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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's outrageous that the killer will be walking free in a year with no record. His age shouldn't matter at all.

The actual crime is what should count. You kill someone drunk driving, it should be a minimum 10 years regardless of your age.

There's a reason you're not in charge.

I think it's outrageous that the killer will be walking free in a year with no record. His age shouldn't matter at all.

The actual crime is what should count. You kill someone drunk driving, it should be a minimum 10 years regardless of your age.

Anonymous wrote:This prosecutor is not only soft on crime but incompetent. Cases have been thrown out because of sheer incompetence, cases that EVERYONE agrees should be prosecuted. She has never worked in a prosecutor's office and truly has no idea what she is doing.

She was a public defender with a background in “innocence protection.” She came into the job billing herself this way basically (soft on crime) and people voted for it. While I don’t mind rehabilitation being a part of the criminal justice system, particularly for non-violent crimes, I think things are going too far. It feels like the well-being of defendants is taking priory over actual the actual justice part. I mean, I make my kids deal with actual consequences when they do something they’re not supposed to. Who are we helping if we just give everyone a slap on the wrist?

A friend of mine was shot and killed (wrong place at the wrong time) by a 23 year old who had already had charges dropped down on a prior gun charge so that he was set free. This was in a different state, but it seems to be happening all over. It’s like first offenses (gun crimes, DUIs, theft, etc.) are treated as an oops! So let’s give the criminals a second chance to hurt someone else.

There’s a statistically good chance Braylon’s killer will end up hurting someone else. I have no faith a year in jail will cause any real turnaround for someone who has been in and out of rehab already.

This prosecutor is not only soft on crime but incompetent. Cases have been thrown out because of sheer incompetence, cases that EVERYONE agrees should be prosecuted. She has never worked in a prosecutor's office and truly has no idea what she is doing.

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.

This 17 year old should have been tried as adult. While it wouldn't have, as you so thoughtfully put it "do squat for the family's pain," stricter sentences for crimes as horrific as this one would serve as a deterrent. If other teens saw another teen sentenced as an adult for drunk driving in this manner, and saw it wasn't just a slap on the wrist, perhaps they would think twice before putting themselves and others at risk.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, parents of the killer are also to blame. I cannot imagine letting my child who is a known drug and alcohol abuser in a car after midnight. Shame on them.

They have blood on their hands for sure. If they have any integrity they will devote their lives to educating other parents about the dangers of letting someone with substance abuse have access to your car, and they will pay a large civil settlement to the victim’s family. But my guess is they’ll use their resources to avoid any sort of accountability. I read in another post the mom is a lobbyist. Probably some rich McLean family raising the next affluenza kid.

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.

Sorry, parents of the killer are also to blame. I cannot imagine letting my child who is a known drug and alcohol abuser in a car after midnight. Shame on them.

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.