It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: DBCowboy
Remember Charles Manson? Is he not sitting in prison for similar crimes?
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.