A Model Female Citizen
 

From MSNBC -

Chante Mallard, 25, hit a homeless man with her car. He got stuck in her windshield. She drove home <b>with his body lodged in her windshield</b>, went inside, <b>supposedly</b> had sex with her boyfriend, came back out to the garage, found that the man was still alive, and went back inside.

She apparently made contact with him a number of times before he died. Then she and some friends dumped the body in a park and partially disassembled her car. She burned the seats and, I assume, got rid of the windshield. She said her plan was to "burn the car and buy a new one with her income tax refund."

Prosecutors are, of course, having a field day with this.

Her attorney says, and I quote: she "made a wrong choice."

Uh, sounds like she made quite a number of wrong choices.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/720959.asp

And the relevance of her being female is?

How about slugging it "A Model Under-30 Citizen"? "A Model Texas Citizen"? I suppose the male drunk driver who was shot trying to break into his neighbor's house naked at 2am was "A Model Male Citizen"...

No relevance. I was just trying to irk you.

Seriously though, it's because the defense is playing on her being a woman. Sympathy case. Distraught. Frightened. Young woman.

try reading the article.

I like this part the best.

"Mallard later told investigators she apologized to the victim when she returned to the garage several times, but she never called for help as he moaned and pleaded with her, according to the affidavit."

I can just imagine it. "Hey, look, I hit you last night, and you're still here in my windshield. I'm sorry about it and all, but can you get off my car and out of my garage?"

Granted, I'm just reading the article, but it sounds like the son of the victim is incredibly composed for being a high schooler who just recently found out about his dad being dead.

I smell a Darwin award here...

I think that's reaching quite a bit--the spiel would have been "young man" if the driver had been a guy.

"Made a wrong choice" sounds awfully familiar, though.

As for "reading the article", token, I did. And the UPI coverage as well--MSNBC doesn't have much credibility with me.

He's 19...and Dad's been in homelss shelters and mental hospitals for a while....we don't know how long. Maybe he's never met his dad, and consequently doesn't like him very much.

Darwin awards are for people who remove *themselves* from the gene pool in creative ways, though...

I thought UPI all but dried up. Are they still owned by the same folks that own the Washington Times, or were they sold?

I don't think so. Lawyers know that to win a case, they need to appeal to the judge and jury, both factually and emotionally. They start when they take the case and they don't let up. I'm sure you'll agree that it's human nature to have more sympathy for females, especially if they're emotionally distraught.

As for the wrong choices remark - I knew you were going to bring that up, and it isn't at all the same thing here. The woman made some bad choices, yes - for which she <b>should</b> be punished, because they resulted in the death of another, one that appears to have been completely avoidable had she taken a couple minutes and called 911 to report the accident. A more accurate link would be between the homeless man and the person "breaking in" to the house. The homeless man made the wrong choice to be walking where he was at that time, or to not wear reflectors, or whatever (incidentally, it appears as though he was likely mentally incapable of concluding that walking in front of a car was a <b>bad idea</b>), just the same as the naked drunk guy made a wrong choice by consuming so much alcohol, going outside to take a leak, and then trying to get back into the wrong house. Where they differ, however, is in the circumstances of their deaths - one guy was, most likely, just crossing the road and wasn't inebriated, whereas the other <b>was</b> drunk and was, whether intentionally or not, attempting to get into someone else's house. Oh well.

Another (even bigger) stretch, as I see it.

Two drunk drivers, two deaths. Anybody who thinks they're going to be able to pick who gets hurt--and how badly--when they get polluted and then drive is kidding themselves. It's a crapshoot., with other people's lives on the table--the fact that that your own is at risk too does not mtigate.

We don't know where this more recent vicim was when he got hit...he might have been staring mindlessly into space in the middle of a dark street. But then, he could have been on the sidewalk under a bright streetlight too. He *might* have jumped out in front of this woman's car, and we don't have the results of any tox screen done on his body; it's possible he could have been high too.

But we *do* know she hit him going fast enough to put him halfway through her windshield...and then let him lie dying in her garage for "two or three days" while she apparently hoped he'd get better and go away, and not dime on her for driving drunk. A DWI probably would have cost her her job as a nursing assistant.

All that we know this homeless guy has in common with the naked drunk is that they're both dead.

Gah! Are we back on this again?? It's the thread that <i>would not die</i>!! :]

No one had posted to it for four days... until you just did.

Ah.. I hadn't even noticed that. :] I haven't been able to keep up with the new posts daily like I used to be able to.