Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

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?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

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?

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

BirdOfPlay posted:

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.

You can trust people you aren't loving. Like, have you never had a friend before?

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

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.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

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.

  • Locked thread