|
|
Post by whatnow on Jul 21, 2003 7:24:37 GMT -6
as her job was a nurse's assistant, she must have been used to the sight of blood and have a strong stomach, as well as clear judgement having worked in the medical field...........hence its very much possible the drug might have impaired her ability to think clearly...... who knows what is happenning in the brain ? it can make u think anything..........drugs like LSD, heroin, cocaine......ask Lewis on this board....he claims to have spoken to his ancestors in some Red Indian ceremony where they smoke weeds !  While I agree that there are unknown factors when it comes to the brain and chemical alterations (I am a registered nurse) I do feel she clearly divided the difference between impaired and complete cognitive thinking when she apologized to the man several times for hitting him and then tried to destroy the evidence the next day when she was clear of any so called drugs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2003 10:55:09 GMT -6
my *personal* opinion is - as there was no motive, and it was not premeditated, accidentally done by a single person (not a gang)......it is certainly NOT homicide...thus.a sentence of 5 years imprisonment would be okay......
|
|
|
|
Post by whatnow on Aug 4, 2003 14:00:04 GMT -6
my *personal* opinion is - as there was no motive, and it was not premeditated, accidentally done by a single person (not a gang)......it is certainly NOT homicide...thus.a sentence of 5 years imprisonment would be okay...... I will go along with that one Matthew.  |
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Oct 5, 2003 11:04:18 GMT -6
my *personal* opinion is - as there was no motive, and it was not premeditated, accidentally done by a single person (not a gang)......it is certainly NOT homicide...thus.a sentence of 5 years imprisonment would be okay...... It was homicide because the man didn't die as a result of the "accident". The motive for the death was that a dead man could not tell anybody that the criminal had hit him. The decision to let the man die was premeditated. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Cummings on Oct 27, 2003 18:43:07 GMT -6
I think the homeless guy got the short end of the stick in this case. I say that because the man is dead. He is paying the ultimate price for this woman's negligence and unspeakable actions.
Come on, It's common sense when you see somebody hurt. You should at least make an attempt to help if you possibly can. In this case, Mallard did not even make the attempt to help, she left this man suffer straight to his death in angony and pain.
I think Mallard being in prison 50 years is just a insult to this man and to his family if indeed he has any family. In my opinion, Mallard should have been sentenced to the death penalty because she acted in a crime during the use of illegal controlled substances causing death of another person in addition to negiigence. In short this lady should never see the light of another day. Forgive me if I sound way too vindictive but I have no use for murderers, this lady should have been sentenced to die for what see did period.
Since she was given 50 years, she might get paroled out in 25 years. Then she'll just do it all over again. How's it going to make you feel if she kills an innocent child the next time around instead of killing a homeless man. needless to say.
|
|
