"I hit this white man"
You hear about this crazy woman?
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47480,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47480,00.html</a>;
She hits this guy, he's half sticking out of the windshield, she drives home, has sex with her boyfriend, they come out to check if the guy is dead, and leave him to die. NICE LADY!
not only should the woman get send up the river for a couple decades but her friends that helped her get rid of the body. Don't people have a consience any more?
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47480,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47480,00.html</a>;
She hits this guy, he's half sticking out of the windshield, she drives home, has sex with her boyfriend, they come out to check if the guy is dead, and leave him to die. NICE LADY!
not only should the woman get send up the river for a couple decades but her friends that helped her get rid of the body. Don't people have a consience any more?
Comments
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.
<strong>Black rage made her do it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<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>
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.
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>
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.
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?
<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. "
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.
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.
<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.
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.
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.