Florida motorist drives home with man in windshield

LMAO! Yeah, he would get carded, and he could only hand them a leg.

Seriously though, that's a good point. The "nearest phone" excuse would be a lot better than driving home, passing phones along the way.

 

River,

You are really reaching. Jesus, you need to get a grip sometimes.

 

B-Bob I thought you were joking when you were talking about the scene of the crime moving around.... I still hope you were....

And RM95, if you think I was trying to imply that I know some drivers ed law you didn't I wasn't. I was simply trying to point out that there is a very clear and understood law in all of the United States called "a hit and run" If you hit, you don't run. Sure it may be human nature to get freaked out, but that doesn't give you the excuse to drive off from a collision.

 

OK, maybe not an excuse, but definitely an explanation.

This was probably technically a hit and run, however, the authorities understood that the guy made a mistake while being freaked out, a mistake he quickly amended.

I also wasn't trying to say I know more about the law than you, I was just commenting on the fact that the driver wasn't going to be charged with anything.

 

Mallard is black, isn't she? Oh well, at least this guy called the cops. But, we've got Rocket river arguing that the "guy may have been alive for a few hours, not days."

How do you move around with that chip on your shoulder?

 

Andrea yates got Sympathy
Susan Smith got Sympathy

and what they did what FAR worse than Mallard
[mainly because they were multiple homicides of kids]

Rocket River

 

No but I am sensative to the difference in perspectives and understanding alot a person when they are a certain group
[be it economic or racial]

I have not seen this guy . . .but i can tell by the what
the cops talk about him
how much sympathy they poor out from him
the phrasing of the acticle etc.
just a bunch of context Clues . . . . I've seen used
time and again to describe a white victim or criminal . . .

If he is not white
Then I'm Hyper Apologetic for jumping to a conclusion
but honestly i have little doubt

Just by the way the article reads

Rocket River

 

The justice system is racist... but if this is your 'proof', then you should definitely try to find a better example.

Secondly, RR described both cases as 'vehicular homicide'. I'm doubtful that the latter case qualifies as 'vehicular homicide', because it was being described as an accident. 'Vehicular manslaughter' would be more appropriate, if anything. Chante Mallard's case is homicide because she let a living man bleed to death in her garage for several days before trying to hide the evidence.

Mallard's actual homicide was done in cold blood, with no regard for human suffering whatsoever. That's why she got the 50 year+ sentence. How can you even begin to cry racism here?

 

Well, he's right that it wasn't "days". She hit the guy early October 26, and on October 27, the body was found in the park. So he couldn't have been alive in the windshield for "days".

But yeah, that doesn't make much difference.

And, for the record, when authorities discovered Mallard, she wasn't immediately charged with murder or even with "hit and run". She was charged with failure to stop and render aid. Had she called the police from her home, they might not have even charged her with that (her house was roughly 1 mile from where she hit the guy), though the intoxication may have played a role in whether they charged her with anything.

And, for all we know, prosecutors may come back and eventually charge this kid with something after they investigate.

 

This is more about the perception and the SPIN put on these incidents more than anything. The tone of the article was quite . . .light. The statement "IT WAS THE PEDESTRIAN'S FAULT . . . BECAUSE HE WORE DARK CLOTHES" was just crazy to me

If I said . .IT WAS THE WOMAN'S FAULT .. . BECAUSE SHE WORE SKANKY CLOTHES . . . how does that sound?

Rocket River

 

Not that I'm defending Rocket River

because this argument is stupid, but the medical examiner did say the guy died within hours, but it doesn't make a difference.

 

I think he sees the difference, I mean I think anyone would obviously note the difference, it would be stupid not to. He is just trying to antagonize and I don't think we should let him. And of course it has nothing to do with race. I just want to underline the fact that if you hit somebody with your car you should stop. I used the example of a head falling off because I believe that if someone was lodged in a window it would be so horrific to keep driving that it defies human compassion. Every turn you make in your car is lodging the glass deeper into the skin. Stop the car, get help. Yes, Mallard's was way worse, especially after the cover up and drug use, but this is still bad.

 

Hey Rocket River -- OJ's still alive.

 

Now that's just as uneccessary as Rocket River's posts. Just like Rocket River needs to get over somethings, a lot of people need to get over O.J. He was found innocent by a jury, not by the "liberal" media or whoever else, GET OVER IT.

 

Mallard was found guilty. He should get over it. She's a no good piece of **** that should have gotten the death penalty. If the judicial system was so damn racist, OJ wouldn't be alive right now.

Comparing what this guy did to what Mallard did is just absurd, it shouldn't happen. The only similarities are that someone died because of an automobile accident. It ends there.

 

FWIW, I emailed the author of one of the news stories on this incident to try to ascertain the race of the driver. We'll see if I get an answer.

 

Okay, I might derail the thread here but I have always wondered why OJ was innocent in the criminal trial but found guilty in the civil suit that was brought against him.

Max, Jackie, or any other lawyers out there, can you explain to me how someone can be innocent in a criminal suit but guilty in a civil suit? Because that happened, doesn't that mean there is all kinds of doubt to OJ's innocence?

 

Burden of proof is much lower in a civil case than a criminal case.

 

I'm not a lawyer, I'll just play one on the BBS

but anyway, one thing I kept hearing during the O.J. trial is that you don't need the same amount of evidence or I guess you don't need "without a reasonable doubt" evidence in the Civil trial that you do in the criminal trial.

 

I don't think there are doubts because of the civil trial.