished!

She really is that bad (knowing her professionally). Rigid, devoid of empathy, and wholly driven by ambition. I quietly warned people during the last election but I won’t be silent this time.

[Anonymous]

The reminders just make clear that Parisa retains a ton of support locally, including among other elected officials who would drop her in a hot second if they felt she was guilty of serious errors of judgment or would drag down their own campaigns.

In addition, they indicate that the rabid posters on this thread - a motley collection of folks who apparently either know the Meade family or their diocese or have just jumped on the thread because they love opportunities to openly express their blood lust anonymously and without consequences - may not quite reflect the prevailing community sentiment as much as they’d like to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reminders just make clear that Parisa retains a ton of support locally, including among other elected officials who would drop her in a hot second if they felt she was guilty of serious errors of judgment or would drag down their own campaigns.

In addition, they indicate that the rabid posters on this thread - a motley collection of folks who apparently either know the Meade family or their diocese or have just jumped on the thread because they love opportunities to openly express their blood lust anonymously and without consequences - may not quite reflect the prevailing community sentiment as much as they’d like to think.

Ah yes, the community definitely seems cool with the senseless killing of their teenagers resulting in a slap on the wrist. Those who are revolted by those minimizing are surely a niche interest group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Deviant = departing from usual or accepted standards. Are you saying his actions fell within the usual and acceptable standards of behavior for an almost 18 year old? If so, you’re right that we’ll never have a rational conversation.

Obviously, his risky actions were unacceptable. But it wasn’t a premeditated or even intentional killing. Certainly not “deviant” or equivalent to “shooting a gun into a crowd”.

Deviant doesn’t haven’t to mean premeditated. It means behaving in a way that is not normal. The killer’s actions were not remotely normal. It’s bizarre to me anyone is trying to argue otherwise.

Deviant implies much more than that. “Deviant monster”

You added that second word, not me. Deviant can mean all sorts of things outside the norm, like excessive gambling, taking your clothes off in public, etc. It’s anything outside the realm of socially accepted behavior. What the driver did was not your average, normal teen behavior. I’d wager a guess the majority of teens don’t have multiple DUIs with stints in rehab nor drive close to 100 mph while intoxicated.

Maybe he will turn his life around, time will tell. But I’m not optimistic someone like this can ever become a morally functioning human being.

No, this poster called him that.
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/285/1125421.page#24793740

Won’t be a “morally functioning human”? He’s a freaking kid.

Nope. He’s a killer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reminders just make clear that Parisa retains a ton of support locally, including among other elected officials who would drop her in a hot second if they felt she was guilty of serious errors of judgment or would drag down their own campaigns.

In addition, they indicate that the rabid posters on this thread - a motley collection of folks who apparently either know the Meade family or their diocese or have just jumped on the thread because they love opportunities to openly express their blood lust anonymously and without consequences - may not quite reflect the prevailing community sentiment as much as they’d like to think.

Rabid posters? Blood lust? If you really want to see an angry mob on DCUM you should head on over to the private school forum and ask a question about getting financial aid despite a six-figure salary and owning a million dollar house.