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: 11
47
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Again, suicide is not currently an illegal act in the United States. As such, a charge of criminal solicitation would be an incorrect charge as well. I believe this case falls more in line with "assisted suicide which is illegal according to Massachusetts laws.

I agree with you that if this case makes it to the Supreme Court it will be overturned. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds and how much impact it will have.




posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: audubon
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.


But that's the thing|: you can't treat the human mind like it's simply a set of dice. Hurting someone's feelings who might be mentally unstable isn't "rolling the dice" in the same sense as walking across a busy highway is "rolling the dice" on getting hit by a car. (And deceiving someone takes their feelings and intentions out of the equation entirely, because they didn't know they were making the decision they were making.)

We seriously cannot be expected to calculate the odds of another person choosing to do something when we make our choices. We have to have the right to blindly assume they won't do anything bad, and be held 100% unaccountable on every level if that assumption ever fails. (Due to fully 100% of the blame going exclusively to them as the ultimate decision maker.)

There is no intellectually viable way to divide up the guilt. Especially when you consider how that could be potentially abused by people claiming to be mentally unstable when they are not. (Sometimes they are just greedy liars.)

Plenty of men have raped women, claiming that she provoked him, and is therefore at fault for his decision. Criminals in general love to take hostages, and then blame the negotiator when they kill one.

There is just no hope of keeping law and order in any civilization if accountability for choices rests with people other than the decision maker.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

She wasn't present at the location so no she didn't. She responded to a text message and I not exnoerating her nor the way she responded but she was not a participant. She didn't help him nor was she present.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It isn't as new a phenomenon as you may think.

Remember Charles Manson? Is he not sitting in prison for similar crimes?

IMO, she is getting off easy.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

What you're saying is perfectly true, in general. But not in this particular case.

A mentally-ill man (so especially vulnerable, which is already out of the ordinary) had decided not to commit suicide after all. He climbed out of the vehicle in which he had just tried to poison himself with exhaust fumes.

Michelle Carter, who had already been encouraging him to kill himself, issued a direct instruction to him to carry on and kill himself: "Get back in the car."

He then got back in the car and died.

This is a rare and unusual case, and the defendant was convicted on the evidence of her own words.

Prosecution in similar cases might follow, but it's not predetermined that any of them will succeed - but that's why we have trials and juries in the first place. This particular case, however, was a slam-dunk.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Stalking or Manslaughter?

A not too dissimilar case in the UK.

Guy stalks and harasses an ex partner. He is originally charged with offences related to stalking and harassment, but his actions led to her suicide. He was convicted of manslaughter.

Good.

I hope to see more of these people convicted of causing deaths and injury by such actions. The psychological effects of such actions are real and substantial. Depression, PTSD, and anxiety disorders are the typical outcomes. Suicide is the most extreme.

Defend free speech by all means. But the intentional actions and words of highly abusive, coercive, and controlling individuals (usually those with personality disorders) should not be defended.

I think seeing such abusive behaviour leading to convictions is a great move (:



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: RespectfullyDisagree

YES. Assisted suicide would be a valid charge. Manslaughter, no matter how morally culpable she might be, is not---unless suicide is a crime in Massachusetts, and, on top of that is considered self-murder or self-manslaughter.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: DBCowboy


Remember Charles Manson? Is he not sitting in prison for similar crimes?



No. He's sitting in prison for inciting someone murder. Unless suicide is a crime in Massachusetts, and a crime equal to murder, it's not the same thing at all.

And once again, I am not defending the girl. She did do something terrible. But it's not the same thing.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: RespectfullyDisagree
a reply to: Blaine91555

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in your reasoning? If you are claiming she intended for him to kill himself then the charge makes absolutely no sense. Involuntary manslaughter is by definition the act of killing with "no intent".

All I'm arguing is that the charge doesn't make sense by legal definitions.


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

I see your point. Perhaps they went with the lesser charge due to it being easier to get a guilty verdict, since there is no way to know for sure whether she was just bullying him for giggles or truly thought he would kill himself for her entertainment.

I don't think I'd be doing any hand wringing over it though. I think she got off too easy. The law should place a higher value on human life than what she got.

I'm more bothered by knowing there are those who don't think she should have been punished harshly for her actions. She cried for herself, but I'd doubt she shed even a single real tear for the person she talked into ending his life. I've always been fascinated as to how sociopaths learn to mimic real emotions to benefit themselves. I'd imagine she blames her victim for all of this.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
The boy had mental issues.
The girl took advantage of that.
It's a crime.

What she got is justified imo

Edited to add that I actually believe she received less than what I would have punished her for..
edit on 5-8-2017 by Bspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

I'm not arguing that she shouldn't be punished. I'm arguing about the actual charge, and I think a lot of other people are too. It may seem like nit-picking--I mean, if we all agree she did something horrible and ought to be punished, then we should be happy that she did get punished, right?

But I don't think so. I don't think we should be glad that she got her commupance if the law had to be stretched in order to do it. I think it's important that we don't let moral judgement get in the way of the law, and it really appears that's what happened here. Let me try to explain.


From the reading I've done, it appears that suicide is not illegal in Massachusetts. Nor, it appears, is assisted suicide. So here they have this bat# crazy psychopath who talked him back into committing suicide when he tried to talk himself out of it, and tried to garner sympathy for herself while she was at it.

They said, "Well damnit, we can't charge her with murder, because she didn't actually kill him. He killed himself. How about assisted suicide? Damnit, there's no law on the books about that. How about...coercing someone into or encouraging someone to suicide? Aw, #. There's no law about that, either. But damnit, we KNOW he wouldn't have gone through with it if she hadn't pushed him into it. That OUGHT to be a crime. She's an evil bitch and she deserves to be punished---we've got to charge her with something."

To me, the problem is that there just wasn't a crime on the books that really fit what she did, so they crammed a square peg in a round hole and called it a fit. It opens the door for taking other actions which are morally repugnant and probably OUGHT to be a crime but for which no actual law has been formulated...and stretching existing law to cover it. THAT'S what makes me uncomfortable. Once we start stretching laws to cover things that OUGHT to be a crime but technically aren't, then the rule of law starts to fall apart.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

I'm not arguing that she shouldn't be punished. I'm arguing about the actual charge, and I think a lot of other people are too. It may seem like nit-picking--I mean, if we all agree she did something horrible and ought to be punished, then we should be happy that she did get punished, right?

But I don't think so. I don't think we should be glad that she got her commupance if the law had to be stretched in order to do it. I think it's important that we don't let moral judgement get in the way of the law, and it really appears that's what happened here. Let me try to explain.


From the reading I've done, it appears that suicide is not illegal in Massachusetts. Nor, it appears, is assisted suicide. So here they have this bat# crazy psychopath who talked him back into committing suicide when he tried to talk himself out of it, and tried to garner sympathy for herself while she was at it.

They said, "Well damnit, we can't charge her with murder, because she didn't actually kill him. He killed himself. How about assisted suicide? Damnit, there's no law on the books about that. How about...coercing someone into or encouraging someone to suicide? Aw, #. There's no law about that, either. But damnit, we KNOW he wouldn't have gone through with it if she hadn't pushed him into it. That OUGHT to be a crime. She's an evil bitch and she deserves to be punished---we've got to charge her with something."

To me, the problem is that there just wasn't a crime on the books that really fit what she did, so they crammed a square peg in a round hole and called it a fit. It opens the door for taking other actions which are morally repugnant and probably OUGHT to be a crime but for which no actual law has been formulated...and stretching existing law to cover it. THAT'S what makes me uncomfortable. Once we start stretching laws to cover things that OUGHT to be a crime but technically aren't, then the rule of law starts to fall apart.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: riiver

At the moment assisted suicide is currently illegal in Massachusetts. The 2012 "Death with Dignity Initiative" was narrowly defeated. As of this year a new version of the bill was introduced and has yet to be voted on.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: RespectfullyDisagree

Then that's what they should have charged her with.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
She caused his death by taking advantage of an impaired state. It'd be like convincing your very drunk friend to jump off of a bridge or telling a 5 year old he can fly off of a building. I don't see an issue with the manslaughter charge. Or are you all saying that talking a mentally disabled (retarded) person into doing something that kills him should also not be criminal? The standard of mentally incompetent seems to be the issue. The state routinely revokes most rights from suicidal individuals and deems them incapable of making their own decisions while locking them in a secure facility. If his judgement was impaired, it legally is no different than if he had been a schizophrenic who believed he can fly and you said, "I know you can, jump from here, you will be ok."

edit on 5-8-2017 by TonyBravada because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: riiver

The rule of law always falls apart.

Argue for following a strict rule of law 100% of the time seems to be conducive towards fostering of a dicatorahip. If you were to call foul over such a despicable act and let her go... Where is the justice in our law?

What she did is generally unheard of. A crime of this type is unique. Unique interpretations should be allowed in the name of justice and I applaud the decision.

Yes we could argue what "unique" means and what the ramifications of how such a ruling will impact future cases.. personally I don't give a damn and believe she deserved punishment and a square peg in a round hole works for the moment..

I also believe the case to be so unique that the ruling won't have influencs over future cases which bolsters my enthusiasm for her conviction.

Source: am NOT a lawyer. :;

b



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

They have a case similar to the example you guys are discussing in Florida where teens filmed a man drowning and egged him on.

They were not charged for his death. It was determined their behavior was imoral, but not illegal.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Another weird DP.
edit on 5-8-2017 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Bspiracy

That argument sets a dangerous precedent. Arguing that laws should be subjective in nature based on the level of public outcry is precarious at best. As you alluded to, Who is given the ultimate power to decide the morality and as such dictate the severity of punishment leveled there after?



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Bspiracy




I also believe the case to be so unique that the ruling won't have influencs over future cases which bolsters my enthusiasm for her conviction.


This will be a case that sets a precedent for a new law.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join