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

Forum Index » Off-Topic

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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

Who are you arguing with?  This is settled law.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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”. 
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Deviant implies much more than that. “Deviant [b]monster[/b]” [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics