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.
The people electing the lawmakers have zero control over the laws that are made.
There's no such thing as "self-murder". "Murder", by definition, is the act of killing someone else.
Her reaction to his actions are responsible for her death.
It is factually and literally not murder.
It's the literal definition.
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.
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.
Nintendo FC: 5129-5766-6558 Please PM me if you want to add
Trainer name: December
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by mmoc982b0e8df8; 2017-03-18 at 05:01 PM.
It actually does. Words have meanings for a reason. That's how they work.
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).
Last edited by Mistame; 2017-03-18 at 06:24 PM.
Some words do.
No, they don't. But neither does "voluntary suicide" equate to "murder" in any context, literally or legally.
Judges don't get to change laws or the meanings of words.
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.
Last edited by Mistame; 2017-03-18 at 06:39 PM.
Sure. But there's no context in which murder applies to someone voluntarily killing themselves. That's called "suicide".
Again, I don't need to be a judge. I can read. There is literally and legally no context where voluntary suicide is murder.
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.
Pot/kettle much?
Last edited by Mistame; 2017-03-18 at 06:56 PM.
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.
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.
Last edited by Mistame; 2017-03-18 at 09:08 PM.