Horrible, horrible decision

[mikeymikec]

So you don't think something like this can and will be abused?

Every rule can be abused.

This is a ridiculous precedent to set. I am not at all saying she isn't in the wrong, but it's a bit over reaching.

Her entirely intentional (with regard to the conclusion) actions led to someone committing suicide. What do you think she's done wrong exactly? IMO it's plain and simple manslaughter, whether by purely directing the guy repeatedly, or if she had started the car herself and told him to get in.

Your argument has meandered from "thought crime" to "you can't control what someone else does" to "I'm not saying she isn't in the wrong", which is in no way a clear and coherent argument (and is debatably self-contradictory). Concede the points that you've danced past, such as this having nothing to do with "thought crime", and that yes, it is possible to control and manipulate people through words alone.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Charge her for assisted suicide, and practicing medicine without a license?

 

[BD231]

Poor kid. RIP

 

[ImpulsE69]

Every rule can be abused.



Her entirely intentional (with regard to the conclusion) actions led to someone committing suicide. What do you think she's done wrong exactly? IMO it's plain and simple manslaughter, whether by purely directing the guy repeatedly, or if she had started the car herself and told him to get in.

Your argument has meandered from "thought crime" to "you can't control what someone else does" to "I'm not saying she isn't in the wrong", which is in no way a clear and coherent argument (and is debatably self-contradictory). Concede the points that you've danced past, such as this having nothing to do with "thought crime", and that yes, it is possible to control and manipulate people through words alone.

Bolded statement for truth. Now REALLY actually THINK about what you just stated. Think of the potential there. Think of the consequences. The extremes. Not only could they happen, they WILL happen. We see it every day. This is why you have to think very hard and get past your personal thoughts before you jump on the lynching bandwagon because something emotionally seems horrible to you.

I can think she is in the wrong and still not agree with the outcome. Piracy is wrong, but I don't agree with the fines and jail time associated with them, etc.

Thought crime, I could give you because it was more of a joke at the time because it is an extreme scenario. Unfortunately, it is entirely plausible and it still falls in line with my argument. She typed words. It was thoughts she stated. She didn't put the rope around his neck. Manipulation? Mind games? Certainly. Horrible person? Sure. It doesn't make her an accomplice. Now, beyond that...what about her actions during and after? That's a separate issue. I believe there are already laws in place regarding, not reporting a crime (which suicide is considered?).

Let's go through a different scenario that doesn't involve death. I tell you you should rob a bank. I tell you how you can do it. You laugh it off and say no way. I continue to tell you you should. Playing mind games until (however hyptothetically it may seem) you finally convince yourself yes you could pull it off because it sounds so plausible. Maybe even something in your life changed that necessitates that it could solve a bunch of your problems. You decide to do it, you do it, you get caught. I had no part in it, I didn't assist you, I was not involved in any way other than telling you to do it and maybe even what you should to to do it. Am I guilty of bank robbery?

Let me ask a question that may seem unrelated -- what are your thoughts on assisted suicide?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Let's go through a different scenario that doesn't involve death. I tell you you should rob a bank. I tell you how you can do it. You laugh it off and say no way. I continue to tell you you should. Playing mind games until (however hyptothetically it may seem) you finally convince yourself yes you could pull it off because it sounds so plausible. Maybe even something in your life changed that necessitates that it could solve a bunch of your problems. You decide to do it, you do it, you get caught. I had no part in it, I didn't assist you, I was not involved in any way other than telling you to do it and maybe even what you should to to do it. Am I guilty of bank robbery?

Let me ask a question that may seem unrelated -- what are your thoughts on assisted suicide?

You would be held as an accomplice to such an act as the bank robbery. Line it up with this case, and your text messages would do you in.

 

[ImpulsE69]

You would be held as an accomplice to such an act as the bank robbery. Line it up with this case, and your text messages would do you in.

It's funny because I thought about it a bit longer and came to the same conclusion, although I don't know what the terms of that actually are. I'm not talking blueprints, or anything like that...just the idea. I'd have to dig into the law regarding it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It's funny because I thought about it a bit longer and came to the same conclusion, although I don't know what the terms of that actually are. I'm not talking blueprints, or anything like that...just the idea. I'd have to dig into the law regarding it.

Planning a bank heist, then not partaking...you may as well be there. If someone died, they could even tag the ole murder thing on there.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Assisted Suicide is a separate issue altogether. In MA, we voted for it a couple years ago....narrowly missed approval.

The rules, scenario, and allowance would be very scrutinized. Requiring certain medical conditions, multiple psych evals, and second opinions. No single person or entity could just assist all alone.

Personally, I voted yes. I read all the requirements that it would take, and want people who are end of life / terminally ill to be able to maintain what they feel is a sense of dignity.

 

[mikeymikec]

Bolded statement for truth. Now REALLY actually THINK about what you just stated. Think of the potential there. Think of the consequences. The extremes. Not only could they happen, they WILL happen. We see it every day. This is why you have to think very hard and get past your personal thoughts before you jump on the lynching bandwagon because something emotionally seems horrible to you.

This is a consideration for every rule. It doesn't stop society from having laws.

I can think she is in the wrong and still not agree with the outcome. Piracy is wrong, but I don't agree with the fines and jail time associated with them, etc.

You haven't answered my question.

Thought crime, I could give you because it was more of a joke at the time because it is an extreme scenario. Unfortunately, it is entirely plausible and it still falls in line with my argument. She typed words. It was thoughts she stated.

If you have communicated a thought, that is an action. She wasn't sentenced for her thoughts, she was sentenced for her actions. If they had remained thoughts, the evidence very much suggests that no suicide would have taken place.

Let's go through a different scenario that doesn't involve death. I tell you you should rob a bank. I tell you how you can do it. You laugh it off and say no way. I continue to tell you you should. Playing mind games until (however hyptothetically it may seem) you finally convince yourself yes you could pull it off because it sounds so plausible. Maybe even something in your life changed that necessitates that it could solve a bunch of your problems. You decide to do it, you do it, you get caught. I had no part in it, I didn't assist you, I was not involved in any way other than telling you to do it and maybe even what you should to to do it. Am I guilty of bank robbery?

IANAL, but:

Conspiracy to commit robbery. If the robbery was the worst crime committed, then you would likely get one of the heavier penalties because you masterminded it and you convinced others to help you. Without you doing that, the robbery would not have happened.

However, your example has little in common with driving someone to suicide. I don't recall what her motivation was in this crime, but it's reasonable to assume that she had one and that in your example, you would have a motivation for doing what you did. Context is important in justice, and if you benefited from the crime being committed in some way, that would be taken into account when the court hears your case.

Let me ask a question that may seem unrelated -- what are your thoughts on assisted suicide?

The person who wishes to end their life should not be coerced into it. Which is what happened here.

 

[ImpulsE69]

IANAL, but:

Conspiracy to commit robbery. If the robbery was the worst crime committed, then you would likely get one of the heavier penalties because you masterminded it and you convinced others to help you. Without you doing that, the robbery would not have happened.

However, your example has little in common with driving someone to suicide. I don't recall what her motivation was in this crime, but it's reasonable to assume that she had one and that in your example, you would have a motivation for doing what you did. Context is important in justice, and if you benefited from the crime being committed in some way, that would be taken into account when the court hears your case.



The person who wishes to end their life should not be coerced into it. Which is what happened here.

You are making assumptions of motivation. I didn't say there was a motivation, I just said I told you to do it repeatedly. Maybe my only motivation was to see if you'd do it. Maybe I was running an experiment on suggestions and you were the subject. Either way though the analogy falls apart with how i described it. Perhaps taking the 'how to' part out would prevent it from falling apart.

 

[ImpulsE69]

This is a consideration for every rule. It doesn't stop society from having laws.



You haven't answered my question.



If you have communicated a thought, that is an action. She wasn't sentenced for her thoughts, she was sentenced for her actions. If they had remained thoughts, the evidence very much suggests that no suicide would have taken place.

Agree with the first part, disagree with the 2nd part. This person would have most likely found a reason to commit suicide eventually regardless. Guns don't kill people, people do. I keep using analogies because everyone wants to blame others. If her texting is considered coersion, fine, I don't necessarily agree, but whatever, in the end, HE did the deed. This is a blame game. He was bound to do it sooner or later because he had issues. What she did wrong was not try to help him and alert people, and went along with it and yes that makes her a really bad person. I do not think that is a punishable offense. He could have 'stopped talking to her' at any time. He chose not to remove himself from that scenario. I maintain that just because I tell you to do something, and you do it, the blame doesn't just fall back on me.

 

[BoomerD]

So many things to say...so many vacation points to be earned...so, rather than go there...

I just don't see how what she did should be illegal.

 

[mikeymikec]

On planet Earth, people have reasons for doing most things, especially when taking the time to research and create a plausible plan for how to rob a bank, and "to see if they would do it" is the kind of motivation that I would expect for a child's intentionally dumbass plan to do something exceptionally stupid, and doesn't jibe with the work required for said plan to rob a bank.

Agree with the first part, disagree with the 2nd part. This person would have most likely found a reason to commit suicide eventually regardless. Guns don't kill people, people do. I keep using analogies because everyone wants to blame others. If her texting is considered coersion, fine, I don't necessarily agree, but whatever, in the end, HE did the deed. This is a blame game. He was bound to do it sooner or later because he had issues. What she did wrong was not try to help him and alert people, and went along with it and yes that makes her a really bad person. I do not think that is a punishable offense. He could have 'stopped talking to her' at any time. He chose not to remove himself from that scenario. I maintain that just because I tell you to do something, and you do it, the blame doesn't just fall back on me.

IMO what you're doing is discounting the fact that she coerced an obviously vulnerable person, and blaming the vulnerable person for the outcome of that coercion. He was the one who was mentally vulnerable, and if he had been given the proper professional attention for his problems, no doubt he would have been at least temporarily absolved of responsibility for his own safety. Saying that "he would have done it anyway" is just an intellectually lazy way if ignoring that her actions led to the situation that actually happened, and it ignores the available evidence.

 

[ImpulsE69]

On planet Earth, people have reasons for doing most things, especially when taking the time to research and create a plausible plan for how to rob a bank, and "to see if they would do it" is the kind of motivation that I would expect for a child's intentionally dumbass plan to do something exceptionally stupid, and doesn't jibe with the work required for said plan to rob a bank.



IMO what you're doing is discounting the fact that she coerced an obviously vulnerable person, and blaming the vulnerable person for the outcome of that coercion. He was the one who was mentally vulnerable, and if he had been given the proper professional attention for his problems, no doubt he would have been at least temporarily absolved of responsibility for his own safety. Saying that "he would have done it anyway" is just an intellectually lazy way if ignoring that her actions led to the situation that actually happened, and it ignores the available evidence.

So basically, you are a blame everyone else type person because thinking about it too much requires too much intellectual thought. Got it. Anyone who thinks this is black and white guilty are the lazy ones.

IMO at most she is guilty of harassment.

 

[ImpulsE69]

You don't think people can be controlled or at least manipulated by words alone? What rock have you lived under all your life? Just for starters, how many people do you think are scammed every single day?

The boyfriend isn't dead because someone told him once and 'randomly' to kill himself. By implying that you are either completely ignorant of the available evidence or you're intentionally misrespresenting it.

I missed this one. Sure I think people can be manipulated by words. I also think they chose to let themselves be. Look at religion. I hold myself accountable, not other people. More people should try it.

 

[WHAMPOM]

So thoughts are now a crime. Woot!

No, but words are, recorded words too.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Look up the legislation passed on bullying, she could have been charged with murder one.

 

[Humpy]

"He got out of the car because it was working and he got scared and I f-----g told him to get back in."

That's a good friend right there. Not many people would be as supportive and encouraging as she was.

 

[Perknose]

Manslaughter? Dear lord. The judge even acted like she had some duty to call to police or the boy's family. WTF is this world coming to?

If you were actually a lawyer your opinion would have more standing.

 

[Coalfax]

Wow.. dont feed the troll.. OP needs to go back wherever they came from and stay there.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Wow.. dont feed the troll.. OP needs to go back wherever they came from and stay there.

What's troll-y about it? It's a very interesting discussion. I don't expect my particular opinion to be popular, but real adults can have a conversation about things that don't get all emotional and name calling. You can tell by most peoples response, that it is based solely on emotion, including the judge's. They cannot fathom how their opinion might not be correct. Just because some judge deemed it one outcome does not mean that it really is. It's a very tough subject for most people to discuss without the lynchmob mentality.

If I didn't think this case would be used in the future in very stupid ways to justify very stupid things I would probably be more willing to back it. As it stands though, I predict this to be the beginning of a downward spiral of cases that should never happen.

 

[JujuFish]

You can tell by most peoples response, that it is based solely on emotion, including the judge's.

Sounds to me like you're the one having problems with emotion here. How does that saying go...when everyone around you is an asshole, you're the asshole?

 

[ImpulsE69]

Sounds to me like you're the one having problems with emotion here. How does that saying go...when everyone around you is an asshole, you're the asshole?

So, you're proving you can't have an adult conversation?

But to your point -- plenty of people agree on both sides of the spectrum, so it's not just me. I just know this crowd and how the majority think.

 

[JujuFish]

So, you're proving you can't have an adult conversation?

I can't have an adult conversation because I'm pointing out the possibility of you projecting onto others? Okay then.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I can't have an adult conversation because I'm pointing out the possibility of you projecting onto others? Okay then.

Read above edit. Then reconsider your position. Without the name calling...I mean after all, apparently you can be convicted for it and that's okay.