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

[Velociryx]

Hey, if the difference is between premeditation, then my conjectural punishment should be the same as hers. I didn't plan to or mean to skewer the guy, anymore than she meant to hit him with the car.

But after the damage was done, we both decided to lock the injured parties away and let 'em die.

-=Vel=-

[PLATO]

Good Lord! Some of you have a question about this!?! She is a NURSE who knowingly and willingly and with thought left a man she is qualified to know could be saved to DIE!

WTF is the debate about. This is pure and simple murder. Whatever she gets, you can bet that it will be more humane than what she gave.

[Velociryx]

As always, Plato!

-=Vel=-

[MichaeltheGreat]

Fry the *****.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Good Lord! Some of you have a question about this!?! She is a NURSE who knowingly and willingly and with thought left a man she is qualified to know could be saved to DIE!

A nurse isn't qualified to know if a major trauma patient could be saved or not. Most MD's aren't, because that type of trauma requires specialized evaluation. It's irrelevant to the case though.

WTF is the debate about. This is pure and simple murder. Whatever she gets, you can bet that it will be more humane than what she gave.

Damn straight.

Not only murder, but the actual killing act was intentional, premeditated, and torturous. She didn't intend to hit the guy, but the combined drug and alcohol intoxication is far enough across the reckless disregard standard that second degree murder could likely apply even if the had "accidentally" hit the guy and killed him outright.

The actual killing was hiding the guy and withholding help - leaving him hanging there for hours, until he slowly (and no doubt in great pain) bled out. Why? She'd get in trouble and be inconvenienced for driving while drunk and stoned. So you have a choice to kill, a deliberately thought out motive and intent, and complete disregard for not only the possibility of saving the man's life, but for the prolonged death and effective torture being inflicted.

As far as I'm concerned, it's an ok DP case. Since the DA didn't have the balls to pursue that, LWOP.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In order to prove murder you have to prove intent to kill, depraved indifference, or that the death occured as the result of committing another felony. Murder also requires an act. There was no act to kill the man.

Intent is provable from her statement to police, and the testimony of the others. The act was in not extracting him (or calling authorities) from where she put him. Felony hit and run, driving under the influence of a controlled substance which is a felony to possess or use, etc. - how many underlying felonies do you really want? I'm sure one or two more could be had.

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

Not in any state I know of. If you have nothing to do with the act, you're not obligated to intervene, but if you have any participation in events leading to the cause of death, you are criminally liable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

2nd Degree Murder, AT LEAST!

When she hit the guy and the guy didn't die (if he died then it is vehicular homicide... or perhaps 2nd degree felony murder), she has now a DUTY to provide help for this man because she caused the situation. Neglecting her duty (omission to perform) satisfies intent. It is 2nd degree without a doubt (reckless murder at the least).

There is a VERY good case to made for 1st degree murder here as well. She purposely neglected his moans and actually kept him from being cared for by those that may have saved his life. It was a premeditated murder, because chances are he might not have died if she just left him on the road (someone else might have called 911).

She's gotta get at least some significant jail time. Personally, I'd say go life imprisionment or DP.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
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.

Suppose you hit somebody with your car when drunken, and fled the scene because you're afraid that your drunken state would be discovered, and this person eventually died of a lack of medical care. That's not murder.

To show murder, there must be intent on the suspect's part to take the victim's life before the act. Even the intent is just a fraction of a second long, it's fine, but you need to show it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When she hit the guy and the guy didn't die (if he died then it is vehicular homicide... or perhaps 2nd degree felony murder), she has now a DUTY to provide help for this man because she caused the situation.

There's no difference between this and any other hit-and-run cases for the most part, except that she tried to hide it afterward.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
To show murder, there must be intent on the suspect's part to take the victim's life before the act.

The fact that she drove home with him (still alive) wedged in her windshield and kept him thier as he slowly bled to death isn't enough for you.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The US has a (terms vary in the different states) "reckless disregard" standard that equates to intent.

Suppose my neighbors are having a loud party, and I fire 30 rounds from an M-16 into their house because I'm tired of going across the street and knocking on the door and being ignored. I may not "intend" to kill anyone, but a reasonable person would be aware of the extreme risk and high probability of killing someone by that act - therefore, I'm acting with "reckless disregard" of the consequences of my action.

Proof of a state of mind of a defendant is impossible unless the defendant clearly makes a statement at the time to a witness, or confesses after the fact. The law isn't so naive as to require proof of state of mind, when actions that demonstrate the likely state of mind can be proven - hence, the reckless disregard standard.

[Zero]

The fact that she was high on all sorts of drugs is probably gonna be the biggest arguement to the defense case (and therefore she was unable to make the right choice or something like that)

It already seems to be heading that way with them mentioning that she was apologizing to the dying man.. blah blah

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The fact that she drove home with him (still alive) wedged in her windshield and kept him thier as he slowly bled to death isn't enough for you.

Suppose he wasn't lodged in the windshield, but was thrown off into a ditch or a bush, or even to the side of the road. He would still be dead, because this person was unable to get help himself. She in fact did not prevent him from getting help, she just failed to get help for him.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The US has a (terms vary in the different states) "reckless disregard" standard that equates to intent.

Suppose my neighbors are having a loud party, and I fire 30 rounds from an M-16 into their house because I'm tired of going across the street and knocking on the door and being ignored. I may not "intend" to kill anyone, but a reasonable person would be aware of the extreme risk and high probability of killing someone by that act - therefore, I'm acting with "reckless disregard" of the consequences of my action.

Proof of a state of mind of a defendant is impossible unless the defendant clearly makes a statement at the time to a witness, or confesses after the fact. The law isn't so naive as to require proof of state of mind, when actions that demonstrate the likely state of mind can be proven - hence, the reckless disregard standard.

Okay, but you are arguing that driving under influence is the same as "reckless disregard."

Most people who committed DUI thought they could still control the vehicle.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Suppose he wasn't lodged in the windshield, but was thrown off into a ditch or a bush, or even to the side of the road. He would still be dead, because this person was unable to get help himself. She in fact did not prevent him from getting help, she just failed to get help for him.

She locked him in her garage. That's kidnapping.

Had it been simple hit and run, she would be looking at felony vehicular manslaughter.