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: 7
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: 321equinox
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.


It's already been solved they threw her in the bin, for whatever reason and I don't think it has any implications the end..
edit on 4-8-2017 by mericks74 because: (no reason given)




Although if she has a shiny personality maybe they can give her a treat, and have her go on Oprah..
edit on 4-8-2017 by mericks74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Anyways, I don't want to spend all my time, thanklessly and joylessly, typing words on a screen. Good to see all-.
edit on 4-8-2017 by mericks74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
If some religious fanatic is telling his flock to go out and kill the unbelievers I'd like to think he could be prosecuted. I'm all for free speech unless actual damage is done, which is true in this case. You can't run your mouth like that without consequences.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 01:16 AM
link   
there was a collective falling out of tampons here when a guy tweeted that he wanted to kill trump.
double standards ahoy!



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: growler
a collective falling out of tampons..


U promise??



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
If some religious fanatic is telling his flock to go out and kill the unbelievers I'd like to think he could be prosecuted. I'm all for free speech unless actual damage is done, which is true in this case. You can't run your mouth like that without consequences.


Like I said, all moral questions aside--because we're talking about legality, not morality or ethics, which are not the same thing--the issue is this:

While there may very well be (and probably is) a Massachusetts law against inciting someone to murder (like in your example above), there is NOT a law prohibiting inciting someone to suicide. If there's no law prohibiting it then it isn't--legally--a crime.

Now, let me be clear that I do think it was a terrible, inhuman thing to do and if there IS a hell she should spend some time in it. Morally, she committed murder, in my opinion. But she didn't convince someone else to go out and kill the guy. And she didn't physically kill him herself, either by accident or through recklessness (which is usually what a manslaughter conviction is for), she convinced him to kill himself. Which the legal experts there say isn't prohibited by law, no matter how morally reprehensible it is.

Should there be a law against inciting someone to suicide? Probably. But if there isn't...then LEGALLY she did not commit a crime. Yet she was convicted of a crime and sentenced for a crime---convicted on moral grounds rather than legal grounds. And as horrific as what she did was, that's not the way the justice system is supposed to work. The law is not supposed to be swayed by emotion.

This is an extremely emotional case, and it's really easy to say, "Oh she should rot in jail forever because what she did is so morally repulsive." But here's the thing: this case will become part of case law. Somewhere down the line, other judges and lawyers may look at this case and say, "Well in X vs. Y this is what happened. There's a precedent for it." And the logic of this case may be applied in other situations where the law and the moral compass of those prosecuting and hearing the case don't align. It could be a precedent for setting the law aside if we find someone morally objectionable.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: riiver

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
If some religious fanatic is telling his flock to go out and kill the unbelievers I'd like to think he could be prosecuted. I'm all for free speech unless actual damage is done, which is true in this case. You can't run your mouth like that without consequences.


Now, let me be clear that I do think it was a terrible, inhuman thing to do and if there IS a hell she should spend some time in it. Morally, she committed murder, in my opinion.


Did she? Is it really selfish for a suicidal person to take their own life? Or is it more selfish for family and friends to expect one to suffer an individual hell?

In essence... did she really help him?
edit on 8/4/2017 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
If some religious fanatic is telling his flock to go out and kill the unbelievers I'd like to think he could be prosecuted. I'm all for free speech unless actual damage is done, which is true in this case. You can't run your mouth like that without consequences.


Where do we draw the line between responsibility of actions and freedom of speech?

I tell you to kill someone (or yourself)... the choice is ultimately yours.
edit on 8/4/2017 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 03:45 AM
link   
This is a very interesting thread.
I was on the fence, then I read all the comments and now I have an opinion.
First of all in this particular case she deserves to go down for manslaughter. She is a vile being.

I said in this particular case for a reason. Because I am also worried that a new law will come out that will include any words said to anybody who gets upset/offended/triggered as illegal and you might find yourself locked up for stating very true things to a weak minded snowflake online.

That is the scary part.

Furthermore I don't want abusers to be able to say 'she nagged me day in, day out that's why I kicked the s4it out of her/killed her/set her on fire' and get away with it.

She is guilty in this case because he was clearly vulnerable and the right thing to do would have been to get help for him instead of literally playing him. It isn't 1st degree murder but it sure is manslaughter by refusing to help someone in a life threatening situation.

So in effect I hope that every case will forever be taken individually, no new laws needed!



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hecate666
She is guilty in this case because he was clearly vulnerable and the right thing to do would have been to get help for him instead of literally playing him.



Did she tie a rope, pull a trigger, drown, set fire to, etc an individual? No?


Where's the charge come from?



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:49 AM
link   
She had the intend for him to kill himself.
...him actually killing himself makes it murder.
Then she shouldn't have said what she did.
Her choice was to not murder him directly but to manipulate him into doing it himself.
That's first degree murder to me.

About your realisation that words can kill....
Well...nothing new there.

Just be happy there's one more very sick person behind bars.




posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

She helped him plan it, she told him to get back in the truck even though she knew about the toxic environment and that it would at least hurt him, most likely kill him.

She never called the police, or the paramedics, I would say all together that meets the definition for Involuntary manslaughter.




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


Credit to Blaine91555 for the definition.
edit on 4-8-2017 by Irishhaf because: additional thought



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 06:04 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

What is Manson is prison for? He didn't kill anyone either



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Our whole judicial system is F'd up. Quite simply, the actions of the defendant did not harm the man. He harmed himself. He had the ability to tell her to STFU but he chose not to. There is no stopping point with this, what can you say and what can you not say? Freedom of speech? Of opinion? Gone.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I wouldn't say she is 'directly' responsible for the suicide but she did lend an encouraging hand to the situation. Don't think she deserves a 15 year jail term, maybe just some lessons in 'politeness' and maybe see a psycho-analyst for a few sessions.

On the other hand people are responsible for others mental stability so i don't know what the punishment should be...

I think we should be able to take someone to court for 'mentality' issues!



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: craterman

I thought that as well.

But I must say that there have been some very convincing arguments to the contrary.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
Our whole judicial system is F'd up. Quite simply, the actions of the defendant did not harm the man. He harmed himself. He had the ability to tell her to STFU but he chose not to. There is no stopping point with this, what can you say and what can you not say? Freedom of speech? Of opinion? Gone.


Pffft. Melodramatic, much? The law works on the "eggshell skull" principle. Which is that the infirmity of your victim is not a defence. In this instance, the convicted woman repeatedly encouraged someone in very poor mental health to do something fatal. If he hadn't been suffering from poor mental health, he wouldn't have succumbed to her goading, and this case wouldn't have existed in the first place.

The "eggshell skull" nickname comes from the example of a mild knock to the head that wouldn't harm anyone else, but would be fatal to someone whose skull was abnormally fragile. Even if you didn't know that they had such a condition, you would still be culpable for killing that person if you knocked them on the head.

This is why the argument on the previous page (about telling someone to "eat 5h1t and die") is a non-starter. Most people wouldn't do it. But if you said it to someone with, say, a learning disability who therefore had no concept of the danger involved and tended to follow instructions blindly, then yes, you could indeed be held responsible for their subsequent death.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Maybe he killed himself to get away from those caterpillars she calls eyebrows. Dem Browz doe



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   
A bit different, but you can get charged with threats to kill, just by saying "i'm going to kill you". Its only words but still an offence.

In this case, i would say it was to do with emotions, which makes it very difficult in law. People argue all the time and say things they dont mean in the heat of the moment.

I would say she was not guilty, BUT, do we know the whole story? The ins and outs of their relationship, more than likely not. If she was with him then guilty as charged, if not then not guilty. What if she sent the texts from 1000 miles away, there would be nothing to charge her with in my eyes, again, not guilty.

When i was a kid and was annoying my Mum or being naughty, she would say or shout "go and play on the motorway" and of course i didnt, it was just words from emotion to show she was annoyed.

In the end, it was his decision to do whatever he wanted, both physically and mentally.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join