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: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785




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.


I didn't say it wasn't a killing. I said it wasn't an unlawful killing, unless suicide is unlawful in Mass. Fact: he killed himself. Fact: she didn't kill him.




posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Said loved one isn't causing their own death and its not preventable, poor analogy. He actually tried to stop his death, and she talked him into changing his mind and going through with it. The law. Follow the law. You cannot possibly be this stupid. The law is very, very simple. You are forcing yourself to be ignorant. If you would just open your mind for 2 seconds, you could easily understand this. The law doesn't require her to physically kill him. Stop being willfully ignorant. By the law, she committed involuntary manslaughter.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: face23785




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.


I didn't say it wasn't a killing. I said it wasn't an unlawful killing, unless suicide is unlawful in Mass. Fact: he killed himself. Fact: she didn't kill him.


The judge determined it was unlawful. That's what the trial was for. Are you serious? We still send murderers to trial, to determine if they are guilty under the law. Your verbal gymnastics aren't helping here. Like MME, the only way you can fail to understand this is if you force yourself to not read the words and comprehend them. She recklessly contributed to his death. That's it, that's all that matters. If you think that shouldn't be enough, write the Massachusetts legislature that the law needs to be changed. As it stands, she's guilty.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

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.


There's nothing to cite.

What you posted just doesn't present that kind of scenario, at all, in consideration of the law.

That's why I don't believe it applies.

A DUI? No person who died from a DUI accident contacts the drunk person first and says, "Will you crash into me and cause me to die?"



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.


Her comments to him incited his actions. If one can be found guilty of incitement to violence, even though they do not commit violence themselves, then one can be held party responsible for inciting someone to commit violence against themselves. In this case, she told him to get back in the vehicle, after he exited, scared, and that is, as far as I can tell, the tipping point. She directly contributed to his death. Her actions, her words, caused him to continue, and directly contributed to his death. That doesn't mean he wasn't responsible as well, but his own responsibility does not cancel hers out. On a jury, based on what have seen thus far, I'd have voted for her conviction. She goaded him, she pushed him, into killing himself.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785

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.


There's nothing to cite.

What you posted just doesn't present that kind of scenario, at all, in consideration of the law.

That's why I don't believe it applies.

A DUI? No person who died from a DUI accident contacts the drunk person first and says, "Will you crash into me and cause me to die?"



Great point, if the law exempted you if they asked for it. It doesn't.
edit on 16 6 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Just saw this about the girl, Michelle:



She even held a fundraiser to profit off his death for a measly 2,300 dollars.


encyclopediadramatica.rs...

edit on 16-6-2017 by FamCore because: bold emphasis



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: face23785




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.


I didn't say it wasn't a killing. I said it wasn't an unlawful killing, unless suicide is unlawful in Mass. Fact: he killed himself. Fact: she didn't kill him.


Fact: The judge in the case disagrees with your interpretation of the law.

The judge, a man that:
A: Is an expert in the law
B: Went to a higher institute of learning to get proper knowledge in the law
C: Had to pass a rigorous test to be able to practice law in the commonwealth
D: Has made a career out of the knowing and practicing the law
E: Is such a trusted expert in the law he was appointed as a judge of that law upon the citizens of the commonwealth


You:
A: Get to post your uninformed opinion on a public website
B: Admitted that you are not a lawyer
C: Has an irrelevant opinion, and "feels" like she is not responsible.


For me, I'll take the judges decision each time over yours.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Erm, do ya got a better source besides a satire of Wikipedia?



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Said loved one isn't causing their own death and its not preventable, poor analogy. He actually tried to stop his death, and she talked him into changing his mind and going through with it. The law. Follow the law. You cannot possibly be this stupid. The law is very, very simple. You are forcing yourself to be ignorant. If you would just open your mind for 2 seconds, you could easily understand this. The law doesn't require her to physically kill him. Stop being willfully ignorant. By the law, she committed involuntary manslaughter.


But she still did not put him in the situation to cause his own death. That's why I chose that analogy.

He put himself in that situation.

And he texted her...after much communication where he wanted her to encourage and support him.

I actually hate having to defend my position on this, because I don't think she is worthy of that.

But I don't think she is guilty of causing his death...he is.

And just f- off with the "willfully ignorant' crap. This is not easy stuff to discuss.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785




The judge determined it was unlawful. That's what the trial was for. Are you serious? We still send murderers to trial, to determine if they are guilty under the law. Your verbal gymnastics aren't helping here. Like MME, the only way you can fail to understand this is if you force yourself to not read the words and comprehend them. She recklessly contributed to his death. That's it, that's all that matters. If you think that shouldn't be enough, write the Massachusetts legislature that the law needs to be changed. As it stands, she's guilty.


I am serious. Did she kill him or did she not? I thought we were discussing facts.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Said loved one isn't causing their own death and its not preventable, poor analogy. He actually tried to stop his death, and she talked him into changing his mind and going through with it. The law. Follow the law. You cannot possibly be this stupid. The law is very, very simple. You are forcing yourself to be ignorant. If you would just open your mind for 2 seconds, you could easily understand this. The law doesn't require her to physically kill him. Stop being willfully ignorant. By the law, she committed involuntary manslaughter.


But she still did not put him in the situation to cause his own death. That's why I chose that analogy.

He put himself in that situation.

And he texted her...after much communication where he wanted her to encourage and support him.

I actually hate having to defend my position on this, because I don't think she is worthy of that.

But I don't think she is guilty of causing his death...he is.

And just f- off with the "willfully ignorant' crap. This is not easy stuff to discuss.


Again you are arguing stuff that doesn't matter. The law doesn't require her to have put him in that situation. She didn't buy the truck either. Does that matter? She didn't raise him. Does that matter. She didn't buy the hose.

I can bring up a bunch of other stuff that doesn't matter. She never gave me money. I feel this is wrong, but is it relevant to the law in this case?



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa




Fact: The judge in the case disagrees with your interpretation of the law.


Sorry but I'm not interpreting the law here, and I don't care if you act obsequiously towards some judge. The facts are he committed suicide, and she killed no one. Do you agree?



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: face23785




The judge determined it was unlawful. That's what the trial was for. Are you serious? We still send murderers to trial, to determine if they are guilty under the law. Your verbal gymnastics aren't helping here. Like MME, the only way you can fail to understand this is if you force yourself to not read the words and comprehend them. She recklessly contributed to his death. That's it, that's all that matters. If you think that shouldn't be enough, write the Massachusetts legislature that the law needs to be changed. As it stands, she's guilty.


I am serious. Did she kill him or did she not? I thought we were discussing facts.


The fact is the law doesn't require her to physically perform the act that kills him. That is the fact of the law and the case that you are willfully ignoring for some reason. Why are you so determined for her to get off? She broke the law, and I know you can understand that. I refuse to believe you can't read.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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



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.


Well I have mixed feelings on this - I kind of agree with you both.

If this guy is emotionally fragile, near suicidal he values her opinion and she is encouraging it repeatedly she does bear responsibility.

On the other hand, it is just text messages. All this guy has to do is ignore his phone, pay no attention to her, or throw his phone out. She is not there with him, he had the choice to ignore this.

But actually how many people do you think have committed suicide right after some loved one tells them to off themselves. How many are in prison because of it - probably almost none. Why is that different - because there is no record of the conversation. To me that is actually worse than this case because it is much more effective to see real emotion in front of you telling you to kill yourself, then some text on a screen that you choose to read.

This does set a scary precedent to me. Does this lead to someone on twitter telling someone to kill themselves being charged if they do it? This is a slippery slope, and nobody telling me to kill myself is ever going to be successful.

I guess I think she should get a few years in prison for this, just because of the repeated nature of it, so this verdict seems about right to me, even though it does worry me about where this could lead in the future.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So using your train of logic (or how I perceive it) you wouldn't help someone who asked you to assist their suicide. Because you wouldn't want to get in trouble?

Let's sat you were coerced into helping someone commit suicide and that person stopped part way through telling you they were scared and changed their mind?

Would you stop supporting them and think to yourself, 'Wow, when it comes right down to it he/she really doesn't want to do it? Or, 'Maybe he/she is just doing this for attention from me and I better stop it now?" "Maybe I should call someone to help?"

Or, would you tell that person to "get back in your truck and do it this time" while you can hear them coughing, choking the obvious sound of the generator in the background?

I'm not judging or pulling the right or wrong card here (in your case), just questions I’m tossing out you're under no obligation to answer of course.

peace



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krakatoa




Fact: The judge in the case disagrees with your interpretation of the law.


Sorry but I'm not interpreting the law here, and I don't care if you act obsequiously towards some judge. The facts are he committed suicide, and she killed no one. Do you agree?


No. I do not agree (and the court agrees with me). She, as proven by trial, had a part in his death. A part just as if she was there and manually assisted him in that action. He is responsible for his own death, I have never debated that, and it is not the topic of discussion here, now is it?



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785




The fact is the law doesn't require her to physically perform the act that kills him. That is the fact of the law and the case that you are willfully ignoring for some reason. Why are you so determined for her to get off? She broke the law, and I know you can understand that. I refuse to believe you can't read.


Did she kill him or did she not? Did he commit suicide or did he not?



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krakatoa




Fact: The judge in the case disagrees with your interpretation of the law.


Sorry but I'm not interpreting the law here, and I don't care if you act obsequiously towards some judge. The facts are he committed suicide, and she killed no one. Do you agree?


No. I do not agree (and the court agrees with me). She, as proven by trial, had a part in his death. A part just as if she was there and manually assisted him in that action. He is responsible for his own death, I have never debated that, and it is not the topic of discussion here, now is it?




Not a trial by jury though. Keep that in mind. I still don't believe 12 jurors would have found her guilty.

And I still think this should have been handled in civil court and she probably should have been found liable by a certain percentage. The rest, being his responsibility.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa




No. I do not agree (and the court agrees with me). She, as proven by trial, had a part in his death. A part just as if she was there and manually assisted him in that action. He is responsible for his own death, I have never debated that, and it is not the topic of discussion here, now is it?


What nonsense. No, it is not just as if she was their assisting him.




top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join