Guilty Verdict in Teen 'Suicide-by-Text' Case

a reply to: NthOther

It's precedent in the sense that "telling someone to commit suicide" leaves yourself exposed to some liability if they go through with it.

Not so sure about the antidepressants aspect of it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: seeker1963

Way more complicated than that Les..... He was sitting in his truck with carbon monoxide rolling in, he started to get scared and got out of the truck and she told him to get back in.

Doesn't matter. It was suicide. The man died by his own hand, by his own choices, not hers.

I can't disagree with that statement. I read the whole issue and saw how she tried to help him, he refused, like I said earlier, I feel sorry for her, I think he drove her mad with his unhealthy obsession of losing somebody who he in his twisted mind thought was his.

If I was on the jury, which there isn't one, I certainly would not convict based upon the evidence I have read....

Honestly, what she was wrong on every level. She has something wrong with her head. But he is 100% responsible for his actions. When people are being imprisoned for words our 1st amendment is going to be stripped from us. I understand her familys loss and anger towards her encouraged text to suicide but when something like this happens people want someone else to blame. Its typical, but people need to acquire integrity and take responsibility for there actions, people need to be held accountable for there actions!
My best friend of 20+ years since i was 5 yo became a pedophile and went to prison. His parents blamed the drugs, demons, even me for not being there, i told em if i were there i would have tied him to a chair and let a couple pitbulls molest him if i caught him doing what he did. Integrity is very important, she is going to have to deal with this, but this "everyone is a victim" type society we live in is very much responsible for this #y # encouraging him for the attention. Btw, idc about my run on sentence or improper paragraphs, you get what im saying.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krakatoa

it is disingenuous of you to minimize this case to "just a text on a phone". It was much more than that if you took the time to actually know the details of the case instead of spouting off an uniformed one-liner. She took an active role, as active as if he was there, personally with him at the time. There was no difference.

Your post makes it sound like she was walking by and said "go kill yourself" then walked away.

This was FAR from that scenario....I hope you take the time to review the details before responding again with ignorance of the case.

It's not only disingenuous, but completely false, completely superstitious, that this is manslaughter. I hope you take the time to view reality without the lens of your fevered feelings.

Normally I would agree with you that it is a dangerous precedent, however, this vile woman clearly went out of her way to manipulate a mentally ill man that she supposedly 'loved' to kill himself.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that what she did was plain wrong.

This was no accident.

a reply to: Metallicus

Normally I would agree with you that it is a dangerous precedent, however, this vile woman clearly went out of her way to manipulate a mentally ill man that she supposedly 'loved' to kill himself.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that what she did was plain wrong.

This was no accident.

I'm not saying it wasn't wrong, I'm saying it wasn't manslaughter. Manslaughter is when you kill someone.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: NthOther

It's precedent in the sense that "telling someone to commit suicide" leaves yourself exposed to some liability if they go through with it.

Not so sure about the antidepressants aspect of it.

Liability...yes, I think that's a valid take. That's why I think this should have been handled in a civil trial, not a criminal one.

She is going to prison though. I'm not sure I would agree with a guilty verdict in a criminal trial. But she waived her right to a jury, and that was incredibly dumb. If her attorney(s) advised that...wow, that was terrible advice.

In a civil trial, I would maybe find her to be liable to some percentage...like 25%.

I didn't hear all the evidence and arguments though, so I can't say for sure.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Metallicus

Normally I would agree with you that it is a dangerous precedent, however, this vile woman clearly went out of her way to manipulate a mentally ill man that she supposedly 'loved' to kill himself.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that what she did was plain wrong.

This was no accident.

I'm not saying it wasn't wrong, I'm saying it wasn't manslaughter. Manslaughter is when you kill someone.

Murder is when you kill someone,

Manslaughter is where you kill someone through negligence or callous indifference.

She definitely displayed a callous indifference.

a reply to: Metallicus

Murder is when you kill someone,

Manslaughter is where you kill someone through negligence or callous indifference.

She definitely displayed a callous indifference.

Yes manslaughter is where you kill someone. She didn't kill anyone.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Metallicus

Normally I would agree with you that it is a dangerous precedent, however, this vile woman clearly went out of her way to manipulate a mentally ill man that she supposedly 'loved' to kill himself.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that what she did was plain wrong.

This was no accident.

I'm not saying it wasn't wrong, I'm saying it wasn't manslaughter. Manslaughter is when you kill someone.

Murder is when you kill someone,

Manslaughter is where you kill someone through negligence or callous indifference.

She definitely displayed a callous indifference.

No doubt she was callously indifferent. But she still didn't kill him.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Commonwealth v. Godin, 374 Mass. 120, 126, 371 N.E.2d 438  1977).   Involuntary manslaughter is “an unlawful homicide, unintentionally caused by an act which constitutes such a disregard of probable harmful consequences to another as to constitute wanton or reckless conduct.”  

link
Check.

...the defendant owed a duty of care and that “wanton or reckless conduct may consist of intentional failure to take such care in disregard of the probable consequences and their right to care.”  Id. at 397, 55 N.E.2d 902.

Check.

He exited the truck seeking life/air. He was AFRAID.

Regardless, she provoked him to get back into the truck - where she could hear his coughing, choking and the generator.

She failed to call the police, for emergency medical help, his parents.

She sat there looking at her phone waiting for him to die.

She should have been charged with murder.

peace

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm not sure what minimum sentencing requirements are in the state of MA, or how it applies to this young lady (I thought I read she was being charged as a minor?), but I read the sentencing isn't until August 3rd. Is it a given she will go to prison?

As others have said, the individual who took his life is 100% responsible for his actions, but he was mentally ill and she kept encouraging him to go through with it multiple times. Maybe it's a wake up call she needs...

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: watchitburn

They were fricken text messages.

Where she clearly provoked him dozens and dozens of times.

He got out of the truck seaking air.

She convinced him to get back in.

She could hear him coughing and choking and the generator.

She continued to egg him on her recklessness unpardonable.

That's murder.

peace

Sorry,
But there's this concept called personal responsibility, you may have heard of it?

He took his own life.
He could have blocked her number, put down the phone or even just ignored her. He chose to kill himself.

She didn't help the situation, but it was his choice.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

She is going to prison though. I'm not sure I would agree with a guilty verdict in a criminal trial. But she waived her right to a jury, and that was incredibly dumb. If her attorney(s) advised that...wow, that was terrible advice.

Do you mind telling us why you think so? I'd be interested to hear.

peace

On the other side of the opinion?


I've not listened to all of it - but I'm about to.

peace

a reply to: silo13

Check.

False. She committed no homicide.

She should have been charged with murder.

Let's be glad you're not a judge.

a reply to: silo13

This case might affect assisted-suicide cases/law though. And I find it tragic that terminally ill people wanting to end their lives might not find assistance because...who the heII wants to go to prison for helping them???

So many nuances to consider...admittedly, I am just now considering that type of effect.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

After looking at the definition of murder - you're right.

Not murder.

Involuntary manslaughter though - yep.

peace

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: MotherMayEye

She is going to prison though. I'm not sure I would agree with a guilty verdict in a criminal trial. But she waived her right to a jury, and that was incredibly dumb. If her attorney(s) advised that...wow, that was terrible advice.

Do you mind telling us why you think so? I'd be interested to hear.

peace

Because she didn't actually kill him. And she only assisted by *aiding* his stated wishes with words.

I feel conflicted about that. I support free speech and I support the right to choose to end-your-life with assistance, if that's what you want.

I feel the decedent was texting with the defendant specifically for her support in following through with his suicide. I don't think he wanted her to talk him out of it.

I base this only on what I read here and there though. I don't know all the facts and arguments.

***

ETA: From what I have read...he wanted her to encourage/support him. In that sense, she fulfilled her duty.

a reply to: silo13

After looking at the definition of murder - you're right.

Not murder.

Involuntary manslaughter though - yep.

peace

False. She killed no one.

www.azleg.gov...

Mere words or gestures, although extremely offensive and insulting, have traditionally been viewed as insufficient provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter. There is, however, a modern trend in some courts to hold that words alone will suffice under certain circumstances, such as instances in which a present intent and ability to cause harm is demonstrated.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Les is not a Lawyer
all cases are different

Manslaughter by Coercion is a thing