I wrote three articles on Cameron Herrin in my own Medium, if you care to see them. This horrific accident took place about 26 miles from my home, on a street where I have been both driver and pedestrian.

Cameron Herrin has attracted a cult following. I would not say that Uvebruce is one of these cult followers. He simply argues that Herrin's sentence is too harsh.

Cameron's cult followers, by contrast have invented obscene lies, pretending that Cameron Herrin is some innocent victim who didn't do anything wrong. If nothing else can be said for Uvebruce, at the very least he isn't buying into these ridiculous conspiracy theories that have cropped up on social media.

For instance, that Jessica was drunk and wanted to commit suicide, so it's really her fault. Or that John is the one who really hit them, but they're making poor innocent Cammy-poo take the fall.

Jessica was a devout fitness addict. I don't think she'd be out drinking at 11:00 AM while walking her baby. And as for John hitting them, Cameron's older brother Tristan was a passenger in Cameron's car during the accident; I think Tristan would have come forward if Cameron were being blamed for something he didn't do.

I don't dislike Uvebruce, but I have a hard time discussing this issue with him. He doesn't seem to handle correction very well. For instance, one of his articles claimed that the judge considered trying Cameron as a minor. That is not possible. Cameron is 18. There is no provision to try adults as minors in the state of Florida.

What he meant (and he has since corrected) is that the judge considered trying Cameron Herrin as a "youthful offender," not a minor. A youthful offender is a first-time offender who is 18-20 years of age, they have certain restrictions on their sentencing. And the judge has no obligation to try all 18-20 year-olds as "youthful offenders."

Another complaint he made is about the supposed inconsistency. Referring to an incident that occurred in England over someone who drove on the wrong side of the street in England and killed two people.

The problem with that is twofold: the crime occurred in England, where the U.S. has no jurisdiction, and the driver in question has diplomatic immunity. It's not that we refuse to try this woman; it's that we can't. Can't. Can't. Can't. Diplomatic immunity is covered by International Law, of which the U.S. is a signatory. We cannot countermand international law.

Seriously, if you want to read some factual information about this, please check out my articles. Since, based on your screen name, you seem to be interested in this topic.