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: 6
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: 3daysgone

Yeah. Pretty much..




posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 09:11 PM
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.



Neither words nor actions get anybody convicted of manslaughter or murder.

It's all about "intent."

The weapon of choice isn't important at all.

You can use any tool you like, if your "intent" is to kill, that's enough for the conviction.

In this case, the situation was ripe for the "word" to be the effective weapon.

You focus on the "tool", but the courts focus on the "intent" of the killer.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Ahh, thanks..perspective..

Keep referring to these people as murderers and "killers" because that's exactly what they are..



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
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.
edit on 3-8-2017 by audubon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

I guess gross negligence is a way to put it..people keep focusing on the guy and his state of mind. Also I keep hearing stuff about how this compares to about any time someone sees words in print. Well, in order to find out what one is "up to" you'd actually have to go out and nab'em, not try to p*ssh them off on the net sight unseen like some of the amateur P.I.s with social issues we've got running around on this site..
edit on 3-8-2017 by mericks74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
There are times when I do enjoy posting on this site.

Some really great minds, far sharper than mine, have provided a better perspective on this issue.


edit on 3-8-2017 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Two things:

1. Why didnt he simply just block her or report her to police

2. Cell phones can kill people too



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 09:54 PM
link   
What about a terrorist who convinces a person that the only way to paradise is through blowing yourself up? Or provides a copy of AL Qaeda's "Inspire" magazine and he then is inspired to kill a few infidels.

At the end of the day they're just words but words can influence actions and lead to consequences



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

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.



Neither words nor actions get anybody convicted of manslaughter or murder.

It's all about "intent."

The weapon of choice isn't important at all.

You can use any tool you like, if your "intent" is to kill, that's enough for the conviction.

In this case, the situation was ripe for the "word" to be the effective weapon.

You focus on the "tool", but the courts focus on the "intent" of the killer.






Hard to argue with that stance.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: fiverx313

Do we police our speech on ATS for fear of someone who is mentally unbalanced committing some act?


i tend to self-police. i can't really speak for the site policies but i'm pretty sure overt, repeated encouragement to kill one's self would be frowned upon.

not really sure what you're going here for, you keep making comparisons that are not really like the original situation. making a burlesque of the notion of freedom of speech.

there ARE laws against shouting fire in a crowded theater, you know.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Would it change your feelings if she was a hypnotist and convinced him to kill himself?

This guy kept getting out of the truck in a attempt to save his own life and kept questioning whether he should go through with it but she sent something like 300 text messages persuading him to go through with it to kill himself. Isn't this bombardment of messages a form of brainwashing?

You've gotta ask yourself: "If this was done by a CIA Agent instead of the girl, how would you feel?"



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy



I saw some of the texts on the local news.

She was checklisting with him to make sure he didn't make any mistakes in his plan. It was horrific.

Btw, she could have blocked him too.

Would love to know what her psychological eval looked like!


edit on 3-8-2017 by KTemplar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Kalixi

The way I would feel if it was done by a CIA agent..: we wouldn't know.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: KTemplar
a reply to: DBCowboy



I saw some of the texts on the local news.

She was checklisting with him to make sure he didn't make any mistakes in his plan. It was horrific.

Btw, she could have blocked him too.

Would love to know what her psychological eval looked like!




"Broad with issues." Vampire. Suck tool. U know.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
It appears that there is no law (in Massachusetts, where it happened) against persuading someone to commit suicide and, all moral questions aside, that makes this a very troubling conviction. And we tinfoil-hat wearers aren't the only ones who worry that this might be the first step on a very dangerous, very slippery slope.

Link to USA Today articles with law professors, ACLU expressing concern

From the article:



“There is no law in Massachusetts making it a crime to persuade someone to commit suicide,” Segal said. “And there should not be any sentence handed down against Ms. Carter for involuntary manslaughter because her conviction for that crime is improper. It exceeds the limits of our criminal laws and violates free speech protections guaranteed by the Massachusetts and U.S. Constitutions.”



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No way dude that chick needs to die in prison or rot there. You need to see what that creature said.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: riiver
It appears that there is no law (in Massachusetts, where it happened) against persuading someone to commit suicide and, all moral questions aside, that makes this a very troubling conviction. And we tinfoil-hat wearers aren't the only ones who worry that this might be the first step on a very dangerous, very slippery slope.

Link to USA Today articles with law professors, ACLU expressing concern

From the article:



“There is no law in Massachusetts making it a crime to persuade someone to commit suicide,” Segal said. “And there should not be any sentence handed down against Ms. Carter for involuntary manslaughter because her conviction for that crime is improper. It exceeds the limits of our criminal laws and violates free speech protections guaranteed by the Massachusetts and U.S. Constitutions.”



Yes of course, but I think that that's dragging it out as per this person. It's better if the case just gets solved outright. She's a woman, dot-dot-dot, the "ACLU"..we all know what's up there, but it's better if fewer people just decide yea or nay and stick to it. Leave it up to her if she thinks she in this once case is dotty and not up to the par mentally, a damsel in distress, or "persecuted" as I'm sure the "aclu" and all implications has no dominion as to anything else involved, and the issue doesn't seem to be freedom of speech or anything involving any other case. People are opinion gathering over a person, maybe one or two persons and as far as I've heard its over. Chick went mad she bang over done over onto the next one.
edit on 3-8-2017 by mericks74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Nm misread
edit on 3-8-2017 by mericks74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: DBCowboy

No way dude that chick needs to die in prison or rot there. You need to see what that creature said.


It's some chick. If you want to get her in your arms, bust all over her with a rubber bullying club, cover her in cheese whiz and burn a cross eyed doll in the corner and make her watch have at it just do it urself...



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   
They need to think this through, because where do you draw the line? If someone told me to "eat $#!+ and die", and I did, that's murder too. Every kid on the planet would be a felon. Most arguments would involve assault with a deadly weapon.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join