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: 13
47
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MDpvc
If so many of you are so "troubled" by her sentencing, surely you'll all speak out on Charles Mamsons behalf. It's just words after all, he didn't force them to kill anyone.
She deserves a harsher sentence. Have any of you actually read the messages? He wouldn't have even gotten in the truck to begin with, if not for her. He sure as hell wouldn't have gotten back in.


He planned and instructed the murders to kick off his deluded "Helter Skelter". Yes murders, not suicide. The two events are incomparable.


They seem comparable to me, both people just used words to instruct other people to kill someone (themselves or others).




posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

But that's exactly the difference. They are both instructing other people to kill. But in one case the instruction is to kill other people--people who have no choice or say so in the matter, i.e. murder, which is arguably the most serious crime there is. But in the other it is instructing someone--someone who does have a choice and a say-so in the matter and chooses to go along with their instructions anyway--to kill themselves...and killing yourself isn't a crime. Do you really not see the difference?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: riiver

You don't seem to fully grasp the impact of highly abusive, coercive, and controlling behaviour.

It can decimate a person's mental health, leading to depression, ptsd, anxiety disorders and even suicidal ideation.

Then when that person does take their own life the abuser can just claim it was only words and they did it by their own hand?

Don't want to live in your world.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: darkbake

But that's exactly the difference. They are both instructing other people to kill. But in one case the instruction is to kill other people--people who have no choice or say so in the matter, i.e. murder, which is arguably the most serious crime there is. But in the other it is instructing someone--someone who does have a choice and a say-so in the matter and chooses to go along with their instructions anyway--to kill themselves...and killing yourself isn't a crime. Do you really not see the difference?


Yes, there is a difference, but the difference isn't relevant.

1) Charles Manson (to take the example from upthread) directed, but did not participate in, several killings. He did so in a jurisdiction in which directing a murder is viewed as the same thing as committing the murder itself.

2) Michelle Carter directed a suicide. The suicide itself wasn't a crime, so she was never charged with participation in a crime or directing one. Her crime was to behave with gross negligence as to the outcome of her actions (by telling someone to kill themselves when that person was already suicidal). It cannot be proved that she definitely intended to drive him to his death, and it is not necessary for the involuntary manslaughter charge of which she was convicted.

Both involve deaths, and both involve perpetrators who didn't physically kill anyone. But that's all the two offences have in common.
edit on 7-8-2017 by audubon because: typo



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: icanteven
This is why the law doesn't exist in isolation. It is built on decades of prior case law that lawyers draw from to make an argument to a jury.



Ah, but this one does sort-of exist in isolation.

Her attorney(s) advised her to waive her right to a jury trial. The verdict came from one judge.

To be honest, I don't think 12 jurors would have agreed on a manslaughter conviction and I think her attorney(s) gave her terrible advice.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye
From the discussion on this thread, it looks like a jury trial would likely have resulted in a hung jury.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


Her attorney(s) advised her to waive her right to a jury trial. The verdict came from one judge.


I hadn't noticed that! It's so rare these days that I had just presumed a Jury was present throughout.

Wholly agree about the stupidity of this strategy - Jurors are far more likely to be of a 'there but for the grace of God go I' frame of mind, whereas a Judge will be very forensic.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
If I said Good luck getting a date, and she ended up killing her self at the horrid realization that she can't get a date wether it because of the eyebrow or her new rep.

Does that make me evil?



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: melatonin
a reply to: riiver

You don't seem to fully grasp the impact of highly abusive, coercive, and controlling behaviour.

It can decimate a person's mental health, leading to depression, ptsd, anxiety disorders and even suicidal ideation.

Then when that person does take their own life the abuser can just claim it was only words and they did it by their own hand?

Don't want to live in your world.





If you did live in my world, you'd know that I absolutely do grasp the impact of highly abusive, coercive, and controlling behavior, having been the victim of such behavior...in 2 different relationships. One of which (my 8-year marriage) was during a bout of major depression to boot. Walk at least a few feet in my shoes before you judge me, please.
edit on 8-8-2017 by riiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: darkbake

But that's exactly the difference. They are both instructing other people to kill. But in one case the instruction is to kill other people--people who have no choice or say so in the matter, i.e. murder, which is arguably the most serious crime there is. But in the other it is instructing someone--someone who does have a choice and a say-so in the matter and chooses to go along with their instructions anyway--to kill themselves...and killing yourself isn't a crime. Do you really not see the difference?


Yes, there is a difference, but the difference isn't relevant.

1) Charles Manson (to take the example from upthread) directed, but did not participate in, several killings. He did so in a jurisdiction in which directing a murder is viewed as the same thing as committing the murder itself.

2) Michelle Carter directed a suicide. The suicide itself wasn't a crime, so she was never charged with participation in a crime or directing one. Her crime was to behave with gross negligence as to the outcome of her actions (by telling someone to kill themselves when that person was already suicidal). It cannot be proved that she definitely intended to drive him to his death, and it is not necessary for the involuntary manslaughter charge of which she was convicted.

Both involve deaths, and both involve perpetrators who didn't physically kill anyone. But that's all the two offences have in common.


I'm sorry...the last line confused me and I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing?



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyBravada
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."


There is a question of "consent" vs. "informed consent".

Sort of like how sleeping with a minor in a mutually consensual relationship is still "statutory rape" even though there is no coercion. Because being underage means he/she can't give informed consent.


But the reason we prosecute people for "statutory rape" is because there is a statute on the books. It wouldn't be ok to simply argue that "what happened was rape", with no such law to refer to, and then charge and convict a person of ordinary rape and send them to prison with people who genuinely coerced their partners, for the same sentence lengths.

I'm all for putting "statutory manslaughter" or some similar named law on the books. That's a great idea!




originally posted by: darkbake
Do you think encouraging someone to commit suicide in a situation like this shouldn't be a crime? She texted him during his suicide attempt telling him to get back in the truck full of toxic gas.

Maybe not manslaughter, but really - I doubt the O.P. thinks this kind of behavior is okay.



If you don't think it is ok, then pass a law against it.

But until you've passed a law, you don't have any business imprisoning anybody for doing it.

It's our responsibility to structure our own legal system properly first. Only then do we have the right to demand that anybody conform to it.



edit on 8-8-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: massively shortened, since I was repeating myself. Sorry.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 04:06 AM
link   
When we encounter a new situation, and realize we need a new law, an unfortunate consequence of this process is that we must let the first offender go free (the one who alerted us to the problem.)

It's not ideal, but it is the price of civility.

We can ensure the second offender doesn't go free. And we do that best by proceeding in a manner that doesn't leave our approach open to justified criticism.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: riiver
I'm sorry...the last line confused me and I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing?


I'm disagreeing. The fact that suicide isn't a crime is irrelevant.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: audubon

From what I've read the young women seems to be grappling with her own mental health issues. A question to those arguing she took advantage of a mentally compromised individual: If she is mentally unfit, is she anymore responsible for her actions than the young man was for his?

Someone on here used the analogy that if you had a friend who was drunk and you told him to jump of a bridge would you be culpable? If you were both drunk, with whom does the responsibility for your friends actions lie?



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: RespectfullyDisagree
If she is mentally unfit, is she anymore responsible for her actions than the young man was for his?


The above is essentially a 'temporary insanity' defence. You have to be seriously psychotic for that to work; common-or-garden depression won't pass muster.

Michelle Carter wasn't insane, but she was depressed, and so her defence team tried something very similar: they blamed her anti-depressants! The line they presented was that her meds had caused an adverse reaction, causing 'involuntary intoxication'.

Without looking into the ins and outs of that argument, it seems unlikely to have been a success from the start. But in any case, going by coverage, the expert witness brought in by the defence team made a right pig's ear of the whole thing. The Judge didn't buy it, and there was evidence from an outside third party that contradicted the expert witness anyway.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: icanteven
This is why the law doesn't exist in isolation. It is built on decades of prior case law that lawyers draw from to make an argument to a jury.



Ah, but this one does sort-of exist in isolation.

Her attorney(s) advised her to waive her right to a jury trial. The verdict came from one judge.

To be honest, I don't think 12 jurors would have agreed on a manslaughter conviction and I think her attorney(s) gave her terrible advice.


I agree. I think forgoing a jury trial was a big mistake.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

Thanks for the clarification



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: riiver
If you did live in my world, you'd know that I absolutely do grasp the impact of highly abusive, coercive, and controlling behavior, having been the victim of such behavior...in 2 different relationships. One of which (my 8-year marriage) was during a bout of major depression to boot. Walk at least a few feet in my shoes before you judge me, please.


Sorry to hear that. Always a grim situation.

Of course, that's your personal experience, and doesn't speak to the experience of others. For example, the experience of the UK woman I noted earlier who took their own life following an abusive relationship then a campaign of stalking and harassment.

But still - stay strong (:

In essence, the girl was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. She was deemed to attract responsibility for her actions in this guys tragic death by suicide. She's lucky it was deemed involuntary - as it's pretty obvious it was voluntary. She knew the outcome of her actions.

Thankfully we have laws in the UK covering this sort of behaviour. She would certainly be looking at a much firmer sentence. More effective for those on the end of the behaviour of these callous low-lives.
edit on 8-8-2017 by melatonin because: blargh wiffle baa



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: riiver

Do you really not think it should be a crime? The person was suicidal and not mentally right in the head. The girl should have been supportive of him or urged him to get mental health care, not egged him on. He was in a vulnerable position and she took advantage of it.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: riiver

Do you really not think it should be a crime? The person was suicidal and not mentally right in the head. The girl should have been supportive of him or urged him to get mental health care, not egged him on. He was in a vulnerable position and she took advantage of it.


I didn't say ishouldn't be a crime. I actually think it should, and maybe this incident will lead to it being legally recognized as a crime with accompanying punishment. What I said is that, from what the legal experts quoted in the news stories say, neither suicide or inciting someone to suicide is a crime--whether it should be or not. And taking something which should be a crime but isn't and twisting existing law to punish it rather than creating a new law is a slippery slope that can be applied to other situations not nearly so cut-and-dried.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join