Justice for Shameful Behaviour
June 26, 2003 4:45 PM Subscribe
The Windshield Killer: Chante Mallard's Timeline of Shame details what this woman did on the evening leading up to her high speed hit and attempted run when she was on drugs, had been drinking and hit a 37 year old homeless man named Gregory Biggs on the highway. After he lodged in her windshield, she tried to pull him out but couldn't. Instead she drove home, parked the car in the garage and let him bleed to death over the next two hours.
Why didn't she call the police or a doctor? She was too scared (read that, too wasted). Instead she had her boyfriend and cousin come and dump the body in a nearby park.
Today she was found guilty in 50 minutes by the jury.
(that wasn't worded right. More like 'felt sympathetic for'.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:06 PM on June 26, 2003
posted by Space Coyote at 5:06 PM on June 26, 2003
Murder - that's premeditated killing, right (well, it is in the UK)? Which she didn't do.
Manslaughter is when someone is killed by a reckless act, or non-premeditated violence (which she did do).
I would have thought that we ought to continue to make the distinction in law, as the same penalties for different acts - stringent penalties - brings discredit on the law.
IANAL.
YMMV.
IMHO.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:07 PM on June 26, 2003
Manslaughter is when someone is killed by a reckless act, or non-premeditated violence (which she did do).
I would have thought that we ought to continue to make the distinction in law, as the same penalties for different acts - stringent penalties - brings discredit on the law.
IANAL.
YMMV.
IMHO.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:07 PM on June 26, 2003
Well, I think that you could argue that it was premeditated, dash_slot. Not hitting the man with her car, but preventing him from receiving aid. He was alive for at least two hours in her garage, so she had a little bit of time to think about what she was going to do.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 5:10 PM on June 26, 2003
posted by LittleMissCranky at 5:10 PM on June 26, 2003
Exactly.
The prosecutors were arguing that she essentially committed murder by:
1. Failing to render aid; and especially
2. Preventing the man from receiving aid from someone else.
The first point was conceded by the defense. It's the second point that was in contention, and what eventually lead to being found guilty for the charge of murder.
This is murder 2, right?
posted by linux at 5:17 PM on June 26, 2003
The prosecutors were arguing that she essentially committed murder by:
1. Failing to render aid; and especially
2. Preventing the man from receiving aid from someone else.
The first point was conceded by the defense. It's the second point that was in contention, and what eventually lead to being found guilty for the charge of murder.
This is murder 2, right?
posted by linux at 5:17 PM on June 26, 2003
i live in the area and it was my understanding that the man lived for several *days*, begging her for help when she checked on him to see if he was dead yet. that's what the papers reported at the time.
posted by centrs at 5:21 PM on June 26, 2003
posted by centrs at 5:21 PM on June 26, 2003
preventing aid is murder, really. Else you could hide all the insulin away from a diabetic and it would be "manslaughter". hardly.
posted by dabitch at 5:29 PM on June 26, 2003
posted by dabitch at 5:29 PM on June 26, 2003
Why do people drink on ex? It's amazing how bad judgement can snowball.
posted by scarabic at 5:57 PM on June 26, 2003
posted by scarabic at 5:57 PM on June 26, 2003
Why do people drink on ex? It's amazing how bad judgement can snowball.
Why are people stoopid sometimes? It's amazing how bad judgement can snowball. Scarabic, your insight startles and amazes me. Sorry for the snarkiness, I blame the heat.
posted by billsaysthis at 6:04 PM on June 26, 2003
Why are people stoopid sometimes? It's amazing how bad judgement can snowball. Scarabic, your insight startles and amazes me. Sorry for the snarkiness, I blame the heat.
posted by billsaysthis at 6:04 PM on June 26, 2003
centrs, that's what I read originally too. And it certainly made it far more horrendous to think about 48 hours of agony and she could have done something. Does it change much that it was 2 instead of 48? I don't think so really.
What she did was cold and inhuman.
posted by fenriq at 6:11 PM on June 26, 2003
What she did was cold and inhuman.
posted by fenriq at 6:11 PM on June 26, 2003
The homicide definitions are somewhat tricky. Here in Texas, we don't have First-Degree and Second-Degree Murder (Murder 1 and Murder 2). We have "Capital Murder" - which is the worst offence, and just plain "Murder" - which is the equivalent of Second-Degree Murder in other states.
Capital Murder either requires premeditation, or a special class of victim (killing a cop or a kid) - or the killing of more than one individual - or the victim is killed while the accused is committing another felony crime.
Murder means the victim died because of some action or inaction on the part of the accused, but it wasn't necessarily planned, or didn't meet the Capital Murder definition.
Manslaughter means the person died because of some irresponsible act on the accused's part - but death was not the inevitable and foreseeable result of the act.
Criminally Negligent Homicide is the lower crime that would be similar to "Man 2" in other states.
In Texas - both Murder and Capital Murder are First-Degree felonies, the equivalent of "Murder One" in other states. The difference being, of course, capital murder carries the death penalty. So we sort of have Murder One and Murder One-Plus. What we call manslaughter is a second degree felony and equivalent to Murder Two in some states.
Also, our courts let the jury hear the evidence and then decide which category the homicide falls into, as opposed to requiring the DA to make the case for a specific charge. For instance, a person can be charged with Murder, but the jury decides the state did not make the case for it - but did make a case for Manslaughter.
posted by sixdifferentways at 6:15 PM on June 26, 2003
Capital Murder either requires premeditation, or a special class of victim (killing a cop or a kid) - or the killing of more than one individual - or the victim is killed while the accused is committing another felony crime.
Murder means the victim died because of some action or inaction on the part of the accused, but it wasn't necessarily planned, or didn't meet the Capital Murder definition.
Manslaughter means the person died because of some irresponsible act on the accused's part - but death was not the inevitable and foreseeable result of the act.
Criminally Negligent Homicide is the lower crime that would be similar to "Man 2" in other states.
In Texas - both Murder and Capital Murder are First-Degree felonies, the equivalent of "Murder One" in other states. The difference being, of course, capital murder carries the death penalty. So we sort of have Murder One and Murder One-Plus. What we call manslaughter is a second degree felony and equivalent to Murder Two in some states.
Also, our courts let the jury hear the evidence and then decide which category the homicide falls into, as opposed to requiring the DA to make the case for a specific charge. For instance, a person can be charged with Murder, but the jury decides the state did not make the case for it - but did make a case for Manslaughter.
posted by sixdifferentways at 6:15 PM on June 26, 2003
centrs - I get the feeling that the prosecution didn't want to press that point since it would be harder to prove. And that's a shame, because I think it should be considered during the sentencing phase.
posted by 2sheets at 6:24 PM on June 26, 2003
posted by 2sheets at 6:24 PM on June 26, 2003
Texas Penal Code definitions for murder, capital murder, manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide. They're kind of vague. Here's the relevent portion of the definition for murder:
posted by kirkaracha at 6:55 PM on June 26, 2003
(b) A person commits an offense if he:IANAL, but I don't see the intent to cause death in this case. I'd go either manslaughter or negligent homicide.
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;
posted by kirkaracha at 6:55 PM on June 26, 2003
I think it's here:
Intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual
From what I understand watching the trial on Court TV, she sat in the car and talked to the man before going into the house, went back out into the garage several times during the two hours he was still alive, and waited until he died to dispose of the body. I'd think just about anybody can realize that if you don't help the guy bleeding profusely in the windshield of your car, that he will probably die. Ms. Mallard was a nurse's aid, she had medical training, and thus absolutely no excuse for not understanding that failure to render aid would result in Mr. Biggs' death. That's intentionally and knowingly causing the death of an individual to me.
posted by headspace at 7:23 PM on June 26, 2003
Intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual
From what I understand watching the trial on Court TV, she sat in the car and talked to the man before going into the house, went back out into the garage several times during the two hours he was still alive, and waited until he died to dispose of the body. I'd think just about anybody can realize that if you don't help the guy bleeding profusely in the windshield of your car, that he will probably die. Ms. Mallard was a nurse's aid, she had medical training, and thus absolutely no excuse for not understanding that failure to render aid would result in Mr. Biggs' death. That's intentionally and knowingly causing the death of an individual to me.
posted by headspace at 7:23 PM on June 26, 2003
I think the point is that she made a conscious decision to carry out a course of action that she knew would lead to this man's death. She made the decision, and acted on it, and that resulted in his death. It was premeditated, no doubt. The fact that she didn't use her arm to plug a knife in him or something is immaterial.
posted by Poagao at 7:27 PM on June 26, 2003
posted by Poagao at 7:27 PM on June 26, 2003
She's a murderer and a racist. This sure beats the Jasper Texas dragging that liberals wanted to hang around Bush's neck. She let him die after hours of him calling for help from inside her garage.
Where is the outrage? I can't believe people here are arguing about whether this woman committed murder.
posted by paleocon at 7:35 PM on June 26, 2003
Where is the outrage? I can't believe people here are arguing about whether this woman committed murder.
posted by paleocon at 7:35 PM on June 26, 2003
paleocon: You neo-conservatives are always "playing the race card," aren't you?! Every little bad thing that happens because so-and-so "is a racist." Come on, don't you know racism is a thing of the past? We live in a colorblind society now. But seriously: The facts of this case aside, it is SO FUNNY to hear conservatives of most any stripe complaining about racism. It's like soap opera acting...you can't really be serious.
And I don't see that the facts of this case suggest anything having to do with racism. Just shocking inhumanity and depravity.
posted by micropublishery at 7:59 PM on June 26, 2003
And I don't see that the facts of this case suggest anything having to do with racism. Just shocking inhumanity and depravity.
posted by micropublishery at 7:59 PM on June 26, 2003
paleocon: What, exactly, are you talking about? There's no indication of racism playing a factor in this, as far as I can tell. She's a friggin' monster, but I don't think racism contributed to this act.
As for the "debate" about her charges, murder's not even a question - she killed this guy, deliberately. It originally started as an accident - if she had called 911 or done something similar, it'd have been just that, an accident. Instead, she then decided that because she was afraid of getting in trouble, it would be easier to let the guy die and hide the body.
Think about it - this poor guy was embedded in her windshield. One limb was nearly severed; two more were severely broken. She tried to pull him out, presumably to abandon him on the side of the road, before she got home.
She talked to him, repeatedly, while he died. He bled out over a period of hours. She waited until this guy died, then went about getting the body hid.
This selfish, cold-blooded bitch let this guy die because she was afraid of getting caught; it's easier to hide the body than explain how you ran smack into someone while on pot, Ecstacy, and booze. This wasn't someone who was "hysterical"; she friggin' waited until he stopped moving, then called friends to deal with the friggin' body!
She is most assuredly a murderer. I hope there's a special place in Hell, Hel, Acheron, wherever, for her.
posted by FormlessOne at 8:12 PM on June 26, 2003
As for the "debate" about her charges, murder's not even a question - she killed this guy, deliberately. It originally started as an accident - if she had called 911 or done something similar, it'd have been just that, an accident. Instead, she then decided that because she was afraid of getting in trouble, it would be easier to let the guy die and hide the body.
Think about it - this poor guy was embedded in her windshield. One limb was nearly severed; two more were severely broken. She tried to pull him out, presumably to abandon him on the side of the road, before she got home.
She talked to him, repeatedly, while he died. He bled out over a period of hours. She waited until this guy died, then went about getting the body hid.
This selfish, cold-blooded bitch let this guy die because she was afraid of getting caught; it's easier to hide the body than explain how you ran smack into someone while on pot, Ecstacy, and booze. This wasn't someone who was "hysterical"; she friggin' waited until he stopped moving, then called friends to deal with the friggin' body!
She is most assuredly a murderer. I hope there's a special place in Hell, Hel, Acheron, wherever, for her.
posted by FormlessOne at 8:12 PM on June 26, 2003
Is paleocon's post what they call "trolling?" Somebody help me learn something from all this...
posted by micropublishery at 8:20 PM on June 26, 2003
posted by micropublishery at 8:20 PM on June 26, 2003
kirkaracha: you left out.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:44 PM on June 26, 2003
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.If she had reported the accident, she would have been guilty of Intoxication Assault (a third degree felony.)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:44 PM on June 26, 2003
Also, there's the fact that not once did she show any remorse at all. How many opportunities did she need? After she hit him, she could've helped him, and turned herself in.
Instead, she waited for him to die, checking numerous times, and hid his body. That's pretty damned premeditated.
posted by graventy at 8:49 PM on June 26, 2003
Instead, she waited for him to die, checking numerous times, and hid his body. That's pretty damned premeditated.
posted by graventy at 8:49 PM on June 26, 2003
They showed on the local news tonight some of her testimony. They had footage of her going out to the same club that she was at the night this happened. The prosecuter asked her if she had assumed that she had gotten away with it. She said "somewhat". I damn near lost it.
It did only take her oh, a couple of years, to apologize to Mr. Biggs son. And her family (publicly, at least).
On preview: this comment is more in context after graventy's.
posted by Ufez Jones at 8:53 PM on June 26, 2003
It did only take her oh, a couple of years, to apologize to Mr. Biggs son. And her family (publicly, at least).
On preview: this comment is more in context after graventy's.
posted by Ufez Jones at 8:53 PM on June 26, 2003
I've been trying not to think about it but I have been.
The utter coldness of her action and shameful cowardly inaction after causing grievous harm to another human being, the lack of remorse, the attempted cover up and expection of getting away with it.
I wish Texas could find a way to put her down like the mad bad dog that she is.
The world is in no way enriched by her existence.
posted by fenriq at 9:11 PM on June 26, 2003
The utter coldness of her action and shameful cowardly inaction after causing grievous harm to another human being, the lack of remorse, the attempted cover up and expection of getting away with it.
I wish Texas could find a way to put her down like the mad bad dog that she is.
The world is in no way enriched by her existence.
posted by fenriq at 9:11 PM on June 26, 2003
micropublishery: neocons and paleocons, and how (perhaps) to tell the difference. Regardless, please don't feed the trolls animals.
The original news reports did suggest a longer period of his dying in the wreckage of her car, but later a more accurate timeline was released. I think we all know how much stock to put in initial news reports.
posted by dhartung at 9:29 PM on June 26, 2003
The original news reports did suggest a longer period of his dying in the wreckage of her car, but later a more accurate timeline was released. I think we all know how much stock to put in initial news reports.
posted by dhartung at 9:29 PM on June 26, 2003
While under no circumstances do I support execution by the state, life imprisonment doesn't seem like justice here.
Actually, even if she was too high/terrified this might be justice . . . Let's say life imprisonment inside a mental ward for 'clinically insane by reason of profound retardation?' I mean think about it, it certainly fits karmic justice in a way, and Lord knows it's true enough. It's life imprisonment + public condemnation/humiliation - that seems like a fitting sentence . . .
posted by Ryvar at 9:30 PM on June 26, 2003
Actually, even if she was too high/terrified this might be justice . . . Let's say life imprisonment inside a mental ward for 'clinically insane by reason of profound retardation?' I mean think about it, it certainly fits karmic justice in a way, and Lord knows it's true enough. It's life imprisonment + public condemnation/humiliation - that seems like a fitting sentence . . .
posted by Ryvar at 9:30 PM on June 26, 2003
The news reports here had he keeping him embedded in her windscreen for three days before he finally died.
Either way, this world has no place for someone who could act in such a callous manner.
posted by dg at 11:04 PM on June 26, 2003
Either way, this world has no place for someone who could act in such a callous manner.
posted by dg at 11:04 PM on June 26, 2003
paleocon: Where is the outrage?
Here. Here in this very thread. All over, actually.
You see anyone trying to excuse, justify or explain away her actions? Exactly how much outrage do you need?
Wipe some of the foamspittle from your chin, there's a good boy.
posted by adamgreenfield at 12:59 AM on June 27, 2003
Here. Here in this very thread. All over, actually.
You see anyone trying to excuse, justify or explain away her actions? Exactly how much outrage do you need?
Wipe some of the foamspittle from your chin, there's a good boy.
posted by adamgreenfield at 12:59 AM on June 27, 2003
Does it change much that it was 2 instead of 48? I don't think so really.
I do. The number of opportunities she had to correct her actions (and the fact that she skipped 'em all) aggravates the crime.
Then again, I am against the death penalty under any circumstance (I'm a big fan of better let a 100 guilty men go free than execute a single innocent one). And being intoxicated while committing a criminal act is (or should be) a mitigating circumstance. Still, she deserves a very stiff sentence.
posted by magullo at 4:15 AM on June 27, 2003
I do. The number of opportunities she had to correct her actions (and the fact that she skipped 'em all) aggravates the crime.
Then again, I am against the death penalty under any circumstance (I'm a big fan of better let a 100 guilty men go free than execute a single innocent one). And being intoxicated while committing a criminal act is (or should be) a mitigating circumstance. Still, she deserves a very stiff sentence.
posted by magullo at 4:15 AM on June 27, 2003
And being intoxicated while committing a criminal act is (or should be) a mitigating circumstance.
Why?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 4:40 AM on June 27, 2003
Why?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 4:40 AM on June 27, 2003
Slithy_Tove: Don't tell me you've never done something incredibly stupid while drunk?
posted by salmacis at 6:13 AM on June 27, 2003
posted by salmacis at 6:13 AM on June 27, 2003
For the same reason that you shouldn't drive while intoxicated: it impairs your judgement.
Here is a raw google search in which you can find among others the Arizona supreme court's thoughts on the matter.
posted by magullo at 6:19 AM on June 27, 2003
Here is a raw google search in which you can find among others the Arizona supreme court's thoughts on the matter.
posted by magullo at 6:19 AM on June 27, 2003
"It was Aristotle who said that a man who committed a crime because of intoxication was doubly guilty: both of the crime itself and of bringing about his loss of self-control..." Here is a brilliant discussion by Theodore Dalrymple of drunkenness as a mitigating/aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime.
posted by Faze at 6:54 AM on June 27, 2003
posted by Faze at 6:54 AM on June 27, 2003
paleocon: have you lost your cotton pickin' mind??
This woman is lower than snail shit and should stay in jail until her sociopathic corpse rots but to compare the two cases apples and oranges. Hell it's apples and aspargaus. Apples an weiner schnitzel.
Plus the guys in the Jasper case (at least one of 'em) is (deservedly) sitting on death row, in Texas. And I don't think anyone ever blamed Bush for it, nobody sane anyway.
Now take your meds.
posted by jonmc at 6:56 AM on June 27, 2003
This woman is lower than snail shit and should stay in jail until her sociopathic corpse rots but to compare the two cases apples and oranges. Hell it's apples and aspargaus. Apples an weiner schnitzel.
Plus the guys in the Jasper case (at least one of 'em) is (deservedly) sitting on death row, in Texas. And I don't think anyone ever blamed Bush for it, nobody sane anyway.
Now take your meds.
posted by jonmc at 6:56 AM on June 27, 2003
Yick.
posted by troutfishing at 7:37 AM on June 27, 2003
posted by troutfishing at 7:37 AM on June 27, 2003
Aristotle also said that if a man stole to be an adulterer, he was more of an adulterer than a thief. Which I interpret as: someone who kills only when drunk is more of a drunk than a killer.
posted by magullo at 7:49 AM on June 27, 2003
posted by magullo at 7:49 AM on June 27, 2003
I don't agree at all with paleocon's post, but just to give some background:
News reports at the time stated that her arrest took place after she told a friend at a party, "I killed some white man" and then started giggling.
Doesn't really help her case, but also doesn't make it the same thing as Jasper.
posted by zaack at 8:35 AM on June 27, 2003
News reports at the time stated that her arrest took place after she told a friend at a party, "I killed some white man" and then started giggling.
Doesn't really help her case, but also doesn't make it the same thing as Jasper.
posted by zaack at 8:35 AM on June 27, 2003
And being intoxicated while committing a criminal act is (or should be) a mitigating circumstance.
Er, no. We've tried that, and all it accomplished was everyone and their dog claiming innocence because they were too drunk to know better.
It's a great way to get off scot-free from your crimes. Drink a mickey, murder your wife, claim you were too drunk to know what you were doing, and voila!
No, what we need is to punish people even more so when they allow themselves to become so intoxicated that they commit crimes. Let it be a disincentive.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:46 AM on June 27, 2003
Er, no. We've tried that, and all it accomplished was everyone and their dog claiming innocence because they were too drunk to know better.
It's a great way to get off scot-free from your crimes. Drink a mickey, murder your wife, claim you were too drunk to know what you were doing, and voila!
No, what we need is to punish people even more so when they allow themselves to become so intoxicated that they commit crimes. Let it be a disincentive.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:46 AM on June 27, 2003
What galled me no end was to see her on the stand all teary and sad and apparently remorseful.
I watched a portion of Hannity and Colmes last night and Marcia Clark, of OJ trial fame, was debating the case with a defense lawyer.
Her take was that, sure she's remorseful now but that's because she got caught. Where was that remorse when there was a dead man lodged in her windshield? Where was that remorse when she allowed him to die? Where was that remorse when she tried to cover up the crime?
The only remorse this woman had was that she got caught.
Being wasted is no excuse either. If you can't be responsible drunk then you shouldn't be drinking. Or they wouldn't prosecute drunk drivers for killing people.
posted by fenriq at 9:54 AM on June 27, 2003
I watched a portion of Hannity and Colmes last night and Marcia Clark, of OJ trial fame, was debating the case with a defense lawyer.
Her take was that, sure she's remorseful now but that's because she got caught. Where was that remorse when there was a dead man lodged in her windshield? Where was that remorse when she allowed him to die? Where was that remorse when she tried to cover up the crime?
The only remorse this woman had was that she got caught.
Being wasted is no excuse either. If you can't be responsible drunk then you shouldn't be drinking. Or they wouldn't prosecute drunk drivers for killing people.
posted by fenriq at 9:54 AM on June 27, 2003
Er, no. We've tried that, and all it accomplished was everyone and their dog claiming innocence because they were too drunk to know better.
Sorry if it wasn't clear: mitigating circumstance does not mean acquittal by any stretch of the word. Besides, what is this "we've tried that"? This is how the actual law works in at least some places. Please do inform of where it was once a mitigating factor and then became an aggravating circumstance.
No, what we need is to punish people even more so when they allow themselves to become so intoxicated that they commit crimes.
Ah, yes. The Puritan view of intoxication (one mistake and you're out). Fuck that shit. Here's an idea: it'd be even easier to prevent lost of crimes by prohibiting the sale of alcohol altogether. Oh, wait ....
Or they wouldn't prosecute drunk drivers for killing people.
*Any* driver, drunk or not, who actually kills someone is at the very least investigated. If the law prohibits alcohol consumption while driving, then being drunk while at the wheel is clearly NOT a mitigating circumstance.
Disclaimer: I've already said that this particular person deserves a stiff penalty. Even if she was intoxicated and could not think clearly, she had plenty of chances to modify the outcome of the situation which she chose not to take. Her intoxication might be a mitigating factor. Then again, she has plenty of aggravating circumstances piling up on her.
posted by magullo at 10:18 AM on June 27, 2003
Sorry if it wasn't clear: mitigating circumstance does not mean acquittal by any stretch of the word. Besides, what is this "we've tried that"? This is how the actual law works in at least some places. Please do inform of where it was once a mitigating factor and then became an aggravating circumstance.
No, what we need is to punish people even more so when they allow themselves to become so intoxicated that they commit crimes.
Ah, yes. The Puritan view of intoxication (one mistake and you're out). Fuck that shit. Here's an idea: it'd be even easier to prevent lost of crimes by prohibiting the sale of alcohol altogether. Oh, wait ....
Or they wouldn't prosecute drunk drivers for killing people.
*Any* driver, drunk or not, who actually kills someone is at the very least investigated. If the law prohibits alcohol consumption while driving, then being drunk while at the wheel is clearly NOT a mitigating circumstance.
Disclaimer: I've already said that this particular person deserves a stiff penalty. Even if she was intoxicated and could not think clearly, she had plenty of chances to modify the outcome of the situation which she chose not to take. Her intoxication might be a mitigating factor. Then again, she has plenty of aggravating circumstances piling up on her.
posted by magullo at 10:18 AM on June 27, 2003
Ah, yes. The Puritan view of intoxication (one mistake and you're out). Fuck that shit.
Ah, yes. The straw man view of rhetoric (one exaggeration to the absolute and you're in). Fuck that shit. The woman in this case is by her own admission a drug addict. Addict, that means this is not her first drink. Hell, she was wasted on alcohol, extasy and pot when she impaled the poor man. So how does your argument hold fluid? Doesn't.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:26 AM on June 27, 2003
Ah, yes. The straw man view of rhetoric (one exaggeration to the absolute and you're in). Fuck that shit. The woman in this case is by her own admission a drug addict. Addict, that means this is not her first drink. Hell, she was wasted on alcohol, extasy and pot when she impaled the poor man. So how does your argument hold fluid? Doesn't.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:26 AM on June 27, 2003
This is a local story for me too, and I can vouch that the local news all carried the story that it took him 2 *days* to die. That being said, I think lethal injection is too good for her.
posted by dejah420 at 1:52 PM on June 27, 2003
posted by dejah420 at 1:52 PM on June 27, 2003
Sorry once again if I was not transparent. Maybe this is a better example: who is more dangerous, the person who has to be on the juice to gather the courage to kill someone or the one that does it out of sheer cold blood?
There is two parts in the story. She was at the wheel and hit someone. Alcohol in that case is an aggravating circumstance, as she should not be driving under the influence by law.
But the guy did not die immediately. Thus, that part of the crime stops well short of manslaughter, not to mention murder. Then the story gets incredibly gruesome and inhumane, which is precisely why it is critical to establish responsibilities. Otherwise we onlookers would be equally gruesome and inhumane. Wasted, she gets home and doesn't do anything. And the guy eventually dies.
If he died as a result of her denial of assistance exclusively (and was not terminal from the moment of the accident), the actual accident and its circumstances should no longer be part of the murder charges. My call is that she should be given the mitigating factor of being wasted and not thinking properly and the aggravating circumstances of watching a long agony, having time to changer her mind, and not do anything about it .
If you think being high should be an aggravating circumstance, then explain your position if the woman goes to sleep and wakes up with terrible hangover and, upon seeing the mess she is in, still decides to call the paramedics to save the guy's life even if it means that the police will eventually figure everything out and charge her.
posted by magullo at 3:18 PM on June 27, 2003
There is two parts in the story. She was at the wheel and hit someone. Alcohol in that case is an aggravating circumstance, as she should not be driving under the influence by law.
But the guy did not die immediately. Thus, that part of the crime stops well short of manslaughter, not to mention murder. Then the story gets incredibly gruesome and inhumane, which is precisely why it is critical to establish responsibilities. Otherwise we onlookers would be equally gruesome and inhumane. Wasted, she gets home and doesn't do anything. And the guy eventually dies.
If he died as a result of her denial of assistance exclusively (and was not terminal from the moment of the accident), the actual accident and its circumstances should no longer be part of the murder charges. My call is that she should be given the mitigating factor of being wasted and not thinking properly and the aggravating circumstances of watching a long agony, having time to changer her mind, and not do anything about it .
If you think being high should be an aggravating circumstance, then explain your position if the woman goes to sleep and wakes up with terrible hangover and, upon seeing the mess she is in, still decides to call the paramedics to save the guy's life even if it means that the police will eventually figure everything out and charge her.
posted by magullo at 3:18 PM on June 27, 2003
Chante Mallard: the conclusion.
How's 50 years for 50 minutes of jury deliberations sound?
Good for you? Yeah, good for me too.
Chante Mallard gets 50 Years for Greg Biggs' Death.
Is it justice? I don't know but I feel a little better knowing that she'll be paying for her crime for the next half century.
posted by fenriq at 4:48 PM on June 27, 2003
How's 50 years for 50 minutes of jury deliberations sound?
Good for you? Yeah, good for me too.
Chante Mallard gets 50 Years for Greg Biggs' Death.
Is it justice? I don't know but I feel a little better knowing that she'll be paying for her crime for the next half century.
posted by fenriq at 4:48 PM on June 27, 2003
Oops, looks like she may have gotten 60 years by another account. Who knows anymore?
60 Years for Windshield Killer
posted by fenriq at 4:50 PM on June 27, 2003
60 Years for Windshield Killer
posted by fenriq at 4:50 PM on June 27, 2003
...who is more dangerous, the person who has to be on the juice to gather the courage to kill someone or the one that does it out of sheer cold blood?
The drunk is more dangerous. My chances of being killed by a psychopath are pretty slim, but my chances of being killed by a drunk driver are appallingly high.
There's perhaps a murder or two per year in my town, and as far as I can remember, all but one case in the past decade has been between acquaintances.
Death by drunk driver, on the other hand, is upwards 10x more common. I'd walk around my town in the dead of night any day of the week... but I think twice about driving the highways on a Friday night.
I rather doubt the situation is any different where you live.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:16 PM on June 27, 2003
The drunk is more dangerous. My chances of being killed by a psychopath are pretty slim, but my chances of being killed by a drunk driver are appallingly high.
There's perhaps a murder or two per year in my town, and as far as I can remember, all but one case in the past decade has been between acquaintances.
Death by drunk driver, on the other hand, is upwards 10x more common. I'd walk around my town in the dead of night any day of the week... but I think twice about driving the highways on a Friday night.
I rather doubt the situation is any different where you live.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:16 PM on June 27, 2003
If he died as a result of her denial of assistance exclusively (and was not terminal from the moment of the accident), the actual accident and its circumstances should no longer be part of the murder charges. My call is that she should be given the mitigating factor of being wasted and not thinking properly and the aggravating circumstances of watching a long agony, having time to changer her mind, and not do anything about it.
Don't you think that the fact that the murder was committed in order to flee from the consequences of another crime (Intoxication Assault) makes the accident an important factor in the murder charges? That is really what elevates this crime from manslaughter or criminally negligent homocide to murder. Not that denied him aid, but that she denied him aid and desposed of his body in order to cover up another crime.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:53 PM on June 27, 2003
Don't you think that the fact that the murder was committed in order to flee from the consequences of another crime (Intoxication Assault) makes the accident an important factor in the murder charges? That is really what elevates this crime from manslaughter or criminally negligent homocide to murder. Not that denied him aid, but that she denied him aid and desposed of his body in order to cover up another crime.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:53 PM on June 27, 2003
« Older Strange Solutions For Population Decline | Amazon mystery box! Oooooh! Ahhhh! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Space Coyote at 5:06 PM on June 26, 2003