| CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,623 Views) | |
| Mason | Dec 16 2010, 08:55 PM Post #676 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Crystal is like a unstable Dog that continually attacks people, but is nice to its owner. The owner is always saying - you shouldn't have moved that way, or you shouldn't have looked her in the eye, or they were teasing her before she ate up their arms. The owner says she is really a nice dog - so sweet. That's the best way I can put it. And it's only a matter of time. . Edited by Mason, Dec 16 2010, 08:56 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 16 2010, 08:59 PM Post #677 |
|
Deleted User
|
You weren't attending North Carolina Central University where the academic requirements for one Crystal Gail Mangum does not apply to other students. It's really that simple. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Dec 16 2010, 09:04 PM Post #678 |
|
Deleted User
|
Interesting analogy, Mason. Don't we often read about these dogs you describe eventually attacking someone and doing great harm - often children? Neighbors often have reported these animals to the police and animal control before the meltdown occurs. Then after the tragedy everyone seems to remember instances where the dog appeared really dangerous. |
|
|
| chatham | Dec 16 2010, 09:17 PM Post #679 |
|
from sceptical: The evidence seems clear to me-- Crystal intentionally lit a fire in the bathroom which damaged the house and endangered those present, including three children and two police officers. (Whether she wanted to damage the house is irrelevant morally and legally.) Sure sounds like arson to me. This is exactly the prosecutors case. I believe they chose 1st degree arson because the kids were in the house and crystal made no attempt to get them out while she knew the fire was burning the bathroom. I am not sure what 2nd degree arson is but it is much less involved with the actual burning damage caused by a fire. It may be more attempt to burn a dwelling. Just not sure. |
![]() |
|
| cks | Dec 16 2010, 09:22 PM Post #680 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Dec 16 2010, 09:34 PM Post #681 |
|
chatham, The only difference between 1st and 2nd degree arson is the requirement that someone be inside the dwelling when the fire is started. Therefore, the lessor charge would be setting fire to property. I agree with you that the prosecutor make a good case for 1st degree arson. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Dec 16 2010, 09:37 PM Post #682 |
|
"... 5. intentionally burned the premises" I'd have a tough time convicting someone for intentionally burning the premises by way of lighting fire to the clothes, which belonged to the one she was fighting, in the bath tub. |
![]() |
|
| cks | Dec 16 2010, 09:40 PM Post #683 |
|
It would be one thing if she owned the dwelling. However, it was someone else's property. |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 16 2010, 10:11 PM Post #684 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Crystal doesn't get to freak out and hurt her family (monetarily, kids were handled by Police and the state) and others because she was mad. You run Domestic Violence court like that and there will never be convictions. Oh, well you were mad and they were fighting. No, it's part of being a responsible adult living in a civilized society. Remember, Crystal told the Cops to leave at the door and repeatedly thereafter. . Edited by Mason, Dec 16 2010, 10:11 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| wingedwheel | Dec 16 2010, 10:29 PM Post #685 |
|
Not Pictured Above
|
I know what your saying and all. But if I went to building and burned a Quran and the building caught on fire I think I would be charged with arson. If I did what she did in Durham I would be charged and convicted of what she is charged. If she did this in another state she would be convicted too. Like Mason said about a week ago in this forum. SHE WALKS ... Or she gets as close to a pass as they can get her. For some reason the people of Durham don't care what laws Mangum breaks. They don't care who she harms. They don't care what property she destroys. They don't care about the long term psychological damage she is doing to her kids. And they don't care how bad she makes the justice system of Durham look. |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 16 2010, 10:36 PM Post #686 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Actually, they'd probably hit you with a bunch of other crimes too - and then the FEDS would have their Shot at you. The ADA needs to bring charges again, which is within his rights and the law, yes assuming there is not unanimity in the verdict. Remember, this all happened in a duplex. Imagine your family living in a complex with this woman and she essentially walks. ![]() . Edited by Mason, Dec 16 2010, 10:37 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 16 2010, 10:39 PM Post #687 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Crystal aged to show her last Mugshot:
|
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Dec 16 2010, 11:34 PM Post #688 |
|
Tony: wow, and, yet, those bruises that were starting to form after the Duke LAX party still have not materialized ...
Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 17 2010, 12:27 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Dec 17 2010, 07:25 AM Post #689 |
|
From Milliken: The key to the case is arson, the only felony among the six counts Mangum faces; a conviction could send her to prison for three to seven years. And the key to that felony charge is malicious intent, which divided the panel. When jurors sought clarification on what constitutes malicious intent, Judge Abe Jones -- after consulting with the prosecution and defense attorneys and quoting frp, a law book -- said the following: "The element of malice requires either a specific intent to cause destruction or substantial damage to the dwelling -- comma -- first thought -- or -- or an act done in wanton and willful disregard of the plain and strong likelihood of such harm." Jones was trying to emphasize that disregard for the likelihood of devastation would satisfy the malice requirement. That is, disregard alone would make the case even if jurors felt Mangum did not really mean for her and her children's home to burn when she set her boyfriend's clothing on fire in a bathtub there after a fight on the night of Feb. 17. Malicious intent is the last of the five elements of first degree arson. The others are that the defendant burned a residence; that it was a place where people lived; that someone other than the defendant lived there; and that it was occupied at the time of the fire. <snip> Jones sided with McCullough, declining to tie the abuse and neglect convictions to the arson. This reversed instructions Jones had given before lunch, when he said a not guilty finding for arson meant jurors needn't consider the child endangerment counts. As McCullough argued, Mangum's having set a fire is legally distinct from her possibly having committing arson. --------------------------------- Even if the jury walked away from the obvious “wanton and willful disregard of the plain and strong likelihood of such harm”, burning someone else’s clothes inside the house, not only violates § 14-66. Burning of personal property (a separate and distinct felony from arson), it represents a total disregard for the safety of her children. What would you do to your child, if he or she started a fire inside the house because he was angry with a sibling? My mother would be setting fire to someone’s backside. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 17 2010, 08:38 AM Post #690 |
|
Deleted User
|
Quote from Bill Anderson on another thread: During the crisis, the ONLY people who told the truth consistently were the lacrosse players and their attorneys. Yet, Duke and Durham celebrate the liars and excoriate the truth-tellers. Enough said. That just about sums up what I expect to come out of this trial. The jury will celebrate the mother of all liars today in Durham. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







3:32 AM Jul 11