|
quote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/suicide-texting-trial-michelle-carter-conrad-roy.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0 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. quote:Being A Bitch Is Now A Criminal Offense, Apparently But this was pretty loving awful. As this article I read admits. quote:Carter’s texts to her then-boyfriend were undoubtedly mean. Abusive even. She encouraged him to kill himself, believing, she claims, that he really wanted to do it and that he would be happier in heaven if he did. She also called him on his cell phone, encouraging him to go through with it. Allegedly, at one point Roy got out of his car and Carter told him to get back in. I found the judges argument reasonable. New York Times posted:“She instructed Mr. Roy to get back into the truck, well knowing his ambiguities, his fears, his concerns,” Judge Moniz said. “This court finds that instructing Mr. Roy to get back in the truck constituted wanton and reckless conduct, by Ms. Carter creating a situation where there is a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to Mr. Roy.” I would go so far as to say the victim's fragile state of mind plus the fact that he was suffering from poisoning at the time makes it analogous to someone convincing their senile grandmother to take a walk on the freeway. But it's... "just words". Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Jun 16, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 06:21 |
|
|
the "if they didn't like it why didn't they just ignore it and leave, dummies!!!" defence will revolutionise harassment and domestic violence
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
What exactly are you arguing for or against, OP?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
She's a terrible person and I'm glad she's going to jail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Good thing this was a nonjury trial, definitely an unambiguous issue that should be decided by a single appointed gov't official
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
The sarcasm falls apart if you knew the defendant is the one to choose between a judge or jury trial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Lid posted:The sarcasm falls apart if you knew the defendant is the one to choose between a judge or jury trial. If I were in her shoes I would have chosen trial by judge too. Most lawyers apparently thought this was legally shaky -- I have no idea whether that's true, but just sayin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
I think there's a difference between saying "kill yourself" in an online game to some random person on the Internet (which I don't condone, for the record) versus someone who you know very well and could be easily swayed. However, I think the latter needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the victim was at risk (in this case I think they did).
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Lid posted:The sarcasm falls apart if you knew the defendant is the one to choose between a judge or jury trial. Let's leave a teenager's legal decisions and ultimate fate in her own hands, why not?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Not sure that free speech is relevant to harassment or abuse If she knew what she was doing, then i think the charges are valid
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Shouldn't this basically be an extension of the "fighting words" exception of the first amendment? If you go up to a crowd of black people and yell "Lynch these fools!" you're not covered by the first amendment, wouldn't this be a similar sort of situation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
I wonder what the ACLU thinks
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
incitement to imminent lawless action is also illegal as of brandenburg, op there are a number of exceptions to free speech, it's not an absolute right
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Zas posted:I wonder what the ACLU thinks The story I heard indicated they were not happy about it. ACLU of MA did issue a statement. full text: quote:Michelle Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter today in Taunton Juvenile Court, in connection with the suicide of Conrad Roy III.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:The story I heard indicated they were not happy about it. so basically we should create a law saying that it is, in fact, murder to tell someone you have emotional control over who is in a very emotional state of mind to kill themselves repeatedly and with malice. would that solve the problem? because it's clear to me that this woman is awful and that telling someone who is in a vulnerable state of mind to kill themselves is a violent action
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:so basically we should create a law saying that it is, in fact, murder to tell someone you have emotional control over who is in a very emotional state of mind to kill themselves repeatedly and with malice. would that solve the problem? i mean doesn't it basically fall under brandenburg in a sense (is suicide still illegal?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Technically there's no difference between the first and second amendments. Words are weapons in the right hands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
super sweet best pal posted:Technically there's no difference between the first and second amendments. Words are weapons in the right hands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:The story I heard indicated they were not happy about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Password_Is_Taco posted:Let's leave a teenager's legal decisions and ultimate fate in her own hands, why not? Adding this poster to my buddy list, I'm expecting big things in the realm of chicken-loving from this guy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
rudatron posted:WORDS THAT KILL You never know if the person talking is the Muad'dib.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Starshark posted:Adding this poster to my buddy list, I'm expecting big things in the realm of chicken-loving from this guy. I can't tell whether you're a funny fascist or a not-funny fascist from the av and words you or someone else paid $10 for, but I can guaran-goddamn-tee you that I've not yet begun to gently caress chickens. Wait.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:WORDS THAT KILL
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
duz posted:You never know if the person talking is the Muad'dib. Wrong reference but still worth points.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Can't convict someonefor "Aggravated oval office-ing" (yet) but can convict her of something. Glad she's in jail from an emotional standpoint, but ACLU's right from a logical one i think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
duz posted:You never know if the person talking is the Muad'dib.  Actually you never know if the person you are speaking to is the Mahdi. Muad'dib was a species of desert mouse that Paul Atreides named himself after when he became a Fremen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
She deserved to be found guilty and I'm very disappointed in the ACLU for what they said about this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Password_Is_Taco posted:I can't tell whether you're a funny fascist or a not-funny fascist from the av and words you or someone else paid $10 for, but I can guaran-goddamn-tee you that I've not yet begun to gently caress chickens. Wait. Maybe if you'd read the av carefully you'd know I got it because I said bad things about our glorious troops, God save them all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
I don't really see how this is a free speech issue, but glad justice was done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
rudatron posted:WORDS THAT KILL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U86aorxbBRY EDIT: duz posted:You never know if the person talking is the Muad'dib. drat you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Why can't something like this qualify as Conspiracy to Commit Murder or whatever the legal term would be? She actively persuaded someone to kill a person. She wanted person A dead and talked person B into killing them, that's a crime. Person A also being Person B wouldn't void that, I would think. I think a crime was definitely committed here, and she is culpable for the man's death, but making it an issue of speech and expression is all wrong. Saying things that hurt other people's feelings or aggravate cultural frictions is not the same ballpark as willfully, maliciously seeking someone's death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:Why can't something like this qualify as Conspiracy to Commit Murder or whatever the legal term would be? She actively persuaded someone to kill a person. She wanted person A dead and talked person B into killing them, that's a crime. Person A also being Person B wouldn't void that, I would think. Rather than a free speech issue, this seems more like an issue of going "there isn't really a law against this, let's just charge her with something else" when the proper thing to do if you want this to be a crime would be to codify something that will cover it in future. The problem with codifying something is that it would have to choose which side to come down on in all the greyer areas - this one was pretty unambiguously lovely, but should it also be a problem if it's "inciting someone to commit suicide when they actually want to and aren't backing out"? Should proper, positive assisted suicide be covered? Should saying "kill yourself you jerk" one time to a stranger be covered, if they later kill themself? If they kill themself immediately after you said it? If you do the same thing this girl did but the person doesn't kill themself, should that case be a crime?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:Well, it would void it in that it would make it conspiracy to commit suicide, unless you also want to suggest that all suicide is a murder by person A of person A. Seems like only have questions and not a lot of answers. Like saying it was "lovely" like that's grounds for prosecution. Why do you say it was lovely, instead of calling it what it is? Do we know what it is? Do we even know what to call it, besides lovely?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:Seems like only have questions and not a lot of answers. Like saying it was "lovely" like that's grounds for prosecution. Why do you say it was lovely, instead of calling it what it is? Do we know what it is? Do we even know what to call it, besides lovely? The judge decided to call it "involuntary manslaughter" which seems like a pretty clear example of a thing that it really isn't. What it is is "deliberately and maliciously persuading someone to commit suicide", and there's no crime for that. The concern is that if someone decides that that is a crime, whether by writing an appropriate law or by setting a precedent that this act is now going to be legally a subset of "involuntary manslaughter", whether that law would also cover "accidentally persuading someone to commit suicide" or "deliberately but benevolently persuading someone to commit suicide" or "attempted persuading someone to commit suicide".
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
My understanding - based on nothing other than a New York Times write up on the trial - was that part of Carter's conviction hinged on the fact that she was aware that Roy was dying in a truck but took no action to alert emergency services. I'm not a lawyer but I gather that it can, in at least some jurisdictions, be illegal to stand by and do nothing when you know another person is at serious risk of dying. I was under the impression that it was also her failure to alert anyone, rather than just her convincing him to return to the truck, that resulted in the conviction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
i think telling a suicidal person that suicide is a great idea and that even when they're feeling better about themselves that they should go back to being suicidal goes beyond 'being a bitch'. that's my legal analysis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:She's a terrible person and I'm glad she's going to jail. 100% this pretty much, poo poo on them and the people crying that a sociopath who egged a suicidal kid on to go through with it is going to jail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Endorph posted:i think telling a suicidal person that suicide is a great idea and that even when they're feeling better about themselves that they should go back to being suicidal goes beyond 'being a bitch'. that's my legal analysis. Yeah, it's essentially exploiting someone's medical issues to kill them. It's like slipping dietary gluten in a celiac sufferer's coffee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Oh, no, but what about the chilling effect on other people who wanted to urge depressives to kill themselves?! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 06:21 |
|
|
idk definitively where The Line of free speech vs. censorship is, but its definitely, 100% a few meters short of where this young lady went; encouraging a sad boy to kill himself over the course of months in a systematic effort. I lust for this precedent to be applied to 8chan and twitter. God bless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 16:43
|
|