muddysmind.com

"We should allow Gregory Bigg's family to run her down in their cars." What kind of idiotic, moronic statement is that? Do we publicly sexually assault rapists? Do we beat up those convicted of assault? Do we thieve from convicted burglars? Do we set fire to arsonists? No. So don't make these stupid, ridiculous statements about your tax dollars and crime and punishment. The vast majority of your tax dollars go to George W.'s war machine and massive corporations who "win" his contracts. It would be more in your line to complain about your tax dollars not going into the education system because God know's people like you need it.

Oh? and I suppose all those HP computers and printers you've sold the Government is bad too? Should they have used that money for schools instead of funding "big business'???

Do we beat up those convicted of assault? Do we thieve from convicted burglars? Do we set fire to arsonists?

Maybe we should. ever heard of an eye for an eye you jackass?

Well I am a suporter of Chante Mallard, Yes she did something very wrong and was going down the wrong path and did she ask NOT to be punished? NO She admitted she was wrong and is now paying the price yes mr biggs lost his life and probably would have lived if she had been thinking straight, when we judge someone we need to think what if it was me in that car? or what if it was me walking on the street? chante was lost she needed to find herself and by the time she did it was to late. A life is gone and really when you look at the situation 2 lives are gone because she will never have a normal life being in the big house or out in the world, I really think Chante never got a fare shake as she should have gotten, i was watching porol boards last week and seen a man getting out after he was sentenced to 109 years and only serving 35 years what justice is that?she did not intend to kill! and her brother is a firefighter??well why didn't he see her goig done the wrong path and try to help her? why didn't (T) call 911 herself? If (T) took the car from her cause she didnt feel safe why did (T) let her drive home alone? there are so many questions and not enough answers but I do need to ask this...it is alright to have jurors but why should we let jurors give the sentence? should'nt it be the judge? should the jurors come from texas? I know if i was a juror on a murder or rapist i wouldn't want that person in my community ever! so it would be automaticly a guilty verdict on my side do you think chante wouild of had a better chance if jurors were let say from florida?Kansas? anywhere's but texas?
thanks for your time...

/me pushes ttutoro off his soapbox.

*thud*

:-D

me gets back up and throws muddy in the windshield

helllllllllppppppppppppppp

lol!

nice, someone with a sense of humor finally :-P

lmao.... yup so do you think it is right for jurors to say how long you got to be in jail? I think they got to much freedom they should be the ones to find you innocent or guilty but to sentence you i don't think they should have that right...

yea, I'm still not to fond of jurors deciding how long you should serve. I'm not sure what to think about it.

Well i think someone should start a group and make it aware the public has this problem i just don't know where to start,

chante definitely deserves a long prison term. okay so she obviously made a bad mistake that fateful night. however, she did absoulutely nothing about the poor man! This makes her a killer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yes I do agree she needed to be punished but what about (T) she was an acomplice shouldn't she be tried n covicted, Chante did wrong there ain't no question bout that. But by (T) not letting her stay at her house and letting her drive was a crime in itself if (T) would have been a caring friend because remember she took the car over to get to her house cause she was worried bout Chante, and to let her drive home she should get a punishment and but not calling 911 herself makes her just as guilty???

I feel for all those involved. Each one who played a part is responsible for this crime and death. To knowingly let someone die. Now one person dead and so many lives ruined because of a choice to take drugs, to leave the scene, to not assist (her being in the health care business) or call for assistance. There are consequences for all the things we do, good and bad. We can be forgiven, we can forgive, we can pay the price, but the consequences of this accident, mistake, what ever you want to call it,
will be with them for the rest of their life. (T) will have to live with the consequences of letting her friend drive under the influence. Some will read this and think, wow thats what she gets, and they may be the same ones who will take that drink etc and get behind a wheel, thinking they are ok.....

Ok dont get me wrong here but i think she shouldve used a little better judgement no matter how drugged up she was. im sayin come on if there is a guy hanging out your windshield and hes bleeding and moaning WHAT IN THE HELL would posess you to keep on driving and go home as if nothing happened.Did the drugs not wear off the next day?!! when he was still in her garage dying!! So forgive me but i think you reap what you sow~i dont think that it matters that it was a jury who decided her fate or that no one in her family took intiative to lead her in the right direction. WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN ACTIONS!

miss christy you need to get a life girl, let it be you in that position...lol then we would see if you were so responcible for your actions...

ttutoro: 1st of all, the word is "responsible" not "responcible" . 2ndly - what does "(T)" mean in your posts? 3rdly - and far be it from me to speak for - Christy - but telling her to "get a life girl, let it be you in that position ...we would see if you were so responsible for your actions...". YOU need to get a clue. I agree 100% w/ christy. I just got finished reading Three (3) articles on this Chante Mallard and I have to tell you...I found it COMPLETELY ridiculous! And I Don't mean in the "Ha, ha" sort of way!

Yes, True...if her friends saw that she was not capable of driving home then someone indeed should have spoke up...BUT no one (at least according to the articles I read) held a gun to Miss. Mallards head and made her take those drugs then chase them all down with alcohol....SHE did all of that of her own volition. She, like the rest of us, I'm sure has heard of the dangers of mixing alcohol (not to mention drugs) with driving. True, if friends and family saw that she had a problem with these things then Yes, someone should have intervened...BUT who says no one tried? You CAN only do so much to help a person then the balls in their court so to speak. Besides, WHEN WHEN WHEN for Christ's sake are WE going to take responsiblity for OUR own actions. oh yes, and just for the sake of you "argument" about putting ourself in this position, ok, fine, I have thought about it. I've come to the conclusion that all though we cannot truly Say what we would do (and neither could you by the way) in that situation unless we WERE in that situation...I can at least say that even if I did drink, which I don't (I hate the taste of alcohol) I would be smart enough to have someone sober drive me home. And I'm not stupid enough to take drugs ( We're all better than that...I'm just smart enough to live by that conclusion) and even if I were that stupid, I would once again have someone with a sober mind or a cab drive me home.
You said previously that she admitted she did wrong....HECK yeah she did wrong and so did her friends - as I believed you yourself pointed out - but I'm also talking about the friends that she (according to 2 different articles on yahoo I read) PLOTTED with as far as what to do with the body....which, by the way, are the ones who actually DUMPED him in the city park! Talk about a total disregard for life....are these the friends you thought should have helped "save" her...sound to me like they need help themselves not to mention being charged with obstruction of justice or something (I'm not a lawyer so I don't know WHAT they could be charged with) and serving time themselves.
Is there a problem with our judicial system? You bet. Sometimes people who need the book thrown at them get a slap on the wrist and put back on the street to do whatever they did again and again. Sometimes people get more punishment than they deserve...but Miss. Mallard got what she deserved. Yes, it is sad that Miss. Mallard's life is now gone - or waisted- (depending on how much time she is given to serve) but That was HER fault. Regardless if her "friend" would have let her stay the night at that house or not...Miss. Mallard was still responsible for her "trashed" state anyway and though, yes, people can "party" the way they want to (as long as it doesn't hurt someone else) and they can also get as high and/or drunk as they want to but (without trying to sound like a broken record) at very least, take responsibility for yourself and make propper plains on how to get home safely. At least Christy sounds like a person who is willing to take RESPONSIBLITY for her actions. Hopefully you are too.

an eye for an eye leaves you blind

more love less vengence...for it will not bring back the dead

"more love less vengence"

It's not vengence when it is justice that is served.

"It will not bring back the dead"

No, it won't ...but it WILL keep HER off the street.

Besides, I don't think she's getting the death penalty for her crime (not that I've heard anyway)

Besides, surely YOU'RE not suggesting she not be held responsible for her crime...are you?

Justice?

This country has more prisons than any other industrialized nation. Severe punishments for crimes, etc and the death penalty.

Yet, we have the highest percentage of crimes committed per year in comparison with other industrialized nations.

Something to think about...

AND the man was homeless? correct?
NOW his familt acts like they really care when obviously they didn't care much for him when he was alive as to lend him a hand or support.

But as is with most cases, people are venerated after death, rather than while alive.

And what she did isn't comperable to the state of affairs Enron CORP has placed the state of california economically...thousands have been laid off. The US economy is the lowest it has been in 8, or 9 years. And Enron is sure (as many other corporations because under the law they are seen as individuals) not paying for what it did...

Also did that white lady that killed via drowning -her 2 childre- get the death penalty.

If she didnt
I dont see why this woman should...

In the other case, it was her children not some bum off the street. Sorry to be so callous, but I take up the character of the nation i reside in...a nation not so kind to the bums...

1st of all, I NEVER said our system was perfect...if you read my above posts, you would have seen that. You'd be a moron to think that our judicial system doesn't have alot of holes in it.

2ndly, yes, the man was homeless. So that makes his life worthless and meaningless then? So he was homeless so less throw him out w/the trash? Surely you have more respect for life than that. As far as his family goes...maybe they DID try to reach out to him, maybe they couldn't get THROUGH to him. I've personally never met his family...have you? Basically, (though I do see what your saying as far as his family is concerned) we cannot say what his family did or did not do nor can we say how they do or do not feel since we never met them...well except through maybe the media and of course we have NO reason to doubt their word.....right? Yeah, sure....anyway....

3rdly..."What she did isn't comparable to the state of affairs (that) Enron...."....bla, bla, bla! Dude, stick to the subject at hand. I didn't even go there...and TRUST me, I could. We were victims of lay offs too.....anyone remember, oh, I don't know.....WORLD COM! Yes, another crooked company that screwed everyone over....but again...NOT the subject at hand. Allow me to reintroduce to you what we WERE talking about...ah, yes! Chante Mallard! Which brings me to my last point.....

4thly...That other woman you brought up was (I believe) Susan Smith...and she SHOULD have gotten the death penalty, but she's spending her life in prison, and hopefully will never have a chance for parole. Chante Mallard is also Not getting the death penalty...according to the article I read, she is getting 50 years. Now, I don't know If she has a chance for parole with that sentence but being as how our system IS screwed up, she probably Won't serve all of her time.

Quote [AND the man was homeless? correct?
NOW his familt acts like they really care when obviously they didn't care much for him when he was alive as to lend him a hand or support.]

Well, there you stand corrected, I did see an interview with his son. Who said his father was doing fine until his girlfriend became in serious financial trouble. He did everything he could to bail her out and in turn wiped himself out. Sold most of his stuff to get money to help her out. That landed him in trouble himself. He also refused help from his family because he was trying to get back on his feet by himself. Being too proud and to giving to some chick was his problems.

"2ndly, yes, the man was homeless. So that makes his life worthless and meaningless then? "

No. I didn't say that, the statistics on Americans perception of homeless people did.

"I've personally never met his family...have you? "

C'mon don't cop out with that crappy rebuke...

"Dude, stick to the subject at hand. "

We live in a world, not one dimensional, nor 2,and I was using an example to spicen up my argument for my sake...

You never answered WHY it is that by killing her it will help anything.
Have you seen the green mile.?
Good movie.

Look up some stats on England, Sweden etc. How many homicides do they have anuunally?

They don't have the death penalty...

But then they don't have Fox either!
Being too proud is a problem...Ive lived in extended family systems so I dont agree nor see the practicality of the norm American "nuclear" living...

"...the statistics on Ameericans perception of homeless people..." said that the homeless were worthless.

Ah..I did not know that...sad...does not suprise me but still very sad.

"C'mon don't cop out on that crappy rebuke"

Cop out? Me? Never intentionally...and that "crappy rebuke" was MY way of "spicening" up MY "argument" to simply point out that until we know someone then we cannot say what conversations or feelings they've had with and for another person. Besides, that point was irrelavent anyway as Muddy found out the guy was NOT homeless and his family DID offer to help him out. So obviously (according to that new information) his family did care.

"We live in a world, not one dimensional, nor 2, and I was using an example to spicen up my argument for my sake"

Ah, again. Sorry for my missunderstanding. I took it as an example of you loosing focus of the conversation at hand...my mistake.

"You never answered WHY it is that by killing her it will help anything"

I never said we SHOULD kill her. I said she needed to be held responsible for her actions...and she is...by serving a 50 year sentence...of course, unless you've heard something different?

Look, there are SOME cases where the death penalty IS deserved, but hitting a guy with your car does not merit the death penalty. That was an accident. The problem was with the way she Handled the situation ...by NOT calling the police, by leaving him on her windsheild for dead (wheather or not he was a lost cause or not because of his injuries is beside the point...point is, she should have tried to help him but she did not.), also by plotting with her friends on how to dispose of him...and so on.

Now If she would have spotted him while in her car, and purposely mowed him down then yes, THAT would merit the death penalty...but that's not what happened.

I can't speak for England (though my brother-in-law was born and raised there) nor can I speak for the other countries...interresting debate though. However, I will throw in that someone like Susan Smith...that woman deserved the death penalty. Then there's Charles Manson who (the last time they interrviewed him) showed NO remorse for what he did...He was just upset that HE had to spend HIS life in prison. Personally, I think it's a crime in its own when our tax dollars have to be spent to support someone like him to LIVE even if in prison.

I live in the "extended family systems" too. What is the norm?:)

Extended family? So you live with your parents, siblings, aunts etc?

Something normal in other cultures but definately not America. Unless you are something other than WASP...maybe. The norm here, being nuclear, straight parents, 2.5 kids, etc

Anyhow. And you haven't met Charles Manson?
Eichmann, one of the leaders of the SS and the death camps during WW2, during his trial in Jerusalem was proven to be quite a "regular" man who cared for his family, etc

Well...what is interesting now is the death of people in Santa Monica, a street "farmers market" where an elderly man ran through a busy street. Im sure you.ve heard of it as this country has generic news

But what really gets me is how the man, dur to being elderly, is having his actions connected to his age, and the BROAD generalizations made that perhaps their should be restrictions on the driving of the elderly???

Why don't we restrict the teens? Who statistically kill more people? Just my two cents.

Yes, I know what the "norm" means. I was just kidding. No,actually, I don't live with my parents, aunts, and siblings (however, reading my last comment, I can see how that could have been misconstrued). I love them all dearly, but living w/them would cause ME to be on trial for murder or at least have me committed to a mental institution. I ment that I have exstended family members.....where I'm from that means step sibblings and step parents...but as stated, I don't LIVE with any of them....thank God.

No, I haven't met Charles Manson (wouldn't even want to)....but I did see his interview...and he ADMITTED to his feelings...so that was straight from the demoniac horses mouth himself...but I think maybe you were trying to trip me up with that one? tisk, tisk tisk:)

Yes, it is very tragic about what happened in Santa Monica...I don't have enough information to go on but It will be interresting to see what they do. I have seen though, that in some cases, some elderly SHOULD very well have their license revoked. My grandmother is one of them...she doesn't drive now (but still has a license) only due to the fact the last time she did drive, she was almost killed in a car accident that she helped to cause. There were other factors surrounding her decision to stop driving (although, she sometimes still wants to try) she's too scared to get behind the wheel again. She's 79 and lives with my mom and step dad and she had some medical problems (nothing to do with alzheimer's, though) but considering everything with her situation...I think Her not driving is for the best.

As far as teens go, not all of them are too irresponsible to drive. However alot of them are and they act as if they're invincible. They fly around corners w'out even looking or cut you off while almost running you off the road. I've have a few close calls myself in the past year alone (with my babies in the car mind you) where my perception is, sometimes being too young with a fast car and driving recklessly (no matter what age) can very well be extremely dangerous.

I guess we'll see.

I Feel very sorry for Ms. Mallard, and her family. This is a girl who you can say got life in prison. Because with out an appeal she will be there for a very long time. Granted she did take a life, but she did not set out that night to kill Mr. Biggs. She used poor judgement after the fact of course. But who are we to judge? Mr. Biggs family forgave her, for what she did, and that is who matters. Ms. Mallard will have to answer to a higher god for what she did. The way she acted on the stand shows she is not a stable person, so what chance does she have in prison? She will have to live with this for the rest of her life, and will probably never be the same. People should never say what they would of done if they were her, because you just don't know.

May God Bless her and her family, and Mr. Biggs.

Yea I am sure I would have taken some X and then had sex. "Hey man I am sorry, I am going into the house now, when I get back please dont be on my windshield".

I may not be able to say what I would have done in her situation but I can say what I would not have done.

Ms. Fe': If it would have been a member of your family I think that you would feel differently.

I also think Chante got a raw deal. Yes I know she made bad choices about taking drugs, but once the drugs were in her bloodstream and had crossed the blood-brain barrier, she was no longer capable of making intelligent, informed choices!
Also, and this is NOT "politically correct" but in 52 years on earth I have found that many black people are somewhat afraid to go near dead folks. This could easily have played a part in Chante not going to check on the man.
I do not understand why she said she didn't know what to do, considering that we ALL know to call 911 when something is wrong. I can only assume that she was scared.
I did write her attorney about these things but was not given the courtesy of a reply. I would LIKE to see an appeal and a somewhat different sentence.....
D. Schauer

1.) Drug User: SUFFER
2.) Alcohol abuse: SUFFER
3.) Called Her Friends and --wait--

An individual who uses ILLEGAL drugs, drove drunk, hit someone, dragged them into their garage and left them there called their friends who in turn did NOT call the police?

It may not be possible to count the law violations on one human body.

People that are like Chante Millard will beg for her freedom.

People that are like everyone else will beg for her death.

People that are realistic will not beg at all, why should an ignorant murderous creature who abuses substances be allowed to LIVE?

For a bunch of self-proclaimed Christians it amazes me how you all seem to believe in 'eye for an eye' (a profoundly un-christian, Saudi Arabian philosophy) and can't seem to understand 'turn the other cheek'. This is the fundimental diffenece between Al Quaeda and Jesus Christ.  Remind me again, when Jesus rose from the grave were his first words "Bring me the head of Judas!"?

Pretty general statement isn't it bro?

Kinda like saying all muslims are terrorists? (which is not true but a similar generalization)

Benny:

first of all - I've pointed out before that this woman needs to take responsibility for her actions. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a man bleeding to death on your windshield not only needs help but that he not suppossed to even *be* on your windshield - unless of course he was purposely put there as a hood ornament - but alas, that was not the case. I personally haven't kept up with this story - due to lack of interrest- so I don't know if she's serving her time in prison now or not.

2ndly: "...it amazes me how you all seem to believe in 'eye for an eye' (a profoundly un-christian, Saudi Arabian philosophy) and can't seem to understand 'turn the other cheek'."

Well, picking out just *one* verse from the Bible is like walking in on the middle of a conversation....most of the time, you're not getting the whole story ( and in this case you need an understanding of the culture back then as well) before you jump to conclutions about the message. Back then, sometimes people took the law in their own hands out of revenge and not neccesarily for justice. Jesus was/is definately for justice....he was just trying to pass on a message of going about things in a more constructive means and *not* just FOR revenge.

BTW, Benny:

If you're actually interrested in checking out the actualy reference it is found in Matthew chapter 5....those pieces of verses you quoted are in 38 and 39....

I totally agree that this woman was irresponsible many times that night, when she took drugs, when she got behind the wheel, when she just left a man dying in her windshield - all very irresponsible actions. I dont think that she would make the same mistake again, but who knows.

However, nonviolence and specifically non-capital punishment is not just one verse taken out of context, it is unconditional love that seperates a Christian from another follower of Abraham's God (like a Jew or Muslim). There is signifgance to the fact that Jesus was an executed prisoner in a State which advocated capital punishment as a means to an end. It is not (wo)mankinds place to decide. I think 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is pretty straight forward, thou shall not kill, no matter what. there is no asterisk at the bottom of the commandments granting immunity under specific conditions such as 'justice' or 'pre-emptive strikes'.

Jesus was for forgiveness in life and justice after death, and that justice is handed out at heaven's gate, not by a judge, jury or executioner. That is why in the view of the biblical justice provders, Jesus had to die, he was bad for their image and business.

Do us all a favor and stop quoting the Bible. It is obvious from your past comments that you do not understand what you are talking about.

I remember your previous comment on how the ten commmandments were 'tools of Hebrew oppression'.

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him."

"He who knows not, and knows that he knows not is simple. Teach him."

-Arabian Proverb

"I think 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is pretty straight forward..."

yes, you're right, it is straight pretty straight forward but I guess it depends on how you look at it based on the convictions God Himself gives you. If you're taking someone's life as a punishment for them taking another life - as been stated before - then I find no problem with it. But I don't think this woman deserves the death penalty but I do think she deserves the prison sentence she got. However, enough has been said about that anyway. Besides, what I said was MOST of the time you need to back track in the Bible to get a clearer picture of what is being said. It is not ALWAYS just cut and dry and to the point ( though sometimes it is)....you DO have to do your homework.

The hebrew word that is used means both kill and murder. 2 different words with 2 different meanings.

Cwilli: I am trying to reconcile the opinons of people with their statesd religion based on my limited knowlege of Dogma. Specifically how a Christian can support capital punshment/military aggression since they involve killing. I dont think I have ever cited verse or quoted the bible directly, aside from referencing some of the most well known sayings (this is because i do not believe there is much value in taking the bible literally). It is hard to imagine a more clear example of a guilt-based system of social control than the ten commandments, so if you don't understand that, I give up. You sure know a lot of Arabian proverbs.. did you convert to islam? are those the proverbs that Osama uses to justify his actions (eye 4 eye, shun thy ignorant neighbor)? ;)

MrsMuddy:"it depends on how you look at it based on the convictions God Himself gives you." You are absolutely right, things sure would be simpler if we all had the same God(s). Pesky freedom of religion.

skywalker: good point but isn't that why we as non-hebrews have a clergy to translate to english for us and make sure we know it means kill and not murder.

If you want to see what happens when the eye for an eye mentality meets head on with the hebrew version of thou shalt not kill, look at Palestine/Israel... violence from both sides sure solved that situation in a hurry (sarcasm).

Benny:

I know you wrote this part to cwilli but.....

"I am trying to reconcile the opinons of people with their statesd religion based on my limited knowlege of Dogma."

Dude, are you really going to get the answer you want? I mean, if you're trying so hard to "reconcile" the opinons with their stated faith then maybe you should do your own research on the subject. Not trying to push things on you but you seem like an intelligible guy so wouldn't the proper way of trying to understand something would be to go to the source of what "the people" believe? Like I said, I don't think we're going to give you an answer that is sufficient to your thinking (of course, I could *always* be wrong).

"Specifically how a Christian can support capital punshment/military aggression since they involve killing."

Capital punishment is done according to the laws of a particular place. The more I thought about it (not to mention going back and looking at it), even Genesis 9:6 says "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed...". The commandment of "Thou shalt not kill" (from what I've been able to study so far) is talking about taking matters in your own hands and going against the laws of the land and killing *against* the authorized law(s).

Like *I* said....It depends on your convictions. Some Christians *don't* believe in capital punishment. Some Christians probably don't agree with military action either. Sometimes, though, Christians (just like anyone else can) misinterpret the Bible. Look at the Christians who claim that homosexuality is okay because they claim they can't find it in the Bible when Romans chapter 1 (specifically in verses 26 and 27) clearly does oppose it. No, I'm not trying to get on the "gay thing" again because I'm not trying to change the subject here...I was simply trying to make a point. Enough said.

"isn't that why we as non-hebrews have a clergy to translate to english for us and make sure we know it means kill and not murder."

1st of all: I think Skywalker was talking about the word "ratsach" (it has a marking above the first "a" but, it's just not happening on my keyboard). Skywalker was right, it means *both* kill *and* murder, and slay...but that's according to my "Strong's Expanded Dictionary" (God, I love my dictionary. *mrs. muddy wipes a tear from her eye.* :-D ).

Second of all: The "clergy" aren't always right themselves that's why we need to do the research for ourselves. Also - again with convictions and/or interpretation...the clergy are going to go *on* their convictions and the interpretation they feel God has given them. Just because God gives one person an interpretation of a verse as well as a specific conviction, it doesn't mean He gives the same conviction/interpretation for everyone else. Therefore reiterating the fact that we need to do our homework as *well* as listen to the "clergy".

"You sure know a lot of Arabian proverbs.. did you convert to islam? are those the proverbs that Osama uses to justify his actions"

I challenge you to find any other time I have quoted Arabian proverb, You wont find any. Asking if this is the same proverb used by Osama was your not-so clever attempt to turn the quote around on me and was laughable. You will have to try a little harder.

Besides wouldnt that be the same Osama who's idiology you actually agree with?

"It is hard to imagine a more clear example of a guilt-based system of social control than the ten commandments"

LOL! See again you are showing that you do not know what you are talking about. (He who knows not and knows not he knows not....)

"Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sent his Son to die for you."
-John Ashcroft (unconfirmed)

cwilli: earlier in this very same post you advocate ditching the US Constitution in favor of the Saudi Hammurabi Code, you site an Arab proverb as your reasoni. 3rd one down, and like many of your posts it features a great personal insult thrown in there for that added 'punch':

""Do we beat up those convicted of assault? Do we thieve from convicted burglars? Do we set fire to arsonists?"
Maybe we should. ever heard of an eye for an eye you jackass?
Posted by: cwilli at June 30, 2003 06:31 PM""

Why do you seem to say my ideology of non-violence is the same as Osama's ideology of voilent acts against all his enemies, worldwide?

Bush's 'Christianity' is a faith in which the Armed Services has sent it's sons to die for his fathers' sins!
-Leo Strauss(unconfirmed)

Mrs muddy:
"Thou shalt not kill" (from what I've been able to study so far) is talking about taking matters in your own hands and going against the laws of the land and killing *against* the authorized law(s)."

This is a perfect example of how the ten commandments (and organized religion in general) have been used as a system of social control to organize western people into States for the good of the ruling class. The government is implicitly granted status equal to God in that they can decide who deserves to die. The mass lynchings that were until 50 years ago very common in the US are an example of people using their interpretations of this to get away with mass murder, since the government down south did not prosecute lynchers and in fact often government officials (mayors, sheriffs, etc) took part in mob beatings and killings.

"it means *both* kill *and* murder, and slay"
So if we all remember the logical definition of 'both' and 'and' we can see that Moses' hebrew God told him never to kill, murder, or slay, not just one of those 3, murder, ratsach means all 3.

Score one for Vegetarians.

It (like many hebrew words) means all 3 but is only used for 1 at a time. It has to do with context and other such things.

Bennyhill. First of all 'eye for an eye' is not an Arabian quote and second calling that quote "in favor of the Saudi Hammurabi Code" is another laughable attempt to turn my quote around on me. You make hugh leaps to make that connection and miss the sarcasm in my post.

"Why do you seem to say my ideology of non-violence is the same as Osama's ideology of voilent acts against all his enemies, worldwide?"

Funny thing about that. I am sure that Osama believes he is non-violant as well. He also has never known to actually commit a terrorist act himself. Bennyhill when two paths meet in the same place you call the shorter one a shortcut. Osama may be the shortcut but both of your paths end in the same world; without America and Christianity.

I never argue with non-believers. I was one myself and I know every argument to prove that God does not exist.

I will however pray for you.

"The mass lynchings that were until 50 years ago very common in the US are an example of people using their interpretations of this to get away with mass murder,..."

1st of all: Lynchings have nothing to do with capital punishment. You're talking about 2 different things. Lynchings were done because of hatred and prejudism. I'll be the first to admit that I have NO idea *what* kind of laws they had back then to protect the people who were the victims but I'm sure whatever laws they *did* have were continuously compromised AND bastardized as to fit the perpatrator's own prejudiced, rasist mind set.

And secondly, those situations didn't have really anything to do with "interpretations" of the Bible....it had more to do with people *corrupting* and *twisting* the Bible so as they could *make* it "fit" their own evil, twisted minds, hearts, intentions, agendas AND prejudice. I would be willing to bet good money that most (if not ALL) of those people also didn't even crack *open* the Bible let alone try to understand its' true message.

"So if we all remember the logical definition of 'both' and 'and' we can see that Moses' hebrew God told him never to kill, murder, or slay, not just one of those 3, murder, ratsach means all 3."

Interresting how you failed to quote my other comment on Genisis 9:6....or maybe you're just quoting only what you *specifically* want from my comment to fit your *own* agenda? Believe it or not, I actually mean no offense by that.

"Score one for Vegetarians."

*I'm* a vegetarian. I guess I'm just a new breed.

Oh...and for the record..."Eye for an eye" was part of jewish law. It comes from the Bible.

What is with all this need for revenge? She screwed up, she is in prison for 50 years (way too long!), its not like shes gonna go out and do it again. Im truely sorry for the victim, but dont throw another life away for stupidity.

Sorry, how is 50 years to long? The woman killed someone, and then tried to cover it up! If she hadn't tried to cover it up, if she had called 911 like her friends told her to do then she'd probably out and about today. Sorry, it sounds more like negligent homocide and vehicular homocide to me...rather than a mistake.

What benefit does 50 years serve? Ive been in prison - 1 single day is an eternity, and a week goes on forever.. 50 years is beyond most peoples comprehension when youre inside - will she do it again after 50 years? of course not - butwhat if she gfot 10 or 15? she will have some life left herself.. whatever happened to forgiveness?

What benefit? Really simple, a person who committed a violent crime isn't on the street. That benefits all of us. Screw her. MAybe she can learna valuable trade while in prison and when she gets out early she'll have a job.

I'm glad that a day is an eternity. I want people who commit violentcrime to be punished, and if doesn't seem like an eternity, it isn't much of a punishment. I don't feel sorry for you having been in prison (unless your crime was non-violent drug related, then I feel very sorry for you becausenothing you did not violate anyone's ight to life, liberty,property, or pursuit of happiness...same with prostitution...in fact with prostitution, it helped someone's pursuit of happiness haha.) You, and she, committed a crime and you paid the price.

You and I both know the likely hood of her serving 50 years in prison is pretty low anyways, so this is pretty irrelevant isn't it?

"...in fact with prostitution, it helped someone's pursuit of happiness haha."

Haha...you're bad.:-P

Was she a violent criminal before? No, is she likely to re-offend? No - she was incredibly stupid and thoughtless, but she didnt go out with a view to attacking him. In terms of your opinion on me, i couldnt care less for your thoughts or comments, and your narrow minded opinion can stay to yourself. Withour knowledge on my case you arent qualified to judge me. She is in Texas and will serve a minimum 25 years as you must complete a minimum 50% before parole.

"but she didnt go out with a view to attacking him."

No, BUT she DID commit a crime. She LEFT him to die. As I stated *somewhere* above...it's not necessarily WHAT she did BUT how she went about treating the situation AFTER the accident that makes this crime so horrible. For that, and based upon what I've read before - She does deserve what she is getting. Besides, as Skywalker pointed out, she will most likely NOT serve all her time anyway.

BTW....if YOU think her sentence was is too harsh what *do* you think should happen to her?

Hey carlos, I didn't say I knew anything about your case. I didn't state an opinion of you. I simply said you committed a crime and you did your time. So, you might want to watch out before you get so defensive.

Let's define narrowmindedness shall we? To me is seems narrow minded or closed minded people are people who form opinions and stick to them. Open minded people seem to be people who easily shift opinions. Is that a befitting definition?

If it is, then you are likewise a narrow minded person and I'd advise you to give up your hypocrisy.

I never said she set out to kill the guy (Well at least we don't know that she did. For all we know she saw hima nd tried to hit himf or kicks, but we can't read her mind can we so we can only assume it was accidental.

So she accidentally hits a man. Pulls her car to her house with a man sticking out of her windshield, still alive. Friends advise her to call 911 and she refuses and just leaves the man to die. Stupid and thoughtless is a bit mild of a description. Forgetting to turn off the stove is stupid and thoughtless. Backing out of a parking space without looking behind you is stupid and thoughtless. Showing how strong windows ont he 35th floor are by running into them at full speed is stupid and throughless. Hitting someone in your car and continuing to drive down the road with him sticking out of your windshield is sick and demented, and it is darn near sociopathic.

It is only to bad that this case did not get more publicity. If it did other people might not be so stupid and thoughtless.

25 years for parole, how about for a pardon? You can get pardoned before you even go to trial! 25 years...*tear* LEt me get out the worlds smallest violina nd play my heart bleeds for her.

She wasn't likely to do it again if she called 911 either, was she? But she chose to let the man die instead. 25 to 50? Cry me a river.

You're trying to get my to feel sorry for her being in prison by showing how hard it is to be in prison by empathizing with her, which implies that you also want people to feel sorry for you and your prison time also. So I'd say you do or did care if I felt sorry for you serving a sentence.

Thank you for your vague justifications - very enjoyable - if you are so open minded, stop dismissing my opinions.

This case hit world headlines, so it had publicity beyond the United States. It was on the front page of newspapers in the United Kingdom.

"you might want to watch out before you get so defensive"

"I'd advise you to give up your hypocrisy"

yes, ill change my entire thought structure now based on your amazing and inciteful suggestions.

25 years sitting in a tiny cell, in constant fear for your life, worried about being attacked is a horrendous experience regardless of your complete inability to empathize (and no - im not after empathy for my case, i never asked for it and certainly wouldnt expect it).

.."which implies that you also want people to feel sorry for you and your prison time".. again, where that came from i dont know - but so kind of you to judge.

World head lines mean little: I never heard about it until muddy brought it up on here.

I didn't say I was open minded, I said there is nothing wrong with being closed/narrow minded!

I didn't say you were after empathy, I said you were empathizing. And I'm glad it's a hard life to be in prison, if it were easy, it wouldn't be much of a punishment would it?

Yes, hypocrisy is a thought structure...that makes sense. Hey, let me give you a hint: hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. That's not a thought structure, is a way of living that tends to attract criticism. Hey, I see now why you're a criminal it is because you're STUPID! You're to stupid to survive in the private sector and be as successful as you like to you had to resort to crime. Doe sthat sum it up? IF I'm wrong inform me. IF you were selling drugs cause hey there is a profit in it...tell me. Were you wrongly accused? Was it self defense and you were convicted of manslaughter when they should have let you go? Was it a crime you didn't know was illegal? Give me some excuse, otherwise I'm going to continue to rack it up to your complete and total incapability for rational thought, and therefore completely inabilit yot succeed in the jobmarket or your lack of a sack to go out there in a freemarket society and take a damned risk at being your own boss.

As you ask:

My wife was attacked/mugged when we were out for a meal, i stepped in and the attacker lost big time. I got sent away because of it, and he possibly wont walk again. So, yes, i suppose i am a criminal, but i also didnt go out looking for it, however i had to react - admittedly in a way that i shouldnt have.

It has nothing to do with stupidity, i have a M.Sc in Psychology/ Counselling (i assume you are also a graduate with such strong words). I therefore believe i have more rational thought than you appear to have with your ravings.

Im at a loss where your " completely inabilit yot succeed in the jobmarket " comes from - im fluent in several languages, but not in the rubbish you come out with. Counselling is an area where convicted felons are allowed to work, and i head up a team of counsellors at a University.

I notice you are also terrified of being questioned and reply by moving the conversation to a subtley different area, possibly because you feel choosing a subject that are comfortable with is easier than admitting you are wrong or uneducated in certain areas? Its a fairly common occurence. I notice you are one of those people who go through these adrenaline rushes while typing their replies quickly before they have time to formulate their thought cohesively. it doesnt make you a bad person.. im sure you get excited when doing it.

As you ask:

My wife was attacked/mugged when we were out for a meal, i stepped in and the attacker lost big time. I got sent away because of it, and he possibly wont walk again. So, yes, i suppose i am a criminal, but i also didnt go out looking for it, however i had to react - admittedly in a way that i shouldnt have.

It has nothing to do with stupidity, i have a M.Sc in Psychology/ Counselling (i assume you are also a graduate with such strong words). I therefore believe i have more rational thought than you appear to have with your ravings.

Im at a loss where your " completely inabilit yot succeed in the jobmarket " comes from - im fluent in several languages, but not in the rubbish you come out with. Counselling is an area where convicted felons are allowed to work, and i head up a team of counsellors at a University.

I notice you are also terrified of being questioned and reply by moving the conversation to a subtley different area, possibly because you feel choosing a subject that are comfortable with is easier than admitting you are wrong or uneducated in certain areas? Its a fairly common occurence. I notice you are one of those people who go through these adrenaline rushes while typing their replies quickly before they have time to formulate their thought cohesively. it doesnt make you a bad person.. im sure you get excited when doing it.

"My wife was attacked/mugged when we were out for a meal, i stepped in and the attacker lost big time. I got sent away because of it..."

If that is indeed the whole story in a nut shell...you got screwed big time and shouldn't have had to spend one night in jail let alone prison. Just out of curiousity - and if you don't mind me asking - what happened to the guy who attacked your wife? Did he do any time?

Thank you for asking. He ended up getting 4 years (he plea bargained when he should have got 11 - 14 years, mainly because i lost my temper and overdid things). He was wheeled into the court which gave a lot of weight to his sympathy and 'poor little me' cause.

I took my punishment, but he ended up so hurt after a fight when i threw him over a wall (without realising how far it was down on the other side!). I had no intention of hurting him so bad, i was trying to stop him hurting someone i love - and i did nearly twice as long as he did.

I agree. If that is how it happened then you were screwed. I don't think anyone should ever be charged when it is in self-defense.

I'm not terrified of being questioned and trying to analyze me will get poor results. Almost every assumption you just made was very much wrong. But I expect that from someone who is a psychologist, I've known several, and have a few friends who are psychologist. And my typing errors come form the fact that I'm busy and generally don't bother to proof read things I write - not from an adrenaline rush as you so assume.

The statement that you have an inability to succeed int he job market is based off of an assumption that you were a criminal because you were stupid. You weren't, you were railroaded. Either or, boohoo about Chante Mallard. I want people who are convicted of such crimes to suffer. I want her punishment to be hard. If she does 50 years and spends everyday fearing fo rher life, then good. Maye she can then have empathy for the guy she let suffer sitting in her windshield.

"when i threw him over a wall (without realising how far it was down on the other side!). I had no intention of hurting him so bad"

In my opinion....he got what he deserved. It's good you did not mean too hurt him as bad as you did (it shows *you* have a conscience). He chose to attack your wife and therefore (I believe) he got what he got.

"...i was trying to stop him hurting someone i love"

Good for you.:-)

I'm going to get even more nosy now. If you would permit me once again, that is. Did you call for help when the guy got hurt and (if he's out now) do you know if he's still "living a life of crime" so to speak or did he somehow end up changing his ways?

"...and trying to analyze me will get poor results."

Yes, I gave up on that one myself a long time ago. hahaha.:-P

Nope, i dont mind you asking at all. It was in a fairly crowded area, but no-one came to help. People were watching, but the police arrived and by the time i was aware he was badly hurt, i had been arrested and taken into custody. I didnt know that going out for dinner that night was the last time in near 9 years i would see my house!

He is living fairly close by, but as far as i know his injuries stop him attacking any other defensless people. Like i say, i wouldnt wish what happened to him on anybody, but id do the same again if i was in that position..

I was earlier trying to make the point that we sometimes find ourselves in positions (deserving or otherwise) where we are unable to react the way we are supposed to. I just feel that there is a difference in making poor judgement (and im not about to get into another discussion on semantics with skywanker), and conscious decisions to hurt someone. Mallards actions were despicable. They disgusted me. She also put herself in amindset where she couldnt go back on what she did. Minutes after she made her first bad decision, she was like a gambler on a losing streak, and she couldnt quit. Her thoughts became on saving her own ass, instead of doing the right thing - she reacted badly. I just feel 50 years (25 with parole!) doesnt change any of the terrible things that happened, and serves as nothing more than retribution.

if sending people to prison is such a good deterrant - why do we keep having to do it?

Wow! There are SOOOO many things wrong with that 1st paragraph. This guy was actually stupid enough to attack in a fairly crowded area? What an idiot! Of course, the fact that no one bothered to help makes me wonder if *he* knew that would be the case anyway. Didn't the police ask any witnesses what they saw? Didn't *anyone* try to stick up for you? I mean, the fact that no one helped out yet they stuck around to watch...well, non of that suprises me. It's just, they say that in situations such as those that, that is when you see a person's true colours. Obviously you protect who you love...the others well maybe some were afraid they would do more harm than good, but I would like to think that I would have at least *tried* to do something. Who knows. I'm sure you don't want pitty (which is why I'm not giving you any) but I am sorry for what happened to you AND your wife.

"Like i say, i wouldnt wish what happened to him on anybody, but id do the same again if i was in that position.."

As well you should (and should never be punished for it).

"...we sometimes find ourselves in positions (deserving or otherwise) where we are unable to react the way we are supposed to."

True.

"I just feel that there is a difference in making poor judgement.... and conscious decisions to hurt someone."

Look, I understand what you are saying about Mallard and you also agree that her actions were "despicable" and that "They disgusted" you. However, my point (as well as I believe Skywalkers point is) is that she may not have made a conscious decision to hit that unfortunate man (if that was the only thing she did wrong, I would definately feel horible for her) BUT she *did* make a conscious decision to try to cover it up as well as to work with her friends to despose of the his body. That's why *I* personally don't feel bad for her now. Obviously, the woman needs help and hopefully, she will get it.

"if sending people to prison is such a good deterrant - why do we keep having to do it?"

I think there are MANY reasons for that. With all due respect, I would bet YOU could answer that as well - if not *better* than I could.

Pirson doesn't deter people, it punishes people.

I agree its a comment open to discussion, it was actually a quote from Nietzche. Sort of like "if smacking kids works, why do you keep smacking them?"

If Prison isnt a deterrant, then it simply doesnt work. I agree with Sky on one point, it means they arent on the street doing anything else wrong (although God knows they get up to enough trouble behind the walls!), but if it doesnt deter, its not working properly.

She did make awful decisions, but they were all from her warped, drug induced frame of reference.. by the time she was thinking logically (if ever she did!), the dynamic of the situation had changed too much for her to go back.. her whole concept of the situation was in a different paradigm entirely to one of a rational persons. The one decision she made (when drunk, stoned and high) to keep driving caused the chain of events that followed.

"Prison doesn't deter people, it punishes people."

Well, yes and no. If you think about it. It's true, it does punish people but *I* think it also does deter *some* people when they realize that the end result (jail/prison time) just isn't worth it.

"She did make awful decisions, but they were all from her warped, drug induced frame of reference.."

Yes, which has also been another point of mine. When you take drugs and/or alcohol you do have to realize and understand *before* hand that what you're about to ingest CAN very well impair your judgement AND reaction. It is each individual's responsibility to make the proper arrangments (to arrange for a taxi or sober friend/aquantance to take them home at the end of the evening) *before* any kind of behavior is exhibited. The fact that she willingly took drugs and alcohol and STILL took it upon herself to drive home proovs to me she's too irresponsible to think in the best frame of mind anyhow....but that's MHO.:-)

Actually Mrs. M - you make a very good point!

They should string the ***** up man, she doesnt deserve to live!

Oh here we go, another philosopher!

"Oh here we go, another philosopher!"

LOL!...Phiosopher? I don't think I'd go *that* far yet.:o)

Just kill her and save the money we would waste on keeping her dumb ass alive

Again, thats some persuasive argument you have there Danny. Shall we kill everyone in prison and save loads of money? We look forward to some more deep thinking from you soon!

carlos, do you believe in evolution by natural selection or some derivation thereof?

Im a Charles Darwin follower and believe in evolution.

Then why do humans try so hard to protect the people who can't otherwise fend for themselves?

Its a good question, but its essentially a balance of emotion (which we have limited control over) against animal instinct.

marriage, friendship (in the form we understand), jealousy are all manmade decisions. We have developed into what we consider a civilized society. With this civilization comes a change to natures course. We dont merely follow a chain of development and growth, but we create and indoctrinate our own societal beliefs. As humans we feel the need to fit in and therefore follow societal pressures to have such things as love etc. Our reactions to basic animal situations such as attack are therefore based on an alternate frame of reference to the basic tenets of darwins theory.

So do you not believe that love (and jealously, for that matter) are naturally inherited? I believe we do have choices in how we deal with these emotions (though we do have to work hard at it) but I do believe they are inherited.

"As humans we feel the need to fit in and therefore follow societal pressures to have such things as love etc."

I believe this to be true as well, to a degree, but when it comes to love itself are you saying we feel pressure to have love *period* or that we feel pressured to live up to what societies definition of love is so that we *can* fit in? Or maybe it's just one of those days when I'm misreading everything. haha.:o)

Afternoon Mrs. M!

I honestly dont believe love, jealousy etc are naturally inherited. I think we learn these emotions based on our developmental years.

I think that humans generally believe marriage is 'normal'. Marriage is supposedly based on love.. ergo, we feel the need to give and receive love, regardless of our deepest innermost feelings.

There are many people who can go through life without love, and are perfectly happy. Others may look at them and say they are wasting their lives, but if they are happy, who are the 'lovers' to question? Who can say what is right and natural? Jealousy is proven to be a learned emotion based on the individuals insecurities and their inability to feel worthy.

(By Are inherited, i meant ARENT!!)

You don't make a good case for homosexuality being genetic there, but I bet you believe that. By your logic it sounds like you would say intelligence is learned and not genetic. Your logic also leads to the statement that talent is learned not natural. The problem I have with what you are saying, is that you're trying to quantify as a thing something that is a concept. You can't define emotion, you experience it. You can't define intelligence, you just know when someone is bright. You can't define talent, but you know when a ball player has it.

I believe society does warp the ideas of love, emotions, intelligence even. But that doesn't change that we experience them naturally. No one taught me that I should love my sister, but I knew when I first saw her, when I was but 4 years old that she was my sister and I loved her. No one taught me to look out for my friend's sister when she was scared in a lightning storm, but when I saw she was scared during one, I was quick to comfort her at the age of six. Some things are natural. Control, decision making. These are the things that separate us from animals. We still have some of the animal instinct, but we can always control (short of mental illness that impairs our judgement, such as schizophrenia) our decisions. Animal instinct does not make us kill. We decide to kill. I've been in a fist fight in which I nearly killed the guy. Why didn't I? Because I knew that it would be wrong. So I let him go away with a concussion and a fracture. Would I have gotten away with it? Yes, he attacked me with a baseball bat in front of 10 other people. I managed to do this at 13. I was recently told by someone of your profession, that part of maturity is the ability and composure to think things through before you act, even under minor stresses.

Your argument is a typical argument to defend murderers: we only have partial control over our emotions, and then animal instinct takes over. Which is probably why you think it is wrong to imprison a murderer for 50 years.

Funny, you sound vaguely like this well known guy who went by Sigmund Freud. He said things that sounded like that, but these days many credible psychologists say he was very wrong (probably from all the cocaine I might add. J/K)

Carlos:

"I honestly dont believe love, jealousy etc are naturally inherited. I think we learn these emotions based on our developmental years."

Actually, I agree with skywalker on his response (though, I do believe that emotion, intellegence and talent are *both* genetic AND learned). I would also like to add too that though, no one teaches us to love our parents either (though I do believe we learn to love them more as we live our lives), we love them naturally from day one. I even had a father that from the time I was 9 started to tell me more lies than he did the truth. He broke my heart more times than I could count but I still loved him (didn't *trust* him as far as I could throw him.:-D But I *did* still love him) because he was my father. Not because I was *taught* to love him - truth be known, I almost convinced myself I hated him but it was *because* of the fact that I hurt so bad over him that I knew my love for him was natural and not learned. Trust me, if my love for him was learned it would have been a hell of alot easier to turn the switch off (of course some people would say *my* "switch" was turned off long ago...but that's a different subject altogether. hahaha.).

Let me also add that when my childern were born, no one taught them how to love. Though it is true that they fed off of our emotions and our responses and reactions, I believe they took what we gave out to them and used it to develop what they already had in them. I'll never forget the first time my eldest cried and not because they were wet or hungry but because they needed to be held...loved. When I picked them up to craddle them and pat them...they knew they were safe and loved and they became comforted and stopped crying.

"I think that humans generally believe marriage is 'normal'. Marriage is supposedly based on love.. ergo..."

I don't think marriage is normal or *abnormal* (of course, not much is really "normal" with me so that doesn't leave much hope for a "normal" marriage with me.:-P ) and, it's true, *some* people aren't made for marriage and they *do* go through live perfectly happy but they *do* share love with other people (family, friends and lovers) because of our natural desires.

"...we feel the need to give and receive love, regardless of our deepest innermost feelings."

I don't think it's *regardless* of our deepest innermost feelings I think it's *because* of them.

I think a better way to say it would be that we don't learn emotions or talent et al. We develop them further.

Talent is the greatest example of this. Take Michael Vick. IMO, one of the most naturally talented quarterbacks around. But imagine if he never ever practiced. Then that talent would be useless as he wouldn't know how to use it. But imagine if he had practiced even more than he did, imagine how great we wold all think him then.

That's not to say someone who lacks this talent can't become that good, they just have to develop more, and use more effort. How do we quantify what this talent is though? You can take 2 guys, one who is without a doubt more athletic physically than the other, but put a bat in his hands he can't hit a ball to save his life - but he can render beautiful paintings. The less physically athletic guy on the other hand might be able to put the ball anywhere he wants it, and struggle to do stick figures with finger paints.

By all rights, if talent and emotions are learned (if one is learned, because the other is an equally abstract thing, it must be also) then the more athletic guy should be the better hitter. But he isn't, because he lacks the talent to do that, or perhaps he just has so little talent that developing it takes more effect than he wishes.

I brought this whole thing up to point out why he has such a problem with what I see as a very fair sentence. On the other hand, if it had been pre-meditated I'd say she should fry.

Carlos would say she made a mistake, she hadn't learned the emotion of compassion. She never learned the emotion of pity. So we can't blame her that her enviroment didn't teach her these things, despite that she was told be friends to call 911 and save the man's life.

So should we let murders out with a slap on the wrist? Ted Bundy, killed X number of people right? That's okay though, he just never learned it was wrong. He never learned guilt so he kept killing. We can't blame him, right.

Then we'll let out rapists. They just didn't learn it was wrong to have sex with women against their will. They never learned to love so they don't have a desire to sleep with a woman (or man as the case may be) they love. We can't blame them.

I don't know about you, but no one ever had to tell me that taking someone's life was wrong, and I had images on TV of people doing it all the time.

The whole argument that this stuff is learned is a criminal defense attorney's cop-out defense for their clients. It rarely (if ever) works and is illogical and self-contradictory.

"You can't define emotion, you experience it. You can't define intelligence, you just know when someone is bright. You can't define talent, but you know when a ball player has it."..

Well, yet again, you are bewildering me. Emotion is entirely quantifiable. Every action is quantifiable. Intelligence is quantifiable.

Im fully aware of Freud, as i have a M.Sc in Psychology, and its been known for years that his beliefs in psychometric sexuality were unfounded or at best misguided. Id be interested where the connotation of my beliefs lie within the boundaries of his theories? Pleased explain?

"Then we'll let out rapists. They just didn't learn it was wrong to have sex with women against their will. They never learned to love so they don't have a desire to sleep with a woman (or man as the case may be) they love. We can't blame them"
Rape isnt about sex, its about violence, read any leaflet. (Or ask any qualified Pschologist). You seem to find that throwing all crimes together convieniently justifies your weak as water argument. How is a rapist who goes out intent on attacking someone for a specific personal reason the same as a drunk driver?

Your claim of having been in a fight where you nearly killed a guy, comes a bit too late in the conversation to be believed.

Carlos - Exactly!! Im glad you mention that! Rape is a crime of violence, and people who set out to do something so awful should be locked away for ever.

I agree Chante Mallard should be away in prison, but 50 years is much too long.

Carlos: Do me a favor then. Measure anger for me. Measure love for me. Studies show that our measure of intelligence are flawed and useless (IQ tests.) You can't quantify abstracts. That's why they are called abstracts!

I lumped some violent crimes together. If you recall, I mentioned something about impaired judgement. Of course, a drunk driver could have easily prevented his driving drunk by drinking around at least one sober person who can ensure they don't do anything stupid.

You can not believe my claim if you want. That's fine, you're the shrink. You've already proven that you (like most psychologists in my experience) make a lot of flawed assumptions. But we used to have a sign in one of our classrooms at NAMTRAMARUNIT: "When you assume, you make an ass out of u and not me."

I said you sound a lot like Freud: you blame people's poor choices are everyone or everything but themselves.

Skywalker, less anger! Its easily measurable in your choice of words. Anger is measurable by decisions, by actions, and by words. A 2 yr old child can tell if their parent or brother is angry.. Why cant you?

Which studies show that Intelligent Quotient measures of intelligence are flawed?

The whole point you miss with your comments on crime is intent. If one intends to commit a crime, then they arent the same as one who made poor judgement but had not made a decisions to specifically commit a crime.

I dont say people shouldnt be accountable for their actions, but environment and learned actions and decisions influence their choices and actions.

Hey carlos, I wasn't angry when I wrote that. In fact, I wasn'te ven slightly. More flawed assumptions.

A 2 yr old can tell if mommy or daddy is angry by tone of voice. You can get a baby to go to sleep by reading the newspaper to him or her if you use the right tone of voice! But that still does not measure anger. It is just an expression of it.

I haven't missed the point, you have sir: regardless of intent, you still make a concious choice to commit a crime or not.

Influence does not equal making the choice.

We both know i have been correct about many of my observations on you, and if i mentioned your correct name and address you would still say i was wrong, so i think we need to agree to disagree.

Influence will affect every choice you make, either consciously or subconsciously. Influence gives the very reason for choice.

I didn't say enviroment doesn't affect your decisions. I said you make your decisions and you can't blame your enviroment. If enviroment was to blame for every choice people make then I should be a drug addict living on the streets. But I'm not.

If you mentioned my correct name and address I'd not bother to reply to you and have muddy delete the message and ban you because that's none of anyone's business. You have not been correct about any of your observations sir. You're a psychologist, so you think you can read everything about me, and yet, you can't.

Sky,

Do you honestly not know who i am??

Hey, carlos

How's it going? :-) I wouldn't expect Skywalker to answer you for a while. He's gone for the next 6 weeks with no internet access for - as he put it - a "work assignment".:-)

Morning Mrs M.

Sounds ominous! LOL.

(Wonder if he got sent to Jail?) LOL

(Perhaps he got sent to jail for 6 weeks??) LOL

LMAO!!!!
You're bad!:-P He'll explain more (maybe) when he gets back. I could try...but I couldn't *begin* to do it justice.

He doesnt know it, but he actually knows me - he is so sensitive to being antagonized! LOL

His absence is due to his work, not jail. I assure you. :-D

Thats a shame, it would have opened up so many new conversations! LOL.

How does he know you? Or is that too personal?

you know what...how you know him is actually none of my (or anyone's) business. I'm having one of those days where I ask first and courtesy and common sence step in later. Sorry.:-P

LOL - Not at all - i know him thru school from a couple years back, but he probably doesnt remember me well!.

Ah!:-) Someone will have to tell him when he gets back. I didn't mean to come off as "goofy" I just hate sounding/being noisy....however, I'm just too curious for my own good - well - sometimes.:-)

Thats ok, its human nature! (No doubt Sky will say im wrong about that too!!)

Actually, I think he would agree with you on that one.:-)

That would make a nice change! LOL.

So Mrs M, tell me a little about this website, and can i read up anywhere a bit about you?

"That would make a nice change! LOL."

Hahaha...Did you guys not agree much? I'll have to ask him about it too sometime when he's not so buisy.

"...tell me a little about this website..."

Well, you can go to the top of this page and click on the "main" page or on the muddysmind.com logo and you can skim from there, I guess. As far as anything about me...well, we don't have any "bio's" listed or anything (never thought anyone would give a care really.:-P ) but, you're welcome to ask. I'm usually an open book except on the net because, as you know, *anyone* could be reading and since you can't be too careful these days, I don't want to be *that* open. But, hey, like I said...just ask away. If it's too personal, I'll just change the subject. hehehe. :-)

Ill read up top - then ask your age! LOL

ok, nothing to see here. break it up. move along. :-P

"ok, nothing to see here. break it up. move along."

LMAO!!! I'll be the judge of that...hahaha.:-P
***mrs. muddy winks at muddy and blows him a kiss***

"...then ask your age!"

Carlos! Didn't anyone ever teach you that a proper lady would *never* tell her age for if she did, she would tell anything and everything?

So in that case, I'm 32...LOL!

Me too! LOL

Got to recommend a site to you www.419eater.com
Its a guy who gets the begging/attempted theft letters from Nigeria where they promise him millions for next to nothing, and at the last minute they need a few thousand for expenses. He has them photographing themselves with fish on their heads, painting their right breat red.. its a scream!

"Got to recommend a site to you www.419eater.com"

You mean posting as a link or just general reading?

muddy posted something similar to this before back in May of this year under the heading:

Urgent Response Needed!

muddy tore them up.:-)

carlos: do tell what school I know you from, cause I think you're pretty much wrong on that one too.

skywalker:

Helllooooo!!! Back so soon? We hardly had a chance to miss you so....go away and we'll try harder this time.:-P kidding, kidding hehehe.

yeah, well I was supposed to be gone longer...the fact that I'm home is not something I'm happy about.

You're back Home!? So what the hell happened? Are you going back very soon or are you home for now? Or maybe I should ask Muddy?:-)

Ask him, I really don't want to talk about it.

no problem sweetie. Sorry.:-/

We last spoke less than 6 months ago..

Umm? There is alot of people who match that description.

If you know me from school then you're likely lying about alot of things because my school would kick you out for a felony. That is not mentioning that you would have a difficult time going to my school while married. Then there is the problem of your degree. While I know alot of people with psychology degrees, most of them are women, most of them are single, none of them went to school with me.

If you are talking about my technical schooling, then you can tell me what my MOS is, and it's name. I also know that it isn't high school, middle or school or elementery school. If you say it is, then you're a flat out liar.

So, just tell me what schooling we underwent together and I'll be satisfied.

Let me just say 'Centennial Park'and we will leave it at that! LOL Ill not be back to this site or trouble you further.

Bye Derek!

I'm still at a loss. I have no clue who the heck Mr. Carlos is except that he knows my name (which anyone who thoroughly reads the site would know) he claims to know me from school which would narrow it down quite a bit (about 5 or 6 people) that he is married (narrows it down to 0) and that he claims to have a psychology degree ( -10 or so ) and have done prison time ( -inf? ) So I'd say he's a liar, since nothing he says about me (which btw, what little he did/may/does knows is pretty public information (my name, my school, my occupation, my major, my address.) The phrase centennial park tells me nothing. I know of no one who has graduated my school with a degree in psychology, and I know no one better than an aquaitence who has serve prison time and none of them have any education. So Carlos, you're a liar. If I'm wrong, prove it. Answer my questions instead of cowering. What are you so afraid of? I asked direct questions. The phrase centennial park means little to me except that it is a park in downtown Atlanta that I pass by on the way to school. Come on carlos, you're using public information. I asked you questions that would tell me whether or not you really know me and perhaps even who you are, so what's wrong with answering them? Oh...you don't know the answers.

I'm finding this whole thing halarious.

Come on Carlos, sack up! I know you're reading this, so sack up and answer my questions. You have an irrational fear of answering my questions. Which means you are either a) afraid of being exposed as a liar, or b) you know me in fact very well and that gives you a fear of me. The former is more likely however as you've said nothing which would indicate someone who knows me.

LOL Well, well!

Hi Skywalker - Whilst its great to see you so wound up, i assure you the recent postings are nothing to do with me. My wife and I returned from Palm Beach yesterday, and i havent been on line for quite a few days.. although i seem to have managed to post comments in my own abscence!!. Methinks someone is antagonizing you, and using my esteemed name in the process! I have no idea who you are, and have no desire to know either.

Interesting. It annoys me to have someone lie. Similarly, I've been having comments posted on other websites in my name (skywalker) and my email. Overall, the whole thing pisses me off. I've already had a very rough past week and the last thing I want to some prick trying to annoy me.

(Forgive my ignorance, but what does the phrase 'sack up' mean??)

Well, whilst we seem to not agree on much - i certainly wouldnt do a malicious act such as you have mentioned. Sorry to hear your week is going badly.

C.

Understandable and thank you.

Sack up means to grow some balls. IOW, don't be such a coward.

I like that phrase! LOL

When i first moved to the United States i lived in Atlanta. Great city!

What I'm finding interesting carlos is that your first past couple comments come from the same ip address block and isp as some of the comments you claim to have not written. Which means you're trying to play a mind game with me or you are a liar.

I can see you doing that, I just can't see why.

ok - its time for us to fess up!

Carlos is 4 guys, not just 1. We all use the name for blogs etc and to see if 4 people can use the same discussions and act like 1 person. Its a sort of college experiment. One of us is a graduate in Psych, one is a felon, etc. we all use our life experiences as 1 person.

The bit about knowing you was just to rile you up - the rest is actually all true - just spread over 4 different guys! LOL

We will leave you alone for ever after now.

Its been fun!

Problem is to many inconsistencies in your stories: to my knowledge you can't be a practicing psychologist w/ a criminal record.

That's not mentioning this: what kind of psychologist throws a guy over a wall? Not a very good one. I mean, how can someone who can't control their own impulses teach other people to control their's? (I know there is more to psychology than that.)

Then, you piss off an already agitated guy for $#|+$ and giggles? That's just distasteful.

One other problem, you picked a target who has a background in networking and network security and then posted from different ISPs. It would have been one thing if one had been a college and the other an ISP but you chose AOL and a local ISP. Not a good way to go about it. What you should have done is always posted from the same ISP to make it seem like you were the same person. See while I thought you were some whack job, I would never have bothered checking anything about you hadn't picked such a poor moment to piss me off. Even at that point, I was only interested in where you were from and nothing else to try and figure your statements out.

I'm not even sure you had a clear goal in mind with the experiment, except maybe to see if you could pull it off. Which you could have, it is a very easy thing to pose as someone else on the internet.

Seems like a very poorly designed experiment. Maybe you should rethink it, and redesign it and then try it on someone else.

You comments are well received, and we will work on it accordingly - back to the old drawing board!
Thanks for the input.

"Its a sort of college experiment."

Really? Sure Right! I believe that! So tell me, is that your *final* story or do you want some more time coming up with a better one? I'd say it's more like a *personal* experiment. Well, whether you are 1 person, 4 *individual* people, or 1 person with split personalities and some MAJOR issues (which is more of what *I* believe), we here are not your f****ing guinea pigs....get a REAL life and get lost!

"Its been fun!"

I'll bet you *have* had fun. Well, carlos...since you are (supposely...so you say) a shrink, all I can say is ...."Physician...heal thyself you jerk.".

Personally, my comments (if it really was an experiment they are true) were satirical, as I neither know nor care what the truth about carlos is anymore.

I just personally (if it really *was* an experiment) just don't appriciate someone or some*ones* - whatever the case may be - trying to play God by trying to play with someone's mind. I mean, to try to do an experiment on someone you know is fine...ONLY as long as you inform them you're conducting one. But to do this to complete strangers...*that* indicates a "short fuse" to me. Besides, I agree with you about it being a "poorly designed experiment" because people do stuff like this all the time...it's really nothing new. Stuff like this is how 50 yr. old men lure 15 yr. old kids to other places so they can ...well...you know. Hey, maybe this is how the "felon" got into trubble to begin with. If so...he might want to be on the look out for his parole officer.

I *any* case....I don't care about who or what "carlos" is anymore either. And since "they" are probably still watching:

***mrs. muddy thinks***

Hey! Maybe he was an alien life form of some sort. Oops, wait a min. Alien life forms are supposed to be of "higher intelligence" than we humans are. Oh, well....that leaves out "carlos".

if a white person hit a black person, instantly it would become a race issue. i agree with whomever said she should be given to the biggs' family.

if i were the victim's kid, i would gladly spend the rest of my life in jail if given the chance to kill this bitch.

I've never read so many stupid statements in my life!
What she did was horrific. And the man was homeless because he chose to give his girlfriend his last dime to pay her bills. Homeless yes, a bad person, no. Even if he were a bad person no one deserves to lay inside a windshield and not have help given to them. Chante is a low life of the lowest form and anyone that stands up for her is no better. She should have gotten the death penalty. And Kane was right, had it been a white person that hit a black person the streets would be filled with people marching up and down ranting and raving.
For those of you that don't appreciate the jury playing "God" and deciding on what the punishment will be just wait until something happens to one of your friends or family members and we'll see how freaking fast you change your opinion on that.

I say that yes she did do a crime and didnt render aid, then didnt call 911. But 50 years is 2 harsh. Maybe 25 years at the most because like someone said, she will still have another consequence and that is knowing dat she could have saved a life but she didnt so that will eat her up for the rest of her in jail or not. Then alot of people talkin about dey would have called the police, u dont know what u will do until it happens 2 u. Chante Mallard didnt do it on purpose so i just think she got imprisoned wrongly and Jeb Bush agree. I mean i done saw far more worst crimes than this one and they got lighter sentences than 50 years, some even have been let off on insanity and aint nowhere near insane. So i believe in a retrial.

Jonathan, I wonder if you would feel that same if it would have been your wife she didnt save.

I doubt it.

You cant use the 'life with the rest of her life' punishment because some people dont have any feelings. Those are the type of people who wouldnt help save a life.

She should be put to death. I volunteer to do it.