Guilty verdict in teen suicide trial

[cubby]

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

So you intentionally lied? Excellent. I figured I had your character judged correctly, but it's rare that people of your moral standards actually own up to it. We are eternally grateful, and will now take your posts with a huge grain of salt.

Just like your tears from STILL not being to understand the issues in the case. As you prove here:

(2) IF I got you satimy confused. 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.

And here is where you prove you do not understand the issues. Words equating to actions are what creates or removes the Duty of Care (see the case I cited) Which the ruling judge in this case used as well (that's why I looked it up, and READ it - unlike you ).

Ignorance is adorable up to a point, then it just becomes annoying, like a fly.

You quite literally add NOTHING to 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 mean aside from clarifying your lies and factual blunders? Are all the other people commenting on it today fake? Or is it just that you realize you've been so intellectually dishonest that you have no where to go but into the abyss?

I offered you an out. I offered an olive branch - here and in another thread. But you just can't be honest enough to admit you made a mistake and own up to it. Kinda sad.

[A dot Ham]

So you intentionally lied? Excellent. I figured I had your character judged correctly, but it's rare that people of your moral standards actually own up to it. We are eternally grateful, and will now take your posts with a huge grain of salt.

Just like your tears from STILL not being to understand the issues in the case. As you prove here:




And here is where you prove you do not understand the issues. Words equating to actions are what creates or removes the Duty of Care (see the case I cited) Which the ruling judge in this case used as well (that's why I looked it up, and READ it - unlike you ).

Ignorance is adorable up to a point, then it just becomes annoying, like a fly.




You mean aside from clarifying your lies and factual blunders? Are all the other people commenting on it today fake? Or is it just that you realize you've been so intellectually dishonest that you have no where to go but into the abyss?

I offered you an out. I offered an olive branch - here and in another thread. But you just can't be honest enough to admit you made a mistake and own up to it. Kinda sad.

Action or inaction is what triggers duty of care.

Point 3 of what is required for an involuntary manslaughter conviction, pointedly and specifically used the word "conduct"

If you use and read a simple tool like a dictionary. "Conduct" - "Behavior that an shows in reactions and inaction."
http://thelawdictionary.org/conduct/

behavior = conduct = action

This is a very simple case, and you are making issues out of nothing. You are afraid that the stupid shit you say on the internet is going to one day land you in jail. Understandably so given your conduct. See what I did there... I even made it applicable to you so you can understand it. Its like dealing with toddlers.

[cubby]

I have a question.

What if the guy wanted to take his life because he believed he had irrevocable issues and she loved him so much that she was willing to support his efforts to kill himself than to allow him to suffer?

Slight tangent:

When a person becomes suicidal, and i mean proper suicidal not, "I'LL SHOW YOU!" 'suicidal', they often have a "voice" that eggs them on. It some cases the person might as well have a form of schizophrenia due to how intense this "voice" can be. It is possible to be placed in a state of constant torment by this "voice." and it seems the biological function of this "voice" is to prevent the body from killing itself via a form of reverse psychology.

There are a few cases where a person is never able to resolve this voice and essentially constantly wants to kill themselves but does not have the balls (for a lack of a better word) to do it.

Back to the case:

They been in a relationship for what, 5 years? and the texts take place over a period of about 3 years. None of them are phrased in a, "I hate you go kill yourself you worthless piece of shit" kind of way. But almost all of them are phrased in the, "Please stop tormenting me about you killing yourself and please just do it. I can't take it anymore" type of tone.

Can you be sure that the crime that you all seem to think have happen had happened that day? Or are you making an assumption based on the "mean girl" stereotype and the fact that she looks like a stereotypical mean girl.

I believe that in situations like these context is key and i only have essentially the worst of the worst quotes from the girl and none of the quotes from the boy.

That is a very interesting thought. It was my understanding from the case that she was convicted based on texts from the time immediately surrounding the suicide itself - rather than from years past. If the relevant posts were spread so far out, and only a few from the actual night, I think her appeal chances get even better.

[A dot Ham]

Ignorance is adorable up to a point, then it just becomes annoying, like a fly.

I offered you an out. I offered an olive branch - here and in another thread. But you just can't be honest enough to admit you made a mistake and own up to it. Kinda sad.

If I'm soooooo ignorant. Why would you care to re-invite to this thread. I don't value the opinions of people I think are ignorant, and definitely not enough to seek them out. So you're either psychotic or you be trollin. Take your pick.

Woah, woah, woah, hold up? Stalking me in another thread, and baiting me in this one is extending an olive branch? What kind of messed up world do you live in?


[Infracted - Personal attacks]

[cubby]

Action or inaction is what triggers duty of care.

Very true. And in the case the ruling judge cited a physical act was a key aspect of triggering duty of care - specifically lighting a fire (that led to a building on fire, that then led to firemen dying, and then manslaughter convictions). The key aspect of the appeal will be whether her texts amounted to that kind of "action". Did she light the proverbial fire or was it already burning when she arrived, so to speak.

Point 3 of what is required for an involuntary manslaughter conviction, pointedly and specifically used the word "conduct"

If you use and read a simple tool like a dictionary. "Conduct" - "Behavior that an shows in reactions and inaction."
http://thelawdictionary.org/conduct/

behavior = conduct = action

But the court didn't rely on the "simple" definition of conduct. And in the eyes of the court, again from case law, conduct has typically been an action, rather than mere words.

This is a very simple case, and you are making issues out of nothing. You are afraid that the stupid shit you say on the internet is going to one day land you in jail. Understandably so given your conduct. See what I did there... I even made it applicable to you so you can understand it. Its like dealing with toddlers.

No, it's not a very simple case. That's why it's the first of it's kind. In case you missed that "simple" point (see what I did there? ).

- - - Updated - - -

If I'm soooooo ignorant. Why would you care to re-invite to this thread. I don't value the opinions of people I think are ignorant, and definitely not enough to seek them out. So you're either psychotic or you be trollin. Take your pick.

Woah, woah, woah, hold up? Stalking me in another thread, and baiting me in this one is extending an olive branch? What kind of messed up world do you live in?

Hoping you admit to your mistake and we could start afresh. High hopes for what turns out to be low moral character.

I actually searched you out in another thread to see what you were like without me in the mix. You typically make a lot of sense - it's confounding why you have such a hard on for me in this thread. When it seems if we could start over, we would actually have a very interesting intellectual discussion about a highly intriguing case.

I did fully agree with you, btw, in the other thread. It was a solid point - one that most people miss.

[A dot Ham]

Very true. And in the case the ruling judge cited a physical act was a key aspect of triggering duty of care - specifically lighting a fire (that led to a building on fire, that then led to firemen dying, and then manslaughter convictions). The key aspect of the appeal will be whether her texts amounted to that kind of "action". Did she light the proverbial fire or was it already burning when she arrived, so to speak.




But the court didn't rely on the "simple" definition of conduct. And in the eyes of the court, again from case law, conduct has typically been an action, rather than mere words.




No, it's not a very simple case. That's why it's the first of it's kind. In case you missed that "simple" point (see what I did there? ).

- - - Updated - - -



Hoping you admit to your mistake and we could start afresh. High hopes for what turns out to be low moral character.

I actually searched you out in another thread to see what you were like without me in the mix. You typically make a lot of sense - it's confounding why you have such a hard on for me in this thread. When it seems if we could start over, we would actually have a very interesting intellectual discussion about a highly intriguing case.

I did fully agree with you, btw, in the other thread. It was a solid point - one that most people miss.

*rolls up sleeves* if I can prove you wrong on Duty of Care will you stop posting in this thread and let it die?

[A dot Ham]

I have a question.

What if the guy wanted to take his life because he believed he had irrevocable issues and she loved him so much that she was willing to support his efforts to kill himself than to allow him to suffer?

Slight tangent:

When a person becomes suicidal, and i mean proper suicidal not, "I'LL SHOW YOU!" 'suicidal', they often have a "voice" that eggs them on. It some cases the person might as well have a form of schizophrenia due to how intense this "voice" can be. It is possible to be placed in a state of constant torment by this "voice." and it seems the biological function of this "voice" is to prevent the body from killing itself via a form of reverse psychology.

There are a few cases where a person is never able to resolve this voice and essentially constantly wants to kill themselves but does not have the balls (for a lack of a better word) to do it.

Back to the case:

They been in a relationship for what, 5 years? and the texts take place over a period of about 3 years. None of them are phrased in a, "I hate you go kill yourself you worthless piece of shit" kind of way. But almost all of them are phrased in the, "Please stop tormenting me about you killing yourself and please just do it. I can't take it anymore" type of tone.

Can you be sure that the crime that you all seem to think have happen had happened that day? Or are you making an assumption based on the "mean girl" stereotype and the fact that she looks like a stereotypical mean girl.

I believe that in situations like these context is key and i only have essentially the worst of the worst quotes from the girl and none of the quotes from the boy.

I believe the duration of the relationship is far more important that the texts that were sent. Unless i misread, he didn't block her messages, and often sought her companionship. This is not the story of a man broken by his lover then driven to death at his lover's behest.

This is the story of a broken man that had a lover who embraced his brokenness and gave him the strength to follow through with his original plan.

How Shakespearen?

So she did it out of love? Or out of annoyance? Or both?

The intent or context is ultimately irrelevant. She had influence over a fragile mind, and influenced that person to take their own life.

Someone who convinces another to do harm to themselves is no friend.

I'd be willing to entertain the idea of her own psychosis and having a sick and twisted fascination with death, in the same way that a psychopath tortures and kills household pets.

- - - Updated - - -

You two are bickering like lovers. If A dot Ham was not so interested in "winning" i bet you two would have a lot of interesting conversations and things to learn from each other. But, alas we live in a world where disagreement is seen as an attack instead of an opening.

Its not about winning. I concede when and where appropriate.

The biggest issue I have is not that cubby could possibly be wrong (he is) but that he refuses to be, because he needs to push this social awareness agenda that our thoughts or our words rather are in danger of being taken as actionable offenses. They already are... there is no precedence being set here.

It wouldn't matter if I was Antonin 'fucking' Scalia he'd still be ranting about how interesting it will be when the appellate court looks at... blah blah blah blah blah blah

[Shadowferal]

Punishment doesn't fit the crime....
Sure, we want to judge the morality here, but where exactly does the legality fit in? (It doesn't)
This is like convicting people yelling "JUMP!" to someone standing on the edge of a building.
This will get repealed.

[cubby]

*rolls up sleeves* if I can prove you wrong on Duty of Care will you stop posting in this thread and let it die?

Sure, if you can prove, using case law, I might let it die - but until then I will certainly enjoy the intellectual conversation. I'm glad you're coming back down to earth on this - forums are intended for interesting discussions, our little tussle is getting us (and everyone else) nowhere.

But I would like to hear your thoughts on Duty of Care in the case law. Here is the case if you are interested in reading the ruling in it's entirety.

- - - Updated - - -

I also believe that is the reason why. But that strips away all contexts. It literally now becomes illegal to "Support" someone in a non State sanctioned way. This seems like yet another "revenge" case by the family and a, "we can't allow precedent to be set" case by the state.

The family just wants the metaphorical head of the person who took their baby away; even though it was their baby's wishes to have someone to usher them through their suicide rather than them dying cold and alone.

I have no idea why the state wanted to set this precedent, but they did.

Now if i someone jokingly tells someone to kill themselves, and said person kills themselves even if it is unrelated to what the previous person said, this case can be used to convict someone. I guess it is good for getting internet trolls, but it can lead to a lot of interesting "suicides."

This is what my fear is as well. The precedent being set is extremely dangerous. I really think the appellate court will take a hard look at this, and see it reversed.

You two are bickering like lovers. If A dot Ham was not so interested in "winning" i bet you two would have a lot of interesting conversations and things to learn from each other. But, alas we live in a world where disagreement is seen as an attack instead of an opening.

Yeah, I don't know why he had such a hard on for me. I actually did look at some of his other posts (stalker alert!) and did sincerely agree with him. Thought that would have helped. /shrug

- - - Updated - - -

Let's imagine someone is walking down the street and sees someone lying there bleeding out from a gun shot or stab wound or something. Instead of calling 911, they just watch them bleed out for 20-30 minutes. Later it's determined that if they had called 911, they could have easily saved this person's life. Do you not think they could or that they should get charged with manslaughter?

Now this is the real issue. What you're describing is a Duty of Care but a citizen, rather than a license professional (like a Doctor or Police Officer). Under the law, unfortunately, there is no requirement that they help the person by calling 911 or such. Which I don't like, personally, because calling 911 and helping is the right thing to do. But the courts have consistently dilliniated between the moral thing and the legal thing, ruling that a regular citizen has no duty of care per se. Unless the citizen has created the physical danger themselves.

So in your example, let's pretend that someone dropped a knife out the window, accidentally (don't ask me how), and that knife stabbed your victim from above. According to the case law, that citizen would then have a duty of care to notify others of the danger to the stabbed victim, because they created the danger in the first place. The question in this case, I think, is whether through words via text and phone alone, did she create the danger that would therefore initiate a heightened duty of care, and therefore make her obligated to report the suicide attempt.

The appeals court is going to have a field day with this, and I can't imagine it not getting to the Supreme Court.

That situation is even less the fault of the by-stander than this one. So, if someone in that situation could be charged with a crime, seems like a no-brainer that someone in this situation could be charged. She knew for a fact he was going to die and it was a fact that could prevent it without putting herself in any sort of danger. Whether or not she created the situation physically is irrelevant.

Imo you hit the nail on the head in regards to the issue at hand.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not about winning. I concede when and where appropriate.

The biggest issue I have is not that cubby could possibly be wrong (he is) but that he refuses to be, because he needs to push this social awareness agenda that our thoughts or our words rather are in danger of being taken as actionable offenses. They already are... there is no precedence being set here.

It wouldn't matter if I was Antonin 'fucking' Scalia he'd still be ranting about how interesting it will be when the appellate court looks at... blah blah blah blah blah blah

There is no social agenda being pushed here - but I think I see where your passion for my posts comes from. You think I'm pushing a social agenda, when in fact all I'm doing is pushing a legal discussion.

And your little ravings about right and wrong further demonstrate that you don't understand how the legal system works. I could go on, but you don't care about reality, you're just looking to score some forum points. Which isn't an advisable course of action, apparently.

(p.s. if even Scalia ruled on this issue, it would still be interesting to see what the appellate court would do, unless the case in question that Scalia ruled on had almost the exact same facts - THAT's how case law works, fyi ).

- - - Updated - - -

Punishment doesn't fit the crime....
Sure, we want to judge the morality here, but where exactly does the legality fit in? (It doesn't)
This is like convicting people yelling "JUMP!" to someone standing on the edge of a building.
This will get repealed.

I agree. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced this will be overturned on appeal.

[Coconuter]

I firmly believe the judge made the correct call for what is allowable by the law. He is not going deep into unchartered territory either. It wouldn't lead to these examples of people being put in jail just for saying kill yourself to a random person. The law gets to be interpreted by the judge involved in the case. The next judge would be allowed to see it differently.

Even though some of you may not like it, they are called judges for a reason. They uphold the law and judge people and their actions based on how they read the law.

I only wish he could have done more. She clearly enjoyed somebody dying. Listening to the final breathes? And some of you have the audacity to defend her because you don't have knowledge of how the judicial system works? She's showing plenty of signs of being a serial killer. Her actions, enjoyments, research into this is similar to what others do to murder people. Involuntary manslaughter easily fits her actions and will at least ensure she is watched and medicated.

I fully expect her to murder somebody when given the chance, then turn around and play the victim card once again. Probably just setting it up better to make her look like she was defending herself, or being one of those mothers who kills off their children. I'd further bet, all of you attempting to call for innocence, would be the first to ask why more wasn't done in the first place if her next victim was somebody you knew. She's evil, stop trying to be so PC all the damn time, you're just fucking up the world, not helping.

P.S. being mentally unstable isn't an excuse for actions. Used only when people want it to be in their favor then dismiss it when it's not. Any serial killer is mentally unstable for example, doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished to the full extent of his actions.