Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The drinking and drug use sure was premeditated. What was he intending when he drove 94 mph?
Choosing to drink and drive fast is not the same thing as choosing to kill someone.
People drink and drive fast fairly often and most of the time it does NOT result in death.
He wasn’t doing it with the intention of killing someone.
Maybe he didn’t intend it, but he also didn’t not intend it. You can’t drive almost 100 mph and then cry whoops I didn’t mean to hurt anyone! The second his foot pressed down that hard on the pedal he made it clear he didn’t care if someone died.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The drinking and drug use sure was premeditated. What was he intending when he drove 94 mph?
Choosing to drink and drive fast is not the same thing as choosing to kill someone.
People drink and drive fast fairly often and most of the time it does NOT result in death.
He wasn’t doing it with the intention of killing someone.
By saying this 12 times on this thread doesn't make it true.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The drinking and drug use sure was premeditated. What was he intending when he drove 94 mph?
Choosing to drink and drive fast is not the same thing as choosing to kill someone.
People drink and drive fast fairly often and most of the time it does NOT result in death.
He wasn’t doing it with the intention of killing someone.
Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the driver’s family has a crisis management / PR attorney helping them navigate this. If so, I can only assume they would tell the family and the family’s friends not to post disparaging accusatory things about the victim’s family’s response to the nearly non-existent criminal consequence imposed on the drunk driver. It increases outrage and reinforces the optics that the victim’s family’s interests were not taken into adequate consideration. Defending the prosecutor has the same effect, even if it’s motivated by a desire to show that the prosecutor’s decision was in line with what other prosecutors would have done. For purposes of persuading the posters here - that’s never going to be a winning argument. This is a website heavily populated by local parents, and can I tell you what every parent’s worst nightmare is? Having their child killed by a drunk driver and the driver all but getting away with it. Probably best to let the victim’s family freely air their grievances even if you think you have some great counter argument about rational decisions and juvenile Justice etc.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The drinking and drug use sure was premeditated. What was he intending when he drove 94 mph?
Choosing to drink and drive fast is not the same thing as choosing to kill someone.
People drink and drive fast fairly often and most of the time it does NOT result in death.
He wasn’t doing it with the intention of killing someone.
Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the driver’s family has a crisis management / PR attorney helping them navigate this. If so, I can only assume they would tell the family and the family’s friends not to post disparaging accusatory things about the victim’s family’s response to the nearly non-existent criminal consequence imposed on the drunk driver. It increases outrage and reinforces the optics that the victim’s family’s interests were not taken into adequate consideration. Defending the prosecutor has the same effect, even if it’s motivated by a desire to show that the prosecutor’s decision was in line with what other prosecutors would have done. For purposes of persuading the posters here - that’s never going to be a winning argument. This is a website heavily populated by local parents, and can I tell you what every parent’s worst nightmare is? Having their child killed by a drunk driver and the driver all but getting away with it. Probably best to let the victim’s family freely air their grievances even if you think you have some great counter argument about rational decisions and juvenile Justice etc.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.
A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).
While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.
You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )
One is rational. The other is not.
Again, YOU don’t get to decide that the decisions made were the correct ones. Judges and CAs aren’t infallible, they make bad decisions all.the.time. I love that you “respect the legal system” so much and think that it is always right. You must love the recent ruling out of Texas where the judge is trying to limit access to abortion/miscarriage drug mifepristone for the WHOLE COUNTRY by overturning an FDA approval of 20 years. You respect that decision, right?
Rational/irrational isn’t about being right/wrong. And there are also irrational decisions made within the judicial system.
In this case, the CA/judge rationally followed guidelines which were established to take emotion/bias out of these decisions.
This kid made a huge mistake with lethal consequences. But it wasn’t premeditated or even intentional. And his punishment wasn’t out of line from similar cases. He isn’t an exception here.
You could make him the poster boy for systemwide change, but you’ll need to change your message.
You’re interpretation, to me, is through rose-colored glasses. The guidelines are precisely that: guidelines designed ultimately to leave prosecutorial discretion with prosecutors. The CA has shown she will not charge any minor as an adult. Many people are rightfully asking they if not in this instance, when?
The CA made an intentional charging decision. A charging decision that boxed in the judge. She’s now hiding behind very carefully crafted lawyer speak hoping people like you will gloss over her decision as if she had no choice in the matter. She is strongly hoping that the voting public will ignore that it was her discretion she exercised in the charging decision. She does this enough, and she’ll set her movement back.
Maybe when she gets a case that actually meets the criteria.
This wasn’t a premeditated or even an intentional murder.
The law provides that the offender could have been charged as an adult because he was over 14 and he committed a felony. That it wasn’t premeditated or intentional IS A FACTOR in exercising discretion to not charge as an adult. That he was under the influence of multiple controlled substances after having been to rehab and driving 93 MPH resulting in the death of another minor IS A FACTOR IN FAVOR of exercising discretion and charging as an adult. The CA weighed the factors and exercised her prosecutorial discretion to not charge as an adult. Nonetheless, every element required under the law to charge as an adult was met. Stop acting like this wasn’t 100% her sole choice or that some guideline wasn’t met when it clearly was.
That the judge was boxed in on sentencing is totally derivative of the CA’s charging decision and he explained as much according to other posters in this thread.
Yes, the person posting over and over again defending this rich druggie kid is either with the CA’s office or a friend of the family of said rich druggie. Too bad they were such bad parents that a good kid had to lose his life over their enabling.
You do realize what you’re posting makes no sense, right? You want to conflate everyone who has respect for the legal system into one set of “bad parents” in order to make yourself feel better about your own unhinged, irrational hatred.
Anonymous wrote:The drinking and drug use sure was premeditated. What was he intending when he drove 94 mph?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.
A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).
While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.
You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )
One is rational. The other is not.
Again, YOU don’t get to decide that the decisions made were the correct ones. Judges and CAs aren’t infallible, they make bad decisions all.the.time. I love that you “respect the legal system” so much and think that it is always right. You must love the recent ruling out of Texas where the judge is trying to limit access to abortion/miscarriage drug mifepristone for the WHOLE COUNTRY by overturning an FDA approval of 20 years. You respect that decision, right?
Rational/irrational isn’t about being right/wrong. And there are also irrational decisions made within the judicial system.
In this case, the CA/judge rationally followed guidelines which were established to take emotion/bias out of these decisions.
This kid made a huge mistake with lethal consequences. But it wasn’t premeditated or even intentional. And his punishment wasn’t out of line from similar cases. He isn’t an exception here.
You could make him the poster boy for systemwide change, but you’ll need to change your message.
You’re interpretation, to me, is through rose-colored glasses. The guidelines are precisely that: guidelines designed ultimately to leave prosecutorial discretion with prosecutors. The CA has shown she will not charge any minor as an adult. Many people are rightfully asking they if not in this instance, when?
The CA made an intentional charging decision. A charging decision that boxed in the judge. She’s now hiding behind very carefully crafted lawyer speak hoping people like you will gloss over her decision as if she had no choice in the matter. She is strongly hoping that the voting public will ignore that it was her discretion she exercised in the charging decision. She does this enough, and she’ll set her movement back.
Maybe when she gets a case that actually meets the criteria.
This wasn’t a premeditated or even an intentional murder.
The law provides that the offender could have been charged as an adult because he was over 14 and he committed a felony. That it wasn’t premeditated or intentional IS A FACTOR in exercising discretion to not charge as an adult. That he was under the influence of multiple controlled substances after having been to rehab and driving 93 MPH resulting in the death of another minor IS A FACTOR IN FAVOR of exercising discretion and charging as an adult. The CA weighed the factors and exercised her prosecutorial discretion to not charge as an adult. Nonetheless, every element required under the law to charge as an adult was met. Stop acting like this wasn’t 100% her sole choice or that some guideline wasn’t met when it clearly was.
That the judge was boxed in on sentencing is totally derivative of the CA’s charging decision and he explained as much according to other posters in this thread.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.
A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).
While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.
You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )
One is rational. The other is not.
Again, YOU don’t get to decide that the decisions made were the correct ones. Judges and CAs aren’t infallible, they make bad decisions all.the.time. I love that you “respect the legal system” so much and think that it is always right. You must love the recent ruling out of Texas where the judge is trying to limit access to abortion/miscarriage drug mifepristone for the WHOLE COUNTRY by overturning an FDA approval of 20 years. You respect that decision, right?
Rational/irrational isn’t about being right/wrong. And there are also irrational decisions made within the judicial system.
In this case, the CA/judge rationally followed guidelines which were established to take emotion/bias out of these decisions.
This kid made a huge mistake with lethal consequences. But it wasn’t premeditated or even intentional. And his punishment wasn’t out of line from similar cases. He isn’t an exception here.
You could make him the poster boy for systemwide change, but you’ll need to change your message.
You’re interpretation, to me, is through rose-colored glasses. The guidelines are precisely that: guidelines designed ultimately to leave prosecutorial discretion with prosecutors. The CA has shown she will not charge any minor as an adult. Many people are rightfully asking they if not in this instance, when?
The CA made an intentional charging decision. A charging decision that boxed in the judge. She’s now hiding behind very carefully crafted lawyer speak hoping people like you will gloss over her decision as if she had no choice in the matter. She is strongly hoping that the voting public will ignore that it was her discretion she exercised in the charging decision. She does this enough, and she’ll set her movement back.
Maybe when she gets a case that actually meets the criteria.
This wasn’t a premeditated or even an intentional murder.
The drinking and drug use sure was premeditated. What was he intending when he drove 94 mph?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.
A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).
While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.
You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )
One is rational. The other is not.
Again, YOU don’t get to decide that the decisions made were the correct ones. Judges and CAs aren’t infallible, they make bad decisions all.the.time. I love that you “respect the legal system” so much and think that it is always right. You must love the recent ruling out of Texas where the judge is trying to limit access to abortion/miscarriage drug mifepristone for the WHOLE COUNTRY by overturning an FDA approval of 20 years. You respect that decision, right?
Rational/irrational isn’t about being right/wrong. And there are also irrational decisions made within the judicial system.
In this case, the CA/judge rationally followed guidelines which were established to take emotion/bias out of these decisions.
This kid made a huge mistake with lethal consequences. But it wasn’t premeditated or even intentional. And his punishment wasn’t out of line from similar cases. He isn’t an exception here.
You could make him the poster boy for systemwide change, but you’ll need to change your message.
You’re interpretation, to me, is through rose-colored glasses. The guidelines are precisely that: guidelines designed ultimately to leave prosecutorial discretion with prosecutors. The CA has shown she will not charge any minor as an adult. Many people are rightfully asking they if not in this instance, when?
The CA made an intentional charging decision. A charging decision that boxed in the judge. She’s now hiding behind very carefully crafted lawyer speak hoping people like you will gloss over her decision as if she had no choice in the matter. She is strongly hoping that the voting public will ignore that it was her discretion she exercised in the charging decision. She does this enough, and she’ll set her movement back.
Maybe when she gets a case that actually meets the criteria.
This wasn’t a premeditated or even an intentional murder.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.
A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).
While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.
You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )
One is rational. The other is not.
Again, YOU don’t get to decide that the decisions made were the correct ones. Judges and CAs aren’t infallible, they make bad decisions all.the.time. I love that you “respect the legal system” so much and think that it is always right. You must love the recent ruling out of Texas where the judge is trying to limit access to abortion/miscarriage drug mifepristone for the WHOLE COUNTRY by overturning an FDA approval of 20 years. You respect that decision, right?
Rational/irrational isn’t about being right/wrong. And there are also irrational decisions made within the judicial system.
In this case, the CA/judge rationally followed guidelines which were established to take emotion/bias out of these decisions.
This kid made a huge mistake with lethal consequences. But it wasn’t premeditated or even intentional. And his punishment wasn’t out of line from similar cases. He isn’t an exception here.
You could make him the poster boy for systemwide change, but you’ll need to change your message.
You’re interpretation, to me, is through rose-colored glasses. The guidelines are precisely that: guidelines designed ultimately to leave prosecutorial discretion with prosecutors. The CA has shown she will not charge any minor as an adult. Many people are rightfully asking they if not in this instance, when?
The CA made an intentional charging decision. A charging decision that boxed in the judge. She’s now hiding behind very carefully crafted lawyer speak hoping people like you will gloss over her decision as if she had no choice in the matter. She is strongly hoping that the voting public will ignore that it was her discretion she exercised in the charging decision. She does this enough, and she’ll set her movement back.
Maybe when she gets a case that actually meets the criteria.
This wasn’t a premeditated or even an intentional murder.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t think you get to foment a lynch mob that doesn’t respect that we have a functioning legal system to address such tragedies, and then call out other people as monsters.
A lynch mob? You are beyond dramatic. The Meades and others have a right to express their opinion that justice wasn’t served. You don’t get to decide that all the decisions that were made were the right ones and everyone should just shut up and be happy. I wonder if you are a friend of the boy’s family (which by the way, people know their names and everyone is protecting their privacy - hardly lynch mob behavior).
While posts get deleted when you start trying to doxx you still have a lynch mob mentality that betrays a lack of respect for our legal system. The community could not have done more to recognize their pain and share in their grief but now they’ve turned into ugly, vengeful vigilantes.
You’re deranged. They’re no more fomenting a lynch mob than you are. (Hint:neither are-both are criticizing. The difference is you are criticizing the grieving reactions and opinions of a bereft family and they are criticizing the work product of a public official. )
One is rational. The other is not.
Again, YOU don’t get to decide that the decisions made were the correct ones. Judges and CAs aren’t infallible, they make bad decisions all.the.time. I love that you “respect the legal system” so much and think that it is always right. You must love the recent ruling out of Texas where the judge is trying to limit access to abortion/miscarriage drug mifepristone for the WHOLE COUNTRY by overturning an FDA approval of 20 years. You respect that decision, right?
Rational/irrational isn’t about being right/wrong. And there are also irrational decisions made within the judicial system.
In this case, the CA/judge rationally followed guidelines which were established to take emotion/bias out of these decisions.
This kid made a huge mistake with lethal consequences. But it wasn’t premeditated or even intentional. And his punishment wasn’t out of line from similar cases. He isn’t an exception here.
You could make him the poster boy for systemwide change, but you’ll need to change your message.
You’re interpretation, to me, is through rose-colored glasses. The guidelines are precisely that: guidelines designed ultimately to leave prosecutorial discretion with prosecutors. The CA has shown she will not charge any minor as an adult. Many people are rightfully asking they if not in this instance, when?
The CA made an intentional charging decision. A charging decision that boxed in the judge. She’s now hiding behind very carefully crafted lawyer speak hoping people like you will gloss over her decision as if she had no choice in the matter. She is strongly hoping that the voting public will ignore that it was her discretion she exercised in the charging decision. She does this enough, and she’ll set her movement back.
Maybe when she gets a case that actually meets the criteria.
This wasn’t a premeditated or even an intentional murder.
Anonymous wrote:Parisi is a heroine for doing what is right rather than capitulating to a mob.