Anonymous wrote:

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.

She was not a lobbyist for the NRA. Her bio is all over the internet. She’s with Delta now. Prior to that she was with MetLife for years. Never with the NRA

Keep looking

I found the person in the first description. Was not hard to find the kid’s name either. Internet is crazy!

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.

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.

But the criminal justice system, when it works properly, is supposed to result in punishments that are appropriate and proportionate to the crime. In this instance, policies that are generally designed to yield a balanced result, failed the victim’s family and the community miserably. Because there has been no criminal accountability for an incredibly serious crime, you will see outrage in the community and from the victim’s family and possibly lawsuits so driven by passionate anger that there is no room to settle or do anything other than seek some sort of legal or public consequence that the criminal justice system failed to deliver.

If he were an adult.

He’s not.

Juveniles aren’t outside the justice system, they are simply treated with special considerations given their age/development. We may strike the balance differently when adjudicating the rights of a minor to take this into account, but the community still has the right to expect significant consequences for heinous crimes. Whatever was delivered here was inadequate and the justice system failed to serve its crucial role of demonstrating to the community that there are real consequences for doing horrible things. The kid who bit my son in kindergarten was treated more harshly than the driver in this case.

Then complain about the judge who didn’t decide on the full length.
And complain to the sentencing commission for their recommendations.

Blaming this all on Parisi is political play.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She was not a lobbyist for the NRA. Her bio is all over the internet. She’s with Delta now. Prior to that she was with MetLife for years. Never with the NRA

Keep looking

So which one of you is telling the truth?

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.

She was not a lobbyist for the NRA. Her bio is all over the internet. She’s with Delta now. Prior to that she was with MetLife for years. Never with the NRA

Keep looking

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18 years old was never meant to be an inflexible bright line for prosecution as an adult vs. a minor. The penalties for minors are soft; that’s why we give prosecutors discretion to prosecute as an adult in serious cases like this one. When a prosecutor declines to exercise that discretion and charges everyone a day under 18 as a minor, we’re going to see more and more cases like this, where the offender gets an extremely light penalty with virtually no long-term consequences.

I am glad this occurred two months before the election, though I doubt it will make a difference. There’s too much outside money funding these prosecutors.

This case didn’t meet the criteria.

She’s never prosecuted a single minor as an adult. There are no criteria anymore. Like most homicide cases involving a 17 year old, this case meets all of the criteria that prosecutors have traditionally used.

How many met the criteria?

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.

She was not a lobbyist for the NRA. Her bio is all over the internet. She’s with Delta now. Prior to that she was with MetLife for years. Never with the NRA

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18 years old was never meant to be an inflexible bright line for prosecution as an adult vs. a minor. The penalties for minors are soft; that’s why we give prosecutors discretion to prosecute as an adult in serious cases like this one. When a prosecutor declines to exercise that discretion and charges everyone a day under 18 as a minor, we’re going to see more and more cases like this, where the offender gets an extremely light penalty with virtually no long-term consequences.

I am glad this occurred two months before the election, though I doubt it will make a difference. There’s too much outside money funding these prosecutors.

This case didn’t meet the criteria.

She’s never prosecuted a single minor as an adult. There are no criteria anymore. Like most homicide cases involving a 17 year old, this case meets all of the criteria that prosecutors have traditionally used.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A civil suit for anything more than the insurance policy limits will be tough unless they can show the parents were negligent by letting their son drive, e.g. if they knew he drove drunk or had a suspended license and continued to let him drive. I would like to see the parents suffer financially, especially given the lack of meaningful criminal penalties, but I don’t think it will happen.

In a case like this, I think the parents are at real risk of that exact scenario. Supposedly the kid had a history of alcohol and drug abuse. If that is correct, the evidence was certainly more than the gossip of some friends. So possibly medical records, school records, other police encounters, etc. And if the parents had software on the car or on their phone showing where there kid was or how fast the car was going, that's all admissible.

Add in that Meade's parents might not be motivated by money, but a desire to obtain the justice that they didn't receive in the criminal process and you have a massive liability case because the Meades will not want to settle. It's possible that they extract a settlement, but if they do it will be entirely on their terms if the liability is clear.

The Meades should start a Go Fund Me for legal fees for a civil suit. I’d chip in.

As Plaintiffs it will be taken on a contingency fee and they will likely not pay anything out of pocket except filing fees/court fees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CA asked for the max sentence, and the judge did not grant it! That means the judge (who is not Parisa) saw evidence that this child did not need to punished the full extent of the law.

Is this story still incredibly tragic for the Meade family? Yes. His loss is simply awful. And I am sorry they felt they weren't heard. But it seems like there's mostly rumors etc about the teen driver, when the judge's job is to look at FACTS and make a decision.

Someone in an earlier post said that the judge himself appeared frustrated with the CA for giving him the limitation of a juvenile sentence. And that his rationale for one year followed by probation was that the kid had a better chance of not harming others if he was meeting regularly with the judge and getting help for his substance and mental health issues. I hope I got that right - I was not there, but it seemed like the earlier poster was and would likely be able to explain it. I didn't interpret it as the judge thinking it wasn't a very serious crime.

That’s BS. If it was more “serious” then the judge would have sentenced longer *and* required probation.

Judge decided the lower sentence, not the CA.

Anonymous wrote:18 years old was never meant to be an inflexible bright line for prosecution as an adult vs. a minor. The penalties for minors are soft; that’s why we give prosecutors discretion to prosecute as an adult in serious cases like this one. When a prosecutor declines to exercise that discretion and charges everyone a day under 18 as a minor, we’re going to see more and more cases like this, where the offender gets an extremely light penalty with virtually no long-term consequences.

I am glad this occurred two months before the election, though I doubt it will make a difference. There’s too much outside money funding these prosecutors.

This case didn’t meet the criteria.

18 years old was never meant to be an inflexible bright line for prosecution as an adult vs. a minor. The penalties for minors are soft; that’s why we give prosecutors discretion to prosecute as an adult in serious cases like this one. When a prosecutor declines to exercise that discretion and charges everyone a day under 18 as a minor, we’re going to see more and more cases like this, where the offender gets an extremely light penalty with virtually no long-term consequences.

I am glad this occurred two months before the election, though I doubt it will make a difference. There’s too much outside money funding these prosecutors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A civil suit for anything more than the insurance policy limits will be tough unless they can show the parents were negligent by letting their son drive, e.g. if they knew he drove drunk or had a suspended license and continued to let him drive. I would like to see the parents suffer financially, especially given the lack of meaningful criminal penalties, but I don’t think it will happen.

In a case like this, I think the parents are at real risk of that exact scenario. Supposedly the kid had a history of alcohol and drug abuse. If that is correct, the evidence was certainly more than the gossip of some friends. So possibly medical records, school records, other police encounters, etc. And if the parents had software on the car or on their phone showing where there kid was or how fast the car was going, that's all admissible.

Add in that Meade's parents might not be motivated by money, but a desire to obtain the justice that they didn't receive in the criminal process and you have a massive liability case because the Meades will not want to settle. It's possible that they extract a settlement, but if they do it will be entirely on their terms if the liability is clear.

The Meades should start a Go Fund Me for legal fees for a civil suit. I’d chip in.

Anonymous wrote:A civil suit for anything more than the insurance policy limits will be tough unless they can show the parents were negligent by letting their son drive, e.g. if they knew he drove drunk or had a suspended license and continued to let him drive. I would like to see the parents suffer financially, especially given the lack of meaningful criminal penalties, but I don’t think it will happen.

If it was their car and they knew about their child’s substance problems, the parents have a lot of civil exposure IMO. Normally a plaintiff in that kind of case settles for the policy limits because there isn’t much more money to be obtained and it’s not worth the effort. Based on the facts as discussed in this thread, I think you can get this case to a jury with prospects for a very significant verdict.

Anonymous wrote:The CA asked for the max sentence, and the judge did not grant it! That means the judge (who is not Parisa) saw evidence that this child did not need to punished the full extent of the law.

Is this story still incredibly tragic for the Meade family? Yes. His loss is simply awful. And I am sorry they felt they weren't heard. But it seems like there's mostly rumors etc about the teen driver, when the judge's job is to look at FACTS and make a decision.

And this is where I see the system failing us. I voted for Parisa and I honestly don’t know whether this has more to do with her, or just a significant systemic accountability gap that has eroded the public’s faith in the justice system. You refer to the facts that the judge based his decision on, but as a member of the general public the only access to facts I have is that an almost 18 year old was speeding over 90 miles per hour while drunk and high on a residential road causing the death of a child. I would love to base my opinion on some augmented set of facts, but I’m left now only with rumors to fill in the public information gap, and frankly those rumors don’t paint a very sympathetic picture. If the public is going to have to settle for “the judge just knew more than you and you should accept the outcome,” don’t be surprised when the public loses faith.

Anonymous wrote:The CA asked for the max sentence, and the judge did not grant it! That means the judge (who is not Parisa) saw evidence that this child did not need to punished the full extent of the law.

Is this story still incredibly tragic for the Meade family? Yes. His loss is simply awful. And I am sorry they felt they weren't heard. But it seems like there's mostly rumors etc about the teen driver, when the judge's job is to look at FACTS and make a decision.

Someone in an earlier post said that the judge himself appeared frustrated with the CA for giving him the limitation of a juvenile sentence. And that his rationale for one year followed by probation was that the kid had a better chance of not harming others if he was meeting regularly with the judge and getting help for his substance and mental health issues. I hope I got that right - I was not there, but it seemed like the earlier poster was and would likely be able to explain it. I didn't interpret it as the judge thinking it wasn't a very serious crime.