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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Arlington County DA is known for being SOFT on crime. IMO, she doesn't give AF about criminals running the streets.

Vote her out in June!! She is defiant when faced with evidence that crime is on increase under her watch and it rose quickly. She is dragging this county down due to her arrogance and lack of concern for law abiding citizens of this county.

The guy running against her agrees with her. The crime didn't meet the criteria to charge him as an adult.

+1

“By and large, when a kid shows up in the justice system, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has specifically told us the focus needs to be on rehabilitation and getting them on a trajectory out of the system and I agree with that.”
-Katcher, her opponent

Full quote “Candidly, I can think of a few examples in which a kid could potentially be certified as an adult,” he said. “By and large, when a kid shows up in the justice system, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has specifically told us the focus needs to be on rehabilitation and getting them on a trajectory out of the system and I agree with that.” - Katcher

Did Katcher agree that this was a juvenile that could potentially be certified as an adult?

Not if he's follows the guidelines.

"State code allows juveniles to be transferred to adult court in limited situations and after considering several factors, such as the severity of the crime and if the child has committed other crimes in the past.

Factors that could lead to transfer include if the offense was premeditated and a weapon was used, Dehghani-Tafti said. Factors that may argue against transfer include the mental health of the defendant and the availability of services."

If this kid has been to rehab before then this wasn't the first time he had experimented with alcohol or THC, which is a crime because he wasn't 21. Right?

Has he been to rehab? How do we know that?

It’s not 100% illegal to drink alcohol <21. It’s legal in some circumstances.

awesome, was it legal for the non-adult speeding driver that night? do tell.

[Anonymous]

Ask yourself, what penalty would you want if your child were killed?
And, what penalty if you child was the drunk driver?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. A 17y old is not an adult and should not be tried as one. I feel very sorry for the victim’s family, but trying this juvenile as an adult would not bring the victim back ir do squat for the family’s pain.

Right, that 60 days until he turned 18 would have made all the difference in the world. This spoiled McLean kid was just an innocent little lamb who didn’t know smoking pot, drinking alcohol, and driving 100 mph was a bad idea.

Sorry, but plenty (the vast majority) of 17 year old kids have their act together enough not to engage in reckless manslaughter. This isn’t a 14 year old we’re talking about. I was still 17 when I moved away to college (I have a later summer birthday) and I knew at that point that driving drunk was dangerous. And I sure as heck expect more from my teens, they certainly wouldn’t have access to a car if they were in and out of rehab. Ridiculous.

And the entirety of 17 year olds are minors. Not adults.

I responded to this before and I guess someone reported me. So I will re-state it in terms that hopefully Jeff won’t erase. Most 17 year olds are not killing their peers, so the fact they are minors is irrelevant. That the defendant got blitzed and drove 100 mph in a residential area proves he was an outlier of a 17 year old. This wasn’t kid pranks or shoplifting. This was highly egregious, aberrant behavior that even minors understand is wrong. This deserves adult consequences, not kiddie gloves.

Most of the time when that happens, people don’t get killed.

People don't get killed when someone is going 94 in a 30? Don't you remember the Oakton crash last year? This part of Old Dominion is curvy and dangerous.

Ok. Those were the only two times that happened in the last two years. Most of the time people don’t get killed.

Your logic is bonkers, most of the time people do not drive 94 in a 30. And BTW these two happened within 6 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. A 17y old is not an adult and should not be tried as one. I feel very sorry for the victim’s family, but trying this juvenile as an adult would not bring the victim back ir do squat for the family’s pain.

Right, that 60 days until he turned 18 would have made all the difference in the world. This spoiled McLean kid was just an innocent little lamb who didn’t know smoking pot, drinking alcohol, and driving 100 mph was a bad idea.

Sorry, but plenty (the vast majority) of 17 year old kids have their act together enough not to engage in reckless manslaughter. This isn’t a 14 year old we’re talking about. I was still 17 when I moved away to college (I have a later summer birthday) and I knew at that point that driving drunk was dangerous. And I sure as heck expect more from my teens, they certainly wouldn’t have access to a car if they were in and out of rehab. Ridiculous.

And the entirety of 17 year olds are minors. Not adults.

I responded to this before and I guess someone reported me. So I will re-state it in terms that hopefully Jeff won’t erase. Most 17 year olds are not killing their peers, so the fact they are minors is irrelevant. That the defendant got blitzed and drove 100 mph in a residential area proves he was an outlier of a 17 year old. This wasn’t kid pranks or shoplifting. This was highly egregious, aberrant behavior that even minors understand is wrong. This deserves adult consequences, not kiddie gloves.

Most of the time when that happens, people don’t get killed.

People don't get killed when someone is going 94 in a 30? Don't you remember the Oakton crash last year? This part of Old Dominion is curvy and dangerous.

Ok. Those were the only two times that happened in the last two years. Most of the time people don’t get killed.

Your logic is bonkers, most of the time people do not drive 94 in a 30. And BTW these two happened within 6 months.

I’m sorry you struggle with math.

Most drivers don’t drive that fast.

Most of time when drivers do go that fast, they don’t kill people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Arlington County DA is known for being SOFT on crime. IMO, she doesn't give AF about criminals running the streets.

Vote her out in June!! She is defiant when faced with evidence that crime is on increase under her watch and it rose quickly. She is dragging this county down due to her arrogance and lack of concern for law abiding citizens of this county.

The guy running against her agrees with her. The crime didn't meet the criteria to charge him as an adult.

+1

“By and large, when a kid shows up in the justice system, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has specifically told us the focus needs to be on rehabilitation and getting them on a trajectory out of the system and I agree with that.”
-Katcher, her opponent

Full quote “Candidly, I can think of a few examples in which a kid could potentially be certified as an adult,” he said. “By and large, when a kid shows up in the justice system, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has specifically told us the focus needs to be on rehabilitation and getting them on a trajectory out of the system and I agree with that.” - Katcher

Did Katcher agree that this was a juvenile that could potentially be certified as an adult?

Not if he's follows the guidelines.

"State code allows juveniles to be transferred to adult court in limited situations and after considering several factors, such as the severity of the crime and if the child has committed other crimes in the past.

Factors that could lead to transfer include if the offense was premeditated and a weapon was used, Dehghani-Tafti said. Factors that may argue against transfer include the mental health of the defendant and the availability of services."

If this kid has been to rehab before then this wasn't the first time he had experimented with alcohol or THC, which is a crime because he wasn't 21. Right?

Has he been to rehab? How do we know that?

It’s not 100% illegal to drink alcohol <21. It’s legal in some circumstances.

awesome, was it legal for the non-adult speeding driver that night? do tell.

We were discussing crimes in the past. There is no evidence he was convicted of anything previously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. A 17y old is not an adult and should not be tried as one. I feel very sorry for the victim’s family, but trying this juvenile as an adult would not bring the victim back ir do squat for the family’s pain.

Right, that 60 days until he turned 18 would have made all the difference in the world. This spoiled McLean kid was just an innocent little lamb who didn’t know smoking pot, drinking alcohol, and driving 100 mph was a bad idea.

Sorry, but plenty (the vast majority) of 17 year old kids have their act together enough not to engage in reckless manslaughter. This isn’t a 14 year old we’re talking about. I was still 17 when I moved away to college (I have a later summer birthday) and I knew at that point that driving drunk was dangerous. And I sure as heck expect more from my teens, they certainly wouldn’t have access to a car if they were in and out of rehab. Ridiculous.

And the entirety of 17 year olds are minors. Not adults.

I responded to this before and I guess someone reported me. So I will re-state it in terms that hopefully Jeff won’t erase. Most 17 year olds are not killing their peers, so the fact they are minors is irrelevant. That the defendant got blitzed and drove 100 mph in a residential area proves he was an outlier of a 17 year old. This wasn’t kid pranks or shoplifting. This was highly egregious, aberrant behavior that even minors understand is wrong. This deserves adult consequences, not kiddie gloves.

Most of the time when that happens, people don’t get killed.

People don't get killed when someone is going 94 in a 30? Don't you remember the Oakton crash last year? This part of Old Dominion is curvy and dangerous.

Ok. Those were the only two times that happened in the last two years. Most of the time people don’t get killed.

Those were NOT the only two times that people sped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. A 17y old is not an adult and should not be tried as one. I feel very sorry for the victim’s family, but trying this juvenile as an adult would not bring the victim back ir do squat for the family’s pain.

Right, that 60 days until he turned 18 would have made all the difference in the world. This spoiled McLean kid was just an innocent little lamb who didn’t know smoking pot, drinking alcohol, and driving 100 mph was a bad idea.

Sorry, but plenty (the vast majority) of 17 year old kids have their act together enough not to engage in reckless manslaughter. This isn’t a 14 year old we’re talking about. I was still 17 when I moved away to college (I have a later summer birthday) and I knew at that point that driving drunk was dangerous. And I sure as heck expect more from my teens, they certainly wouldn’t have access to a car if they were in and out of rehab. Ridiculous.

And the entirety of 17 year olds are minors. Not adults.

I responded to this before and I guess someone reported me. So I will re-state it in terms that hopefully Jeff won’t erase. Most 17 year olds are not killing their peers, so the fact they are minors is irrelevant. That the defendant got blitzed and drove 100 mph in a residential area proves he was an outlier of a 17 year old. This wasn’t kid pranks or shoplifting. This was highly egregious, aberrant behavior that even minors understand is wrong. This deserves adult consequences, not kiddie gloves.

Most of the time when that happens, people don’t get killed.

People don't get killed when someone is going 94 in a 30? Don't you remember the Oakton crash last year? This part of Old Dominion is curvy and dangerous.

Ok. Those were the only two times that happened in the last two years. Most of the time people don’t get killed.

Your logic is bonkers, most of the time people do not drive 94 in a 30. And BTW these two happened within 6 months.

I’m sorry you struggle with math.

Most drivers don’t drive that fast.

Most of time when drivers do go that fast, they don’t kill people.

According to which statistics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ask yourself, what penalty would you want if your child were killed?
And, what penalty if you child was the drunk driver?

I think 5-10 years sounds right to both accounts. I can’t imagine my child only getting a year in jail for something like this. And as a side note I would feel like an utter failure of a parent. Garbage parenting leads to garbage outcomes. Makes sense mommy is an entitled NRA lover. The selfish gun nuts certainly don’t see anything wrong with a drug addict teen having access to car keys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. A 17y old is not an adult and should not be tried as one. I feel very sorry for the victim’s family, but trying this juvenile as an adult would not bring the victim back ir do squat for the family’s pain.

Look your child in the eye and tell them your life doesn’t matter as much as a criminal who kills you.
If you can do that, you are truly a terrible parent.

[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, darn. What a shame that he tripped and his mouth fell onto the bottle, then tripped and the keys fell into the ignition, and someone tied a brick to his foot to force him to press the gas pedal. Poor, poor baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. A 17y old is not an adult and should not be tried as one. I feel very sorry for the victim’s family, but trying this juvenile as an adult would not bring the victim back ir do squat for the family’s pain.

And I’m just SURE you would feel the same way if your own child was murdered by a drunk.

Liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. A 17y old is not an adult and should not be tried as one. I feel very sorry for the victim’s family, but trying this juvenile as an adult would not bring the victim back ir do squat for the family’s pain.

Right, that 60 days until he turned 18 would have made all the difference in the world. This spoiled McLean kid was just an innocent little lamb who didn’t know smoking pot, drinking alcohol, and driving 100 mph was a bad idea.

Sorry, but plenty (the vast majority) of 17 year old kids have their act together enough not to engage in reckless manslaughter. This isn’t a 14 year old we’re talking about. I was still 17 when I moved away to college (I have a later summer birthday) and I knew at that point that driving drunk was dangerous. And I sure as heck expect more from my teens, they certainly wouldn’t have access to a car if they were in and out of rehab. Ridiculous.

And the entirety of 17 year olds are minors. Not adults.

I responded to this before and I guess someone reported me. So I will re-state it in terms that hopefully Jeff won’t erase. Most 17 year olds are not killing their peers, so the fact they are minors is irrelevant. That the defendant got blitzed and drove 100 mph in a residential area proves he was an outlier of a 17 year old. This wasn’t kid pranks or shoplifting. This was highly egregious, aberrant behavior that even minors understand is wrong. This deserves adult consequences, not kiddie gloves.

Most of the time when that happens, people don’t get killed.

Ok, so let's let everyone get drunk and drive around like this. wtf is wrong with you

[Anonymous]

Wow, A+ parenting on the part of the drunk's parents...why did he have access to a car?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of speeding driver used to be a lobbyist for NRA. Only in DMV would ultra-liberal CA give him a slap on the wrist.

Ah, so blood on her hands is just another day in the office.

+1

She is a rich entitled POS who paid for everything her entitled kid has with blood money. With those morals of course her son had no qualms drunk driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. A 17y old is not an adult and should not be tried as one. I feel very sorry for the victim’s family, but trying this juvenile as an adult would not bring the victim back ir do squat for the family’s pain.

And I’m just SURE you would feel the same way if your own child was murdered by a drunk.

Liar.

DP, but that's the point. Victim's families are too close to the matter emotionally to make these decisions. If it were my kid, I would be devastated and probably cry for blood...that's why I wouldn't be on the jury, or be the judge and prosecutor.

Law and justice is not about emotion, in the end, or it shouldn't be.