Chante Mallard - case/trial/verdict

I don't think race was a factor in this case as much as Texas played. The sentence is a bit on the harsh side but nothing unusual for Texas. Of course it is a fine example of the difference between manslaughter and murder. There was a certain loss of logic in the ensuing cover up, but these people are probably lacking for specific legal common sense. Without the cover up she probably would have given community sevice and a periodic date with a parole officer. Now whe'll be 60 when she is finally let out.
 
if you give her 50 years u might as well shoot her , at leats that would have SOME use , this ridiculous its jurisdiction based on spite , I wonder when they bring back the torture-chambers .
 
She drives into someone, lets him die over several hours in her garage, checking on him from time to time, and then she hides the body and is only caught because she brags about it at a party?
Screw 50 years, that's a lifetime sentence right there.

What I want to know is what the hell the two people that helped her dump the body were thinking - I mean, it's a dead body embedded in her windscreen in her garage - what the hell did they think had happened?
 
Screw 50 years, that's a lifetime sentence right there

Why ? What use does it have ? Just to punish her ? Why not give her 10 years of sevre torture instead ? Why not 50 with occasional torture ? Why life ? Why not shoot her ? Because its not humane ? Its alot more humane than locking them up for the rest of their life , thats like enslavement . This is totally useless .
 
Jihad,
In this case we know it was her. But the US legal system has proven time and again that it is not unusual to convict an innocent person of a crime for which execution would be the penalty.
You cannot use one case to justify corporal punishment - because the same logic dictates that we execute all muslims because one muslim was involved in a terroist act.
So you stick her in a cell and let her live out her life in it. After all, if you kill her, then *bang* that's it. Her victim took hours to die an unpleasant and painful death - are you suggesting that we reward that with a clean neat one?
To heck with that. And to heck with "divine justice". I want secular justice, thanks, and one I can both accept and endorse.
 
Her victim took hours to die an unpleasant and painful death - are you suggesting that we reward that with a clean neat one?

his is jurisdiction based on emotion Sparks , simply for the "feeling" of it . It doesnt solve anything to make the person suffer , its just in order to satisfy emotions , and it shouldnt be at the basis of a law-making apparatus .

And to heck with "divine justice

What do you mean ?

After all, if you kill her, then *bang* that's it

This is a very good point , it is irreversable . Still I would not exclude the "possibility" (I know USA proves different as a system) of a just conviction . In a case where we know it , like this one , like you said this is the question .

You cannot use one case to justify corporal punishment - because the same logic dictates that we execute all muslims because one muslim was involved in a terroist act.

First of all the same logic does not indicate this one bit , I dont even see close resemblance but I know you are very reasonable so it must make some sense , could you plase share this sense with me .

In any way what does not make sense is giving me specific "muslim"" examples to give (as you intend) the argument an emotional twist for me to "better" understand it . I wish you didnt do so Sparks , I hoped that you knew this kind of reasoning wasnt one you could apply on me .

But lets get back to the "punishment" . Suppose that you do know , why is it necesarry to bring in this emotional proces of "justice being done" (somewhat toward Kantianism) , while it does not benefit anything else then some irrational feelings ? My idea of enprisonment is that it should have result other than something dealing with pure spite of "do to others what they do to you" . This reasoning reminds me of Hamas retalliations , if we are gonna bring in Muslims on this one .
 
Jihad,
"divine justice" meaning "if we kill her, she'll be punished in the afterlife".

The logic is that if you set a precedent with one case, it's like setting policy from one incident, so:
She did commit the crime, we know this, so we bring in the death penalty : is analagous to : We know islamic fundamentalists flew the planes on 9/11, so we'll kill islamic fundamentalists.
 
"divine justice" meaning "if we kill her, she'll be punished in the afterlife".

Ok then basically I have little to do with that kind of mentality as well . My idea of shooting her had little to do with afterlife , but with garbage-disposal if you feel she aint wanted anymore in society , wich is not something that I can understand after what she did .

The logic is that if you set a precedent with one case, it's like setting policy from one incident, so:

Thats a very very simplistic logical compare , and it wasnt my point :

She did commit the crime, we know this, so we bring in the death penalty

We dont bring in the death penalty because we know SHE did it . We bring in death-penalty for other reasons like , this is at all how my logic worked .

We know islamic fundamentalists flew the planes on 9/11, so we'll kill islamic fundamentalists.

Its not so because the relation between islamic fundie & wtc isnt the same as SHE (murderer) & death penalty . The KNOWLEDGE of her killing is rellevant , the KNOWLEDGE of fundie's isnt . Your analogy is more like : She is a woman so we kill all woman .

Anyways ........ its we dont know about wtc , but thats another discussion u know where .
 
Justice in America.....

Originally posted by god is irrelevant
Check this out, if you haven't seen it already.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/28/windshield.side/index.html

What does everyone think about the sentence, and about the case in general? Did Mallard get a fair punishment for her crime?
Click to expand...

Scene I: 1:45 AM, Chante Mallard, a young black woman in a ecstacy/:m:/alcohol stupor after attending a party is driving home.

Scene II: 2:05:01 AM, A homeless, shoeless derelict dressed in dark clothing; probably drunk, or in a drug induced stupor, is walking across a public highway at 2:00 AM.

Scene III: 2:05:03 AM, They meet in the middle of that road with a thundering "THUMP" sending him over the hood and into the cars windshield where he somehow gets stuck in the shattered windshield.

Scene IV: 2:05:04 AM, Chante feels the THUMP but is too high/drunk to think straight - her 1st instinct is to flee home.

Scene V: 2:08 AM, Chante notices this man stuck in her windshield but remembers what her mother taught her about picking up strangers on the road and especially at night so she continues on home.

Scene VI: 2:42 AM, Chante gets home and wonders why the guy is so persistent - he's still on her hood and groaning! Getting up later that morning and seeing the man is still there on the hood of the car - she thinks about calling 9-11 but she is black and she knows that blacks just don't call cops - besides her head feels the size of a watermelon!

Scene: VII: 6:02 AM, Chante can't sleep and goes out and sees that by now he has stopped groaning - she thinks about calling 9-11 again but knows the police won't believe her if she tells them he walked into her path.

Scene VIII: 6:10 AM, Chante calls her father and tells him that there is a man sleeping in her garage a top her car - he suggests she call the police.

Scene VIV: 6:22 AM, Chante smokes another joint and wonders if she opens the garage door maybe the guy will leave.

Scene X: 6:45 AM, Chante sees the damage this guy has caused and decides to call 9-11 and file a complaint.

Scene XI: 7:05 AM, Chante smokes another joint and pops another ecstasy pill.

Scene XII: 7:23 AM, Chante meets the cops at the house and is promtly arrested after the cops see the dead man on her car and the gory mess that meets them - she reeks of :m: and her eyes are glassy.

Scene XIII: 8:12 AM, Chante is booked and the victims ID in his wallet leads them to his family.

Scene XIV: 10:43 AM, The family upon being notified of their fathers death is angry and they tell the cops how much they loved their dad.

Scene XV: 10:45 AM, The cops ask the mans family that if they loved him so much why was he living in the streets penniless and homeless.

Scene XVI: 10:47 AM, The family GULPS and remains silent.

16 months later......

Chante Mallards county defense attorney depicts her as a hardworking introverted little girl who finished high school in record time, sang in the church choir and has worked over the past 38 months caring for people at an old folks home. She has bought a home on her own and purchased a nearly new car all with her hard earned savings. He reminds them that she HAS NEVER BEEN IN TROUBLE BEFORE, other than for 1 moving violation traffic citation.

The prosecution depicts Chante as a horrible person who smokes pot, drinks alcohol and does other drugs for recreation ( a black G. W. Bush YALIE type, huh folks? ). They all but accuse her of chasing the man down on the highway and killing him just to be a b!tch - and a black b!tch at that!

They neglect to mention the man was dressed in dark clothing and that at 2:00 AM it is pitch black on the highway and that he probably would have been killed even if the Pope, sans his NO DOZE pills, had been the driver of Mallard's car.

Of course, because Chante Mallard is black ( strike #1 ), having no influential family backing her ( strike #2 ), living in a racist state - Texas (Strike #3 ) and having a Public Defender for a defense ( SOL ) she receives a quick 50 year sentence from a jury of her peers ( not one black on the jury ) and, if she's REAL LUCKY will get out in 25, if she succumbs to all the Lesbians, pervert guards and all the other abuses a black person can expect in a southern state's prison system.

Thank God George W. Bush is not the governor of Texas at this time - he would probably make sure she was "SHOT WHILE TRYING TO ESCAPE!"

TRUE STORY:

A few years back here in my state the young heir to the Budweiser fortune attending a local university totaled out his new corvette on a winding road here in my city. He crawled out all bloodied and bruised and hightailed it home leaving his dead date in the demolished car.

The police located him at home next morning still bloody and bruised, but did not arrest him. They had NO PROOF THAT HE HAD BEEN DRIVING THE CORVETTE!!!! :eek:

NO CHARGES WERE EVER PRESSED AGAINST HIM - HE JUST LEFT MY CITY QUIETLY AND WAS NEVER HEARD OF AGAIN!

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A FEW BUCKS AND AN INFLUENTIAL FAMILY MAKE IN THESE HERE UNITED STATES, HUH FOLKS? ( Oh yes, he is white - like in lily white! ).

Abdulla....
 
Last edited:
Sorry but I don't know how you can say if it's a lot or not! You don't know her...
I mean that if she is very intelligent, then she is guilty and 50 years is right as she thought about it while he was dying... However, if she has an average IQ and drank too much, then she was not able to take control of her wills and then 10-15 years would have been better.
 
ok she hit him

sad but it happens

but she left him to DIE IN A WINDOW

life without the possability
 
I have about as much sympathy for her as she apparently had for the man bleeding to death in her windshield.
She is foul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top