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.

 

Words can now kill

page: 10
45
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 12:05 AM
link   
She deserves it. Her texts were clear that she wanted him dead and had control over him. She just wanted to see how far he would go for her, so she could feel like the most special girl in the world. That way she could walk around feeling like a Queen that could say "I'm better than you, because someone actually killed themselves for me". It an ego thing that many women have. She could also play the victim and get all kinds of pity and attention...another thing that some women can't seem to get enough of. At any rate, she is just like Charles Manson, who never actually killed anyone himself. It's one thing to offend someone, but she knew she had a type of sexual control over him...and she used that "ace card" to benefit herself. She's a Monster and should have gotten the death sentence for all I care.




posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: EternalSolace

I never said suicide is a selfish act. But suicide--in my opinion, of course--is a decision someone should come to on their own if they're going to go there.



Most sensible post in the thread.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Double post.
edit on 8/5/2017 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: DBCowboy

This should actively FRIGHTEN, ANGER, and MOTIVATE anyone who actually believes in freedom to mobilize and organize!

Yes, that girl is an evil vile and pathetic excuse for a human being and what she did was very wrong.

That said though, this case has now set legal precedent which can and will effectively be used for extremely evil things. This case and the push for laws to make "cyberbullying" a criminally prosecutable offense are about control. No amount of good they could do or lives they could theoretically save is worth it.


This case is like Rudy Giuliani successfully bringing a Rico indictment against the mafia back in the day. This was a historic first real test of a law that had been on the books for several decades.

Other federal prosecutors etc had ample opportunity long before then to use RICO, but outright refused to do so in at least a couple instances between it passing and Giuliani using it!

Why though? Why wouldn't they use it?

Because even among judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement it was seen as far too powerful and dangerous to ever justify setting precedent by using it even once no matter how heinous the act etc!

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should folks


What a lot of nonsense. The first prosecution under the RICO act (passed 1978) was in 1980, and Giuliani's prosecution of the five Mafia kingpins was in 1985. It's a tailor-made act, which created a new charging procedure for people who led organisations that had committed illegal acts, when there was a pattern of offending by that organisation.

Whatever the merits and demerits of RICO, it's not comparable to bringing a gross negligence manslaughter case against one particular individual. They are two different categories of offence.

Not only that, but this conviction doesn't set a precedent because the verdict is not binding on other courts.

Michelle Carter would have been guilty of this offence if she had stood beside the deceased and said to him in person the things she said by text. Using a phone doesn't somehow magically confer immunity on anyone doing likewise.

It's the first time it has been recognised by a court, but that's mainly because it's very unusual case. In this instance, the convicted woman actually issued a direct instruction to the deceased, telling him to get back in the truck in which he was trying to gas himself. That's what convicted her, not some perverse legal drive to criminalise unpleasant communication.

If this case "FRIGHTENS, ANGERS, and MOTIVATES" people, then perhaps they ought to reconsider what it is that they are actually defending: the "right" to issue direct instructions, telling someone who is suffering from mental illness to commit suicide, and then to walk away scot-free after that suicide has taken place.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 05:13 AM
link   
A mentally unstable person can be coerced with JUST words.
If that person is coerced into a crime, the antagonist should
be held culpable to some degree.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: rival

Yup.

Assume there are few people who have been in a situation of domestic abuse here. What she did is simply psychological abuse. In fact, most research shows that psychological and emotional abuse can have a greater impact on an abused persons health and well-being than physical abuse.

Words can kill. Just not directly.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Spoken words, just words can now get you convicted of manslaughter.

Spoken words, not actions, just words can get you sent to jail.

They always could. When you hire a hitman all you do is speak ... right?



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Spoken words, just words can now get you convicted of manslaughter.

Spoken words, not actions, just words can get you sent to jail.

They always could. When you hire a hitman all you do is speak ... right?


Great point. And if you want to get technical, suicide is illegal in most states.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Taupin Desciple

I'm not a terrorist. I didn't do anything. All I did was talk and tell him what to get and how to put it together and where to place it. Just words.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I think she ought to have got longer IMO...

Here's a picture for you....imagine a hypnotherapist, using nothing but words and technique, manipulated someone's mind into thinking they were invulnerable...a superhero if you like, and they went and jumped off a tall building thinking they could soar like a bird, and of course, fell to their death.

Would you think it was a harsh penalty if the hypnotherapist was found guilt of manslaughter?

I wouldn't.

Manipulating someone into their death is still manipulating someone to their death whichever way you look at it.

Especially coercing someone who is suffering mental illness like severe depression, into killing themselves.
edit on 5 8 2017 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Taupin Desciple

I'm not a terrorist. I didn't do anything. All I did was talk and tell him what to get and how to put it together and where to place it. Just words.


Exactly...like many conspiracies and plots throughout history, the co-conspirators lose their heads just as much as those that carry out the plot in person...think Gunpowder plot and the like.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Taupin Desciple

Technically it's not. Most if not all states removed that classification by the 90s. It is only seen as an unwitten common law crime and this can only pertain if the person can be found to be of sound mind.
edit on 5-8-2017 by RespectfullyDisagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It was a tragic situation for those involved. The young ladies conviction bothers me as well. While she did not directly participate in the action the young man took she didn't do anything to stop him.

That is what bothers me about her actions. She could have called 911 to report his conversation or called his parents but instead she chose to do nothing.

Still bothered by what she was convicted of but let's remember that individuals and words have been held accountable before. Charlie Manson was convicted of murder yet never murdered anyone nor did he participate in anyway. Not exactly the same situation I know but others have been held accountable too for just words.

I don't think her conviction will stand up to multiple appeals but I do believe she owns some culpability for her inaction not her dilberate action. What conviction if any, maybe some "Good Samaritan" type law would be more appropriate. I am not comfortable with her current conviction but considering how free speech is currently under fire I do not find it surprising as emotional reaction now rule our juries and courts and not the rule of law.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJMSNWhile she did not directly participate in the action the young man took she didn't do anything to stop him.
She did directly participate.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Youre right to be disturbed because of the trend that this represents and the potential for it to be used to attack individual liberties and freedoms.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

This really is a tragic story. The girl was really pretty nasty.Supposedly she did what she did because it was getting her attention at school as she shared what was happening.

At the end of the day he was the one that performed the act. No one made him. If she is to be charged do you charge everyone that texts to someone "go kill yourself " or "I wish you were dead" with attempted murder? That would be the logical conclusion.

Was he taking antidepressants? If so, are they going after big pharma? That is one of the side effects, has any one looked into that? Big Pharma mostly walks away scott free in these sorts of cases.

It's sad that the world has become such a harsh place , and I feel really bad for the kid, but it was his choice at the end of the day. We have forgotten about personal responsibility and are by and far a nation of victims that don't want to be responsible for our own actions.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Well, there is a reason why they say the pen is mightier than the sword. Spoken words at the right time can work magic, just like the wrong words at the wrong time can end up in tragedy. This was a mentally ill guy who was driven into suicide by his GF, someone who he invested time and feelings in. When that person (who's supposed to be your rock) says these kinda words to you , you know it's going to hit hard. It's why we should always look out for our words just in general as human beings because we never know who they´ll reach and how they´ll take them. It really doesn't take much effort to be a decent person.
So with all that said, she should be responsible for her actions and get what's coming to her and I say that without blinking, without any doubt or second thought. You can't be this mean to people, have the person commit suicide and walk away free. I'm glad she got hers.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Hopefully this will get overturned at the level of the Supreme Court. That's the Supreme Court is there for : to overturn unconstitutional convictions.






originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: verschickter

Yeah, I think in this case some kind of punishment was very clearly called for and it's entirely possible this girl is a sociopath. Unless she has some kind of learning disorder, she knew what the possible outcomes were and I can easily imagine her laughing about it after.

Just from what I know of it I would have found her guilty also.


Right, but not guilty of manslaughter.

There is a crime called "criminal solicitation". That is the crime of intentionally encouraging someone else to commit an illegal act.

Suicide is illegal, so encouraging someone to commit suicide would fall under "criminal solicitation" laws.



originally posted by: audubon
I can see the logic in this conviction. An analogy might be standing beside a road next to a blind man, and telling him it was safe to cross - while a lorry was hurtling towards the crossing that you knew would likely kill him stone dead. By any reasonable standard, you would have taken actions that led to someone's death, even though he wasn't forced to try to cross the road.

The act you committed (telling the blind man to cross the road) wasn't in itself unlawful, but it led directly to the blind man's death (his blindness is immaterial, really).

In other words, you behaved with gross negligence and someone was killed as a result - and that is the basis for an involuntary manslaughter conviction, which is what Michelle Carter got.

The only difference is that she texted her victim to urge him to kill himself, rather than standing beside him and saying it to him in person. The fact that a phone was involved is a bit of a red herring. It's not some innovative curtailment of freedom of expression, although it is a newsworthy case.



This example would cross a different line. In this case you would be misrepresenting an issue of fact, with the intent of deceiving a blind person into putting them self into a situation they did not volunteer to be in.

There is genuine coercion involved here.


But she didn't coerce this guy. Or at least it doesn't appear so. But...... there is no saying for sure she didn't.
If she threatened to shame him in front of his classmates if he didn't follow through, then the case could be made that she was using coercive threats. We'd have to read the transcript to know.

One disadvantage of texting here: there is never any doubt over what exactly you said.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

But she didn't coerce this guy. Or at least it doesn't appear so.

He told her he couldn't go through with it and she told him to go do it and convinced him to do it.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

In my example, I said the vehicle was likely to strike the blind man, not that you (in this hypothetical example) were deliberately trying to kill him, nor that you could see that the vehicle would definitely hit him.

That's the gross negligence bit - you could see the risk, and did it anyway, and someone died as a result.

That said, it's difficult to find precise physical analogies for what Michelle Carter did, because it was such an unusual case. But the principle is the same. You issued an instruction, and didn't care about the obvious dangers, and the person who trusted you died.
edit on 5-8-2017 by audubon because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join