Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Suicide texting case sets bad precedent, experts say

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:33 PM
    Posts
    10,064
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Marva View Post
    The person didn't do anything illegal. Is it illegal to not volunteer to go hand out water to the illegal aliens out in the desert of Arizona? Is it illegal to not provide them with shelter and food?

    How patient does a person have to be before they finally say "just do it and leave me alone"?
    The law cannot require you to go search out aliens in the desert. (Such a law could apply to any U.S. citizen, I imagine, not just someone in the immediate vicinity of the border.)

    However, if you come to witness a person in obvious distress from lack of water, I believe it is reasonable to require that you take some action in that person's behalf.

    I hope Celeste will respond to my suggestion that "depraved indifference" should be the heading for this discussion.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    14,941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    The law cannot require you to go search out aliens in the desert. (Such a law could apply to any U.S. citizen, I imagine, not just someone in the immediate vicinity of the border.)

    However, if you come to witness a person in obvious distress from lack of water, I believe it is reasonable to require that you take some action in that person's behalf.

    I hope Celeste will respond to my suggestion that "depraved indifference" should be the heading for this discussion.
    Morally or legally? Because "depraved indifference" is also a legal term, but it doesn't apply here. That, again, requires a killing.
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:33 PM
    Posts
    10,064
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    Morally or legally? Because "depraved indifference" is also a legal term, but it doesn't apply here. That, again, requires a killing.
    I'm an amateur here, unlike my renowned stature as an Internet climatologist, so my suggestion is moral, the side of "justice." (If the law is on your side, pound the law, if justice is on your side....)

    I've only used instant Google searches,
    To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.
    I didn't infer a killing necessarily from "injuries actually resulting," but I'm glad to be corrected.

    But I don't see how your observation about the present ("[depraved indifference] doesn't apply here") need be true about the future. There ought to be a law.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 31st, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 2:45 AM
    Posts
    4,225
    Post Thanks / Like
    Seinfeld

    Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Saturday, December 7th, 2019 @ 11:52 PM
    Posts
    19,556
    Post Thanks / Like
    I've been busy.

    To Newman:

    She wasn't seeing him as any kind of a realistic hook-up, let alone really 'dateable'. I don't doubt that they had sex at sex at some point and believed they were they in a relationship but that was all past by the time she got into his head.

    She was simply manipulating him for the rush she got by doing it. Anybody who doubts that some young women do this evidently has never been a young woman or been around any for several months straight. Most confine this to relatively innocuous things (girl 'friendships', parents, employers, etc.). But not all.

    To Celeste:

    I'm critically aware of the precedent problem. At the same time, I actually engage with this age group in a non-parental way and have insights based on that. They don't care if they reveal how they damage each other to me since I'm not a parent, not affiliated with a school, and basically don't care about any of my students' social lives.

    They joke about it to me. I'm not a mandatory reporter and even then, I can only be credibly a reporter if I see physical abuse or if the kid tells me his Mom hit him with a vodka bottle or something (never has happened). I can do nothing if kid A brags about he/she is cyber bullying kid B aside from saying that's wrong. I can mention it to the parents who will never in a million years believe it thus destroying the entire tutoring relationship. I have zero evidence.

    But it happens. It happens a lot although usually without this outcome. These kids are different in the sense that a text to them is like you whispering in their ear. For them, it's like you are actually there except without the uncomfortable eye contact.

  6. Likes Tom Servo liked this post
  7. #26
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 31st, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 2:45 AM
    Posts
    4,225
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    I've been busy.

    To Newman:

    She wasn't seeing him as any kind of a realistic hook-up, let alone really 'dateable'. I don't doubt that they had sex at sex at some point and believed they were they in a relationship but that was all past by the time she got into his head.

    She was simply manipulating him for the rush she got by doing it. Anybody who doubts that some young women do this evidently has never been a young woman or been around any for several months straight. Most confine this to relatively innocuous things (girl 'friendships', parents, employers, etc.). But not all.

    To Celeste:

    I'm critically aware of the precedent problem. At the same time, I actually engage with this age group in a non-parental way and have insights based on that. They don't care if they reveal how they damage each other to me since I'm not a parent, not affiliated with a school, and basically don't care about any of my students' social lives.

    They joke about it to me. I'm not a mandatory reporter and even then, I can only be credibly a reporter if I see physical abuse or if the kid tells me his Mom hit him with a vodka bottle or something (never has happened). I can do nothing if kid A brags about he/she is cyber bullying kid B aside from saying that's wrong. I can mention it to the parents who will never in a million years believe it thus destroying the entire tutoring relationship. I have zero evidence.

    But it happens. It happens a lot although usually without this outcome. These kids are different in the sense that a text to them is like you whispering in their ear. For them, it's like you are actually there except without the uncomfortable eye contact.
    My tutoring students never mentioned such things.

    But I see where you are coming from. Many teens think of this as nothing, while those affected thick of it as their entire lives.

    Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Friday, December 6th, 2019 @ 10:47 AM
    Location
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Posts
    13,976
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    The logical flaw in this is that the exceptions will soon consume the rule. If we make the law bend to apply in circumstances where the alleged victim has special vulnerabilities, we'll find that everyone has special vulnerabilities.

    Joe gets pissed at Sue, his lab partner in Chem 100. He writes on the boys' bathroom wall, "Sue sucks dick." Someone tells Sue. Turns out Sue is - take your pick: a survivor of child sexual abuse including forced fellatio; a member of a weird religious sect that demands self-immolation as the penance for dishonoring the family; already on the edge of paranoid schizophrenia. For her own peculiar reasons, she responds to this act - one that rude, nasty boys have engaged in since there were words and bathroom walls - by killing herself. Is Joe a murderer? Hell no!


    I don't know what pool your students are drawn from, but I spent 2 recent years substitute teaching in public middle and high schools, and I didn't see these fragile flowers you describe. But even if I did, the law deals with what a reasonable person would do, and a reasonable person would turn. off. the. friggin'. phone.

    There may be a lawsuit here for wrongful death. There's no grounds for the homicide conviction. Involuntary manslaughter, the crime of which she was convicted, is defined by Massachusetts law thus:



    Basic to both is "killing." If she didn't kill him, it doesn't matter how wanton, reckless, or even purely evil her conduct was. She wasn't there and she didn't kill him. He killed himself.

    And even if you hold her responsible for his act of killing, the killing that did occur wasn't "unlawful," because suicide is no longer illegal in Massachusetts. Required elements of the crime are just not there.

    Finally, be careful what you endorse. There's no statute of limitations on homicide. If this case stands, I plan to ask the CA attorney general to prosecute Bob and Mary Griffith, their former pastor and the other members of their church for the suicide of Bobby Griffith.. Among others.
    This, though I think that one would need to follow through the Mass. law defining "killing," because that definition could well have an effect here. My guess is that its something along the lines of "the unlawful causing of the death of another human being," with a list of lawful exceptions, such as self-defense.

    I think that there's probably a legal case to be made if, say, I dope someone with scopolamine and then use the effects of that drug to convince that someone to walk off of the roof of a building or something, then I have caused that death. That's a fair piece from just talking someone into suicide, even if I know that they are at least somewhat susceptible to the idea.

    I think that this conviction is a very dangerous slippery slope, personally.
    Leftists have unquestionably demonstrated their hatred for due process, and Democrats have undeniably obstructed justice for, and thoroughly victim-shamed and smeared, Karen Monahan.

  9. Thanks Celeste Chalfonte thanked for this post
  10. #28
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    14,941
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Gingersnap View Post
    I've been busy.

    To Newman:

    She wasn't seeing him as any kind of a realistic hook-up, let alone really 'dateable'. I don't doubt that they had sex at sex at some point and believed they were they in a relationship but that was all past by the time she got into his head.

    She was simply manipulating him for the rush she got by doing it. Anybody who doubts that some young women do this evidently has never been a young woman or been around any for several months straight. Most confine this to relatively innocuous things (girl 'friendships', parents, employers, etc.). But not all.

    To Celeste:

    I'm critically aware of the precedent problem. At the same time, I actually engage with this age group in a non-parental way and have insights based on that. They don't care if they reveal how they damage each other to me since I'm not a parent, not affiliated with a school, and basically don't care about any of my students' social lives.

    They joke about it to me. I'm not a mandatory reporter and even then, I can only be credibly a reporter if I see physical abuse or if the kid tells me his Mom hit him with a vodka bottle or something (never has happened). I can do nothing if kid A brags about he/she is cyber bullying kid B aside from saying that's wrong. I can mention it to the parents who will never in a million years believe it thus destroying the entire tutoring relationship. I have zero evidence.

    But it happens. It happens a lot although usually without this outcome. These kids are different in the sense that a text to them is like you whispering in their ear. For them, it's like you are actually there except without the uncomfortable eye contact.
    I didn't say it doesn't happen. When I said I didn't see these kids when I was teaching, I meant the fragile ones. I've watched them do vile things to each other up close and personal, in public, before the whole school. You think they care what teachers - especially substitute teachers - see? Dream on.

    If some of the kids I saw being bullied had committed suicide, it wouldn't have surprised me. BUT, they didn't. They either changed schools or dropped out or home-schooled or learned to fight back on the same terms. I didn't allow it in my classroom, but I don't delude myself that I made any difference outside that classroom door. Kids can be vicious (as can adults), but they're also resilient.

    Now, there are certainly remedies for those cyber-bullying campaigns some of them engage in. It's often defamation. It's almost per se intentional infliction of emotional distress. It's very likely actionable. And it's an amplified version of what has gone on at slumber parties and in locker rooms and school bathrooms since "adolescence" was invented (not all that long ago, in the long view).

    All that said, suicide among teens is almost always linked to clinical depression, and clinical depression is almost never externally caused. While I'd love to see some of these bullied kids drag their tormentors through the courts, they belong in civil court, not criminal. With VERY, extraordinarily few exceptions, words do not kill.
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  11. #29
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Saturday, December 7th, 2019 @ 11:52 PM
    Posts
    19,556
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    I didn't say it doesn't happen. When I said I didn't see these kids when I was teaching, I meant the fragile ones. I've watched them do vile things to each other up close and personal, in public, before the whole school. You think they care what teachers - especially substitute teachers - see? Dream on.

    If some of the kids I saw being bullied had committed suicide, it wouldn't have surprised me. BUT, they didn't. They either changed schools or dropped out or home-schooled or learned to fight back on the same terms. I didn't allow it in my classroom, but I don't delude myself that I made any difference outside that classroom door. Kids can be vicious (as can adults), but they're also resilient.

    Now, there are certainly remedies for those cyber-bullying campaigns some of them engage in. It's often defamation. It's almost per se intentional infliction of emotional distress. It's very likely actionable. And it's an amplified version of what has gone on at slumber parties and in locker rooms and school bathrooms since "adolescence" was invented (not all that long ago, in the long view).

    All that said, suicide among teens is almost always linked to clinical depression, and clinical depression is almost never externally caused. While I'd love to see some of these bullied kids drag their tormentors through the courts, they belong in civil court, not criminal. With VERY, extraordinarily few exceptions, words do not kill.
    You don't get it.

    This was not 'cyber-bullying' unless your definition for that runs from "called me dumb" to "told me how hang myself and offered to help".

    They had an intimate emotional relationship that she controlled. He was depressed and had suicidal ideation which he confessed to her. Like all U.S. teens her age, she knew he was in trouble and she knew where he could get help - online, in person, through teachers and friends.

    She didn't bully him - she seduced him into killing himself because that's what some girls do to other girls and in this case it worked on him. Girls cry, post every where, cut themselves, talk or text constantly to their friends, stop eating, or whatever.

    Guys do not.

    She was the dominate voice in his life. Turn it around - if we are talking about a girl who had only one friend (male), who emotionally manipulated her incessantly (hundreds of texts) and that girl couldn't confide in her parents or teachers and she was suicidal and this GUY relentlessly pushed her to kill herself constantly, would we be having this conversation?

    Nope, we would not. Because boys and men doing this is commonplace. It's classic narcissistic abuse.

    The only twist here is that the girl got caught.

  12. Likes Newman liked this post
  13. #30
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:33 PM
    Posts
    10,064
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    All that said, suicide among teens is almost always linked to clinical depression, and clinical depression is almost never externally caused. While I'd love to see some of these bullied kids drag their tormentors through the courts, they belong in civil court, not criminal. With VERY, extraordinarily few exceptions, words do not kill.
    Just a footnote here. Bullies seek out vulnerable people. It's a perverse talent, almost, like being able to detect who has scopolamine in their system already, per Adam's post above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •