Amanda Todd’s accused cyberbully facing 11 years in Dutch prison

[Hitei]

So what laws cover bullying online? You do understand the reason we started making these laws is because old laws weren't able to apply online.

Civil harassment.

[Orange Joe]

Civil harassment.

Doesn't cover online bullying


http://www.courts.ca.gov/1044.htm

Unlawful violence, like assault or battery or stalking, ORA credible (real) threat of violence, AND
The violence or threats seriously scare, annoy, or harass someone and there is no valid reason for it.

[Mistame]

I'd say it's on the people who elect the persons making the law.

The people electing the lawmakers have zero control over the laws that are made.

And what is suicide? Self-murder or the act of killing oneself.

There's no such thing as "self-murder". "Murder", by definition, is the act of killing someone else.

His actions are responsible for her death.

Her reaction to his actions are responsible for her death.

It's your opinion that he cannot be tried for murder.

It is factually and literally not murder.

Is it from Canadian law?

It's the literal definition.

Because this is:

(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,
(a) by means of an unlawful act;
(b) by criminal negligence;
(c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or
(d) by willfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.

None of those are applicable in this case. A & B refer to causing death during the commission of an unlawful act (Eg, shooting a clerk while robbing a store). C refers to forcing someone to do something that will cause their death (Eg, forcing them, at gunpoint, to jump off a bridge). D refers to an inadvertent death due to intimidation (Eg, chasing someone into traffic, off a cliff, etc). None of these are covered by a willful suicide due to psychological stress, which is defined in Canadian law as a suicide. And again, suicide, by definition, is not and cannot be homicide, much less murder. I know your of the mind that guy should have book thrown at him because of what he's done. And he should. But he did not commit murder, in any context.

[Lisa Frank Succubus]

I think what this guy was doing really goes beyond what most people consider "cyber bullying" and was pretty fucked up. Yeah, you should just take caution with talking to anyone online that you don't personally know and doing things like revealing your body is never a good idea but still..that doesn't really change the fact that what the guy was doing was fucked up. The guy even had a history of doing this behavior for enjoyment.

[Exeris]

The deathpenalty is abolished for all offenses on the entire European continent except for 1 country, Belarus. Human life is more important then money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita...ment_in_Europe

I mostly agree with you unless we are talking about serial killers and pedophiles, those need to be recycled.

[Mistame]

The people that elect the people who make laws, have ZERO control over the laws.
You have to be fucking kidding me, nobody is this obtuse.

If citizens don't get to vote directly on a law and determine whether or not it's passed, they have zero control. The limit of their influence is the option to elect people they hope will pass the right laws. I mean, this is really fundamental politics.

The problem in arguing with dictionary definitions is that there are a lot of definitions and synonyms.

In many cases, that's true. However, "murder" refers specifically to one person killing another. Don't blame me for your inability to understand how some words work.

Are you a fucking Canadian judge?
No? Then shut the hell up, it's not up to you to decide.

Don't get your panties in a bunch, kiddo. A judge cannot charge someone with a crime they did not commit and he did not commit murder, in any context. Sorry.

[Deleted]

Are you a fucking Canadian judge?
No? Then shut the hell up, it's not up to you to decide.

Take your own advice lol. or at least actually define murder and suicide instead of culpable homicide before you tell other people they don't know what they are talking about.

but yeah seems to be it would be a mistake to charge him with murder. probably can't get more out of it then responsible for her death. which depending on the local laws doesn't even have to be involuntary manslaughter. In my country what it did probably only be covered under wrongfull death at most, which is a civil offense.

[Mistame]

Doesn't have to.

It actually does. Words have meanings for a reason. That's how they work.

It's not up to you to decide whether he committed murder or not.

I don't need to "decide" anything. I know how the word works. He literally did not commit murder. This is not my opinion, it's a fact. Unlike your original statement, that he "should be charged with murder", which is not even among the charges Canada has listed (extortion, possession of child pornography and attempting to lure a child online).

[Mistame]

Words have several meanings.

Some words do.

And laws don't always follow the interpretation of the dictionary.

No, they don't. But neither does "voluntary suicide" equate to "murder" in any context, literally or legally.

No, that's up for the judge to decide.

Judges don't get to change laws or the meanings of words.

And since you're not a judge you can kindly fuck off.

Careful with that edge, son. You could cut yourself.

Now, to your point, it wouldn't be unreasonable to try to charge him with some variant of involuntary manslaughter or wrongful death, but like anything else, the prosecutor would still have to validate the charges.

[Mistame]

Actually many words do, especially those that describe something other than an object.

Sure. But there's no context in which murder applies to someone voluntarily killing themselves. That's called "suicide".

Did you get promoted to judge in the last five minutes?

Again, I don't need to be a judge. I can read. There is literally and legally no context where voluntary suicide is murder.

No, they get to make interpretations of laws I linked.

Nothing in those laws can be used to charge (much less convict) someone with murder for someone else's voluntary suicide. Besides, prosecutors levee charges, not judges. And those charges have to be validated before the judge can even act upon. And in this case, "murder" is not even on the list of charges. It's just something you threw into the mix out of emotional knee-jerk.

Careful with that trolling, you might not be able to stop.

Pot/kettle much?

[Xargoth6634]

This is just survival of the fittest. Anyone who's enough of a crybaby bitch to kill themselves because they were "e-bullied" is just dead weight anyway. Bullying is lame, but killing yourself because you're too much of a little bitch to deal with it is just pathetic.

[Mistame]

Except I just showed you the law and explained how it could be used.

The only "autistic screeching" going on is your insistence that "The Judge" can charge him with murder because she committed suicide. You linked the law, yes. But you presented no actual argument of your own and certainly no "explanation". I explained how that law works and why it has no relevance to this scenario. You seem to think that because a law could be read in some abstract context that a judge has the authority to do just that. Sorry, that's not how it works. Their role is to interpret the law objectively, as it's written. In that context, voluntary suicide is not and cannot be murder. Period. Not to mention, again, that no charges related to her suicide are even being levied by Canada, so your entire point is moot. But you go ahead and think what you want. Ignorance is self-inflicted, after all. And please, do "ignore" me. That's just one less child for me to deal with.

[Mistame]

You still seem to think you're an expert and authority on this matter.
Posing as a judge is a serious offense in many countries.

Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me?