Althouse: "I wouldn't think that just leaving the car would amount to aiding another person's suicide attempt."

June 17, 2006

"I wouldn't think that just leaving the car would amount to aiding another person's suicide attempt."

Is it a crime to get out of the car just before the driver plunges off a cliff?

11 comments:

Ricardo said...: Well, we need to know more information. Leaving the car shouldn't amount to aiding another person's suicide attempt, but "screwing with their mind" might. For some reason (even though the facts are very different) it smells a little like the Andrea Yates case in Houston. But again, the facts are different, and Rusty Yates escaped any liability in large part due to the gravity of Andrea's mental condition, and her actions.; 6/17/06, 9:44 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Who knows what actually happened in the case, other than the man who has been charged? The children, who survived, are 5 and 3. What if the woman was driving, saying she was going to drive the car off the cliff and gave him one chance to get out? What if she was threatening to go off the cliff, he said "go ahead, but don't kill the rest of us" and she stopped and said, "so get out," and he did?

It must happen a lot that someone threatens suicide and the other person says "go ahead." It's not nice, but it must happen pretty easily in an argument. That shouldn't be a crime.

CB: You have to log in again if you've closed down the browser since the last time you logged in. Otherwise, I'm not seeing a problem.; 6/17/06, 9:49 AM
tjl said...: Ricardo said:
"it smells a little like the Andrea Yates case in Houston. But again, the facts are different, and Rusty Yates escaped any liability in large part due to the gravity of Andrea's mental condition."

The facts are very different. There is no hint that Rusty Yates wanted Andrea to kill the kids. On the contrary, everything we know about the case suggests that he wanted her to go on as she was, i.e., "barefoot and pregnant."

However , he does bear a great deal of responsibility for Andrea's actions. With her history of mental problems it should have been painfully clear to anyone who saw her, much less her husband, that she shouldn't be having any more children. But these is no legal theory that would establish criminal responsibility.; 6/17/06, 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Yeah, I think there's probably more to the story.

Asian women have a very high suicide rate here, especially in marital disputes or disappointments, and consider it unthinkable to leave children alone with the shame later, so...it could suggest he knew what might happen and nudged it along. Whether a crime occurred, I don't know.

Every year in CA we have one or two spectacular suicide/murders such as these.; 6/17/06, 10:38 AM
Meade said...: "At the edge, in place of a guardrail, are boulders set about 10 feet apart — just far enough, it turned out, for the Hans' Honda Odyssey to drive through."

He's an architect. Perhaps he eyeballed the distance between the boulders and said, "okay, go ahead." It wouldn't be the first time an architect made the mistake of not measuring twice. Then again, he may have stepped out of the van for that very purpose and Mrs. Han simply couldn't wait for him to get out his tape measurer.; 6/17/06, 10:42 AM
The Drill SGT said...: I'd have less problem with child endangerment than aiding a suicide for a case like this where the husband is at worst guilty of not doing something rather than active complicity.; 6/17/06, 11:18 AM
Ricardo said...: I'm always interested in incidents (and cases) where "but for" the actions of ALL concerned, the incident might not have happened. Where the mental state and actions of each of the participants might have only been a little off base, but when you put the whole package together you get what may be a crime. This "feels" like it might be one of those situations. But as Ann said above, and given the ages of the kids as witnesses, we're pretty much left with "his" version of the events, and a lot will be based on conjecture.

Was she really suicidal, or was he making her so? What was the substance of their last conversation? Is there truth to this other romance, and (as patca points out) did this motivate her to do it and take the kids with her? Did he know that she had this code of honor, and that this would be the probable outcome of his revealing his infidelity? What were his intentions? And is there anything here that is really criminally prosecutable?

Sounds like the makings of a "48 Hours Mystery".; 6/17/06, 11:36 AM
reader_iam said...: Hubby wanted to go to Battery Park, wifey insisted on Bear Mt., adding that she wanted to kill herself and that if they went to the mountain she would do it.

And he got out of the car leaving his kids inside of it???

Well, I suppose one could argue that this gives credence to the idea that he really didn't think she would do it. Helluva foolish risk, though.

Or this could speak to his callousness. Or to something far more malign.

I'd be interested in hearing more about that "other" relationship, but more important, I'd like to hear more about how he felt about being a "family man": how he felt about the kids and whether he thought they cramped his style.

Boy, this strikes me as hinky.

And under the "go ahead" scenario described by one commenter: Yeah, I can see that happening, but leaving the kids in the car? Incredibly reckless, at best. And what the heck kind of person would participate in that sort of conversation or say that sort of thing in front of their kids?

Shudder.; 6/17/06, 2:26 PM
Beth said...: This is starting to sound like a twist on the Susan Smith technique. He doesn't believe in divorce, but now he's unencumbered by a wife and children. He parked the car, "nose to the cliff", after his wife stated she wanted to kill herself on the mountain? He's not coming across like a hapless victim.; 6/17/06, 3:48 PM
Beth said...: Sorry; I just re-read the story and realize the children are okay. That's a relief.; 6/17/06, 3:51 PM
DaveG said...: Well, at least he'll have a jury of 200,000,000, although presumed innocence seems to already be out of the question.; 6/19/06, 2:00 PM