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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s absurd. Hoping that the consequences of soft-of-crime policies fall on the supporters of those policies, rather than the public at large, is just sensible.

PP is wishing harm on the other PP. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, the PP clearly said that she hopes that the other PP gets hit by a car.

You are both vile.

You know that individuals hoping something will happen has zero effect on whether that thing happens don’t you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s absurd. Hoping that the consequences of soft-of-crime policies fall on the supporters of those policies, rather than the public at large, is just sensible.

PP is wishing harm on the other PP. Disgusting.

Those of us who don’t support these slap on the wrist consequences for a dangerous driver simply wish there was a way to opt ourselves out of the risk of being on the road with him in the near(ish) future. If you’re willing to accept the risk of sharing the road with a repeat DUI offenders (before the age of 18 at that) then you assume the risk. But personally I’d rather see people like this spend a decade in prison and lose their license for longer, if not life. The safety of innocent people, including young people with their lives ahead of them like Braylon, is of much greater importance than the freedom/privilege to drive of someone who has made repeated poor choices.

And it’s not just this driver. It’s all the recidivist DUI offenders/drivers who engage in highly reckless behavior (like speeding 100 mph) that I feel this way about.

As a liberal, I find it really strange how it’s acceptable (encouraged even) to want strict regulation of guns and greater consequences to keep them out of the hands of criminals. But put a criminal behind the wheel of a car, which can also cause death and maiming, and we’re all about giving them multiple chances? Sorry, but I have no empathy toward people who make choices that senselessly kill others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s absurd. Hoping that the consequences of soft-of-crime policies fall on the supporters of those policies, rather than the public at large, is just sensible.

PP is wishing harm on the other PP. Disgusting.

Those of us who don’t support these slap on the wrist consequences for a dangerous driver simply wish there was a way to opt ourselves out of the risk of being on the road with him in the near(ish) future. If you’re willing to accept the risk of sharing the road with a repeat DUI offenders (before the age of 18 at that) then you assume the risk. But personally I’d rather see people like this spend a decade in prison and lose their license for longer, if not life. The safety of innocent people, including young people with their lives ahead of them like Braylon, is of much greater importance than the freedom/privilege to drive of someone who has made repeated poor choices.

And it’s not just this driver. It’s all the recidivist DUI offenders/drivers who engage in highly reckless behavior (like speeding 100 mph) that I feel this way about.

As a liberal, I find it really strange how it’s acceptable (encouraged even) to want strict regulation of guns and greater consequences to keep them out of the hands of criminals. But put a criminal behind the wheel of a car, which can also cause death and maiming, and we’re all about giving them multiple chances? Sorry, but I have no empathy toward people who make choices that senselessly kill others.

I'm all for tougher penalties for DUIs/speeding.

It's still disgusting to wish harm on someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s absurd. Hoping that the consequences of soft-of-crime policies fall on the supporters of those policies, rather than the public at large, is just sensible.

PP is wishing harm on the other PP. Disgusting.

Those of us who don’t support these slap on the wrist consequences for a dangerous driver simply wish there was a way to opt ourselves out of the risk of being on the road with him in the near(ish) future. If you’re willing to accept the risk of sharing the road with a repeat DUI offenders (before the age of 18 at that) then you assume the risk. But personally I’d rather see people like this spend a decade in prison and lose their license for longer, if not life. The safety of innocent people, including young people with their lives ahead of them like Braylon, is of much greater importance than the freedom/privilege to drive of someone who has made repeated poor choices.

And it’s not just this driver. It’s all the recidivist DUI offenders/drivers who engage in highly reckless behavior (like speeding 100 mph) that I feel this way about.

As a liberal, I find it really strange how it’s acceptable (encouraged even) to want strict regulation of guns and greater consequences to keep them out of the hands of criminals. But put a criminal behind the wheel of a car, which can also cause death and maiming, and we’re all about giving them multiple chances? Sorry, but I have no empathy toward people who make choices that senselessly kill others.

I'm all for tougher penalties for DUIs/speeding.

It's still disgusting to wish harm on someone else.

I wasn’t the PP who posted that but I interpreted it as the person wishing that *if* he hurts someone again, it happens to someone who supports letting the driver back out on the road with little consequence because they seem ok with this risk. It seems unfair to have it happen to someone who does not even want him to be out on the road at all. I don’t think they actually want the driver to hurt anyone else because they’d rather he be behind bars.

Personally I hope zero people are killed by drunk drivers this year, but I especially hope it doesn’t happen to anyone who doesn’t even want to be on the road with these hazardous criminals. Whoever supports this type of joke of a sentencing should be the ones to assume all risk with setting him free, but unfortunately that is not how the world works and so those supporting this type of light sentencing are putting the community at risk. It’s truly unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s absurd. Hoping that the consequences of soft-of-crime policies fall on the supporters of those policies, rather than the public at large, is just sensible.

PP is wishing harm on the other PP. Disgusting.

Those of us who don’t support these slap on the wrist consequences for a dangerous driver simply wish there was a way to opt ourselves out of the risk of being on the road with him in the near(ish) future. If you’re willing to accept the risk of sharing the road with a repeat DUI offenders (before the age of 18 at that) then you assume the risk. But personally I’d rather see people like this spend a decade in prison and lose their license for longer, if not life. The safety of innocent people, including young people with their lives ahead of them like Braylon, is of much greater importance than the freedom/privilege to drive of someone who has made repeated poor choices.

And it’s not just this driver. It’s all the recidivist DUI offenders/drivers who engage in highly reckless behavior (like speeding 100 mph) that I feel this way about.

As a liberal, I find it really strange how it’s acceptable (encouraged even) to want strict regulation of guns and greater consequences to keep them out of the hands of criminals. But put a criminal behind the wheel of a car, which can also cause death and maiming, and we’re all about giving them multiple chances? Sorry, but I have no empathy toward people who make choices that senselessly kill others.

I'm all for tougher penalties for DUIs/speeding.

It's still disgusting to wish harm on someone else.

I wasn’t the PP who posted that but I interpreted it as the person wishing that *if* he hurts someone again, it happens to someone who supports letting the driver back out on the road with little consequence because they seem ok with this risk. It seems unfair to have it happen to someone who does not even want him to be out on the road at all. I don’t think they actually want the driver to hurt anyone else because they’d rather he be behind bars.

Personally I hope zero people are killed by drunk drivers this year, but I especially hope it doesn’t happen to anyone who doesn’t even want to be on the road with these hazardous criminals. Whoever supports this type of joke of a sentencing should be the ones to assume all risk with setting him free, but unfortunately that is not how the world works and so those supporting this type of light sentencing are putting the community at risk. It’s truly unfair.

And I’ll add that I also wish all gun crimes would only he committed again those who support lax gun laws. Well my first preference would be better gun control. But since a bunch of second amendment worshipping morons are trying to drag us all down, I’d rather they be the ones to suffer the consequence of their own idiotic views. Do you consider that “wishing harm on them”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s absurd. Hoping that the consequences of soft-of-crime policies fall on the supporters of those policies, rather than the public at large, is just sensible.

PP is wishing harm on the other PP. Disgusting.

Those of us who don’t support these slap on the wrist consequences for a dangerous driver simply wish there was a way to opt ourselves out of the risk of being on the road with him in the near(ish) future. If you’re willing to accept the risk of sharing the road with a repeat DUI offenders (before the age of 18 at that) then you assume the risk. But personally I’d rather see people like this spend a decade in prison and lose their license for longer, if not life. The safety of innocent people, including young people with their lives ahead of them like Braylon, is of much greater importance than the freedom/privilege to drive of someone who has made repeated poor choices.

And it’s not just this driver. It’s all the recidivist DUI offenders/drivers who engage in highly reckless behavior (like speeding 100 mph) that I feel this way about.

As a liberal, I find it really strange how it’s acceptable (encouraged even) to want strict regulation of guns and greater consequences to keep them out of the hands of criminals. But put a criminal behind the wheel of a car, which can also cause death and maiming, and we’re all about giving them multiple chances? Sorry, but I have no empathy toward people who make choices that senselessly kill others.

I'm all for tougher penalties for DUIs/speeding.

It's still disgusting to wish harm on someone else.

I wasn’t the PP who posted that but I interpreted it as the person wishing that *if* he hurts someone again, it happens to someone who supports letting the driver back out on the road with little consequence because they seem ok with this risk. It seems unfair to have it happen to someone who does not even want him to be out on the road at all. I don’t think they actually want the driver to hurt anyone else because they’d rather he be behind bars.

Personally I hope zero people are killed by drunk drivers this year, but I especially hope it doesn’t happen to anyone who doesn’t even want to be on the road with these hazardous criminals. Whoever supports this type of joke of a sentencing should be the ones to assume all risk with setting him free, but unfortunately that is not how the world works and so those supporting this type of light sentencing are putting the community at risk. It’s truly unfair.

And I’ll add that I also wish all gun crimes would only he committed again those who support lax gun laws. Well my first preference would be better gun control. But since a bunch of second amendment worshipping morons are trying to drag us all down, I’d rather they be the ones to suffer the consequence of their own idiotic views. Do you consider that “wishing harm on them”?

Yes. Also disgusting.

You should have stuck with "I hope zero people are killed".