Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Girl on Trial for Advocating a Man Kill Himself
#1
I agree with the author here myself, she probably committed no crime. Being a jerk isn't illegal.


http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/14/te...-shouldnt/
Reply
#2
It comes down to pleading mental insanity due to medical conditions. A cold-blooded killer who ensured a suicide would not get off.
Reply
#3
So you are not into accountability of the individual who actually violated a law( cause suicide is unlawful in most states for whatever logic)?

I don't see where she broke any laws myself.

Me saying, "go kill yourself" is not a crime, it just shows how little character I have, IMO.
Reply
#4
(06-15-2017, 10:11 AM)Palladin Wrote: So you are not into accountability of the individual who actually violated a law( cause suicide is unlawful in most states for whatever logic)?

That makes no sense.

(06-15-2017, 10:11 AM)Palladin Wrote: I don't see where she broke any laws myself.

Me saying, "go kill yourself" is not a crime, it just shows how little character I have, IMO.

That means nothing of the sort. It means that you are being immature, and acting like an emotional adolescent. And that is what she is, a very young and emotional girl, who let her mouth do her thinking.

It has nothing to do with character. It has to do with maturity, and wisdom.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#5
The girl is charged with a crime, she did not commit a crime and that's a constitutional issue. I disagree with your view of her. Any opinion on the case?
Reply
#6
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a crime. Even if no one is trampled, someone may have been. Using a First Amendment right of speech to cause a crime is always a crime.
Reply
#7
Like I said elsewhere, a part of freedom of speech is accepting responsibility for the consequences of what one says.
Reply
#8
The verdict is in. The judge ruled the girl guilty of manslaughter. That community did not have a law against assisted suicide, but the judge felt that manslaughter was involved. There was one point where the victim got out of the van he had hooked up so the exhaust was filling the interior of the vehicle, and the girl texted him to "get back in the van." IMO that overrode all other statements presented for consideration. He obeyed those words, so those words caused his death.

Sentencing will take place later. She is eligible for up to 20 years in prison.

I think the real fault in all of this, is the way her generation has been raised not to believe or have any respect for the sanctity of life. If you teach children there is no God, we face no Judgment, and life is just a meaningless accident of nature, then the reasonable consequence is that there will be a generation produced that has no veneration for the sanctity of life. This is the number one problem now for all of human society, worldwide. Atheists and agnostics have sowed this wild seed, and all humanity is reaping the dire harvest. Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Here now we see the fruitage of atheism and agnosticism, enforced as the dominant philosophies in education, while Christianity and Biblical religion and especially the doctrine of Divine Creation are determinedly banned from schools.
Reply
#9
It's hard to accept responsibility for something you did not do though, Ron. This girl did not make this guy commit suicide nor did she assist him. There is no crime.

The verdict means the jury does not place responsibility on the man for his actions. Kind of fits with modern USA culture, but, it's wrong.

She's just a no character jerk. That is not illegal.
Reply
#10
(06-16-2017, 05:06 PM)Palladin Wrote: It's hard to accept responsibility for something you did not do though, Ron. This girl did not make this guy commit suicide nor did she assist him. There is no crime.

The verdict means the jury does not place responsibility on the man for his actions. Kind of fits with modern USA culture, but, it's wrong.

She's just a no character jerk. That is not illegal.

There was no jury, because she waved them for the judge, if I recall correctly.  

However, what got her in trouble is not that she said those things, but that she didn't try to stop him after he began the suicide process while she was on the phone listening.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#11
Remember, he had gotten out of his van, instinctively reacting against the smell of the exhaust building up, and when he texted her that he had done so, she told him to get back in the van. That very directly gave her responsibility for his death.
Reply
#12
Here’s what you need to know about the controversial Michelle Carter texting/suicide case

Quote:The Undisputed Facts

-Prosecutors said Carter, then 17, sent her late boyfriend, Conrad Roy III, 18, a series of multiple text messages in 2014 urging him to commit suicide after learning of Roy’s multiple failed suicide attempts. Roy poisoned himself by inhaling carbon monoxide in his pickup truck. (CNN)

-A friend of Carter’s testified that she told him to “get back in” the truck on the night he died. (ABC News)

-“You just have to do it,” Carter texted Roy on the day of his suicide. “You said you were gonna do it. Like I don’t get why you aren’t.” (ABC News)

-Carter did not seek help or inform anyone when she learned Roy was attempting to kill himself. (CBS News)

-The prosecution entered evidence indicating that Carter actually listened over the phone as Roy suffocated. (CNN)

-She was tried as a juvenile since she was a minor when the alleged crime took place. (WFXT-TV)

-Carter waved her right to trial by jury and was tried by a judge. She will be sentenced on Aug. 3. She faces up to 20 years in prison. Because of the novel legal issues presented in the case, it is likely that Carter will appeal. (NBC News)

Here's the key part as I see it.

Quote:“She called no one, and finally she did not issue a simple additional instruction: Get out of the truck,” Bristol County Juvenile Court Judge Lawrence Moniz said in his explanation of the ruling.

That's what made her culpable, as in verbally "Aiding and Abetting".
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#13
Are you sure that's illegal John? Is there a law that mandates you must assist a person? I've read where even police have no legal liability if they refuse to answer a call and the caller is murdered or raped.

I really doubt there's such a law. She will win this on appeal and the state needs to stay within her boundaries. There was no crime. This conviction is done via emotions and moral thinking, of course what she did was morally sick, but, I just doubt it was illegal.
Reply
#14
(06-17-2017, 07:26 AM)Palladin Wrote: Are you sure that's  illegal John? Is there a law that mandates you must assist a person?  I've read where even police have no legal liability if they refuse to answer a call and the caller is murdered or raped.

 I really doubt there's such a law. She will win this on appeal and the state needs to stay within her boundaries. There was no crime. This conviction is done via emotions and moral thinking, of course what she did was morally sick, but, I just doubt it was illegal.

I'm just stating what the judge cited. I have mixed feeling on this. The fact that she was on the phone and not physically there raised serious questions. Had she been physically present, I would have no doubt in the judge's ruling. Remember, with Liberties comes Responsibilities.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#15
I disagree even with that. The crux of the situation is this, what did our mothers always teach us when we did something stupid by going along with the crowd?

"Would you jump off a building if they told you to!@@#????"

Expected answer, "NO"!

Answer I am hearing from you, the judge and Ron, "YES"! Un traditional way of life from my perspective.
Reply
#16
(06-17-2017, 08:09 AM)Palladin Wrote: I disagree even with that. The crux of the situation is this, what did our mothers always teach us when we did something stupid by going along with the crowd?

"Would you jump off a building if they told you to!@@#????"

Expected answer, "NO"!

 Answer I am hearing from you, the judge and Ron, "YES"!  Un traditional way of life from my perspective.

You just find it impossible to moderate your position on practically anything, don't you? If you genuinely think I stated "YES"! by shouting, you are either mentally unbalanced, or a certified moron. Take your pick.

Another of your problems is that you have been sliding into this Anarchistic Libertarian mode for awhile now, and I remain a true Liberal. Where you constantly shout "freedom" I am saying "Liberty". And there is a Big Difference. Freedom is the right to do a thing totally unhindered and unrestrained. Liberty is freedom, but tempered with Responsibility.

You might want to do something you rarely do anymore. Try to place yourself in other's minds and then look at your actions from other's POV. You may not like what you are looking at. Try to grow up and moderate your extreme emotions for a change. We are not all beyond redemption, consummate evildoers, and total reprobates. Gah
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#17
You keep aiming and missing like I do skeet.

If there is a law mandating you must help a person in need or you cannot urge a person to harm themselves, then that's the law and she is guilty. If there is no such law, this is another example of "Ron Lambert law", which is what Torquemada ended up offering us in Europe. He gets his morals and God confused with the state. We don't.


I agree you did not actively support the case. I shouldn't have put you in the group above. You shouldn't have gone off on your anarcho whatever statement.

Is it the law or is it not? It is that simple.

It is anarchy to adjudicate cases based on emotions or personal opinion w/o a legal code backing it. I've read a little about this case and I feel safe in saying there is no law to base this decision on. The dangers in this type of case are immense. Not only do we have the right wing Christian fundy Ron's, we have fundy atheists/ Muslims as well.

I don't want either determining the liberty of anyone. I want the law, passed through the opinions of us all codified into law to make these calls and so do you. I know you too well to think otherwise. The judge can kiss my ass.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/17/mi...e-justice/
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)