Texting Suicide Case

[Nebuchadnezzar]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/michelle-carter-texts-conrad-roy.html

Wouldn't this case fall along the same lines as yelling fire in a crowded theater resulting in the death or deaths due to panic?

I don't understand why this is going to the SCOTUS.

[Dill]

(07-10-2019, 06:57 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/michelle-carter-texts-conrad-roy.html

Wouldn't this case fall along the same lines as yelling fire in a crowded theater resulting in the death or deaths due to panic?

I don't understand why this is going to the SCOTUS.

TEXTING "fire" in a crowded theater is a bit more like it.

Except that doesn't cover the "duty to help." Supreme Court history favors the negligent so far.

Still sorting out law and technology.

[CJD]

I think the fact that he wanted to bail on his own suicide and she encouraged him to go through with it in real time is probably the reason she's being held accountable.

Him wanting to leave his truck was an indication that he didn't want to do it.

Now, why this guy would take her word over his own mind...I can't really say.

I think there's something to be said about "If this person is crazy enough to convince her friend to kill himself, what else is she crazy enough to do?" but I'm not sure if there's a precedent to punish someone because their mindset or beliefs make them prone to committing crime...

If I were a jury member in a case like this, I think I could derive that she's a really shitty friend (and possibly person), but not a criminal based on this situation. The thing is, I could definitely see a jury feeling that same way, but then convicting anyway because they can justify that shitty people deserve punishment. There's an unwritten rule in our society of "Don't be an asshole" and she definitely violated that rule. But I doubt it would hold up to legal scrutiny.

And that's where I think the supreme court comes in. I wouldn't be surprised if they overturn the ruling.

As an aside: Is there anything about his family being charged for the physical and verbal abuse he endured at home? Because I would say that was a much bigger factor in his death.

[Au165]

(07-10-2019, 08:45 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the fact that he wanted to bail on his own suicide and she encouraged him to go through with it in real time is probably the reason she's being held accountable.

Him wanting to leave his truck was an indication that he didn't want to do it.

Now, why this guy would take her word over his own mind...I can't really say.

I think there's something to be said about "If this person is crazy enough to convince her friend to kill himself, what else is she crazy enough to do?" but I'm not sure if there's a precedent to punish someone because their mindset or beliefs make them prone to committing crime...

If I were a jury member in a case like this, I think I could derive that she's a really shitty friend (and possibly person), but not a criminal based on this situation. The thing is, I could definitely see a jury feeling that same way, but then convicting anyway because they can justify that shitty people deserve punishment. There's an unwritten rule in our society of "Don't be an asshole" and she definitely violated that rule. But I doubt it would hold up to legal scrutiny.

And that's where I think the supreme court comes in. I wouldn't be surprised if they overturn the ruling.

As an aside: Is there anything about his family being charged for the physical and verbal abuse he endured at home? Because I would say that was a much bigger factor in his death.

How do you protect the mentally ill? I think in most cases your words without actions should hold very little in terms of liability, however I think there are exceptions; one of those being towards the mentally ill. This case wasn't a passing comment it was a bombardment of encouragement to commit suicide. To me it would be no different than if she told a 4 year old to jump off a cliff, the person you are giving these instructions to is not mentally capable of processing this "advice" and handling it correctly. 

The issue to me here is to say words don't have power against certain classes is to set a precedent that could become even more dangerous in the world of social media. Again, one off comments I think are much different then what we saw in this case and I think carving out a very specific way for words to kill is important for the future of online interactions, especially with minors.

[*michaelsean*]

In my opinion she seems like a really shitty person, but that's not a crime.

[Dill]

(07-10-2019, 09:01 AM)michaelsean Wrote: In my opinion she seems like a really shitty person, but that's not a crime.

What's your view on the Duty to Rescue?

[*michaelsean*]

(07-10-2019, 09:09 AM)Dill Wrote: What's your view on the Duty to Rescue?

Seinfeld finale aside, I don't know what the law states, but I don't believe you should have a legal duty.  

[*michaelsean*]

It seems as a society that we are in support of people actually helping others commit suicide. Are we going to rate who is a legitimate suicide candidate based on what we decide is too much suffering for a person to endure?

But let me add, I think what this girl did is repugnant, and if I found someone encouraged one of my children to commit suicide, there would be repercussions, but i would expect to go to jail for it.

[treee]

I think that when he expressed doubt or indecision about wanting to end his life, and she still encouraged him to go through with it anyway, it became coercion. Coercing someone to harm themselves should be illegal. Whether it is or not, idk.

[Dill]

(07-10-2019, 10:24 AM)treee Wrote: I think that when he expressed doubt or indecision about wanting to end his life, and she still encouraged him to go through with it anyway, it became coercion. Coercing someone to harm themselves should be illegal. Whether it is or not, idk.

She could have called 911 when he was gassing himself. But chose instead to firm up his wavering resolve.

Not sure I would call it "coercion," but I am fine with the courts finding some legal responsibility, and hence negligence, in this case.

15 months seems about right.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I'm watching the documentary on this case now on HBO and I'm not convinced of her guilt.

[CJD]

(07-10-2019, 08:59 AM)Au165 Wrote: How do you protect the mentally ill? I think in most cases your words without actions should hold very little in terms of liability, however I think there are exceptions; one of those being towards the mentally ill. This case wasn't a passing comment it was a bombardment of encouragement to commit suicide. To me it would be no different than if she told a 4 year old to jump off a cliff, the person you are giving these instructions to is not mentally capable of processing this "advice" and handling it correctly. 

The issue to me here is to say words don't have power against certain classes is to set a precedent that could become even more dangerous in the world of social media. Again, one off comments I think are much different then what we saw in this case and I think carving out a very specific way for words to kill is important for the future of online interactions, especially with minors.

It's tough to say. Abusing someone's naivete or mental illness is really hard to prosecute. There are a variety of examples often with the end goal being taking people's money and it's not always black and white in terms of legal guilt of the offending party (see: seed faith scammers).

I think the other problem is this case is so ***** bizarre. Why would a person WANT their friend to kill themselves? It doesn't make any sense. It actually defies human logic in a way that I personally find difficult to even process.

The only conclusion I can even come to is that she is also mentally ill. It's also difficult to hold a child responsible for things like this because children are just...so stupid.

[*bfine32*]

(07-10-2019, 09:51 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I'm watching the documentary on this case now on HBO and I'm not convinced of her guilt.

Care to elaborate?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(07-11-2019, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Care to elaborate?

This girl was also on anti depressants and was suicidal. The defense put a doctor on the stand saying she had an intoxication from the medications and in her mind, she was helping him.

They talked by text for a couple of years. All that time, she talked him out of suicide but there were times he did attempt. It wasn't until like twelve days before he actually died that her texts changed, wanting to help him with his pain and suffering.

The documentary is called "I Love You, Now Die".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-11-2019, 04:12 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: This girl was also on anti depressants and was suicidal. The defense put a doctor on the stand saying she had an intoxication from the medications and in her mind, she was helping him.

They talked by text for a couple of years. All that time, she talked him out of suicide but there were times he did attempt. It wasn't until like twelve days before he actually died that her texts changed, wanting to help him with his pain and suffering.

The documentary is called "I Love You, Now Die".

I've seen an LEO only video on this whole case.  It mentions all of this as well and I agree.  It almost comes across that she was fed up with talking him down and finally encouraged him.  She's an extremely troubled person herself and mental illness really became what they bonded over.  It's not as cut and dry a case as it seems at first blush.  All that being said, I don't have a huge issue with the conviction or sentence.

[*bfine32*]

(07-11-2019, 04:12 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: This girl was also on anti depressants and was suicidal. The defense put a doctor on the stand saying she had an intoxication from the medications and in her mind, she was helping him.

They talked by text for a couple of years. All that time, she talked him out of suicide but there were times he did attempt. It wasn't until like twelve days before he actually died that her texts changed, wanting to help him with his pain and suffering.

The documentary is called "I Love You, Now Die".

Thanks I have HBO on demand (because I'm a High Roller) I'll definately check it out.

[Au165]

(07-11-2019, 08:49 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's tough to say. Abusing someone's naivete or mental illness is really hard to prosecute. There are a variety of examples often with the end goal being taking people's money and it's not always black and white in terms of legal guilt of the offending party (see: seed faith scammers).

We actually already do this with statutory rape and children. Because we don't believe that a child has the emotional maturity to make that decision for themselves we criminalize the action performed by the other person whether the act was consensual or not. 

[CJD]

(07-12-2019, 12:04 PM)Au165 Wrote: We actually already do this with statutory rape and children. Because we don't believe that a child has the emotional maturity to make that decision for themselves we criminalize the action performed by the other person whether the act was consensual or not. 

Of course. But in this scenario the victim and the accused are both children, so you can't really say one has more or less emotional maturity than the other here.

[Au165]

(07-12-2019, 01:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Of course. But in this scenario the victim and the accused are both children, so you can't really say one has more or less emotional maturity than the other here.

Statutory rape can occur between two people under 18 depending on the state. Also something like child pornography both individuals being children does not prevent the recipient and possibly receiver from being charged.

Point being we already do this when it involves minors, and this being even more serious then sex crimes should be included in that line of thinking.

[*bfine32*]

SCOTUS upheld conviction:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-rejects-womans-155059855.html

Quote:The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left in place the manslaughter conviction of a Massachusetts woman for goading her boyfriend into committing suicide in 2014 with numerous text messages and phone calls in a case that drew attention to cyber bullying.