I don’t do personal injury law, but I don’t think it’s negligent to let some with drug and alcohol problems drive a car. Just because they use drugs/alcohol doesn’t mean they’re likely to drive impaired. (If they knew he drove impaired and let him drive anyway, then that’s entirely different).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You aren’t allowed to drive after midnight until you are 18 in VA.

They were both 17.

Yes. I thought that was the law too.

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.

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.

Well at the very least a civil suit would help their names become public so that they can’t hide behind their killer son’s status as a minor.

Anonymous wrote:If there was ever a time to try somebody under 18 as an adult, it would be this one. However, in my opinion, there is never a time to try a child as an adult. Any age cutoff is going to be imperfect but 18, while arbitrary, is the best we have for a dividing line.

Are you serious? So if a 17 year old catfished someone online, got them out to a wooded area, and then tortured/murdered them, you’d think yup, perfect case for juvie and back out on the streets by age 21?

C’mon. I don’t understand all you people acting like anyone under 18 who commits a crime just need some rehab and a hug to set them on the right path. The fact is sh!tty people who deserve to be locked away start making bad choices before adulthood and can’t be (or shouldn’t be) redeemed. Low expectations leads to bad outcomes. It’s not good for kids to grow up with adults who constantly make excuses for them and give chance after chance. I personally don’t want to live in a country full of entitled criminals who know the law won’t hold them accountable.

Sounds like the killer of Braylon Meade kept getting time away at rehab and then handed the car keys like nothing had happened. Maybe he wouldn’t be in this situation if an adult had actually stepped up and given him harsh consequences.

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.

It’s not even my kid who was killed, and I don’t know this family, but I still think a 1 year sentence for a drunk driving killing is completely absurd. It’s not based on “emotion” or a “cry for blood,” it’s based on the fact the punishment in no way reflects the severity of the crime. And FWIW while this is an egregious case, there are plenty of others where people are given pittance of sentences for killing someone while drunk driving. We are soft on DUIs in this country, which makes no sense, because the dangers of driving drunk are so well known and it’s so entirely avoidable to drink and drive. It’s a crime with one of the highest recidivism rates and yet we continue to give slaps on the wrist over and over. Not even a felony the first 2 times in Virginia. I think legislatively something needs to change.

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.

Anonymous wrote:You aren’t allowed to drive after midnight until you are 18 in VA.

They were both 17.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, A+ parenting on the part of the drunk's parents...why did he have access to a car?

I don't think this kid should be tried as an adult but it's possible that the parents deserve to be hit with a civil suit. I don't know the details though.

I'm curious about this. Will there be a civil suit and, if so, can the parents be held responsible? Also, where did the alcohol and drugs come from? Where were the kids in the SUV prior to the crash? Someone gave them alcohol.

You aren’t allowed to drive after midnight until you are 18 in VA.

Anonymous wrote:Wow, A+ parenting on the part of the drunk's parents...why did he have access to a car?

I don't think this kid should be tried as an adult but it's possible that the parents deserve to be hit with a civil suit. I don't know the details though.

If there was ever a time to try somebody under 18 as an adult, it would be this one. However, in my opinion, there is never a time to try a child as an adult. Any age cutoff is going to be imperfect but 18, while arbitrary, is the best we have for a dividing line.

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.

Ok, so let's let everyone get drunk and drive around like this. wtf is wrong with you

The point is that the kid probably didn’t believe he was going to kill anyone. It wasn’t “willful” or premeditated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your logic is bonkers, most of the time people do not drive 94 in a 30. And BTW these two happened within 6 months.

I’m sorry you struggle with math.

Most drivers don’t drive that fast.

Most of time when drivers do go that fast, they don’t kill people.

According to which statistics?

I drove OD multiple times per day and people fly on it when there isn’t traffic.

As for stats, in VA in 2018:
https://www.simmsshowerslaw.com/examining-virginia-traffic-data-for-reckless-driving-speeding/
98,000 people faced charges for driving at least 80 miles per hour;
2,135 people faced charges for driving between 100 and 129 miles per hour; and
17 people faced charges for driving at least 130 miles per hour.

Say 1% of those going 80+ were in Arlington: 980
Say 1% of those were residential: 9

And those are just the people who were caught and charged.

We don’t have 9 fatal accidents a year so most don’t result in killing someone.

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.

^To add, which isn't to say that I don't think this sentence is too lenient. It is.