Guilty verdict in teen suicide trial

[BannedForViews]

Because in criminal law, there is more that is taken into account than just actions and results. There is also intent.

Trying minors differently than adults goes back centuries under the pretense that a minor isn't fully aware of their actions and their potential results. If they can't comprehend the potential results then they can't reasonably have intent. You can mark an argument that 17 is too high of an age to be considered a child in criminal cases, but the line has to be set somewhere and as a society we agreed that 18 was the age of adulthood.

I didnt ask fro a synopsis. I fully understand the reasoning, it is just wrong. And to claim people dont understand the consequences, you hsve to look at some young children. As for being an adult, we dont say it is 18 because thats when society feels you understand the consequences of commiting a crime. It is for a plethora of other reasons I wont bother enumerating here.

either way, murder is basically the only unforgivable crime. If a child steals or hurts you, they can be educated and/or make things right. If they kill you, you cant come back. And lets not get into gangs using youths to purposely exploit these foolish laws by having them kill people.

The fact is, if you get drunk and crash into me, or you strangle me to death, it doesnt matter how old you are if it was an accident or not, I am dead and that needs to count for a lot more than it does in far too many of these situations.

[Tomyris]

I am trying to feel sorry for her but I can't.

[cuafpr]

Don't agree with the Judge, especially after reading this bit:

- Earlier in the trial, a psychiatrist testified that Carter was delusional after becoming "involuntarily intoxicated" by antidepressants. She was "unable to form intent" after switching to a new prescription drug months before Roy's suicide, and she even texted his phone for weeks after he died, the psychiatrist testified.

agreed with stuff like that I'm shocked she got found guilty, regardless of my own opinions on suicide

[A dot Ham]

Again, please read the actual articles you cite, rather than just the headline. Neither case meets the standard of similar circumstances for the case in question. If you're confused about the details that separate the two cases you linked and the one were discussing, I'd be happy to explain them to you. After you've read them, of course.

- - - Updated - - -



How do you make that symbol?

Your issue with this case is that her words do not constitute action.

Though you claim to be a legal professional. It appears you don't as a legal professional would be able to see that the cases I have provided you as well as hypothetical situations, is that a person's words can be a "punishable action", and that I was by no means presented you with cases of similar legal question.

If a BULLY can be held accountable by their comments and texts.

Then a love one can also be held accountable by their comments and texts.

As @Endus has pointed out several times. You have a habit of moving the goalposts when proven wrong.

[Tyrianth]

I didnt ask fro a synopsis. I fully understand the reasoning, it is just wrong.

You clearly said you didn't understand the reasoning, therefore I explained it to you. Be careful with your words, if you don't actually want a response or explanation.

As for being an adult, we dont say it is 18 because thats when society feels you understand the consequences of commiting a crime.

I didn't say that.

either way, murder is basically the only unforgivable crime.

I disagree. If someone kills someone without actually intending to do so then they can be forgiven. This is why intent is such a large part of criminal law.

[cubby]

Your issue with this case is that her words do not constitute action.

Exactly.

Though you claim to be a legal professional. It appears you don't as a legal professional would be able to see that the cases I have provided you as well as hypothetical situations, is that a person's words can be a "punishable action", and that I was by no means presented you with cases of similar legal question.

You still haven't read the cases you provided, which is entirely clear in the remarks above. When you do, get back to us and we can have a discussion. Until then I'm not sure how else I can help you. Read what you post - please.

If a BULLY can be held accountable by their comments and texts.

Then a love one can also be held accountable by their comments and texts.

Do you know what extenuating circumstances mean? It's used in a lot of different legal contexts. In this situation, I would look at the two articles you linked, and see if there are any differences. I read them both, and saw them immediately.

As @Endus has pointed out several times. You have a habit of moving the goalposts when proven wrong.

I love that you're trying to call in troops - it's cute, and mildly desperate. Endus was referring to another person in regards to moving goal posts. I have not done that. This all goes back to your reading ability. Already in this thread I have pointed out where I could be wrong, based on a **** ** ****. Can you find it?

- - - Updated - - -

It seems in MA involuntary manslaughter can be: "Up to 20 years in state prison, fines and possible victim restitution."

Whoa - now I'm very curious to see how much she'll get, too. Did they say when sentencing would be held?

[Aeriyo]

She fucking actively told him to do it. How anyone can pretend she wasn't actively encouraging him blows my mind and I have to believe they're just shitpost trolling.

Its not some random asshole on the internet saying, "kill urself." It's the dude's girlfriend actively telling him multiple times to do it, discussing with him how best to get carbon monoxide into the car with him, asking him if he's really sure he's not going to go through with it (goading him), ect.

I hope this bitch gets the maximum sentence. The only time she says not to do it is right at the beginning. Everything after that she's goading him, telling him how to do it, and even at the end getting frustrated at him for his lack of actual doing it.

She knew it was happening when it was happening, because she kept telling him and giving him information on how to do it, and didn't actively stop him. Fuck her. I've know way too many people who have committed suicide and were goaded on or insensitively spurred to do it by asshole relatives too busy to try and actually get somebody help and just resort to a, 'Just do it already' mentality.

100% this is exactly what people need to understand.

[A dot Ham]

I love that you're trying to call in troops - it's cute, and mildly desperate. Endus was referring to another person in regards to moving goal posts. I have not done that. This all goes back to your reading ability. Already in this thread I have pointed out where I could be wrong, based on a **** ** ****. Can you find it?

Again your ability to reason. As duty of care has no bearing on the case nor on your position.

Only 3 things matter:
(1) Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.
(2) The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
(3) The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

Your issue, again, is whether words are actions. Excellent question.

I have however established many times that they are.

One other interesting point of fact is that point 3 references conduct, and not specifically actions. Without other cases establishing precedent that person's speech is in fact an actionable offense, we can see that "conduct" can and is used synonymously with "action". Conduct is very vague, but is an observable behavior. A person can most certainly observe someone's conduct through recordings and text.

It is a very interesting point to pick up on, but there are cases as cited that establish that what a person says, can be punishable under the law.

[dextersmith]

I too get outraged over jury trials even though I'm not privy to the significant amount of information not made public .

She manipulated a mentally sick person to commit suicide, was fully aware of her actions and knew she was going to get in trouble, and to top it all off she used the person's death to bask in the sympathy and attention. We have strict laws protecting abuse of people with lower mental functions, depression and suicidal ideation also fall in that category to me. The guilty verdict is justified.

When you put it like that, I have to agree.

[Berengil]

She fucking actively told him to do it. How anyone can pretend she wasn't actively encouraging him blows my mind and I have to believe they're just shitpost trolling.

Its not some random asshole on the internet saying, "kill urself." It's the dude's girlfriend actively telling him multiple times to do it

So?

Seriously, if someone encouraging a person to commit suicide is all it takes for someone to kill themselves ... well we have our next Darwin award nominee.

Hurting yourself because of what someone says to you is contemptibly weak.

I personally find the verdict to be dog shit. She may not have helped, but the boy took his own life.

Well said.

[arel00]

after hearing his last breaths during a phone call

Again

listened over the phone as he suffocated

This, right here, is the reason. While we can debate whether telling someone to do something is criminal or not, not acting when someone's life is in danger is. I don't know about the exact legal definitions in the US, but if you know that someone's dying and you let him, that is criminal.

[KrazyK923]

So?

Seriously, if someone encouraging a person to commit suicide is all it takes for someone to kill themselves ... well we have our next Darwin award nominee.

Hurting yourself because of what someone says to you is contemptibly weak.

Christ read the fucking story before barfting out stupidity. She didn't just go, 'lol i donno do it.'

Even ignoring the retardedly pathetic white knighting of this bitch, the fact that she was on the phone with him as he was dying, knew where he was and what was happening, and let it happen without getting help is what's criminal.

People are pretending this is some retard 13 year old on the internet saying, "kys" and acting like the judgement is suddenly going to criminalizing them being cunts online. Because everybody, everywhere, constantly, these days, pretend that there's some threat to free speech coming. And devolving the actual issue into nonsense. Get a new line. There is no slippery slope here. And its really funny people are using a fallacy to defend their otherwise-retarded logic.

[A dot Ham]

So?

Seriously, if someone encouraging a person to commit suicide is all it takes for someone to kill themselves ... well we have our next Darwin award nominee.

Hurting yourself because of what someone says to you is contemptibly weak.

Assuming you are dealing with stable people.

If however you are aware of such instability and know that your words could potentially have an effect on the outcome.

That is something else entirely.

Hypothetically here (not knowing you or having beef) if I knew you from the office and I confided in you that I was mentally ill. One day I came into your office and started waving around a gun. Not really threatening myself or you... but clearly unhinged. You would probably watch what you say for your own sake as to not set me off right?

You would assume that same level of care though if I was a threat to myself only, or rather the law expects the same level of care.

[Arcuss]

This just in, words do in fact have meanings.

So words are like bullets?

[cubby]

Again your ability to reason. As duty of care has no bearing on the case nor on your position.

And yet the judge cited the case that uses Duty of Care reasoning. Weird, huh? But I guess you're the one that's on top of the ability to reason, eh?

Only 3 things matter:
(1) Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.
(2) The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
(3) The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

Your issue, again, is whether words are actions. Excellent question.

You haven't pointed to an example where only someone's words have resulted in another person killing themselves, and now you're trying ignore the fact that your two examples didn't measure up. I'm sorry if you can't read your own cites, there is almost nothing I can do, short of reading them for you, and then pointing out how they prove you wrong*.

I have however established many times that they are.

You have done the exact opposite.

One other interesting point of fact is that point 3 references conduct, and not specifically actions. Without other cases establishing precedent that person's speech is in fact an actionable offense, we can see that "conduct" can and is used synonymously with "action". Conduct is very vague, but is an observable behavior. A person can most certainly observe someone's conduct through recordings and text.

It is a very interesting point to pick up on, but there are cases as cited that establish that what a person says, can be punishable under the law.

Of course what someone says can be punishable under law - we have dozens of laws that cover those issues - no one is arguing that point.

But what we're actually discussing here, in case you missed it, is whether what she said met the elements of an involuntary manslaughter charge, which typically require some kind of action, which speech is not - something we've already established, and you've accidentally proven twice now.

If you don't agree with my reasoning, that's fine - point it out. But for god's sake at least read the stuff you're going to use before posting it - we're kinda tired of you having your own mistakes pointed out by others.


*Just in case you're wondering, because you STILL haven't read those two articles, in BOTh cases the "bully" also used physical acts, such as beating or hitting, that contributed to the suicide. Different situation here.

(I always hated doing extra work for the guy who doesn't contribute in a group project)

[arel00]

So words are like bullets?

Philosophically? Maybe. Legally? No. But the principle here is that actions have consequences, even when it's "just" words.

[cubby]

Assuming you are dealing with stable people.

If however you are aware of such instability and know that your words could potentially have an effect on the outcome.

That is something else entirely.

Hypothetically here (not knowing you or having beef) if I knew you from the office and I confided in you that I was mentally ill. One day I came into your office and started waving around a gun. Not really threatening myself or you... but clearly unhinged. You would probably watch what you say for your own sake as to not set me off right?

You would assume that same level of care though if I was a threat to myself only, or rather the law expects the same level of care.

You just said above that this case has nothing to do with duty of care, and now you say it does. Make up your mind?

- - - Updated - - -

So?

Seriously, if someone encouraging a person to commit suicide is all it takes for someone to kill themselves ... well we have our next Darwin award nominee.

Hurting yourself because of what someone says to you is contemptibly weak.

The issue here isn't that she encouraged his suicidal thoughts, it's how outlandishly she did so, including live tweeting his death while she was on the phone with him as he died. This was above and beyond mere encouragement.

My problem with it is the slippery slope it creates for other similar situations.

- - - Updated - - -

Christ read the fucking story before barfting out stupidity. She didn't just go, 'lol i donno do it.'

Even ignoring the retardedly pathetic white knighting of this bitch, the fact that she was on the phone with him as he was dying, knew where he was and what was happening, and let it happen without getting help is what's criminal.

People are pretending this is some retard 13 year old on the internet saying, "kys" and acting like the judgement is suddenly going to criminalizing them being cunts online. Because everybody, everywhere, constantly, these days, pretend that there's some threat to free speech coming. And devolving the actual issue into nonsense. Get a new line.

Your point about letting it happen without getting help is the crux, in my opinion. The Duty of Care issue might be redefined by this one sick individuals actions. Fascinating (legally).

(remember, I think she should die in a fire for what she did - i'm just arguing the legal ramifications side)

- - - Updated - - -

Philosophically? Maybe. Legally? No. But the principle here is that actions have consequences, even when it's "just" words.

Jesus fucking christ that's an insanely awesome summary. 10/10 for brevity and clarity.

/salute

[A dot Ham]

You just said above that this case has nothing to do with duty of care, and now you say it does. Make up your mind?

Not the same thing. But nice cherry picking and taking other comments out of context. I can see where this is going. No wonder @Endus recused himself from dealing with you. I suspect it is only a matter of time before you're banned. Keep up "constructive discussion" though.

[BannedForViews]

You clearly said you didn't understand the reasoning, therefore I explained it to you. Be careful with your words, if you don't actually want a response or explanation.



I didn't say that.



I disagree. If someone kills someone without actually intending to do so then they can be forgiven. This is why intent is such a large part of criminal law.

lol...it's a rhetorical device. My goodness. As in "I don't understand how people can not understand rhetorical devices." News flash: I understand it, but I still find it shocking.

And I said "MURDER". Murder, is not the same as killing someone. If I go shoot a pistol in a crowded place, even though I may not have "wished" anyone to die, it would still be murder. If I shoot at a target down range and someone was hiding behind my target, that would not be the same. If someone runs a red light and hits men, and they die, one might say I didn't even kill that person, but if I get hammered and go driving around, I am knowingly risking my life and the lives of others, and if I kill someone whilst driving drunk, I should be punished as if I intended to harm another person, because that is the risk I put them at, against their wishes.

[A dot Ham]

And yet the judge cited the case that uses Duty of Care reasoning. Weird, huh? But I guess you're the one that's on top of the ability to reason, eh?




You haven't pointed to an example where only someone's words have resulted in another person killing themselves, and now you're trying ignore the fact that your two examples didn't measure up. I'm sorry if you can't read your own cites, there is almost nothing I can do, short of reading them for you, and then pointing out how they prove you wrong*.




You have done the exact opposite.




Of course what someone says can be punishable under law - we have dozens of laws that cover those issues - no one is arguing that point.

But what we're actually discussing here, in case you missed it, is whether what she said met the elements of an involuntary manslaughter charge, which typically require some kind of action, which speech is not - something we've already established, and you've accidentally proven twice now.

If you don't agree with my reasoning, that's fine - point it out. But for god's sake at least read the stuff you're going to use before posting it - we're kinda tired of you having your own mistakes pointed out by others.


*Just in case you're wondering, because you STILL haven't read those two articles, in BOTh cases the "bully" also used physical acts, such as beating or hitting, that contributed to the suicide. Different situation here.

(I always hated doing extra work for the guy who doesn't contribute in a group project)

Bottom line it isn't because you say so right?

In one case, one of the girls used physical acts of violence. The other girl did not. In the case with the 9 teens it was all verbal. There goes your reading comprehension score.

Must be nice living in a fictional world.

You are quite literally the ONLY person in this thread not having an actual discussion. Despite the fact that you continue to claim that is the only reason you are here.

Words ARE actions. Established not only by involuntary manslaughter itself. But by other cases setting the precedent as well.

Not sure what you have to gain by making this some ground breaking establishment shattering case... but it isn't. A girl was convicted on very established law. End of story.

I will put this up for you one last time, but I know you purposely ignored it because you're trolling so hard.
One other interesting point of fact is that point 3 references conduct, and not specifically actions. Without other cases establishing precedent that person's speech is in fact an actionable offense, we can see that "conduct" can and is used synonymously with "action". Conduct is very vague, but is an observable behavior. A person can most certainly observe someone's conduct through recordings and text.