Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

I said it was his drunk driving and speeding that killed another child. If that characterization sounds harsh to you, it’s not because I need therapy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

Amen! It’s understandable to be angry about what happened. But things really wouldn’t have been different under an office run by Josh. *Maybe* he would have been a little more warm and fuzzy in the meeting with Braylon’s family, but the truly upsetting part - that a promising young man died and the driver didn’t receive a harsh sentence - is not Parisa’s fault. Josh has admitted he wouldn’t have tried or been able to try the driver as an adult.

I read the recent piece in the Gazette from Braylon’s dad maintaining that Josh hasn’t taken advantage of Braylon’s mom, Rose. I don’t think he has taken advantage of HER, as I think she’s more than capable of deciding if/when/why to get involved, but I think Josh has taken advantage of the situation. And that’s why he lost my vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

You keep mischaracterizing people's comments when all posters are trying to do is point out why the victim's contributory negligence (or allegations thereof) may have factored into prosecutorial, sentencing, and personal decisions.

The drunk driver was also a kid, but you try to portray him as an adult (which he wasn't) and a monster (which he isn't). I repeat: he was also a kid, who made some very bad decisions that took one life and likely will shape his entire life. What you never acknowledge was that the person he most stood to put at risk through his reckless behavior was himself, but that never registers with you, so you continue to embarrass yourself with your mischaracterizations, your visceral hatred, and your rancor.

You should get therapy. And thank God this wretched primary will be over in less than a week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

I’m entirely uninterested in the politics here. What doesn’t “sit well” with me are the posters who want to sanitize what happened by pointing to the victim’s U-turn as if that’s an equally important concern we should all be wrestling with. A drunk driver killed a kid. I repeat: a drunk driver killed a kid. It was his fault. He did it. If he hadn’t been drunk, this wouldn’t have happened. If he hadn’t been speeding like a maniac, this wouldn’t have happened. This was an unspeakable tragedy and probably would have presented difficult challenges for any prosecutor in Arlington, but don’t you dare tell me that I’m blinded by politics in my disgust. A mother lost her child to a speeding drunk driver. That is the only important fact here. I’m sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Unauthorized U-turns on a road with considerable traffic aren't consistent with the notion of ordinary care, so it very well may have been a valid argument to mitigate (not eliminate) liability and any damages. So as others have noted that fact probably has not been lost of relevant parties at various times. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with your efforts to politicize this tragic incident on behalf of Katcher, Kehoe, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

The U-turn would have been perfectly safe absent a car proceeding at twice the legal speed limit with an intoxicated driver behind the wheel. They can argue contributory negligence, but they’re wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.

I'm not going to go back and read all the posts, but suspect someone just pointed out that contributory negligence can be a (partial) defense in a trial, which is true in Virginia. I have a hard time imagining anyone would claim the two kids were equally at fault.

Anonymous wrote:Whomever keeps appearing on these threads trying to convince us that a teen driving late at night and taking U-turns is just as bad as a driver who was driving twice the speed limit while intoxicated and killed someone in the process … you are literally the worst person on all of DCUM, and that’s a hard badge to earn. Quibble all you want about what makes a good prosecutor, but let’s be very clear about what type of conduct is morally reprehensible and what type of conduct is not.