"I hit this white man"

Well, there have always been pathological people in evey society. But you put one in front of Jerry Springer and Real Stories of the Highway Patrol for about 10 years and this is what you get.

Black rage made her do it.

[quote]"She is not the monster that police and prosecutors are making her out to be," said her attorney, Mike Heiskell. "She was simply a frightened, emotionally distraught young woman who had an accident, panicked and made a wrong choice."

Heiskell said his client is only guilty of failing to stop and render aid not murder.<hr></blockquote>

What! :eek:

Failing to stop and render aid!?! You mean failing to stop, then leaaving him lodged in her windshield until he died! Even if the rest of the charges are not true that one alone whould convince me as a juror that she should serve time. That and this statement:

[quote]Mallard told authorities she was "messed up" on ecstasy and alcohol when she crashed her car into Biggs along a Ft. Worth highway near her house, according to the affidavit, and that after she struck the man, she got scared and continued driving home.<hr></blockquote>

If she goes free then there is no justice.

she'l get off on the plea that this is somehow a racist attack against her. in fact, the man she hit will be sued for causing her injustice.

If I was a lawyer, I wouldn't touch that case with a ten foot pole. I'd just be like, "Ha ha. Yeah, right."

[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Black rage made her do it.</strong><hr></blockquote>


<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>. . . . Don't people have a consience any more?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, but she doesn't.

If I were a laywer, I'd prosecute her and send her to jail for life. The only time race-relations become a problem is when one skirts the issue. Any lawyer who is able to confront race issues head-on is capable of bringing this bitch to justice.

The trouble is *grumble* that lawyers don't tend to be the sort of people with guts.

- - - -

But what REALLY pisses me off is that she gets income tax refunds. This is off-topic, but I just can't grasp the logic behind tax-refunds.

[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>

It's interesting that the adjective 'black', today, would be enough to seal the fate of a guilty white defendant. ie. "I hit this black man," from the mouth of a white defendant would instantaneously compound criminality with tones of hatred and subsequently agressive prosecution.

But in this case, the adjective 'white' -- "I hit this white man" -- functions only to inexplicably cast doubt on the guilt of a black defendant. Her lawyer feels justified in stating that she isn't the monster she's being made out to be. I don't understand. Similar statements would surely convict most white defandants as racist monsters before the case ever went to trial.

Come on activists, explain?

Would proposed hate crimes legislation be applicable in this case? You guys remember that, don't you? Where evidence, like a racial utterance, could be used to show that a crime was motivated by hate, and as such, deserving of a harsher than normal sentence. I bet Jesse Jackson and his ilk don't think that hate crimes legislation is such a good idea now.

BTW, there's no need to follow this case. The guy was homeless, and no amount of 'whiteness' can save you from being poor. Unless he has a rich family, that woman is gonna get a token sentence.

Hate crime? Depends on what crime you're talking about. Hitting the guy seems to be a drug induced accident. Still a crime but not motivated by hate. Also I think these low lifes would have done the exact same thing,leaving him to die, if the person had be white black or whatever. I'm sure this woman is racist (oooops I,m sorry it's not PC to point out racism in the black community) but I don't think her actions were motivated by race.


Here's a page on Black Rage for those who don't know.
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/1994/940606/940606.law.box.html" target="_blank">Black Rage: In Defense of a Mass Murderer</a>

[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>

Neither do I. But if a white defendant gives the slightest indication of racial bias (not even out-and-out racism) that's enough to do serious damage to his case, even when it has nothing to do with the alleged crime. A black defendant is not anly allowed to make racist impressions, he/she is often rewarded for them by a politics falling all over itself to 'understand' the plight and oppression of black people.

I disagree with hate crimes legislation: all crime ought to be severely punished. But, as you point out, we're only allowed to depict racism in one direction. If so, hate crimes legislation is inherently biased because it's underpinned by a tacit (and delusional) understanding that only white people hate.

If hate crimes legislation were in place here, and their skin colors were reversed, a court/prosecutor/community would create a lot of pressure to paint the defendant as racist -- to get that harsher penalty.

I'm all for harsher penalties, but not for that reason. All crime is inherently 'hateful,' we don't need to privledge color. Drug abuse, and unconscionable neglect should be enough to put anyone away for a long time.

50-30 years ago, America watched with horror, as entire communities (local PD's, Governors, and even local PTA's) excused and protected crimes in the deep south because the defendants were white. Today, an uncomfortable majority of blacks will excuse the crimes of black defendants principally because they are black, and most of the rest of us will be too tired to care.

Matsu, I think you're wrong if you're saying that black defendants somehow do better than whites. At least here in the US, there are still plenty of statistical disparities in how black and white defendants fare in the criminal justice system, and they don't favor blacks.

And I do think it's possible that with those statements, it could be prosecuted as a hate crime. This will probably be a high-profile case, with lots of angry whites looking for parallels to the Byrd case, and I'm sure some prosecutor looking for attention will try it.

I remember having these hate-crimes debates in the past, and the stats are that of all the racially-based hate crimes, about 1/3 are anti-white crimes, 2/3 anti-black. So it's not as if only whites are prosecuted with these laws.

And IIRC, even some blacks are prosecuted with hate crimes in anti-black crimes.

About that black rage defense - it wasn't used. Remember, Ferguson fired Kuntsler and represented himself (which was ridiculous - that guy never should have been allowed to represent himself).

Splinemodel - what's up with your comment re: tax refunds? You don't like the fact that people estimate their taxes throughout the year, and then adjust at the end? Or is it something else I'm not getting?

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Splinemodel - what's up with your comment re: tax refunds? You don't like the fact that people estimate their taxes throughout the year, and then adjust at the end? Or is it something else I'm not getting?</strong><hr></blockquote>

"Mallard told investigators she removed the car seats and burned them because she was afraid of being caught and going to jail, according to the affidavit, which states she planned to burn the car and buy another one after receiving her income tax refund. "

actually hitting the guy may well have been an accident. fair enough, still a crime, like scott said. leaving him in her garage to die was most certainly a hate crime. telling her friends "i hit this white man," and giggling makes that clear enough. the man was tortured. it wasn't like the impact killed him he bled to death. i'm in favor of special laws against hate crimes, and i think they should apply in this case.

I read about this on Wednesday and e-mailed that story to EVERYONE I knew.

I was curious as to when it would finally make its way here to AI.



For the record, this woman deserves everything she gets. It goes beyond a "simple accident". A "simple accident" is hitting the poor bastard, then calling 911.

Leaving him IN YOUR WINDSHIELD and in the garage for three days to slowly die from blood loss and shock IS NOT simple negligence or whatever.

And race (that of the victim or offender) has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

If there has EVER been a case of right vs. wrong, this would be it.

And yes...I'd feel just as strongly if a white guy had hit a black homeless woman.

Don't even start with me.

I think the comment about black people getting by with saying "I hit a white man" is true. If the woman were white and the victime black, and she said she "hit a black man" to impress someone at a party, then the minority activist would be all up in arms about how this was an injustice. I think special hate crimes laws are pointless, what do you get more for a murder thats racially motivated, than one that isn't? Double the lethal injection? Oooh.
More laws won't make this a better place to live, upholding the ones that count will. Giving a woman $16,000 for spilling coffee on herself at a McDonald's won't make people better off for being greedy, finding a woman guilty of drowning her 5 kids may make her family realize that it was stupid to have allowed their whole drama occur.
People wanting something for nothing in this country makes me sick. Whether it's race or gender based, we are all responsible for ourselves, I don't owe society what I haven't taken from it.
Read 'Atlas Shrugged'
Sorry for the rant.

[quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:
<strong>"...she planned to burn the car and buy another one after receiving her income tax refund. "</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, but this is what Splinemodel said:
[quote]But what REALLY pisses me off is that she gets income tax refunds. This is off-topic, but I just can't grasp the logic behind tax-refunds.<hr></blockquote>I was just asking why he doesn't grasp the logic behind tax-refunds.

BRussel,

Nah, I don't think that black defendants do better than white ones. They don't. Rich defendants do better than poor ones, everybody knows that. White victims have tended to do better than black ones, this is true. One case that people haven't really looked at is, how rich victims do relative to poor ones. My guess is that this would probably be most enlightening if anyone cared to tally it up. Money certainly falls on some defined color lines. Yet, I think victims rights (who gets the most legal satisfaction against their offenders) probably counts for a lot more than we care to admitt. A while ago it was popular to say courts had more sympathy for white victims than black ones -- probably somewhat true. No one really claims that courts have more sympathy for wealthy victims than poor ones -- but I think it might be not only true, but also more telling than similar black vs white comparisons.

However, the press and the public are much more willing today to give black racist attitudes way more play than they would to anything even remotely, possibly, construed as racist from whites. This makes hate crimes laws a bad idea simply because there's too much public bias invested in who gets prosecuted and who doesn't under these laws. There would be a LOT of pressure to go to town on the defendant if their skin colors were reversed. Activists have even suggested that this is 'OK/necessary' because it balances a systemic pressure to be harder on black defendants. PScates is absolutely right in that each defendant/case ought to be looked at based solely on the facts, I don't disagree.

This is the first I've read about this case, and the context of the utterance made me think about the politics behind hate crimes laws and their implementation, even if I agree that they really have nothing to do with this defendant or the facts of this case.

sorry, but i don't agree. if a white dude said "i hit this black guy" that's just a statement of fact. there's nothing racist in that statement. i don't think there's anything racist about saying "i hit this white dude" either. if you said i hit a cracker, or a nigger, or a spic, something along those lines, then you have a point.

saying someone is black, or someone is white, or asian or hispanic is just a descriptive statement that touches on the most immediately verifiable characteristics. sex, race, height. a tall white dude can really narrow down who you're looking for. in this case the guy was in a windshield, so height is thrown out. then you have sex and race.

dunno, maybe it's just me, but i really don't see the racist aspect here.

I'm not saying it's racist, I'm saying that certain public/political concerns will very quickly, very selectively, paint certain actions/speech as racist while ignoring comparable action and speech from the other side.

BRussell, put 2 and 2 together. I was referring to income tax refunds. I especially don't understand income redistribution when the recipients use the money to buy drugs or indulge themselves in crime.

racist or not, the lady needs to be prosecuted. She was stupid to be driving under the influence of drugs AND alcohol. And she was using that as a defense of her actions??? "It's not my fault, i was driving drunk and messed up on ecstasy." (paraphrased) :confused:

Send her through the justice system, and if she does not end up at least behind bars for 10-20 then there is no justice in this case.

[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>racist or not, the lady needs to be prosecuted. She was stupid to be driving under the influence of drugs AND alcohol. And she was using that as a defense of her actions??? "It's not my fault, i was driving drunk and messed up on ecstasy." (paraphrased) :confused:

Send her through the justice system, and if she does not end up at least behind bars for 10-20 then there is no justice in this case.

[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

OK, I have a question.... Lets say she is tried for murder, and by some miracle is found not guilty. Can she be tried again for involuntary manslaughter or something or DUI? what will happen if she is found not guilty? Can they prosecute her for something else?

[quote]Originally posted by psantora:
<strong>OK, I have a question.... Lets say she is tried for murder, and by some miracle is found not guilty. Can she be tried again for involuntary manslaughter or something or DUI?</strong><hr></blockquote>She can't be tried for the same crime again - double jeopardy. But she could be sued in civil court by the family of the victim, like OJ. Or in a different jurisdiction, like for some federal crime, like the Rodney King cops.

[quote]OK, I have a question.... Lets say she is tried for murder, and by some miracle is found not guilty. Can she be tried again for involuntary manslaughter or something or DUI? what will happen if she is found not guilty? Can they prosecute her for something else?<hr></blockquote>

from my understanding, nothing directly related to the murder charge could go. so manslaughter is out.

however, they could do D.U.I., posession of an illegal substance, hit and run, leaving the scene of a crime, etc..

there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I believe it's Hammurabi's code wherein any crime commited while intoxicated automatically carried a more severe penalty. Smart guy, that Hammurabi -- only took us the better part of a century to figure out the same thing. Can you imagine that, as little as 30 years ago, drunkedness was on the books as a successful defence of rape?

Oh man, she has SERIOUS problems. Talk about a stupid b!tch. However I dont see how she can get more than man slaughter and perhaps gross negligence.

[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
<strong>Oh man, she has SERIOUS problems. Talk about a stupid b!tch. However I dont see how she can get more than man slaughter and perhaps gross negligence.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Naw. They could swing reckless homocide. I think that's worse?

[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
<strong>Oh man, she has SERIOUS problems. Talk about a stupid b!tch. However I dont see how she can get more than man slaughter and perhaps gross negligence.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What are the laws in her state for killing someone while DUI? Any good sam. laws there? How about inhumane treatment laws? Drug use laws? And truthfully, she had him in her car, she could have driven him to the hospital or called 911 and saved his life and chose not to. Murder.

1. She GIGGLED that she 'hit this white guy."
2. She is/was a NURSE of some kind, or attended nursing school.

Burn her down.

Aries 1B

[quote] BRussell, put 2 and 2 together. I was referring to income tax refunds. I especially don't understand income redistribution when the recipients use the money to buy drugs or indulge themselves in crime.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<hr></blockquote>

Tax refunds have nothing to do with income redistribution. They are merely a return of a tax overpayment.

More to the point this story is just horrible. I just can't even get my head around it.

[quote]Originally posted by psantora:
<strong>Can they prosecute her for something else?</strong><hr></blockquote>Well, it happened. The victim's son sued the woman in civil court.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/15/hitandrun.death.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/15/hitandrun.death.ap/index.html</A>

[quote]A high school senior, Brandon Biggs said last week he was not angry at Mallard and wanted to meet her to better understand what she did. He declined to comment on the lawsuit Thursday. <hr></blockquote>

Why? Why is he not angry? Why does he care why she did what she did? What is there to understand? Does he really believe she would tell the truth if he got a chance? This article makes it sound like all he cares about is getting a big pile of money and he could care less otherwise. I hope that is not the case. Human life boiling down to a pile of cash... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

The coroner has said that if she had called 911, that the man would probably have survived.
The case is now a murder case.

If conficted she wont get 10-20, she could be executed.

This is why we have the death penalty. It's for sick and twisted people like this. Don't bother to try to justify it, I don't want to hear it. This woman doesn't deserve to live one more day. Don't mess with Texas.

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

Why? Why is he not angry? Why does he care why she did what she did? What is there to understand? Does he really believe she would tell the truth if he got a chance? This article makes it sound like all he cares about is getting a big pile of money and he could care less otherwise. I hope that is not the case. Human life boiling down to a pile of cash... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

If it was me, and my father had been killed in this manner, I'd want to get in close to within arms reach. You'd be suprised what you can do to another human being, and how quickly, with just your hands.

Of course, I do not advocate him taking the law into his own hands; the wheels of justice are going to ground this woman to dust and bully for justice.

Aries 1B

NoahJ:

1) If you would RTFA you would see that he tried to keep close with his father.
2) This "human being" might very well get off with 5 years prison, she needs to be ruined for the rest of her life.
3) He is not going to get a pile of cash from her. He's not taking Bill Gates to court, genius, use your brain cells.