|
roomforthetuna posted:Well, that was my point, you seem to be agreeing. Except the judgement does not reside on simple presentation of texts, but establishes motive and proximity to the outcome by establishing premeditation and willful conspiracy all the way through to actions taken at the time of death that were intentful and with foreseeable consequence. The judge's verdict is more nuanced than your reductive presentation and thus no reason to accept fears of a slippery slope. The fact that it was suicide is only a matter of circumstance as the chosen method of enacting a premeditated predatory campaign of psychological abuse coupled with deliberate actions in proximity to the event with desire to achieve the foreseeable result of death with intent to derive personal gain.
|
# ? Jun 18, 2017 18:01 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 15:06 |
|
You guys sure do seem happy at the idea of extending this to punishing people that are mean on the internet.
|
# ? Jun 18, 2017 22:20 |
|
archangelwar posted:Except the judgement does not reside on simple presentation of texts, but establishes motive and proximity to the outcome by establishing premeditation and willful conspiracy all the way through to actions taken at the time of death that were intentful and with foreseeable consequence. The judge's verdict is more nuanced than your reductive presentation and thus no reason to accept fears of a slippery slope. The fact that it was suicide is only a matter of circumstance as the chosen method of enacting a premeditated predatory campaign of psychological abuse coupled with deliberate actions in proximity to the event with desire to achieve the foreseeable result of death with intent to derive personal gain. My understanding is that that was the selected crime because she knew he was killing himself and didn't call for help, which can be treated as "criminal negligence" leading to his death, and such negligence puts it in the involuntary manslaughter bucket, so this law technically does apply, but it's gross because it's really only covering the much less ethically wrong part of her actions (the inaction!), and could almost equally legitimately apply to any members of his family who knew he was suicidal and didn't get him sectioned, for example. Bending that law to make it apply here both makes relatively innocent people into criminals, and doesn't really set a good precedent of criminalizing the girl's actions - had she not been communicating with him during the suicide the loophole the judge used to get a conviction wouldn't apply. Not that the judge had a lot of choice, because there isn't (at least not as far as I know) a law that covers the more horrible aspects of her actions. Getting such a law on the books seems like something that should be pursued in case of future similar cases.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2017 01:20 |
|
ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:You guys sure do seem happy at the idea of extending this to punishing people that are mean on the internet. poo poo on absolutely everyone that would harass someone into suicide
|
# ? Jun 19, 2017 02:00 |
|
Here is the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Courtruling on this case: http://cases.justia.com/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016-sjc-12043.pdf?ts=1467383517 And fun bit from this discussion, for the "must have an explicit law!" crowd. quote:...
|
# ? Jun 19, 2017 02:02 |
|
OddObserver posted:And fun bit from this discussion, for the "must have an explicit law!" crowd. But at that point, and given the quote, it seems weird to have called it involuntary manslaughter. Other than based on the fact that a jury did that in another similar case, which just makes it "now both cases are weird, that was a bad precedent". Unless the previous time it actually was unintentional, like if the guy's defense was "I didn't mean for her to actually do it", which doesn't seem to have been plausible for this recent case.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2017 02:18 |
|
roomforthetuna posted:That seems reasonable, and (despite my earlier remarks) I generally appreciate the idea of not codifying laws and instead doing something more like "it's a crime if everyone agrees it's a crime", though it would typically be nicer to have a jury involved if you're going to use that method. It's worth noting that Persampieri v Massachusetts was not decided via jury; Persampieri plead guilty to manslaughter after being indicted on 2nd degree murder. The case cited was for a writ of error for the original trial claiming that the indictment and, thus, conviction were in error. The decision not only dismisses that claim but states that it was sufficient for first degree murder. Further, the decision ends with a restatement of the facts of the case and concludes: quote:The stipulation, for reasons stated above, is no part of the record in a writ of error, but even if it were properly before us, it would not change the result. The facts revealed in the stipulation were sufficient, we think, to have warranted a jury in returning a verdict of manslaughter. The principles governing involuntary manslaughter are set forth at length in Commonwealth v. Welansky, 316 Mass. 383 , 396-401, and in Commonwealth v. Bouvier, 316 Mass. 489 , 494-495, and need not be repeated. We are of the opinion that the petitioner's conduct could be found to be criminally wanton or reckless. We do not decide whether the stipulated facts might warrant a conviction for voluntary manslaughter. The petitioner's wife was emotionally disturbed, she had been drinking, and she had threatened to kill herself. The petitioner, instead of trying to bring her to her senses, taunted her, told her where the gun was, loaded it for her, saw that the safety was off, and told her the means by which she could pull the trigger. He thus showed a reckless disregard of his wife's safety and the possible consequences of his conduct. This matches nicely with the final remarks from the ruling by the Supreme Justice Court.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2017 03:42 |
|
My avatar is appropriate to this discussion, my time to shine!
|
# ? Jun 19, 2017 07:14 |
|
ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:You guys sure do seem happy at the idea of extending this to punishing people that are mean on the internet. You sure do seem unaware this chick really wanted a dude to die.
|
# ? Jun 19, 2017 23:30 |
|
BattleMoose posted:My avatar is appropriate to this discussion, my time to shine!
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 00:33 |
|
rudatron posted:I have good news: the guy who have you that av was permabanned. How do you know this? Or find this out?
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 03:10 |
|
Yeah I don't get the free speech angle. It's trivial to point out that directing crimes via speech isn't protected otherwise major categories of crime would be un-prosecutable (mob bosses, many white collar crimes etc). The thing that's under attack is free will. But the circumstances in this case point to sustained and purposeful encouragement for months including the very last moments.
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 03:29 |
|
Sorry if this was already covered but it wasn't in the op, what evidence did the prosecution present that they were ever going steady?
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 09:12 |
|
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:Sorry if this was already covered but it wasn't in the op, what evidence did the prosecution present that they were ever going steady? Is that really pertinent to anything?
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 13:28 |
|
BattleMoose posted:How do you know this? Or find this out? Some of the texts are transcribed in iirc the state court's denial of motion to dismiss that was linked here and daaaaaamn. http://cases.justia.com/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016-sjc-12043.pdf?ts=1467383517 quote:3 On July 8, 2014, between 8:09 P.M. and 8:18 P.M., the
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 14:02 |
|
but see, it's illegal to be mean online now
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 14:08 |
BattleMoose posted:My avatar is appropriate to this discussion, my time to shine! Just want to point out the dude in that avatar has probably done more good work for people than most Americans and using him as an insult (regardless of using "retard" as an pejorative) is really, really lovely.
|
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 14:46 |
|
Who What Now posted:Is that really pertinent to anything? The degree of the relationship was absolutely incredibly relevant. This is a bad thread because most the people don't actually have a single clue beyond their feels on the topic, which makes for a pretty boring thread. In the real world most legal professionals were very much divided on this so it's clearly not a cut and dried thing legally.
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 15:17 |
|
roomforthetuna posted:Well, that was my point, you seem to be agreeing. Despite the title this is mainly about the case in the OP: http://seriouspod.com/sio51-andrew-torrez-manslaughter-philando-castile-michelle-carter/ It's by the openargs guys it's really good and they discuss the things you are questioning.
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 15:21 |
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:The degree of the relationship was absolutely incredibly relevant. Would he somehow be less dead and she be less responsible if they weren't dating?
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 15:30 |
|
Who What Now posted:Would he somehow be less dead and she be less responsible if they weren't dating? He wouldn't be dead at all. Unless this is some sort of "everything happened BUT they weren't dating" question, which makes about as much sense as "Hitler BUT not crazy" scenarios. It's the relationship they had that allowed as much contact and trust that was needed for her to do this.
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 17:11 |
|
BirdOfPlay posted:He wouldn't be dead at all. You can trust people you aren't loving. Like, have you never had a friend before?
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 17:25 |
|
Who What Now posted:You can trust people you aren't loving. Like, have you never had a friend before? Your friends are typically more at a distance than your SO. Have you ever had one before? What is the crux of your complaint here? That them dating is immaterial to the case?
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 18:22 |
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Your friends are typically more at a distance than your SO. Have you ever had one before? I'm married. quote:What is the crux of your complaint here? That them dating is immaterial to the case? Yes. Do you think it's literally impossible for a non-SO to convince somebody to do something. Because that would be pretty difficult to demonstrate and thus be a really dumb position to have.
|
# ? Jun 20, 2017 19:10 |
|
Who What Now posted:Yes. Do you think it's literally impossible for a non-SO to convince somebody to do something. Because that would be pretty difficult to demonstrate and thus be a really dumb position to have.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2017 00:56 |
|
Nevvy Z posted:This terrible girl convinced her boyfriend to get back in his poison truck with horrible abuse and didn't get away with it. Some people are unhappy about this on principle. Ah, some are mounting the Jonestown defense. Dead men tell no tales so whose free speech is really being taken away makes you think College kids ain't got nothin on cops and Zimmermans
|
# ? Jun 21, 2017 01:37 |
|
Hey OP, wasn't clear if you made the thread to talk about the First Amendment in general or that specific case. If the former's the case then there's been another Supreme Court ruling. https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/victory-slants-are-officially-rock-stars-first-amendment quote:The Supreme Court today struck down portions of the Lanham Act, a 1946 federal trademark law that allowed the government to deny “offensive” trademarks as a violation of trademark holders’ free speech rights. Agreeing with arguments made by the ACLU in its brief to the court, the justices held that the First Amendment prevents the government from withholding a substantial government benefit just because it doesn’t like what you have to say.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2017 05:18 |
|
If you can be jailed for encouraging others to commit violence towards a person or group of people, I think it logically follows that you can also be jailed for coaching someone to kill themselves. It's a well-established principle that Free Speech doesn't cover encouraging or threatening harm to others.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2017 19:49 |
|
Nckdictator posted:Hey OP Hey buddies, I didn't reference the first amendment in the thread title because I intended to tell people what they can and cannot say in the thread. roomforthetuna posted:I think you're black-and-whiting it too much here. That they were dating is material because it's evidence that she was in a position to be a strong influence on his decisions. This doesn't imply that there couldn't be different evidence for that if they weren't dating, and it's not very usefully material in this particular case because there's much more tangible evidence that overwhelms its relevance, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant at all. I do wonder if the judge would reach the same conclusion if she had been a total stranger he accidentally dialed. I would be inclined to think he would, because his reasoning seems to suggest that she acquired some kind of limited affirmative duty under the circumstances, and I don't think the existence of that duty hinges on her being his girlfriend, it just makes her actions that much grosser.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2017 20:50 |
|
Nevvy Z posted:Hey buddies, I didn't reference the first amendment in the thread title because I intended to tell people what they can and cannot say in the thread. If someone called you and you had no idea who it was that would be different because in this case she KNEW he was in the act of committing suicide and that her words would determine the outcome. Reading those text messages makes it pretty apparent that she knew her actions would create a cause and effect situation where he ended up dead.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2017 22:07 |
|
Salt Fish posted:If someone called you and you had no idea who it was that would be different because in this case she KNEW he was in the act of committing suicide and that her words would determine the outcome. Reading those text messages makes it pretty apparent that she knew her actions would create a cause and effect situation where he ended up dead. If you spent weeks convincing somebody that they should act on their suicidal feelings and that killing themselves is the right thing to do, even if that person is a complete stranger, you would still know your actions would be a casual factor in that person's suicide. If this case were over the actions over a course of maybe a few hours or a single day the relationship to the victim might be meaningful, but not in this particular case IMO.
|
# ? Jun 21, 2017 22:33 |
|
She should be glad it was a judge who condemned her and not Hercule Poirot.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2017 13:39 |
|
chill urself op and relax you're famil
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Jul 26, 2017 |
# ? Jul 26, 2017 15:20 |
|
BirdOfPlay posted:He wouldn't be dead at all. This is nonsense. People have been cyberbullied into suicide before by people they were not dating. It's possible to have an unhealthy relationship with anyone.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2017 15:45 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 15:06 |
|
Jerry Cotton posted:She should be glad it was a judge who condemned her and not Hercule Poirot. Thank God you came into a thread that's been dead for a month to post this blazing hot take.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2017 16:04 |