It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye




This was in Massachusetts.


Yes it is. Is coerced suicide a crime in Mass?


Yes. It is called involuntary manslaughter. As was decided in this case.




posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You're not addressing the issue. The issue is whether she violated the law. She clearly did. The law for manslaughter doesn't require you to have physically committed the act that killed the person.



I still believe he was far more responsible for his death than she was and so this case does not rise to the level of criminal negligence.

I think it might be a set back for legal assisted-suicide/euthanasia laws, too. And I support the right to choose to die and seek assistance/support from family and friends.

There's just too much reasonable doubt that she is to blame for his death, IMO.

She does not come off as a caring friend. But she is the person he sought out in this decision that he made.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye




This was in Massachusetts.


Yes it is. Is coerced suicide a crime in Mass?


Yes. It is called involuntary manslaughter. As was decided in this case.


This case wasn't decided by a jury though...she waived that right.

What is the case law before this one? I think having a judge decide this verdict is pretty f*cking awful and dumb, personally.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
This is a dangerous president. She is charged with manslaughter for no more than texting on a phone.


That's like saying the guy who hired a hit man to kill his wife is charged for "no more than hiring an employee".



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You're not addressing the issue. The issue is whether she violated the law. She clearly did. The law for manslaughter doesn't require you to have physically committed the act that killed the person.



I still believe he was far more responsible for his death than she was and so this case does not rise to the level of criminal negligence.

I think it might be a set back for legal assisted-suicide/euthanasia laws, too. And I support the right to choose to die and seek assistance/support from family and friends.

There's just too much reasonable doubt that she is to blame for his death, IMO.

She does not come off as a caring friend. But she is the person he sought out in this decision that he made.


Of course he's more responsible. The fact remains, she was clearly guilty of involuntary manslaughter as it is codified in Massachusetts law. She wasn't charged with gross negligence, and gross negligence isn't a requirement in the law she was charged with violating.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

The judge sighted two cases as precedent.

- One a man who caused the death of another man in jail - their cells were next to each other and he talked him into suicide by hanging.

- The other, a fire where a man did nothing to help save the people burning.

Both cases ended in these men being convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

The first one because:

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.”  

The second:

...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.

So, yes, there 'is such a thing' - two different explanations of the law and she violated not one but both.

peace

Added note

The judge stated (concerning the man who caused another to hang himself),

‘It does not matter to the court if this man had tried to commit suicide in the past nor do we speculate or care if he might have done so in the future.’ (Obviously after the fact of his death, during deliberations).

peace
edit on 3646Friday201713 by silo13 because: see above



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785




Telling someone to get back in the truck and finish killing himself is reckless. She's guilty. It's black and white.


it's not black and white for the simple fact it was a suicide. Any and all injuries were self-inflicted.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes




That's like saying the guy who hired a hit man to kill his wife is charged for "no more than hiring an employee".


No it isn't. The guy killed himself with his own hands, his own methods and by his own choice.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And that doesn't matter under the law. You're proceeding from a false premise here. All that matters is the law. The law doesn't say she has to have physically inflicted injury upon him. Stick with what the law says. If she behaved recklessly and that contributed to his death, she's guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Period.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Dude what is so hard to understand? Point to the part of the involuntary manslaughter law where it says you have to have personally inflicted bodily harm on someone. IT'S NOT THERE. It's not required. This is very, very simple to understand.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As you yourself stated earlier, personal feelings are irrelevant here. What matters is the law, and the law clearly has decided this was a valid case of involuntary manslaughter. Whether you or I agree with that decision is irrelevant.

Whether this should be a law is a different discussion, however. But it does not change the fact she committed involuntary manslaughter in the death of another person. She knowingly, wantonly, recklessly, and with total disregard for his safety caused the death of that person.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Involuntary manslaughter

1) An unlawful killing that was unintentionally caused as the result of the defendants' wanton or reckless conduct;

FindLaw.com on Invol Manslaughter in Massachusetts

Telling someone to get back in the truck and finish killing himself is reckless. She's guilty. It's black and white.


What you cited does not consider someone who intentionally seeks out a person to encourage/support their own death.

It doesn't apply, IMO.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



And that doesn't matter under the law. You're proceeding from a false premise here. All that matters is the law. The law doesn't say she has to have physically inflicted injury upon him. Stick with what the law says. If she behaved recklessly and that contributed to his death, she's guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Period.


The law you posted says unlawful killing. It was a suicide, not an unlawful killing. Period.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MotherMayEye




This was in Massachusetts.


Yes it is. Is coerced suicide a crime in Mass?


Yes. It is called involuntary manslaughter. As was decided in this case.


This case wasn't decided by a jury though...she waived that right.

What is the case law before this one? I think having a judge decide this verdict is pretty f*cking awful and dumb, personally.


If we had assisted suicide for people who chose to check out, this most likely never would have come to the point it did. As soon as this kid talked about wanting to die because his girlfriend wanted to break up with him, he would have been counseled and most likely have been woken up from his delusional narcissism!



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Involuntary manslaughter

1) An unlawful killing that was unintentionally caused as the result of the defendants' wanton or reckless conduct;

FindLaw.com on Invol Manslaughter in Massachusetts

Telling someone to get back in the truck and finish killing himself is reckless. She's guilty. It's black and white.


What you cited does not consider someone who intentionally seeks out a person to encourage/support their own death.

It doesn't apply, IMO.


Cite the part of the law that says whether you were intentionally sought out matters. You can't just say it's not applicable for no reason. You have to show it. The law, as written, doesn't require anything that you guys are arguing. It merely requires that she acted recklessly, and that someone died as a result of that, no matter how small her contribution was.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa




As you yourself stated earlier, personal feelings are irrelevant here. What matters is the law, and the law clearly has decided this was a valid case of involuntary manslaughter. Whether you or I agree with that decision is irrelevant.

Whether this should be a law is a different discussion, however. But it does not change the fact she committed involuntary manslaughter in the death of another person. She knowingly, wantonly, recklessly, and with total disregard for his safety caused the death of that person.


It's not my feelings that tell me she didn't kill anyone, nor did she cause the death of another person. It's the objective facts of the matter, whether it is law or not.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
this is good. She is guilty. She kept telling this guy to kill himself. That's criminal.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A suicide is not a killing? Is that why we refer to someone who committed suicide as having "killed themselves"? Verbal gymnastics won't help you here. Murder is not the only type of killing. You are arguing stuff that's not relevant to the case. Stick to the facts of the case. Facts. That is all that matters in the law. Facts. Stuff that is not in the law is irrelevant.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krakatoa




As you yourself stated earlier, personal feelings are irrelevant here. What matters is the law, and the law clearly has decided this was a valid case of involuntary manslaughter. Whether you or I agree with that decision is irrelevant.

Whether this should be a law is a different discussion, however. But it does not change the fact she committed involuntary manslaughter in the death of another person. She knowingly, wantonly, recklessly, and with total disregard for his safety caused the death of that person.


It's not my feelings that tell me she didn't kill anyone, nor did she cause the death of another person. It's the objective facts of the matter, whether it is law or not.


"...whether it is the law or not" is the entire problem here. Yes, if we ignore the law, she's not guilty. Unfortunately for you, the judge followed the law. By the law, she's guilty. The law does matter. If you think the law should be different, write the Massachusetts legislature. The judge's responsibility is to apply the law as written, not as you think it should be.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: face23785




Telling someone to get back in the truck and finish killing himself is reckless. She's guilty. It's black and white.


it's not black and white for the simple fact it was a suicide. Any and all injuries were self-inflicted.


If someone who tells a dying loved they are 'scared,' and the loved one tells them to 'go to the light', are they guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

I think this young man was hell-bent on suicide...with or without this girl's texts. If not when it happened, then eventually.

There's just so much to consider. I could see a civil jury verdict for some liability...but a criminal one opens up many doors that threaten freedom of speech.

He was just far more responsible for what happened than she was and I do not think this meets a reasonable doubt test.



new topics




 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join