Would You Like Fries with that Ice?
Have you seen this case about a woman who in a fit of road rage threw a cup of McDonald's ice into another car and was sentenced to two years in prison?
Two years in prison seems excessive for throwing ice; I have seen offenders get less time for actually doing serious damage to people with their stupidity. Was McMissile mom's act of road rage reasonable? Of course not, but neither was a jury's decision to put her in jail for two years. What do you think?
Update: "The 25-year-old military wife convicted of throwing a cup of ice into a car that cut her off on Interstate 95 in Virginia has been sentenced to probation.
Jessica Hall of Jacksonville, North Carolina has been in jail for more than a month since her bond was revoked by a Stafford County judge. A jury had recommended that Hall serve two years in prison, but the judge noted Wednesday that Hall has no criminal record and placed her on probation for the felony conviction." Thanks to Bender for the information.
No one was injured, but the cup launcher, Jessica Hall, 25, of Jacksonville, N.C., was charged and convicted by a Stafford County jury of maliciously throwing a missile into an occupied vehicle, a felony in Virginia. The instructions given to the jury said that "any physical object can be considered a missile. A missile can be propelled by any force, including throwing."
Hall, a mother of three young children whose husband is serving his third tour in Iraq, has spent more than a month in jail.
The jury sentenced her to two years in prison, the minimum, and a judge will formally impose a sentence Wednesday. Under state law, the judge can only decrease the jury's sentence.
"We didn't think it would go this far," Hall said in an interview at the Rappahannock Regional Jail. "Two years! What did I do?"
Two years in prison seems excessive for throwing ice; I have seen offenders get less time for actually doing serious damage to people with their stupidity. Was McMissile mom's act of road rage reasonable? Of course not, but neither was a jury's decision to put her in jail for two years. What do you think?
Update: "The 25-year-old military wife convicted of throwing a cup of ice into a car that cut her off on Interstate 95 in Virginia has been sentenced to probation.
Jessica Hall of Jacksonville, North Carolina has been in jail for more than a month since her bond was revoked by a Stafford County judge. A jury had recommended that Hall serve two years in prison, but the judge noted Wednesday that Hall has no criminal record and placed her on probation for the felony conviction." Thanks to Bender for the information.
posted by Helen at 12:39 PM
54 Comments:
Wow, that's even more idiotic than kids being suspended for bringing nail clippers to school. An SIS with some community service would have been a reasonable penalty. Although when you really think about it, taking care of three kids while her husband does three tours of duty in Iraq is some serious community service in its own right - and could well have put this woman under the sort of stress that would result in this outbreak.
Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
100 hours of community service would be a whole lot more appropriate.
Excessive, I agree. However I have no patience with people who throw fits in public. 500 hours of community service.
Sometimes laws can be written with decent intentions in mind - it reads well to me - but when a law is put into practice and a penalty is enforced that don't seem to fit the spirit of the law, there should be decent recourse to sentence fairly. Obviously throwing something at the driver of a car is a very dangerous action and the perpetrator should be punished, but jail time for this is probably excessive - especially since she has three kids.
But then, where do you, legally, draw the line the next time? What objects are permissible to not draw a felony charge? Rocks: felony; ice: misdemeanor. Hand grenade: felony; hand sanitizer: misdemeanor. To me an object is an object and if it has the potential to injure or even at the least distract a driver, it's a dangerous weapon no matter what it is. Seems little different than ramming the car itself with your own car. Would that warrant community service if it was done on a busy highway?
WARNING: the contents of this cup should not be thrown into another car in a fit of road rage...
This is the problems with laws that are interpreted. In my state there is a law on the books saying you can't drive around with a weapon in your vehicle, leaving it up to the judge and jury to figure out what constitutes a "weapon". A rock?...weapon. Paring knife?...weapon. Machete for bushwhacking?...weapon. Now we find out that ice is a projectile.
However, I thought this was the forum for lax sentences for the ladies and those judges and juries that refuse to hand down stiff punishments for offenders. It seems this jury doesn't have a problem in either catagory.
Cham,
No, that is your projection of what this "forum" is about. This blog is actually about commenting on what is just and fair for all people, regardless of sex, race etc.
The news story I read said she drove into the emergency lane and threw the McDonalds cup while there was a fatal car accident on the road up ahead.
That makes it sound a little bit worse, but still not deserving of 2 years.
But it was also the minimum sentence the jury could recommend under the statute, and that the judge can reduce it from there. Which the judge probably will.
I'd have to know more before blaming the jury. Did they have the option to convict on a lesser, misdemeanor offense?
And the problem might be the prosecutor. Prosecutors tend to be out of control in America, unfortunately, and often ignore that their duty is to "seek justice." Seeking justice doesn't mean to overcharge someone and try and lock them away for as long as possible while ignoring whether they deserve it. Hopefully the judge will straighten this out.
I read that 2 years was the minimum as well. Moreover, from what I read about the judge's instructions, they didn't have much choice about labeling the cup of ice a "missile." That was really the only point of law in question. Again, maybe the story was wrong, but it made it seem like the jury had to do what it did or nullify the law.
I don't know how many have driven in D.C. area traffic. It's terrible. Bumper to bumper at a snail's pace. You really can walk faster. There are people trying to maintain a safe distance from others. Usually those who don't drive it every day, or tourists, etc. The regulars are impatient and aggressive. There is no way the other driver did not "see" her, or "accidently" drifted back over into her lane.
I think that law may have come from a happening of many years ago. Some mindless kids were throwing cinder blocks off a bridge over the Interstate. One went through someone's windshield. You can imagine the outcome.
I don't really care what color the woman's skin is and I don't care what her husband does or how many kids she has. Don't care about her being in a pissy mood.
Have you been hit with ice? Not a pleasant thing. Ice can cut. The shock of getting hit with something could have caused an accident involving others.
Two years is about right considering that will be cut in half with good behaviour. I'm sure she will think twice before throwing things.
Hmmmm.
I can't help but feel that an illegal alien doing the same thing wouldn't even been charged.
Hmmm.
Ice can cut.
That's ridiculous.
Did you ever get ice from a McDonald's? That ice doesn't have sharp edges so how on earth would you be cut by cup of such ice?
Let's wait and see what the judge does. Throwing something into a moving car in a fit of anger has the potential to be a pretty bid deal depending on how well the other driver handles it, but I expect the judge to reduce the sentence.
When you think about people serving as little as seven years for killing people, surely she's not going to go to jail for two years for an incident in which no real harm did in fact come, right?
I think two years for throwing small cubes of ice is excessive. Had there been some indication that it created a serious risk (say, if the car was moving and it nearly caused an accident) that would be different. The punishment should reflect the actual threat involved, not some legislative idea of "zero tolerance." If the judge's hands were in fact tied, I think that's a major part of the problem. Judges should be allowed to use discretion.
Gotta figure there is a lot more going on than hits the paper. This might be worth two years (or more) if the cars are going 70 mph, but they were stuck in traffic. I would like to believe that the charge was initially filed with the expectation that it would be plea bargained down to a misdemeanor assault or the like. Lots of dumb ways it could have gotten to this point.
The jury could have nullified, but obviously decided not to. I'm guessing many members of that jury simply had their fill of aggressive drivers (VA is really bad) and were sending a message.
Bad spot to be in when a jury decides they've finally had enough and you're going to be their example.
My heart breaks for this mom. What about her kids?!? Who was the other driver who apparently doesn't have a heart? The other driver should be thankful that no one was injured and leave it at that. What goes around comes around!
What about her kids?
They'll probably be placed with someone who will be a better example for them.
Would you want kids in the hands of psychos who can flip out like this?
Would you want kids in the hands of psychos who can flip out like this?
Kids should be with their parents unless the parents are abusive to them.
Any normal person can "flip out" given enough stress and provocation. In fact some criminals specialize in committing crimes and torts to provoke people and then playing the victim.
That she did this while her kids (and a pregnant woman) were in the car makes it worse, IMO.
Here's the statute:
§ 18.2-154. Shooting at or throwing missiles, etc., at train, car, vessel, etc.; penalty.
Any person who maliciously shoots at, or maliciously throws any missile at or against, any train or cars on any railroad or other transportation company or any vessel or other watercraft, or any motor vehicle or other vehicles when occupied by one or more persons, whereby the life of any person on such train, car, vessel, or other watercraft, or in such motor vehicle or other vehicle, may be put in peril, is guilty of a Class 4 felony. In the event of the death of any such person, resulting from such malicious shooting or throwing, the person so offending is guilty of murder in the second degree. However, if the homicide is willful, deliberate and premeditated, he is guilty of murder in the first degree.
If any such act is committed unlawfully, but not maliciously, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 6 felony and, in the event of the death of any such person, resulting from such unlawful act, the person so offending is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
So, the jury could've dropped it down to a Class 6 felony if they didn't find malice.
Then they could've recommended less than 12 months in jail and/or a fine.
(f) For Class 6 felonies, a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years, or in the discretion of the jury or the court trying the case without a jury, confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.
She probably should've taken a plea bargain.
Anyway, unless there's some egresious facts we don't know, I'd think a stiff fine would be plenty punishment.
She must have had a terrible attorney, who did not understand how to pick a jury and who had a worthless trial strategy. She was factually wrong and yes technically guilty but her conduct was so far at the low end of the malicious intent spectrum that her attorney should have angled for jury nullification. He should have appealed to the jury's sense of justice and put the prosecutor on trial for conducting a petty, mean spirited witch hunt. The fact that this case is newsworthy at all shows that the outcome offends people's basic sense of justice.
Oligonicella,
Your point is well taken about the children, crimes shouldn't be reduced because people--male or female--have children that need to be taken care of. That said, however, unless there is more to the story, it seems that two years in jail for throwing ice is excessive--stupid, yes, worthy of some type of punishment, yes--but two years in jail when the average length of time for some murders is 6 years seems excessive. Mary Winkler, the husband killer in Tennessee is out on bail, partying in bars while a woman who throws ice has been in jail for a month already. Our criminal justice system is screwed up.
Road Rage is a Problem in this country. In Nashville, some years ago, I recall a story about a woman was beheaded by an accident involving an enraged driver. (I looked for that story, but couldn't find it; but if you Google 'road rage death' you get 1.49M hits).
I know that, under certain circumstances, if projected ice were to hit me in certain places whilst I was driving, it might distract me long enough to...
...and that's the point. Not what, or how little, happened, but what might have happened. Another driver might consider 'icing down' an opposing driver OK...if this hadn't gotten this much airplay.
I do hope that the sentence is cut, but, seeing this level of conversation, I'm pleased that at least some of us will reconsider our missle attacks...
;D
Driver in a moving car gets angry, zooms onto the shoulder of the road to get a better shot, throws something at the driver of another moving car? This is not like flipping them off, someone (or all of them) could have been killed. I'd give her 90 days in the slammer.
"
Kids should be with their parents unless the parents are abusive to them.
Any normal person can "flip out" given enough stress and provocation."
Hmmm... Off topic, I guess , but can you see a man using this as a defense in a domestic violence case?
No, not successfully, anyway.
On-topic, I would agree that this is quite a stiff sentence given the harm that actually came of it. On the other hand, the law should not treat moms differently because of their motherhood. Or so says the Fourteenth Amendment, anyway.
Rusty
I'm having a hard time getting very worked up over this.
The penalty was excessive. The judge will likely fix that.
The woman was an idiot. I don't think the judge, or anyone else, can fix that.
Seems like society is going to get the worse of the deal.
Hmmm... Off topic, I guess , but can you see a man using this as a defense in a domestic violence case?
No, not successfully, anyway.
Interesting that you chose a male for your hypothetical. Women probably have gotten off with defenses like that. Probably pretty often.
Looking at the statute, I wonder if her attorney questioned whether a cup of ice could be defined as a "missile". If it was one cohesive, solid object that was hard enough to damage the car I could see it. But we're talking about something that may have been more liquid than solid, and not solid enough to break a windshield in most circumstances.
Yes, it could have distracted enough to cause an accident, but snow and ice drops from trees, overpasses, etc. all the time.
Our legal system IS out of control. You know there are real crimes going on all the time, if prosecutors are wasting time on this crap someone should fire them or vote them out if they're elected in this jurisdiction.
"Interesting that you chose a male for your hypothetical. Women probably have gotten off with defenses like that. Probably pretty often."
Battered Wife Syndrome.....
PMS defense..........
The husband can be redeployed for a reason like this, unless his Family Care Plan for some reason had to have a provision for incapacitation of his wife. They may be to that level of detail by now.
The fact that mary Winkler is being treated ridiculously leninetly doesn't lessen this crime or the risk it inflicted.
However.... the fact that the lady is black and this is happening in NC pops some red flags for me. It helps explain the Duke hysteria a little better. When we get finished in Iraq, maybe we should send in the troops to sort that place out - time without Posse Comitatus.
all I know, we are going nuts with litigations and excessive demands..2 yrs for throwing ICE for crying out loud!!!
I think the sentence was exessive, but I'm bothered by the impression left that the women who was convicted doesn't seem to think she did anything wrong at all. If he attitude in the courtroom was like this I can understand the jury convicting even with the 2 year sentence.
Jessica Hall whines, "Now people are going to see me as an angry, road rage, convicted felon. And it really upsets me," she said. "I must have been wrong . . . but seriously, God. Lesson learned. Lesson learned is one hour in this place."
Yes. People will see her as angry and they will connect her with road rage. As they should. If she sounded sorry at all, I would worry about the excessive sentence. But she saves me from worrying, doesn't she?
I can't imagine throwing anything from my car for any reason, let alone aiming at another vehicle!
The newspaper article that I read focused on the "missile" question and indicated that the judge made it pretty clear that a thrown cup of ice fit the legal definition. A more important point from the statute above seems to be if life was put in peril. As I said above, if this was at 70 mph I have no problem with 2 years. If its in the middle of a traffic jam I have a hard time figuring whose life is in peril.
I've read some Theodore Dalrymple lately, and he touches on an interesting phenomonon in Britain "...the police, so sluggish in dealing with real wrongdoing, are like avenging angels when it comes to the merest whiff of suspicion that respectable persons may have been up to no good."
The article's here: http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_2_oh_to_be.html
and there are plenty more that deal with similar themes.
I don't know much about the woman in question, but I seriously doubt that the vigorous prosecution of this woman was the most beneficial way all those police, prosecutorial and court resources could have been used, and I'm fairly certain that it was safer for the personnel involved than going after hard-core lifestyle criminals.
I hope the American jury pool is not losing its sense of proportion. Throwing ice in a open car window in a fit of temper is wrong but should not be punishable by two years in jail. Since nobody was hurt by the ice the punishment is excessive. On a similar note a 11 year old middle school student here in central Florida has been charged with a felony for shooting a classmate in the chest with a pellet from a homemade slingshot at school. He will be in jail for three week and his Mother says the whole incident is blown way out of proportion. How many kids that grew up in the 50's and 60's would still be in jail now for playing with their BB guns?
Um, he's not in jail for playing with his BB gun. He's in jail because he shot a classmate in the chest with a homemade slingshot at school.
And I also bet there's more to the story than that.
Kids should be with their parents unless the parents are abusive to them.
Yea, a "caring" crack house or professional hitman is so much better than a foster home for instilling values.
She must have had a terrible attorney, who did not understand how to pick a jury and who had a worthless trial strategy. She was factually wrong and yes technically guilty
Of course! It's always the lawyer's fault when a guilty person is found guilty!
As for those suggesting that the charge and verdict were overdoing it, remember that, to convict, the jury had to find that "the life of any person . . . in such motor vehicle or other vehicle, may [have been] put in peril." If ice and a drink are suddenly and unexpectedly thrown on you and the windshield, the risk of being distracted or being unable to see and colliding with another vehicle is great. If that is indeed what happened -- and by its verdict that is what the jury found, and that is what the judge found in denying the usual motion to strike the evidence (known as a motion for acquittal in other states) -- then a two-year mandatory minimum is not unreasonable.
As for sentencing in Virginia -- the judge CANNOT decrease the sentence fixed by the jury. What the judge can do is suspend all or part of the jury sentence.
Given that she was also found guilty of reckless driving, two counts of assault, I would wager that the prosecutor had offered her a deal to dismiss the felony in exhange for pleading to one or two of these lesser charges, but the defendant instead refused and insisted on going to trial. If that is the case, then she has only herself to thank for her predicament. If you are going to gamble on a trial, don't complain if you lose.
If the defendant displays some measure of regret and sincerely takes some responsibility for her actions (and not simply some BS half-assed apology, which will just make things worse), then I can envision the judge suspending all but a short time, perhaps 30 days (or time served if she has already exceeded that), with three years of probation.
If she is unrepentent and does not take some responsibility for what she did, and instead tries to shift the blame to the other driver, or the jury, or the court system, or the judge, or her own attorney, then I can see the judge imposing probably six months of the two years and suspending the rest.
purple avenger-
Yea, a "caring" crack house or professional hitman is so much better than a foster home for instilling values.
Huh? Yeah, one of those foster homes where the caretakers like the kids a little too much. Or are just in it for the checks.
Isn't nonsense like this the inevitable result of first pathologizing every kind of bad behavior, and then fueling a hysteria about it in the papers and on TV for months about it?
It has just been reported on the radio here in Virginia that the judge sentenced the defendant to time served (about six weeks) and and placed her on probation, with the remainder of the jury's two-year sentence suspended. Meaning that, if she complies with probation, she will not serve that time, but if she violates her probation, then there is a possibility that the time will be ordered into execution (imposed). That's about what I expected (see 1:21 a.m.)
Bender,
Thanks for the update! Is there a link somewhere?
N.C. Woman Draws Probated Sentence For Highway Ice Throwing Incident
http://www.wmal.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=486372&PT=NEWS
Huh? Yeah, one of those foster homes where the caretakers like the kids a little too much. Or are just in it for the checks.
I'm going to go out on a limb and bet there's fewer of those than bio-parents who are fucked up. Feel free to prove me wrong.
A night in jail to think a little, a little probation and some community service.
That's an appropriate sentence.
This woman had likely gotten in the the habit of behaving with impunity because she'd learned that (mostly) she could get away with it.
But this is more a spanking offense. It does no good to send her off to a place where the only thing she'll learn is despair and the occupational training, in a practical sense, will mostly consist of learning from other inmates how to be more efficiently violent.
It needs to sting, not impair or maim.
I think I read somewhere that the sentence was reduced to probation. I hope that's accurate.
Confirmation, anyone?
--Graham
12:22, Regarding your post: "Interesting that you chose a male for your hypothetical. Women probably have gotten off with defenses like that. Probably pretty often."
Exactly.
R-
"The facts of this case ... suggest that the sentence in this case should be reduced," Stafford Circuit Judge Frank A. Hoss Jr. told Hall, who thanked the judge and cried.
Hall, who has been in Rappahannock Regional Jail since Jan. 4, also will have to pay fines and court costs related to three other charges, including reckless driving and assault.
As a condition of her sentencing, she must remain on good behavior for five years. Although Hall was ordered free on charges in Virginia, she remained jailed without bail on an outstanding warrant in Desoto County, Miss., for writing bad checks. Mississippi authorities said yesterday afternoon that they would drop the charge if her family pays the less than $1,000 owed on the checks.
Hall's family has agreed to pay the amount, and she is expected to be released today.
Hall's husband is serving his third tour in Iraq.
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20070222-120248-6170r.htm
This would only happen to a black woman in racist Virginia.
Patricia, that's a tired, old canard you've dragged in here with you...is it permanently chained to your ankle, or can you take it off in the shower?
"My heart breaks for this mom. What about her kids?!?"
Why wasn't she thinking about her kids? There are places where the out of court settlement following that kind of attack would leave her dead.
Patricia,
Or to white men in racist North Carolina--spare us your conspiracy theories.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home