You be the Judge: What is the appropiate punishment for something like this?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Sava
One of SLowwhand's old DL's?

I doubt it, Punk.

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I doubt it, Punk.

So you're not sure?

[SlowwHand]

" I prefer a little more balance and debate."
But I like how he thinks.

[SlowwHand]

Asher, since it was your say-so that converted me to Opera, I'll not stuff you in my windshield for that remark.

[Asher]

I don't use Opera...

[SlowwHand]

Let me get that windshield ready then.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Any reasonable person also knows that driving while under the influence of drugs and alcohol creates a dangerous situation where it is likely for someone to die. There's your depraved indifference.

The law sees it differently, because your judgement is impared when you make the decision to drive.

His injuries were the result of her action. Her hitting him is what eventually killed him.

Hitting someone accidentally isn't murder.

Her refusal to get help for him when she knew he was seriously injured, her attempts to cover up and prior planning to get rid of his body prove her intent that he die.

That's not against the law, except possibly conspiracy to destroy evidence.

It doesn't matter that she didn't mean to hit him

Oh yes it does.

She then acted to deny him help by hiding him in the garage

That's kidnapping. That's a Federal capital offense, btw.

and not contacting the authorities.

Premeditation fits.

No it does not. That she waited for him to die doesn't show intent to kill if she thought he was going to die no matter what.

You have to look at the crime dispationately. You want her to pay for her crimes and you aren't being objective. I want her to pay, and I think I've found several ways to get her which don't require twisting or ignoring the law: kidnapping and felony murder.

[HershOstropoler]

Murder (dolus eventualis, as oedo said). Several aggravating circumstances. 20 years or life. Probably accumulated with a stay at the Institution for mentally depraved criminals.

Well, that's our system...

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Murder also requires an act. There was no act to kill the man.

AFAIK, it is not against the law to let someone die, even as a result of something you did accidentally.

Here you can commit murder by a non-act, if you have created a guarantor status, like this woman has by inflicting potentially fatal injuries. I assume there is a similar concept in US penal laws.

[Asher]

You have to look at the crime dispationately.

A jury won't look at it dispationately.

And even then, I very very much doubt it's not murder in the eyes of the law to impale someone with your car accidentally and watch them slowly die and deny them help.

As soon as you actively deny them help, intent to kill is there and present.

Simple as that.

[oedo]

Here you can commit murder by a non-act, if you have created a guarantor status, like this woman has by inflicting potentially fatal injuries. I assume there is a similar concept in US penal laws.

I tried google. I didn´t find the english word for Ingerenz. but I´m sure something like this exists - at least in Texas.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Originally posted by Asher


As soon as you actively deny them help, intent to kill is there and present.

Simple as that.

there you go. and actively deny help to protect yourself from the act of DUI at that. what else is there to talk about??

[Velociryx]

So if I'm partying with someone, and while we're in the kitchen grabbing some munchies, through a TOTAL series of accidents, I spin 'round not knowing the person is behind me and accidentally skewer them with a knife (I mean really skewer 'em too....blood everywhere....looks like they'll prolly die), THEN I lock 'em in the basement so they can't get away and can't get help, ignore their pleas to be taken to a hospital....that's not murder?

Interesting.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

That would be felony murder, since you are committing kidnapping and/or unlawful imprisonment.

[Velociryx]

So....why is it different for Mallard? She didn't keep him in the basement....she kept him in the garage. He obviously lacked the means or physical strength (due to his injuries) to escape--which she was counting on, else she'd not have been talking about what to do with him after he croaked.

The injuries I caused with the conjectural knife were purely accidental (as was the initial impact: auto-->homeless guy)

Sounds pretty similar to me.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

The difference is between premeditation or not, 1st or 2nd degree murder. Also, I had forgotten felony murder when I first began writing.

The initial statement was, you be the judge. So rather than just think with my emotions, I'm trying to think carefully about the law and what the women did.

She's clearly guilty, and what she did was heinous, but what is she guilty of under the law? That's the question.

If the command was: you be the vigilante, that would be different now, wouldn't it.

Asher, the jury may or may not be dispationate about it. You never know. The prosecuter, who decides what crimes the woman will be tried for should be dispationate, trying to protect the integrety of the law as well as protect the community from criminals.