Guilty verdict in teen suicide trial

[Jtbrig7390]

Incorrect. She did not provide him any material support. You would have. There's a difference whether you're able to recognize it or not.

It doesn't have to be meterial support, That is the part you are not understanding.

If I walk by a guy bleeding out and do not provide help, I will be charged with a crime. She encouraged him over and over to do it even of the day he did. That puts her at fault.

Words have actions and she gets to face the consequences of the action she made.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Though call. This was extremely dividing by its nature, but one has to take different perspectives to reach a conclusion.

First of all, is it legal to assist someone with suicide?

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide, it is illegal to give "assisted suicide" in Massachuset. While this may not be the case in every state, it is the case in this one. However, Assisted Suicide must be done by a physician, which is not the case here.

What is in question here is "Helping someone commit suicide", as per http://healthcare.findlaw.com/patien...t-suicide.html - It is defined as follow:

Every state has a slightly different definition of what it means to assist a suicide, and some states do not actually define it in their statutes. Generally, someone assists with a suicide when:

• He does some act which causes someone else to die, such as administering lethal doses of drugs;
• He provides the drugs or tools necessary for someone else to commit suicide when he knows those tools are likely to be used for suicide;
• Advises someone else on the way to commit suicide; or
• Persuades someone else to commit suicide.

Note that it is not considered assisted suicide to fail to resuscitate someone who is already dying.

In the case of Massachuset, it is defined as "involuntary manslaughter". To psychologically push someone to suicide (in some states, the very act of not declaring someone at risk of suicide to the police is criminal) is therefore a crime, even if the action was done by the other person.

Whether or not it is ethical, I'd say that the texts that were publicly available were horrifying.

[NYC17]

It doesn't have to be meterial support, That is the part you are not understanding.

If I walk by a guy bleeding out and do not provide help, I will be charged with a crime. She encouraged him over and over to do it even of the day he did. That puts her at fault.

Words have actions and she gets to face the consequences of the action she made.

I understand quite well your rather sad attempt at conflating and equivalency. We simply disagree. Pretending like you have some sort of greater understanding when, if you actually read my posts it would be clear to you that I have a thorough understanding, is cute and all, but rather pointless.

Criminal responsibility and fault are not equivalent. As I said, we'll see how the appeal goes. This is a fundamental shift in the concept of law as a whole, and it will meet with resistance.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I mean, are we really supposed to go quote for quote? Should I throw in the ACLU's statement or can we just agree that legal experts found it surprising and some didn't?

Or do you need me to bold something?

Some experts found the verdict surprising...some did not. Your statement that "Experts also thought a guilty verdict was unlikely so that's not a compelling argument." is lacking.

[Jtbrig7390]

Criminal responsibility and fault are not equivalent. .

Clearly it is and this case shows that. Your childish comments about what I said means nothing, Even if she appeals its likely the outcome will be her getting punished.

How punished is a different story.

No judge in there right mind will rule in her favor because that sets a precedent that its ok for people to do what she did.

[Gemini Soul]

She got what she deserved, she crossed the line by going far beyond "you should kill your self" if you read the article with some of the texts she sent its clear she was egging him on and talking him into it even pushing him to do it. She also didn't alert the authorities or his parents, so the conviction of involuntary manslaughter is perfect in this case.

[Collegeguy]

He was someone who obviously wanted to do what he did, given his history and you know, act of carrying it out, and all that required was a couple of text messages to "make" him act on it.

Couple of text messages? Common, you have been in this thread long enough to not make things up.

[cubby]

Her failure to act is what was at issue here with reference to negligence.

I agree - but failure to act has it's own meaning when it comes to civic duty - typically people don't have an affirmative duty to act. Exceptions being if it is a dangerous situation that they themselves created, physically.

So the question for the appellate courts will probably be did her words constitute an action that created the dangerous situation, or was it already created by the guy who eventually killed himself.

Seriously fascinating, legally speaking.

- - - Updated - - -

This is where your slippery slope argument falls apart. She wasn't charge because she told him to kill himself one or two times. She encouraged it over a long period of time. While also showing she knew her actions we wrong? (asking him to delete messages among other comments)

It doesn't "fall apart" it's just the weak part of the argument. Her side should argue on appeal that no matter what she said, it never rose to the level an action, and therefore didn't create the dangerous situation, and therefore she didn't have a duty to act/prevent.

Note: such a reprehensible human being, this girl.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Lol, I just realized you had me confused with @satimy. Whoops.

Let us know if you'd like to enter back into a civilized conversation.

[A dot Ham]

Lol, I just realized you had me confused with @satimy. Whoops.

Let us know if you'd like to enter back into a civilized conversation.

I wasn't confused with who I was talking to.

Why are you trying to rope me back into this shit storm that hasn't seen action in 3 days? Not sure I'd call it a necro, but you certainly aren't letting it die the death it deserves.

If you pride yourself in being a judicial scholar/law enthusiast then you should be open to your opinion being changed, and persuaded by compelling evidence or argument.

So far though you haven't demonstrated that to be the case. If you were actually willing to to have a civil conversation, you're agreeing to not be:

(a) intellectually dishonest
(b) not flat out ignore points that counter your position, simply because they don't fit your fictional narrative

If not, I suggest you just let the topic die.

There is a right and wrong answer as far as the law is concerned. If we are going to have a discussion about it then we should be able to interpret the law and come up with a reasonable and agreeable definition. If your position is to simply create doubt and leave the ruling up to greater minds than our own, then there is no discussion to be had. I am not the prosecution and you are not the defense, we have no stake here, so defining the law and applying it correctly should be a relatively easy exercise. Given points A & B.

You can start by addressing this:

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.

Conduct: Behavior that an shows in reactions and inaction.
http://thelawdictionary.org/conduct/

ac·tion
ˈakSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: action

1.
the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.
"he vowed to take tougher action against persistent offenders"
synonyms: measures, steps, activity, movement, work, operation
"the need for local community action"

2.
a thing done; an act.
"she frequently questioned his actions"
synonyms: deed, act, move, undertaking, exploit, maneuver, endeavor, effort, exertion; behavior, conduct, activity


con·duct
noun
noun: conduct
ˈkänˌdəkt/

1.
the manner in which a person behaves, especially on a particular occasion or in a particular context.
"the conduct of the police during the riot"
synonyms: behavior, performance, demeanor; More
actions, activities, deeds, doings, exploits;
habits, manners;
formalcomportment
"they complained about her conduct"
2.
the action or manner of managing an activity or organization.
"his conduct of the campaign"
synonyms: management, running, direction, control, supervision, regulation, administration, organization, coordination, orchestration, handling
"the conduct of the elections"


verb
verb: conduct; 3rd person present: conducts; past tense: conducted; past participle: conducted; gerund or present participle: conducting
kənˈdəkt/

1.
organize and carry out.
"in the second trial he conducted his own defense"
synonyms: manage, direct, run, administer, organize, coordinate, orchestrate, handle, control, oversee, supervise, regulate, carry out/on
"the election was conducted lawfully"

2.
behave in a specified way.
"he conducted himself with the utmost propriety"
synonyms: behave, act, acquit oneself, bear oneself; formal comport oneself
"I am proud of the way they conducted themselves"

be·hav·ior
bəˈhāvyər/
noun
noun: behaviour; noun: behavior

the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Can we observe Michelle Carter's behavior? Yes we can.

How? Through her texts.

behavior = conduct = action

[cubby]

I wasn't confused with who I was talking to.

Yeah, you were. @Endus was speaking of @satimy about "moving goal posts" and "distancing himself". He was also disagreeing with me in other posts, and it was easy to get the situation confused. Which you did. If you don't believe go back and check. Right around pages 9-11 (if you use 20 posts per page). But at no time did what you say actually happen regarding me and Endus - that was, again, Satimy. Just to clarify.

Why are you trying to rope me back into this shit storm that hasn't seen action in 3 days? Not sure I'd call it a necro, but you certainly aren't letting it die the death it deserves.

I'm not - just waiting for you to correct your errors. You still have me misquoted about something you said - but if don't care about accuracy, that's ok. It was your choice to come back into this discussion, not mine. Rofl.

(and lol at "necro" from three days ago - that's just pathetic)

If you pride yourself in being a judicial scholar/law enthusiast then you should be open to your opinion being changed, and persuaded by compelling evidence or argument.

So far though you have demonstrated that to be the case. If you were actually willing to to have a civil conversation, you're agreeing to not be:

(a) intellectually dishonest
(b) not flat out ignore points that counter your position, simply because they don't fit your fictional narrative

If not, I suggest you just let the topic die.

The only person being intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant is you. You continue to bring a personal attack scheme into what the rest of us have enjoyed as an intellectual discussion. You continue to ignore valid arguments in favor of "your way or the highway" - lashing out at people who dare to disagree with you. If you don't understand the legal issues, that's fine, read up on the cites that have been provided. If you do understand them, then use your own points to disagree.

And I still don't understand why you come at this whole conversation is such a brutal manner. The rest of us are having an intellectual conversation on the merits of the case - you just seem to want to sling mud (see above) and not address the legal case precedents - which have been listed for you several times, by more than one person.

There is a right and wrong answer as far as the law is concerned. If we are going to have a discussion about it then we should be able to interpret the law and come up with a reasonable and agreeable definition. If your position is to simply create doubt and leave the ruling up to greater minds than our own, then there is no discussion to be had. I am not the prosecution and you are not the defense, we have no stake here, so defining the law and applying it correctly should be a relatively easy exercise. Given points A & B.

That's right - and that's what the rest of us at talking about. You, however, seem to have a hard on for me and the very valid points I've made. Which, btw, you continue to ignore and claim instead that I ignore points counter to my own. When clearly I haven't - because I'm disagreeing with you. Constantly. That's what a discussion/argument is all about. If you have trouble with someone disagreeing with you, perhaps you should seek enlightenment elsewhere.

Otherwise, you can start by yourself being intellectually honest and address the actual legal issues.


Case Issues (let's see if you actually care - we'll see who's intellectually honest, eh?)

The issue in the case seems to come down to Duty of Care, using the case law the ruling judge cited in his decision. If you want to talk about the merits of the case, I'm all ears. Intellectual conversations are always stimulating - and this one is at least a doosey (sp?).

The case the judge cited had a homeless couple culpable for the deaths of firefighters because of a fire they started and failed to report. I think the appellate court is going to come down on one side of did her words create enough of a physically dangerous situation as to meet that extended standard of Civic Duty to Report/Respond. What do you think?

[Deleted]

Good. Throw the book at her, make some precedents and get some punishment on all the bullies out there who cause these cases. Actively encouraging a person you know to be suicidal or unstable to kill themselves... Yeah, that shits your fault.

[cubby]

Good. Throw the book at her, make some precedents and get some punishment on all the bullies out there who cause these cases. Actively encouraging a person you know to be suicidal or unstable to kill themselves... Yeah, that shits your fault.

While she is a horrible person, she didn't actually make him do it. Which creates an interesting conundrum on the legal side in appellate review.

- - - Updated - - -

If you actively encourage someone to renegage with a suicide and never contact anyone to let them know this is happening you helped kill someone. Imo at least.

I completely respect your opinion, and so far the only legal review of the case that matters agrees with your opinion. I am, however, super curious about the appellate review. I would be money that this sees the Supreme Court before it's done.

The issues are fascinating (if one can break away from her horrific behavior). Is this the first case of social media killing someone?

[ParanoiD84]

20 years in prison might be abit hard but love is crazy and she should have known that her words ment alot to the guy so encouraging him to do it is just wrong.

[A dot Ham]

Yeah, you were. @Endus was speaking of @satimy about "moving goal posts" and "distancing himself". He was also disagreeing with me in other posts, and it was easy to get the situation confused. Which you did. If you don't believe go back and check. Right around pages 9-11 (if you use 20 posts per page). But at no time did what you say actually happen regarding me and Endus - that was, again, Satimy. Just to clarify.




I'm not - just waiting for you to correct your errors. You still have me misquoted about something you said - but if don't care about accuracy, that's ok. It was your choice to come back into this discussion, not mine. Rofl.

(and lol at "necro" from three days ago - that's just pathetic)




The only person being intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant is you. You continue to bring a personal attack scheme into what the rest of us have enjoyed as an intellectual discussion. You continue to ignore valid arguments in favor of "your way or the highway" - lashing out at people who dare to disagree with you. If you don't understand the legal issues, that's fine, read up on the cites that have been provided. If you do understand them, then use your own points to disagree.

And I still don't understand why you come at this whole conversation is such a brutal manner. The rest of us are having an intellectual conversation on the merits of the case - you just seem to want to sling mud (see above) and not address the legal case precedents - which have been listed for you several times, by more than one person.




That's right - and that's what the rest of us at talking about. You, however, seem to have a hard on for me and the very valid points I've made. Which, btw, you continue to ignore and claim instead that I ignore points counter to my own. When clearly I haven't - because I'm disagreeing with you. Constantly. That's what a discussion/argument is all about. If you have trouble with someone disagreeing with you, perhaps you should seek enlightenment elsewhere.

Otherwise, you can start by yourself being intellectually honest and address the actual legal issues.


Case Issues (let's see if you actually care - we'll see who's intellectually honest, eh?)

The issue in the case seems to come down to Duty of Care, using the case law the ruling judge cited in his decision. If you want to talk about the merits of the case, I'm all ears. Intellectual conversations are always stimulating - and this one is at least a doosey (sp?).

The case the judge cited had a homeless couple culpable for the deaths of firefighters because of a fire they started and failed to report. I think the appellate court is going to come down on one side of did her words create enough of a physically dangerous situation as to meet that extended standard of Civic Duty to Report/Respond. What do you think?

At this point I can't tell if you're trolling or if you yourself have a screw loose.

You have managed yet again... to COMPLETELY ignore what would fit on an 8.5 X 11 sheet of paper worth of evidence, that directly refutes your ORIGINAL position. Your acknowledgment was my one stipulation for reengaging in this topic. I know you've read it because of how you became irate when I "misquoted" you, and continue to bring it up.

So to sum that up, we know you've read it, which means you are deliberately and purposefully ignoring it, with the aim of upsetting me or eliciting an angry response. So if you really have no interest in addressing what I have to say, then why attempt to bait me into some mockery of a discussion? One can only conclude you are trolling, and you have been reported as such.

In regards to the agreement part A & B, a simple, "No, I can't do that." would have sufficed. What a waste of "breath".

[Queen of Hamsters]

Well, people shouldn't tell other people to kill themselves. Is that so hard?

Read up on what that "young lady" did.

[Leyre]

To the people who says she is innocent and didnt killed anyone

Charles Manson also didnt killed anyone

[cubby]

At this point I can't tell if you're trolling or if you yourself have a screw loose.

Accusations of trolling are not allowed in this forum.

You have managed yet again... to COMPLETELY ignore what would fit on an 8.5 X 11 sheet of paper worth of evidence, that directly refutes your ORIGINAL position. Your acknowledgment was my one stipulation for reengaging in this topic. I know you've read it because of how you became irate when I "misquoted" you, and continue to bring it up.

You continue to misquote and lie - and you putting up some BS strawman as a requirement for you to grace our pressence with your lies and intellectual dishonesty is beyond laughable.

If you want to engage in the conversation, do so. I've laid out the legal argument for you several times. If you don't understand the issue, that's fine - ask and we'll help. Others here are discussing the issues. All you're doing is misquoting people and then lying about it. And then failing to own up to your own mistakes. Classy.

So to sum that up, we know you've read it, which means you are deliberately and purposefully ignoring it, with the aim of upsetting me or eliciting an angry response. So if you really have no interest in addressing what I have to say, then why attempt to bait me into some mockery of a discussion? One can only conclude you are trolling, and you have been reported as such.

What you've said so far today isn't worth answering. You lied about quoting me, then you asked me to refute a definition that wasn't used in the case (do you understand what case law is and how it will be used in the appeal?), and finally you continue to drone on about intellectual honesty, when the only dishonest one is you.

I brought you back into the discussion in the hope that you would understand your own confusion from earlier, and own up to it like an adult, but you don't even have the decency to do that. So to expect more from you now would be asking too much, as you've demonstrated time and again.


If you are interested in the case, it's future in appellate court, and how it will affect social media - then join us in the conversation. Otherwise, good day. If you can't be honest about your own posts, I'm pretty sure I already know which side you'll fall on.

- - - Updated - - -

I came here thinking I would agree with the OP. But Jesus, read the article. This is some sick shit. This girl needs to be locked up.

So far that's exactly what's going to happen to her. I am curious, though, how the appellate court will handle the issue of words becoming actions.

[deathchainin]

She deserves this it should be longer truthfully.

[cubby]

To the people who says she is innocent and didnt killed anyone

Charles Manson also didnt killed anyone

He actually did, and was convicted for both planning the ones re Conspiracy and for the two he committed. The Conspiracy issue is interesting, as it was only planning and directing instead of actually doing. That's pretty close to words equating with actions.

- - - Updated - - -

I came here thinking I would agree with the OP. But Jesus, read the article. This is some sick shit. This girl needs to be locked up.

Horrible, but legally intriguing. If it's ok to hold both of those opinions at the same time, lol.

[A dot Ham]

Accusations of trolling are not allowed in this forum.




You continue to misquote and lie - and you putting up some BS strawman as a requirement for you to grace our pressence with your lies and intellectual dishonesty is beyond laughable.

If you want to engage in the conversation, do so. I've laid out the legal argument for you several times. If you don't understand the issue, that's fine - ask and we'll help. Others here are discussing the issues. All you're doing is misquoting people and then lying about it. And then failing to own up to your own mistakes. Classy.




What you've said so far today isn't worth answering. You lied about quoting me, then you asked me to refute a definition that wasn't used in the case (do you understand what case law is and how it will be used in the appeal?), and finally you continue to drone on about intellectual honesty, when the only dishonest one is you.

I brought you back into the discussion in the hope that you would understand your own confusion from earlier, and own up to it like an adult, but you don't even have the decency to do that. So to expect more from you now would be asking too much, as you've demonstrated time and again.


If you are interested in the case, it's future in appellate court, and how it will affect social media - then join us in the conversation. Otherwise, good day. If you can't be honest about your own posts, I'm pretty sure I already know which side you'll fall on.

Trollin, trollin, trollin, cubby keeps uh trollin, rawhide. *Whip*

(1) I don't need to correct a mistake it was intentional (I've explained that intent please keep up)

(2) IF I got you satimy confused back in the beginning, then my words were providence as you are definitely committing the same offense now "moving the goal posts" you have changed your position from concern over whether words equate to actions, and now take issue with how Duty of Care was applied.

You quite literally add NOTHING to the thread. You don't debate well, or at all, and even where you agree or feign approval and dote over those you agree with you continue to repeat "I'm curious how the appellate court...." Got it.... got something ELSE to add? No? Then let the thread die as it was doing 3 days ago before you decided to play Dr. Frankenstein.

You claim to have gone to law school, but don't actually claim to be a law professional... very telling, and I can see why.