Words can now kill

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: seagull

But could those texts and whatever else be defined as coercion?

How do you think the Military uses coercion to influence otherwise normal young men to pick up a rifle and kill?

Edit: Its a process of manipulation and control supplanting ones identity with another, called "orders" to kill.

Lock up them hypnotists that make you act like a chicken in front of everybody.

Lord knows how many they made kill other people.

They make you forget about it too!

More concerned about the average infantry soldier, they are brainwashed, serve their time, then come home and are killing themselves in droves.

They don't forget....

originally posted by: carewemust
I thought about ATS when hearing that news today.

We have to be careful what we say to other ATS members. Some are pretty sensitive you know.

I cant believe you just said that!!

"13 reasons Season 2; ATS"

Charles Manson never touched a single person with his hands, only with his words and he and his supporters are serving life sentences for their actions. I believe this young lady should have received much longer than just a few months' stint in the bighouse.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The girlfriend had a predatory, sick approach to driving her boyfriend to suicide. The texts are a part of a larger pattern of her coercing her convincing him to kill himself.

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.

I don't argue about law much on ATS, although I find it incredibly interesting. I don't broach it because people get hung up on one fact, make it larger than the case itself, and shift the conversation away from an entire trial to something it wasn't about. In this case it's isolating the text messages and not treating them as part of an overall part of this killer's toolbox.

This generation needs to grow a pair / grow thicker skin.
Common sense should tell you... Don't listen to idiotic verbiage, specially when it's implying you commit suicide.
Seems to me, people are becoming more susceptible to verbal suggestion.

a reply to: DBCowboy

originally posted by: DBCowboy

A young woman who as a teenager encouraged her suicidal boyfriend to kill himself in dozens of text messages and told him to "get back in" a truck filled with toxic gas was sentenced Thursday to 15 months in jail for involuntary manslaughter.

abcnews.go.com...

Spoken words, just words can now get you convicted of manslaughter.

Spoken words, not actions, just words can get you sent to jail.


I was torn on this issue. I was saddened to hear about what the young man did and thought that the young lady was culpable. But all she did was speak and text. She didn't use force.

She just spoke.

She just texted.

But now just saying or writing something that encourages another individual to commit an act (suicide) is punishable.


So "Just Do It" should be changed to "Just Do It as long as you are safe and no one gets harmed". Call Nike. Quickly.


I'm just a small town boy, living in this lonely world, so I don't have all the answers.

But this bothers me.

Encouraging some one to kill them selves is a hateful act. Bullying some one is a hateful act.

I'll tell you what words will get you jailed without question. Just go to Germany and start shouting that the Holocaust never happened and see how long it takes for the police to turn up.
A number of years ago a chap got himself hung because he had a gun trained on a police officer and his accomplice said "give it to him". the chap with the gun was lacking in the intelligence field and therein lies the problem.
Did his accomplice mean give him the gum or shoot him. The police officer was killed and the courts returned a guily verdict on the accomplices words meaning give it to him meaning shoot him.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

A young woman who as a teenager encouraged her suicidal boyfriend to kill himself in dozens of text messages and told him to "get back in" a truck filled with toxic gas was sentenced Thursday to 15 months in jail for involuntary manslaughter.

abcnews.go.com...

Spoken words, just words can now get you convicted of manslaughter.

Spoken words, not actions, just words can get you sent to jail.


I was torn on this issue. I was saddened to hear about what the young man did and thought that the young lady was culpable. But all she did was speak and text. She didn't use force.

She just spoke.

She just texted.

But now just saying or writing something that encourages another individual to commit an act (suicide) is punishable.

Her actions bothered me - and this is not the first case where words have led to someone's suicide. I see it as "depraved indifference" (my term, not the legal term) and similar in moral context to the boys who filmed a man drowning and laughed while he died... and then posted it to Facebook.

I would have been a bit harsher on her sentence-wise. I thought that it was clear from her body of texts that she knew it was wrong and her main fear was being caught.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

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?

I know what you are saying, that's why I was on the fence; I kind of agree. The difference here is that despite it only being words, they are actually an incitement to violence. This is illegal. Even in free speech. You can say whatever you like but when you actually order others to kill or kill themselves, using blackmail [in this case her withdrawal of love or respect for him] then that is pretty illegal. She is telling him to 'do it' or else she's disappointed or annoyed with him.

To a vulnerable person this is as good as holding a gun to their head. Especially a teenager. Their brains have not yet the capacity [neo cortex is not fully developed until about 21yrs] for full reasoning and that should also be taken into account.

However I also said that this should in no way result in new laws as the old ones about free speech cover this just fine.

in europe, candada, australia, 'first world' 'free speech' countries, you go to jail for saying, 'ovens, really?'

lmfao.

ovens, really?

a reply to: DBCowboy
I agree. Then again, like you say, she's culpable. What she did was very bad, from what I remember. But yes, it seems our modern society has a softer backbone regarding this. I was teased growing up, so I'm not speaking as a bully. But I understand how government can grow too much. It's scary. The government should be scared of us, not the other way around.

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: DBCowboy

I hate the idea that anyone would actually do this. But, nobody forced the boys hand.

Get used to it folks... we are now living in a world of triggered snowflakes where they are responsible for nobody and nothing they do.

That's what frightens me. Also the person responsible was herself suffering from mental health issues, according to her lawyer. And apparently she initially told her boyfriend to stop and get help but eventually "went along with it." The judge focused on her texts to "get back in."

originally posted by: Moohide


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

Physically he is responsible but mentally she is responsible IMO.

originally posted by: ketsuko
It's a short leap from this to deciding that controversial speech ought to be silenced.

She is a complete piece of human trash and there is a big, black hole where a normal person's soul resides, but she didn't physically harm him.

For the rest of us, this case sets a troubling precedent that could be used in other court cases where the line is a lot less clear.

Although it's a stretch, it's a concern to me. The difference is with controversial speech you might not intend harm on someone else, even if that's the result. With her "get back in" comment, she intended harm. However, intent isn't always important if you recklessly endanger other lives. The definition of manslaughter is "the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder."

Voluntary manslaughter - this is a killing on passion after being provoked
Involuntary manslaughter - unintentional killing resulting from recklessness or criminal negligence

I don't know enough about law to guess what else is possibly relevant.

It's a short leap from this to deciding that controversial speech ought to be silenced.

It's really not.

The price of liberty might be eternal vigilance, but the price of eternal vigilance is psychosis arising from sleep-deprivation.

originally posted by: audubon

It's a short leap from this to deciding that controversial speech ought to be silenced.

It's really not.

The price of liberty might be eternal vigilance, but the price of eternal vigilance is psychosis arising from sleep-deprivation.

I'm not as certain as you're:
en.wikipedia.org - Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy...

...The controversy ignited a debate about the limits of freedom of expression in all societies, religious tolerance and the relationship of Muslim minorities with their broader societies in the West, and relations between the Islamic World in general and the West. Critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic, racist, or baiting and blasphemous to Muslims, possibly intended to humiliate a Danish minority. Others saw them as a manifestation of ignorance about the history of Western imperialism, double standards, and stereotyping.

I do think freedom of speech is threatened. Sticks an stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me? Well we all know that's not exactly true, what with microaggressions and... Some kids are growing up learning these things. They'll be our leaders. They'll write our laws:
en.wikipedia.org - Microaggression...

...Eventually, the term came to encompass the casual degradation of any socially marginalized group, such as the poor or the disabled.[5] Psychologist Derald Wing Sue defines microaggressions as "brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership".[6]

I think hte ease of the internet enabling us to ignore anybody or ban them from forums and so forth, engenders in us expectations for the same elsewhere. We'll expect teh same ability off the internet.

a reply to: riiver

there is NOT a law prohibiting inciting someone to suicide.

Link

"Involuntary Manslaughter (Massachusetts)

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

She was convicted of the above. The law exists in Massachusetts and it's very clear she acted with "wanton or reckless conduct".

Three elements must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.
The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others

July 12, 2014:


Carter: 'So I guess you aren't gonna do it then, all that for nothing'

Carter: 'I'm just confused like you were so ready and determined'

Roy: 'I am gonna eventually'

Roy: 'I really don't know what I'm waiting for. . but I have everything lined up'

Carter: 'No, you're not, Conrad. Last night was it. You keep pushing it off and you say you'll do it but u never do. Its always gonna be that way if u don't take action'

Carter: 'You're just making it harder on yourself by pushing it off, you just have to do it'

Carter: 'Do u wanna do it now?'

Roy: 'Is it too late?'

Roy: 'Idkk it's already light outside'

Roy: I'm gonna go back to sleep, love you I'll text you tomorrow'

Carter: 'No? Its probably the best time now because everyone's sleeping. Just go somewhere in your truck. And no one's really out right now because it's an awkward time'

Carter: 'If u don't do it now you're never gonna do it'

Carter: 'And u can say you'll do it tomorrow but you probably won't'

***

Carter: 'You just need to do it Conrad or I'm gonna get you help'

Carter: 'You can't keep doing this everyday'

Roy: 'Okay I'm gonna do it today'

Carter: 'Do you promise'

Roy: 'I promise babe'

Roy: 'I have to now'

Carter: 'Like right now?'

Roy: 'where do I go?

'

Carter: 'And u can't break a promise. And just go in a quiet parking lot or something.'

I don't think any legal precedent was established. It already existed and the required conditions of the law were met.

a reply to: jonnywhite

The Mohamed cartoons controversy took place 12 years ago! Whatever debate might have been sparked at the time, it doesn't seem to have resulted in any sinister clampdown on free speech.

I don't feel the least bit sorry for her, but with the current conditions in our society I don't trust this. This could be purposely creating the precedent to charge people with attempted murder, or some kind of psychological assault, if they say something not PC. You just need the puppets to come forward claiming they almost killed themselves because of it.

Also, theoretically any suicide could result in arrests of various meanies.

She absolutely coerced him and should be held accountable. I'm just saying a precedent can be invoked for something fundamentally different but with surface similarities, and I feel suspicious of this.

Why am I not surprised...

...That this "troubles" folks?

People WANT to be able to spew hate and believe its 100% consequence-free. It makes them SQUIRM when the very idea that their words could carry REAL consequences.

Language is more powerful than people realize....

...or want to acknowledge