It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 03:03 PM

originally posted by: MoreInteriorThis 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.

Nope. There is no such offence as 'murdering someone with the spoken word'. Nor 'attempting to murder someone with the spoken word'. Theoretically, this leaves the door wide open to witches and wizards to cast fatal magic spells, I suppose, but that doesn't seem to be happening (or if it is, it's being kept damn quiet).

This case was a specific instance of someone behaving in a particular way, and allowing a death to happen because of it. As in, it was an offence that was already on the books. No legal innovation was required, nor will it be.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 03:08 PM
"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"

Well, so there would still be knock to the head. Right?

.a reply to: audubon

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 03:09 PM

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.

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.

I went to jail and got a felony armed robbery for robbing someone with words. I told him give me your backpack, he did, armed robbery.

Words have been sending people to the #house for a while.

Plus your post undermines the situation. The young lady had heavy influence over this kid. Its like DV. If I go punch a woman in the middle of the street it's assault. If I punch a woman I am sleeping with, it's DV, which carries special circumstances and penalties.

This is a similar case.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 03:12 PM
Coincidentally, here is a case reported in today's Mercury News (CA)

As you'll see, an airline passenger observed the person sitting next to her engaged in sending texts. She was able to read them, because of the large font the other passenger was using.

The other passenger was texting instructions to a sex offender, on how to abuse two children in that offender's home.

The quick-thinking woman photographed the other passenger's messages, and when the plane landed that offender was carted off (and his co-offender, elsewhere in the country, was duly nicked, too).

I don't think anyone is going to suggest that free speech is going to be a valid consideration here, are they? It's clear that an offence was being committed, even though the person issuing the instructions was nowhere near the scene.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 03:55 PM
a reply to: craterman

You had the ability to run away fast when I pulled a gun on ya, but you didnt. You stood still. So its a fukn clean kill.

The woman belongs in jail & all you that think otherwise belong on a watch list.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:44 PM
If you are living by God's law and not man's law, you'll see written in Mark 12:30-31 that Jesus spoke;

" Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”

This implies that even the thought of wanting someone to kill themselves is a sin.

The Ten Commandments boiled down to two.

She wished him dead and then he was. In the judgement of this 'girl' after her death, she will be as responsible for her thoughts as if she knocked this young man over the head, put him in the car, started it and put the exhaust hose in the window herself.

Pretty clear cut. If we all study the Word of God, we might not be torn about issues such as this.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 05:06 PM
a reply to: DBCowboy

So was charles manson.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 05:32 PM

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: DBCowboy

So was charles manson.

Was?!! I didn't know he passed. My heart goes out to his Family!

As for DB's OP... words can always kill. It is the same as yelling "jump!" to a person standing on a ledge. The practice is called "cowing" as in heard mentality pushing someone over their senses (stopping point).

As far as this case goes, a crappy lawyer letting a teenager be tried as an adult, for one. Their mentally is not truly adult (which is why you kids should not do drugs! -TEOT). There should be cases that set that precedent.

Unfortunately, I think this case will actually be the precedent.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 05:55 PM

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

This isn't new. In Illinois it's called 'Inducement to commit suicide'.

Here's the link:

Inducement to Commit Suicide

It can be up to a Class 2 felony, depending on circumstances, and is punishable by three to seven years in prison and fines up to $25,000.

Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you can just say anything. Inciting someone else carries a penalty.

In the Supreme Court's 1919 decision in the case Schenck v. United States, the Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment, though it protects freedom of expression, does not protect dangerous speech.
edit on 4-8-2017 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 06:19 PM
a reply to: Blaine91555

To perfectly clear, I didn't claim to be any kind of legal expert; I was relying on what the law professor etc. said in the article.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 06:21 PM

originally posted by: MoreInterior
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.


posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 06:50 PM
a reply to: DBCowboy

I know what you are saying, but I feel this ties into civilized violation of human empathy and it ties into the "Duty to Resuce" laws that are in place. If a person has a reasonable "duty to rescue" under the law and fails to do so they can be convicted, but I doubt this is happening very often. It would have to be proven for example the person with a cell phone refuses to call 911 when other bystanders who don't have cell phone asked them too repeatedly, they refuse because they are a selfish idiot and then the person dies because it took too long for medical personal to attend to them.

What she did falls into the same conceptual realm of "duty to rescue" but on a physiological, mental and emotional level leading to death.

Duty To Rescue Laws

I say guilty as charged, and let her case be a warning to all, don't repeatedly tell the same person to go kill themselves and encourage them and be a personal cheerleader for them as they are preparing or in the process of doing it. And especially if this person has severe depression. It would be like pushing a very old person onto the railroad tracks with an oncoming train 50 feet away, a young person might have a chance to jump out of the way, an old person that is enfeebled most likely wouldn't.

Words can kill very depressed people, it has happened many times.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 07:19 PM
There are way to many post to read so if this brought up before I'm sorry.

No one has taken into account that this is more likely not the first instance of this.

If this man. Every time things got tough. Every time things didn't go his way. Every time she questioned him on his behavior or anything pertaining to the relationship he probably more times then not. Threatened to hurt himself. People use that for attention. It's happened to me once. Like her I told her to do it. Damn right. You can't use that for control. For some it works. For him and her I bet it worked every time. Except this time. She had enough and told him to do it.

Thing is we don't have the full stories on this ordeal. Without both parties we will never know the truth.

Find her sentence fair and just.

I would expect me to have the same if my situation ended up like hers. But what I did differently was use her family and friends and her fear of religion to get her thinking straight. I wanted to end it. She didn't. She had friend call me telling me how she wanted to hurt herself. I call her. I tell her. If she wants to place that kind of pain on her family and burn in hell because of this stupid little thing of love. Then do it. It won't have the desired affect that you want it. It won't eat me up. Nor would I feel guilty. There was silence. Then some small chit chat. Needed to know she wouldn't do it.

If he did. Torture her with the ending of his life to control her. Then I feel for her.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 08:07 PM
a reply to: Blaine91555

While I agree that she acted in a manner unbefit a human being, I fail to see by lawful definition how this charge applies.

As suicide is not illegal, how can it be rendered as an "unlawful killing"?

While the circumstances of this are terrible, it will be intriguing to see how this plays out in appeals.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 08:15 PM
a reply to: RespectfullyDisagree

No, manipulating him into committing suicide is the issue here. As someone mentioned before it's her intent that matters. Her intent was clearly to goad him into carrying through with the suicide he'd talked himself out of before she pushed him to do it anyway.

Her words led to his death. The charge was Involuntary Manslaughter. She could have stopped it, but decided not only to not stop it, but to push him to do it.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 08:18 PM

originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: Blaine91555

To perfectly clear, I didn't claim to be any kind of legal expert; I was relying on what the law professor etc. said in the article.


posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 08:29 PM
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.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 09:55 PM
The legality behind this decision is so illogical, because if he had came to her and said "I am broke, will you loan me some money" and she said "get lost go rob a bank" and if he did rob a bank they would never charge her as an accessory to the crime, he would be the only one charged.

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 10:45 PM
Sorry but its one thing to protect free speech and quite another to argue that the unique in and of itself act of persuading, coercing, challenging, shaming etc. another person to kill him or her self is something similar. The one time free speeach isn't just free speech, cuz otherwise it is ok if it is hateful or ugly or full of naughty words, is when someone is trying to bring about through psychological programming, suggestion, torture, etc that persons suicide. These weren't words. If she called him fat, ugly, stupid, Jew, male. Fa- - - t, and he kills himself that should be shamed but not prosecuted. That didn't happen. We know in 2017 the power of suggestion. A trained hypnosis counselor can vouch for that as can most Jose or janes on the street today. Intent has been enough to create multiple persons in one body, to make a sleeper agent go blank at a programmed action and fire on a head of state returning to reality unaware of what just occured and with the time and effort she put into twisting his world view, sorry but intent and suggestion just became as deadly of weapons as a handgun. This isn't a normal thing we will see or anything so dont know why people freaking out over it but golly have some logic people. Your supposedly the smart ones. Was this saying words leading to death or very intentional suggestion and demanding coercion to effect a change in him that made a person capable of ending his life? Yea I thought so. And i can't even look at the kid...what a good lookin boy with a supposed incredible bond and love with his sister and nothing but wide open future ahead of him. Its like none of you ever had your heart broken or weren't dragged into an unhealthy emotionally abusive relationship. No siree bob

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 11:29 PM
a reply to: DBCowboy

This should actively FRIGHTEN, ANGER, and MOTIVATE anyone who actually believes in freedom to mobilize and organize!

Yes, that girl is an evil vile and pathetic excuse for a human being and what she did was very wrong.

That said though, this case has now set legal precedent which can and will effectively be used for extremely evil things. This case and the push for laws to make "cyberbullying" a criminally prosecutable offense are about control. No amount of good they could do or lives they could theoretically save is worth it.

This case is like Rudy Giuliani successfully bringing a Rico indictment against the mafia back in the day. This was a historic first real test of a law that had been on the books for several decades.

Other federal prosecutors etc had ample opportunity long before then to use RICO, but outright refused to do so in at least a couple instances between it passing and Giuliani using it!

Why though? Why wouldn't they use it?

Because even among judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement it was seen as far too powerful and dangerous to ever justify setting precedent by using it even once no matter how heinous the act etc!

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should folks

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in