And so Judge Lawrence Moniz found Michelle Carter guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
ADDED: "Being A Bitch Is Now A Criminal Offense, Apparently/Teen convicted for texting someone to death." That's the headline at Above the Law. Elie Mystal writes:
If “free will” is to mean anything, you cannot “suicide” a person to death. You can murder someone, you can accidentally murder someone, you can pay someone to murder someone for you, you can set up a criminal organization under which murders occur on your behalf, you can even set up conditions so inherently unsafe that you are criminally responsible for anybody who happens to die. But you can’t kill a person who kills themselves. The self-killing breaks the causal chain between your actions, however reprehensible, and the death.
Until today....
पोस्ट्स
२३० टिप्पण्या:
230 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Good. She is evil.
I agree. A dangerous sociopath. I'm not lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems from what I've read that she did in fact cause him to kill himself. 48 Hours is doing a special on the case tonight.
I'm not sure she is evil. I need to see more. The article confirms that the "M by proxy" narrative came from the prosecution. But I'm not seeing evidence of abnormal attention seeking or sympathy begging after the death.
I'm pro-suicide, it's libertarian position that I should be allowed to choose when and how to die. So maybe that is biasing me here.
Reading between the lines I'm seeing a couple struggling through life, her resistance to his early talk of suicide, then giving in because she realizes how intense his emotional pain is.
But also frustration because he keeps talking about it, refuses to get help, but won't follow through.
I agree with the judge.
Guess it was a mistake consenting to a nonjury trial.
I'm glad. Wasn't the boy just a kid?
I mean, teens are getting locked up for spreading pictures of other nude teens. That seems like peanuts next to talking a teen into murder.
And yes, Its murder. you are killing someone. You don't get to do that. Not even to yourself.
I don't know. If a confused person approaches me, and I purposely direct him into a busy street so that he will be hit by a car and killed, I would think an involuntary manslaughter charge was appropriate.
Fen, this guy was just a kid. Teens always make emotional mountains out of social molehills. She pushed him off a cliff that he was just standing on.
48 hours of such talk with someone in that state must certainly be criminally reckless at least? As death was the result of such recklessness, I can understand if not agree with the verdict.
"Instructed" is an interesting word. It's not far from "directed", as in something a drill sergeant does to a private in training. A piano teacher might "instruct" a student to take off his pants before sitting down. An orchestra leader might "direct" a clarinetist to take off his pants.
Oh, crap. I've been reading too many of Laslo's posts.
I also agree with judge. I know analogies can be a really bad form of argument in criminal cases, but this is such an unusual case I think one is useful. To me this is not much different from an intelligent person standing next to a mentally handicapped person on the roof of a building and convincing them to jump, that it will be OK, that they should do it, that it won't hurt and that everything will be better if they only jump.
This kid, in severe depression and on the cusp of killing himself, was not acting as a rational adult actor and this girl's manipulation of him was monstrous.
Also, I do believe that we should allow for assisted suicide in the case of the terminally ill, those suffering from excruciating/incurable physical pain. That's not what happened here.
Regarding Elie Mystal's foolish rant, as of right now one is not allowed to talk someone into killing themselves when they don't want to do the deed. Seems right and proper.
Just to cleanse my brain and yours, perhaps, I'm gonna leave Sidney Bechet delivering "Blue Horizon".
Sigh. Evidently a mixed up boy - the kind that would march off a cliff if "his girl" told him to. And she marched him off the cliff.
Its interesting how we react differently to boys and girls. If a boy"friend" convinces a girl to become a whore (like what happened in England) we have no problem is blaming him and thinking the S.O.B. should be legally punished.
But if a girl"friend" convinces a boy to kill himself, we somehow blame the boy for not being strong enough to resist her - or we make excuses for the girl.
For me, like most men, the whole "I'll do whatever she wants" is so odd I can't even relate to it. But few goofy guys are like that.
Since you wrongly predicted the outcome to this one, should we ask your predictions for what will come of all the scandals embroiling the one president that you seem to treat more like a client than any other?
By the judge's reasoning, if someone threatened to kill themselves if they didn't get their way and you told them to go to hell, you would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter if they followed through with the threat.
This reminds me, to a much lesser degree, of the bitches who convinced some boy to walk across a frozen pond and fall into the frozen water.
What she did was "being a bitch?" That's how she characterizes it?
Can't someone be a bitch without abetting a suicide? I kind of think the intentional taking of lives sort of crosses into territory that's a little more extreme than epithets that basically mean annoying or mean.
If the sex roles were reversed, no one would be taking exception to the verdict.
Ritmo, everything is not about Trumo. Go play witb your Trump fetish on one of the six Trump threads.
"the one president that you seem to treat more like a client than any other?"
DJT's the only paying gig Meadehouse gots. Since givin' up that lawprof thing-y, shilling for the con tubes is the only non-retirement revenue left.
Of course there's no reasonable excuse for gardener not bringing home some bacon. The dude is the perfect dog walker/trainer in waiting. Until then, Althouse must carry on in perpetuity.
"Being A Bitch Is Now A Criminal Offense, Apparently/Teen convicted for texting someone to death."
Whoever could have foreseen feminists would claim the verdict is sexist?
A mob boss can direct somebody else to murder, so words are no shield. The difference here is that it's suicide, so the someone else has additional things to balance. It winds up suicide.
Crowds under jumpers are always chanting jump, at least in movies.
Aiding and abetting the taking of human life, either by instrumentality or by words of encouragement, has long been a crime, even in the cases of self-murder. For several hundred years, at least.
As to causality, it's the butterfly effect. Everything changes everything all the time.
And, also, now we see the true nature of the pro-assisted suicide culture of death.
Mind you, being a bitch ought to be an offense. Preferably a capital one.
In Massachusetts there is precedent, however. One may not agree with this interpretation of the law, but the husband-encouraging-a-really-cheap-divorce case plus the You-Can't-Win-At-Russian-Roulette case both do establish that participation in the scenario are enough.
Legally, I see it. I don't have to agree with Massachusetts, but legally there was a case here. I'm sure it will be appealed.
If you told your dog to jump off a cliff, he might do it.
He was her dog.
"Intelligent person standing next to a mentally handicapped "
For this analogy, they are both handicapped.
I don't know. I need more information. I also think we are working under the premise that suicide is wrong so advising it is wrong.
You and I have been close friends since we were kids. You come to me with a cancer diagnosis. 6 months of hell in pain, 100% mortality, and the hospital bills will take a Harvard education away from your two girls. You want my advice on taking your own life.
Having a bench trial should make it easier to appeal. Less deference to a judge than to the will of the jury.
If can be supportive of whatever decision the jury reaches in the Cosby trial. One thing I'm glad of is that he was bought to trial. I don't know if this girl deserved the guilty verdict but she certainly deserved to stand trial.
It's almost like people are discovering that there's a downside to judges deciding things based on the outcomes they'd prefer and the defendants they do or do not like, instead of looking at the plain language of the law. A little late to cry about that kind of thing now, eh?
Whoever could have foreseen feminists would claim the verdict is sexist?
Those who think that their guys' lives are expendable - like our resident wounded warrior, apparently.
Though it's not scientific, it seems to me more female commenters are proportionally willing to voice agreement with the verdict than men. I think they know women who couldn't care less about lives they treat (or if they could, would treat) as expendable, and they find them detestably beneath their own superior moral instincts. Women tend to be more underhanded, and can get away with sociopathy more quietly. I'm not sure if they claim equal of fewer sociopaths than men, but when they do kill intimates, just do it more quietly - like with say for instance poisoning, rather than by beating or shooting.
Or by nagging. But that takes a lot longer.
Agreed on the Massachusetts precedents -- although just because you can find precedent doesn’t mean you should follow it.
"Blogger Larvell said...
Guess it was a mistake consenting to a nonjury trial."
Lawyers are extremely wise and intelligent and don't make mistakes: this is absolutely the best outcome for everyone involved especially the convicted.
Hell Judge Smails had to sentence boys to the gas chamber--he felt he owed it to them-- and I don't see no gas chamber talk up in here.
Ellie: "You cannot suicide a person to death"
Switching sides for a sec - that's naive and wrong. Let me in your head for 6 months, Ellie. You'll be slicing your wrists open in a hot bath. It's not hard to "mind fuck" people into suicide. Not if you are evil enough and they aren't strong enough to resist you.
At the ridiculous prosecution results in conviction cafe.
I watched the dramatic courtroom scene on the live feed. The judge started by pronouncing Michelle Carter not guilty on her conduct up to the point of Conrad Roy getting out of his vehicle. The defendant was visibly relieved to hear the words not guilty, but the judge didn't stop there.
There's going to be a lot of fake news on this decision. The judge found that after Michelle told Conrad to get back in the vehicle, she had a duty to call the authorities or his family. So the failure to act provides the causation, not the text messages by themselves.
I don't know. I need more information.
As usual.
This was not a case of assisted suicide. This was a case of a nasty killer-in-training who took control over a situation where a treatable individual backed out of an end that was by no means certain, and had no need of any such certainty, let alone finality. She did it for attention and sympathy and to seem important - as women tend to do - which you would know if you knew any personally rather than just emulating their role. She crossed a line to do it, simply to feel powerful. His needs and interests were not being considered, but denied, rejected and shot down.
She's a sociopath. She will find much company of her kind in prison, where they comprise upwards of a third of the population.
I do believe that we should allow for assisted suicide in the case of the terminally ill, those suffering from excruciating/incurable physical pain. That's not what happened here.
I have assisted patients in that situation. Doctors have done so for centuries until lawyers got involved.
This was nothing like that. This kid just needed a little sympathy and instead he got a psychopath who thought it would be interesting to see if she could push him into it.
I have seen a couple of comments somewhere that she had plans for a social media career.
The presence of a really unpleasant and unpopular Defendant seems like a singularly bad basis for expanding the scope of criminal liability. "The Defendant is evil, so the conviction is good" pretty much says, "Screw the rule of law, let's punish people we think are bad people."
That's not how we're supposed to do things here.
She's too hot for prison.
Elie Mystal isn't a lawyer either, as far as I know. He was unable to pass the bar. Not surprising as an affirmative action admission.
At the Free Michelle Carter Cafe.
There's not much chance of this case getting overturned on appeal. It's already been to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled the conduct alleged in the indictment was sufficient to support a conviction. Now there is a conviction supported by findings of fact. The defense on appeal would be asking for a rehearing on issues they have already lost once at the SJC.
It seems ingrained to us, to care less about the deaths' of young women vs. young men.
Young men = expendable. Go out and fight the tribe's wars and get killed.
Young women = valuable. Stay home and have babies.
Maybe that's it. Hard to overcome 10,000 years of Cave man thinking.
If this girl was not guilty, then neither was Charles Manson.
How is this different from Charles Manson? He didn't kill anyone either but he got convicted
The greatest cause of suicide when we were overseas was when a Joe found out his wife/girlfriend was cheating on him while he was deployed.
I only bring this up because at some point there needs to be a line. Those women were particularly awful too.
I read what this one did. I do not want people like her free to walk around. But prosecuting her could open Pandora's box. Watching the left twist the law you have to wonder when they will start trying to prosecute people who don't think government is the best way to deliver health care for example.
"She's too hot for prison."
I don't know about that.
What's w/ that giant forehead? Receding hairline? Or, does a freakishly huge brain explain a person having so much skull? OTOH, there's Proteus.
I dunno.
Blogger rcocean said...
"It seems ingrained to us, to care less about the deaths' of young women vs. young men."
There's always been a core of breeding males deemed important and the exependable males who aren't.
If by your actions you can cause someone to lose their will to live, then the members of the Ice Capades would all be in jail today.
For those who don't understand how a judge could give such a verdict, the MA Supreme Court ruled on the appeal of the indictment, and the legal issues are covered there. The document is available at Justia:
http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016/sjc-12043.html
Involuntary manslaughter in MA could result from wanton or reckless conduct or wanton or reckless failure to act.
"It is conduct involving a grave risk of harm to another that a person undertakes with indifference to or disregard of the consequences of such conduct."
There's a complete discussion of the precedents involved in the decision. The defense attorney's real strategy here was to try to delay the actual trial past the last possible charging date for a youthful offense.
Hercule Poirot's last case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtain_(novel)
Ann, you are quite inconsistent here. You have yourself said many times that suicide is "self-murder." What if some (let's say Charlie Manson) encourage someone who is demonstrably impressionable to go kill a specific person? Did they commit a crime?
I initially read the headline as referring to the Trump administration, but which member of it was mysterious.
* * *
From Boston.com: Massachusetts is one of a minority of states that does not have a law that criminalizes encouraging or assisting in a suicide, and Medwed, speaking earlier this week, said he expects the case “will spur the legislature to pass a law creating a distinct crime for the act of encouraging suicide.”
What about Charles Manson: you can set up a criminal organization under which murders occur on your behalf...
I need a clearer understanding of the new rules.
If I tell Ritmo, AKA TTR, to GFY, and he is injured in the process, have I created a criminal liability for myself?
Correct decision. As judge noted, he had become her agent, doing her bidding. Getting out of the truck demonstrated that he still had a vestige of the will to live. Her demanding that he get back into the truck and finish the job, which he did, simply demonstrated that she had control of him, and that she knew she had that control.
Eve: No one's gonna die if you bite the apple, Adam. We're just gonna get smart.
Rabel said...If I tell Ritmo, AKA TTR, to GFY, and he is injured in the process, have I created a criminal liability for myself?
Only if he breaks his penis trying to bend it backs inside and it ruptures. Not sure if the consequent blood loss would be sufficiently fatal, though.
I hate to find myself agreeing with TTR, but in this case I do.
This isn't about someone with a terminal disease. This was a screwed up kid who needed help, not someone urging him on.
"The judge found that after Michelle told Conrad to get back in the vehicle, she had a duty to call the authorities or his family. So the failure to act provides the causation, not the text messages by themselves."
Excellent point.
If I tell Ritmo
Or Inga, or Twice, or Benzene, or Peanut Butter, r anyone of the Althouse Lefties.
No need to worry yourself. Cocksuckers like that never off themselves.It's another one of those unwritten rules.
How can it be criminal to talk someone into killing themselves, and not criminal to conduct an assisted suicide?
I don't understand this ruling. Negligence or some related crime maybe. But involuntary manslaughter seems inappropriate to me. The judge says that she ordered him back into the vehicle. There is no mention that she used physical force. So he didn't refuse. He didn't object. He willingly entered the vehicle. She is heinous but the charge is wrong to me.
Virgil Hilts said...
I also agree with judge. I know analogies can be a really bad form of argument in criminal cases, but this is such an unusual case I think one is useful. To me this is not much different from an intelligent person standing next to a mentally handicapped person on the roof of a building and convincing them to jump, that it will be OK, that they should do it, that it won't hurt and that everything will be better if they only jump.
Which is exactly what is legal in the Netherlands, except it's done by doctors who have a more active role that consists of "Drink this concoction" or "take this injection, even if I have to have family members hold you down...".
The fact that it was a novel prosecution and a non-jury trial makes it more likely to be overturned on appeal. There's no case precedent for the conviction. Words are not conduct. The judges decision was based on "feelings", not "law", much like recent decisions from the 9th circus.
@Toothless (6:03), for a change you're more right than wrong. Be nice if you could keep it up.
I feel nothing but contempt for the convicted. She is truly an evil and despicable human being. I feel no sympathy at all for whatever amount of time she spends in prison. However it was still the wrong decision and she never should have been convicted. I hope this gets overturned on appeal, but given what the appellate court said about the challenge to the indictment itself, and how closely what the judge relied on for facts to find the conviction mirrored what was laid out in the appellate ruling I doubt this will be overturned. Still a wrong decision. And she is still a wretched being.
I'm not reading her that way. Sounds like the kid was clinically depressed. Had been for years. He has already attempted suicide before. He's 18 and no one at home was aware or helping him?
And the 17 year old. She did try to talk him out of it the first time he brought it up. I think at some point she became his "rock". I bet he begged ger to help him end it all and not to let him chicken out.
A worrisome precedent. She may be evil, but evil is not always criminal. What did she do besides engage in vile speech? You can't even say she facilitated or encouraged criminality since suicide is not a crime. All she did was persuade someone else to kill himself. If he said no, that would have been the end of it.
Any chance that he deliberately chose this woman as a friend because he knew that she would sympathize with and encourage his suicide plans. If so, she didn't let him down.
Fen: You may be right.
“I’m trying my best to dig you out,” Ms. Carter wrote.
“I don’t wanna be dug out,” Mr. Roy answered, adding later, “I WANT TO DIE.”
It sounds to me like they both probably have problems. What she did was wrong, but I find it very hard to call it criminal.
She spent a month trying to convince this adult male to not commit suicide until, after a month, she thought it was a good idea. A lot of responsible adults failed both of them to let it reach that point, no matter how morally bankrupt she is.
“He breaks that chain of self-causation by exiting the vehicle,” Judge Moniz said. “He takes himself out of that toxic environment that it has become.”
- Do we know he wouldn't have gone back in without her statements? That seems to be a really big thing. He'd tried it before; what stopped him in 2012? If he had tried to kill himself before, why wasn't his family keeping a much closer eye on him?
She may be responsible, but I think it is probably not a good sign that it took, what, three years?, to try her for this.
I do what I can, Mike.
Regarding "GFY," it looks like the intended outcome of that is a bit less legally problematic.
I think the verdict made sense. What Mike K. did, too. She was interested to see if she could get him to do it. Probably got sick of his whining - knowing that getting him out of it was beyond her capabilities. She could have detached. She could have alerted someone with more maturity or resources.
She wanted to see if she could get him to do it. Repeatedly.
Not just standing behind someone on a ledge one time and going, "jump!" There was some intentionality here.
She probably had other things going on also. And might have been sympathetic at one point or even responsible, or at least capable of being responsible enough to leave the situation and not involve herself in his decisions.
But this was a lot more than that. "Instructed" is exactly the right word.
Who knows? Maybe with time she might have seen why it was horribly wrong, even warped.
But the state and his family can't take that chance. Some type of punishment here is just plain necessary. And as others observed, in this age of increased electronic communication and intimidation, all the more timely.
It's illegal to browbeat a senior citizen into turning over her life savings for a roof or furnace repair job. Same thing here, it seems. Must be illegal to browbeat (or guilt trip) a mentally ill person into killing himself. What if a girl convinces her younger sister to jump out a third story window on the grounds, "it's only grass. It won't hurt."
On the other hand, this can get crazy pretty easily. Is it illegal for a woman to brow beat her boyfriend into marrying her?
I now see that several others brought up the Charlie Manson comparison before I did. Given that Ann believes that suicide is "self-murder," maybe she would like to address how this is different (or similar) to the Manson example?
I'm assuming that the judge also found that Carter was mentally sound, which is why I'm just raising this as a parenthetical. The actions do not sound to me like someone who is normal. The sudden break from trying to stop his suicide to encouraging him seems odd to me, but I don't have all the information.
This is just a really, really dangerous precedent I think, and I don't generally like it. Carter's life was going to be destroyed from the publicity of this, either way.
If her actions had seemed even the least bit less "instructive," then she'd have every right to more leeway and the benefit of the doubt.
But almost all the evidence points to her basically wanting to take and exert control over the situation. Speech is speech. But when you claim a sort of authority over another person's life-making/taking decisions and push them through to the worse end when even they're clearly not completely happy/interested in the act, let alone acting as if they're solely in charge of it - that's a different story.
She did it out of sadism, curiosity, for attention/sympathy, and just to plain see if she could - and probably to see if she could get away with it. This is like a kid who tears the wings off a fly or fries ants with a magnifying glass, or does worse to a pet - taken to a much worse level.
"I'm tired of fighting about it, if that's what you really want, if you are sure there is no other way, then I'll stop trying to talk you out of it"
And you won't tell on me? You won't go to my parents or teachers or police. None of that intervention bullshit.
"No, I won't tell promise. I can see now how much pain you are in. I understand. I would want to end it too"
So you'll help me?
"Help you? What do you mean? Like pull the trigger? Hell no, please don't ask me to do that"
No, nothing like that. It's just that I get scared and chicken out at the last moment. And I'm afraid of botching it and becoming a vegetable in some ward. I can't explain it. I want to end it, like cliffdiving into water or parachuting from an airplane. But I keep losing my nerve at the last moment.
"How can I help?"
I need you stay on my ass. Make sure I follow through this time. Don't let me fail again. Remind me why I doing this. Motivate me to take the plunge. I'm not strong enough to do this myself.
It sounds like two self-destructive people found each other, and no one was there to help them.
I was going to speculate if the Judge in this case felt any sort of political pressure to come to a certain decision. But it looks like judges in Massachusetts are actually appointed, not elected. And their appointments last for life, but must they must retire by age 70.
https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_Massachusetts
My husband's ex-wife threatened suicide when he left her. "I'm going to kill myself and then everyone will know what an asshole you are!" He told her, "You and you alone are responsible for your choices." Of course she did not follow through because it was drama queenery and not serious, but if she had, would he have been criminally responsible under this precedent?
Remember that rollercoaster at the Fair? You wanted to ride it but kept ditching when you got to the front of the line? Remember how finally, you made me promise to not let you bail, to talk you into taking the ride? It's alot like that.
I assume no, as most precedent is very narrow. In this case, it took her specifically telling him to get back in the truck to be considered.
At least, I would hope so.
I think someone upthread has found his calling in life, the ideal occupation for him:
Motivational Speaker outside the gates of centers for the Aktion T4 program.
whitney said...
How is this different from Charles Manson? He didn't kill anyone either but he got convicted
Manson convinced his followers to kill other people. Carter convinced her boyfriend to kill himself. Manson's followers' victims had no say in the matter. Carter's boyfriend did.
"Remember why you're doing it! You're doing it for yourself, and not just the good of Greater Germany!"
"Think of what a burden you'll be lifting off your family!"
You don't encourage someone to commit suicide. That's the line.
Unless its Hillary or Madonna
Then its public service.
Mentally ill people are mentally ill.
talking about "free will" is like talking about your dog's free will.
If you allowed your dog to follow that rabbit off the cliff - you're to blame - especially if you threw a bone over the cliff.
If you don't want responsibility for a suicidal mentally ill person - then leave.
Don't stick around and help them kill themselves.
Commonsense 101 - unless you're a bitch.
Good, hope she has plenty of time to think about what she did. Maybe she's not irredeemable, but I kind of doubt it.
The problem with legal precedents is that no two cases are ever alike. A judge should be able to make a decision based on specific circumstances. Judiciary discretion, if you will.
And, as was discussed yesterday, does it let Manson off the hook?
Good. It's about time a pathological woman's toxic manipulation of a male got checked hard.
Matthew: "You may be right"
Thanks. And I don't mean to exonerate her, I just want to provide a perspective other than "she must be evil".
I'm still not convinced what she did was criminal, but I don't think she deserves 20 years for it.
I'm conflicted. I agree, she didn't commit an action, she didn't compel an action, she encouraged an action. We don't normally hold those people responsible unless they were in some position of authority. Was she?
She is so obviously guilty of manslaughter that in my view it would take an ideologue (crazy feminist="being a bitch is now illegal") to argue otherwise. And texting is an action.
Inga: "Maybe she's not irredeemable, but I kinda doubt it"
She was 17.
And you are not one to judge. Of all the people who might benefit from extending a bit of Mercy...
And I don't mean to exonerate her, I just want to provide a perspective other than "she must be evil".
@Fen, I don't know whether she's evil, but I do think she had a depraved mind.
This woman knew on the end day of the relationship - the guy would listen. So she was responsible for how she used that power. She didn't give him the benefit of his own doubts. Usually in a situation like that the interaction wouldn't be documented. So we would let her off because we couldn't know what she thought. We'd give her the benefit of the doubt. But texting let's us see her own thought in her own words on the day. I think it was the texts that convicted her. An example of one of the ways that IT is changing how we live, especially how the Millies live. Don't incite criminal conduct by text joins don't post Facebook pictures of you and your criminal gang smiling over piles of cash; don't send nude pix of your girlfriend; don't download child porn paid for by your own credit card. People who don't believe in heaven and hell find out that the Internet is eternal and merciless.
Big Mike, that may very well be true. It's just in my experience the gossip and hearsay and media reporting often doesn't give us the whole truth
So my skeptic shields come up, almost like a scientist looking to punch holes in his own theory. And I admit a tendency to go too far in that direction.
One thing that sticks out is that she *did* try to "dig him out" of his death wish for at least a month (?). How would that play in a trial surrounding depraved indifference?
He told her, "You and you alone are responsible for your choices." Of course she did not follow through because it was drama queenery and not serious, but if she had, would he have been criminally responsible under this precedent?
Nope. But if he was on the phone with her while she was trying to commit suicide, and then she stopped but he ordered her to continue, and she did...he might be.
To continue my last point:
She didn't just say "it's your choice". She said "get back in the truck and finish it".
"And you are not one to judge. Of all the people who might benefit from extending a bit of Mercy.."
Excuse me? I am not one to judge? Who the hell do you think you are, Saint Fen? Some of the things you say on these comments sections renders you incapable of moral authority. Self awareness not your strong suit either.
"She is so obviously guilty of manslaughter that in my view it would take an ideologue (crazy feminist="being a bitch is now illegal") to argue otherwise. And texting is an action."
Who knew Fen was a crazy feminist?
Funny how some of us occasionally end up on the same side as another commenter--or commenters--with whom we usually disagree. It's actually kind of cool. I'd like to think that there are some, if only a few, points of agreement between everyone.
The bad seed, in real life?
"I believe you did it... Now I believe you killed him. You killed that little boy..."
Elie Mystal asks: "What has she done?"
I believe there's a merger here between tort and criminal law, where she did enough to put him in a position to create a duty to rescue him (e.g., call his family or 911) in order to avoid the involuntary manslaughter charge.
I think the defense attorneys probably avoided a jury because that behavior is so ugly and that defendant is so unlikable. She basically bullied him into killing himself. Or, if you prefer a sexist analysis, she nagged him into killing himself. She ordered him to do it and he followed orders.
Dr. Kevorkian is in prison for this sort of thing. He's a doctor, prescribing suicide, and helping his patients kill themselves.
There have been all sorts of attacks on free will throughout the legal system, usually from the left. A man beats his wife. She murders him. And then she beats the rap by saying she didn't have free will, she has battered woman syndrome and she's not responsible for the murder.
And of course the upshot of letting her go is that the new punishment for battery is the death penalty.
I think it's a great idea to protect free will and to be rigorous. But if you aren't rigorous, and you allow exception after exception after exception, feminists should not be surprised when bitches go to jail for being a bitch.
(The article isn't particularly feminist, but that headline sure is. We'll start to see the same complaints when women go to prison for rape for having sex with drunk men. Feminists will be outraged, because it's a woman going to prison. And yet they're the ones who created these rules).
Freeman Hunt makes an interesting analogy. In that case you would be guilty I think. So you *can* sensibly be held be culpable for your advice/instruction in some cases. Once you get past that hurdle this verdict seems a lot more reasonable.
Defense attorneys went with a judge because judges are supposed to be rigorous, and not prone to punish unlikable people.
I don't know if that theory will hold up today. It may be we've circled around to where judges are not serious people, not followers of the law. They're biased and political and partisan and often unfair.
They don't know what a "person" is.
The free speech clause doesn't protect corporate speech.
If Donald Trump is elected I'm moving to New Zealand.
To me this is a vigorous attack on our rights, and not minor ones, either. Very fundamental attacks on the equal protection clause, free speech, and the right vote. I would not want any of these partisan assholes--or their brothers and sisters on lower benches--deciding my fate. I would rather take my chance with the jury. The whole point of the jury is to protect us from dishonest assholes with law degrees. So the lesson to learn here, I think, is don't trust the judges. Take it to the jury.
right to vote
sheesh
Left Bank of the Charles said:
"The judge found that after Michelle told Conrad to get back in the vehicle, she had a duty to call the authorities or his family. So the failure to act provides the causation, not the text messages by themselves."
Interesting. I said in the other thread:
"... she was on the phone with Roy while he was killing himself, and did not call authorities to intervene, but instead encouraged him to stay there and die. She could have called for an ambulance for Roy. Did she?"
I'm not a lawyer or a legal scholar, but that point -- that she was in contact with the young man as he was dying, and did not contact anyone to help him-- stood out as being an important difference to someone just saying or texting to someone, "go ahead and kill yerself." If she had just sent texts encouraging him to kill himself there would/should be no case against her, IMO.
To be fair, I haven't done any close reading of this case, nor have I did any research on where the law on involuntary manslaughter is right now.
I do note it's kind of weird to call this "involuntary" since she wanted him to die. How is it involuntary? Either she killed him or she didn't. If she did kill him, if her actions are the crime, then what's involuntary about what she did?
I would start my appeal with that, I think.
the failure to act provides the causation
that's a very, very, very bad ruling by the judge
I don't know how many Americans could be indicted for a failure to stop a suicide.
Potentially unlimited, I would think.
Elie Mystal asks: Why can't I see my toes?
Elie Mystal asks: Why did Daddy go to jail?
Bad bad story but very human.
Elie Mystal asks: Why did I get fired from my job?
Elie Mystal asks: Why can't I have a credit card?
Matthew Sabian - it did not take a long time to prosecute her for this. She was indicted for the crime after an investigation of the phone showed the messages, and then prompted the search of other records/witness interviews including an interview with her in October 2014. The suicide was July 2014. The indictment was handed down in early February 2015. Less than 8 months.
The case has been delayed through appeals, including an appeal of the indictment to Mass Supreme Judicial Court. Some of these are that her defense atty moved to have the case taken from the local DAs office on the ground that someone was related to her - eventually turned down, but that delayed further actions until June 2015 - now about 11 months after the death. However, the defense atty appealed that decision (that the local DA's office could continue to prosecute) up to the Mass Supreme Court. In August 2015 the Supremes said yes, the DA could. Following that, the defense atty filed a local motion to dismiss on the grounds of an improper indictment (no probable cause). That was of course heard by the presiding judge in the local court. In September 2015 said local court ruled that probable cause was presented and the indictment should stand. Appeal to MA Supreme Court (MA SJC), first to single judge, who schedules a panel hearing. July 2016 MA SJC upholds indictment.
You might think it would get simple then, but in July of 2016 the local judge, who wanted to schedule in December, finds himself dealing with 22 defense motions plus a motion to suppress the original police interview in October of 2014. Defense and judge are still at it in December. Defense does succeed in December with plea to hire expert in juvenile behavior. March 2017 trial date is rescheduled for June 2017 because defense says cannot finish preparation in time. However motions, etc continue. Conviction. I am pretty sure this is going back to the MA SJC on appeal.
I don't know how many Americans could be indicted for a failure to stop a suicide.
Saint Croix, she didn't just fail to stop a suicide. Go read her texts. She actively encouraged him to kill himself and chided him for trying to back out at one point.
@Saint Croix, the judge is right; you are wrong. What Carter did goes way beyond even those despicable people who see a person on a high ledge and yell "jump!" At least they pipe down if the individual climbs down from the ledge. She bullied him into completing the act when he had a change of heart.
We don't actually know he had a change of heart, do we? All we know is that he got out of the car. He could just as easily have been thinking "this hurts, maybe pills will be easier".
If suicide is a legal act then encouraging someone to commit that legal act is, by definition, a legal act, no?
@Fen, c'mon. That's just bull and you know it.
There was once a very stupid commenter here who told me once that depressed people should be allowed to commit suicide. It's no wonder he takes the side of the girl who bullied a young man into suicide.
It seems that the prosecution would have to establish the victim lost the ability to force causality (i.e. determine his own fate). Attributing cause to mere words will implicate the press, politicians, activists, Planners, and anyone else who advises an act of abortion or bodily corruption. This places us on a progressive slope. Unfortunately, one that we are already treading over.
She 'instructed him?' On what authority? Is saying 'go play in traffic' tantamount to attempted manslaughter now?
Big Mike, I don't think it's bull. I'm asking what evidence there is that explains WHY he got out of the truck. If you want to assume he had a change of heart, fine, that's plausible but it's still just speculation. And no more valid than speculating he got out because the fumes were toxic and painful, but that he had not given up his desire to kill himself.
Is there evidence he changed his mind? She texted him to get back in. So she must have gotten a text from him telling her he exited the truck. Does that text explain why?
@nn, you don't think the judge determined that?
Inga: "stupid commenter who told me depressed people should be allowed to kill themselves"
You're lying again.
Hmmmm, did I say it was you Fen? Why did you respond? Guilty?
Big Mike, I don't know. I can't find anything around the judge's words on that in 3 articles so far.
It just seems like that would be included somewhere, ie "as Roy exited the vehicle he texted Careter 'I changed my mind, I don't want to die". But I cant find anything like that.
So far, every article just assumes he had a change of heart because he got out.
That's all I'm asking for. Maybe you have seen such a text like that and I missed it?
Inga: "why did you respond"
Because I know what you are talking about and you are distorting what was said, as usual. You are dishonest.
She's not irredeemable Inga. Only lower class Trump voters are irredeemable.
The attorney made a mistake going with a judge. There is no way 12 jurors would agree on a case like this. There would be a hung jury and the prosecution would drop the case.
Has anyone seen the text he sent her before she responded "get back in" ?
Saint Croix, she didn't just fail to stop a suicide. Go read her texts. She actively encouraged him to kill himself and chided him for trying to back out at one point.
Right.
I'm trying to understand how she could be convicted of involuntary homicide when she actively wanted him to die. What's involuntary about it?
Involuntary implies a mistake, an accident, you didn't want this action to happen. But she did want him to die.
Maybe the judge was thinking it was lesser-included offense or something.
Blogger Fen said...
"Add cystic fibrosis "
Also, depression. Who could possibly want a lifetime of staring into the abyss.
5/25/17, 2:44 PM
Blogger Fen said...
Depression should be on your list. And if you think it's treatable (existing in a gray fugue state with no highs or lows) you really don't understand depression.
5/25/17, 3:25 PM
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/05/france-censors-public-service-ad-that.html
Yah that's something else that bothers me - involuntary.
No, she either meant for him to commit suicide, or she did not. But this sounds like she accidentally made him do it. It simply does not follow.
Perhaps it's construct of legal jargon that I am misunderstanding and someone can clear up. Guess I should go look up the legal term...
Again Inga, quote the entire thing for context. I was sarcastically explaining why you were on a slippery slope.
But you know that, hence the dishonest splice.
Fen, you were running your big mouth, as you do most days. This time it came back to bite you in the ass.
And Inga, I've said countless times on countless threads that I approve of assisted suicide IF the subject is of sound mind.
Depression, being a mental disease, is obviously not of sound mind.
And you are revealed once more to be a lying cunt.
Now can we get back to the topic? Or do you want to impale yourself with your own sword for another 20 comments as you vainly attempt to lash out at me?
Get a cat.
Fen,
I am on topic, you dunce. You have said that depressed people should be allowed to die. Now you see the error and stupidity of your words? Good. There's hope for you... maybe.
Brief scan:
Involuntary Manslaughter - crime in which victims death was unintended.
No Inga, I never said depressed people should be allowed to die. I said that's the slippery slope your argument was headng down. Perhaps I should have used smaller words.
I have always said that assisted suicide should not be allowed if the patient is not of sound mind, ie suffers from mental illness. Depression is a mental illness.
That's twice now I've had to explain it to you, idiot.
Only lower class Trump voters are irredeemable.
Ironically, people who are pro-life in the scientific and human rights sense. As opposed to alt-voters who are Pro-Choice in the fantasy and quasi-religious occult.
Your ad hominem tales grow tiresome
Yeah, yeah, your nagging grows tiresome too, Prole.
Big Mike:
How could he? Through inference? Did the deceased have a history of willful submission? I'm not convinced that the human consciousness is so fragile.
That's not at all what you said in those comments in the thread I linked to Fen. Good try at redeeming yourself though. Maybe you'll convince the majority of commenters here that your take on this twisted girl bullying someone into killing themselves is a normal response.
Their ad hominem tails grow longsome.
Ad hominem tails wag the dog.🐶
Aiding and abetting the taking of human life, either by instrumentality or by words of encouragement, has long been a crime, even in the cases of self-murder. For several hundred years, at least.
Yeah, I think that's right. That's why Kevorkian is in prison.
But I think that rule hinges on the illegality of suicide. If your culture says suicide is painless, suicide is nice, suicide is better than the alternative, then you can hardly blame this girl for repeating what the asshole adults in our society say all the time.
Yah, she's not worth the effort. Too bad she derailed and interesting thread with her hatefest. Notice how everyone else managed to disagree politely and not make it personal?
That's how the blog would be all the time if we could ditch had actors like her.
Now Fen wants to gather the commenters around him in an attempt to create sympathy for himself. Interesting. Why not just admit you were wrong to say that despite good treatment for depression, that suicide should be allowed for depressed people? Just swallow your pride and admit that you were talking out of your ass.OK?
Ad hominem tails wag the dog.
Wags dog the ad hominem tales.
So, any parent who speaks carelessly about suicide around their teenagers, needs to hear the cautionary tale/tail of a careless man, who spoke foolishly about suicide as an option for depressed people. Fen, if you have children, take a lesson.
Reduce the frequency of calling out commenters by name and you’ll increase the ratio of productive to unproductive conflict.
Inga said...
Now Fen wants to gather the commenters around him in an attempt to create sympathy for himself.
I think the accused was sick and deluded. Plus, she wasn't convicted of any degree of murder. I'm with you on this one, Inga.
Thanks Chickie, you're a good egg.
I think the accused was sick and deluded.
Exactly. And also a seventeen-year-old child.
Murder is outlawed by the common law and statute for two reasons: (1) to prevent the death of the victim and (2) to prevent the act of killing. Consequently, if murder is attempted but no injury results, the actus reus is still mala in se and a great crime. Similarly, with suicide, "our Laws have always had such an Abhorrence of this Crime . . . for whereever Death is caused by an Act done with a murdrous Intent, it makes the Offender a Murderer." 1 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 68, ch.27 § 4 (1716).
This is illustrated in the case of Hales v. Petit, where Sir James Hales intentionally drowned himself. It was held that, while death was unfortunate, "the throwing himself into the water was the act that made the felony," not the effect of death, which only made the act even more evil. 1 Plowd. at 263, 75 Eng.Rep. at 402.
Thus, under the common law, a person providing assistance to a suicide is guilty of criminal homicide because killing itself is wrong, regardless of who commits it. Just as an accessory who aids a principal to kill a victim is guilty of murder, even though he did not pull the trigger but only words of counsel or encouragement, so too is one who assists self-killing guilty of murder.
See -- Persampieri v. Commonwealth, 343 Mass. 19, 175 N.E.2d 387 (1961) (supplying rifle and taunting drunk and depressed victim who had threatened suicide is murder); Burnett v. People, 204 Ill. 208, 68 N.E. 505 (1903)(aiding or encouraging victim to overdose on morphine is murder); People v. Kent, 41 Misc. 191, 83 NYS 948 (1903)(encouraging and assisting woman to commit suicide by cutting throat is manslaughter); State v. Webb, 216 Mo. 378, 115 S.W. 998 (1909)(defendant could be guilty of manslaughter even when he is shot by victim, who then shoots herself by agreement); Farrell v. State, 111 Ark. 180, 163 S.W. 768 (1914) (supplying morphine to victim and enticing her to kill herself is murder); People v. Duffy, 586 N.Y.S.2d 150, app.den. 80 NY2d 929 (1992)(giving loaded rifle to depressed victim and encouraging him to kill himself is manslaughter).
mockturtle said...
I agree. A dangerous sociopath. I'm not lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems from what I've read that she did in fact cause him to kill himself.
The legal crux here seems to be the link between cause and prevent. She clearly did too little to prevent his suicide. Her lack of "prevent" weighed so much that it tipped the scales to "cause."
Inga: "who spoke foolishly about suicide as an option for depression"
For the 3rd and final time Inga, you were listing diseases that you thought justified extermination, death panels based on the patient's low quality of life. I simply said that by that logic, you would be including the clinicly depressed in your mass grave.
Anyone who cares to (no one will) can go to the link you provided to see I am telling the truth. They will also see how dishonestly you snipped and patched quotes to remove context that undermined your silly attack.
But worst of all, they will read you supporting death panels, like some ghoulish creature who think she has the right to adjudicate who deserves to live and who should be put down.
Inga impales herself again. Have another vodka tonic, idiot.
Exactly. And also a seventeen-year-old child.
More slack would have been cut had she been say, 13. But 17 is too close to age of majority.
As I read this thread and I go back and forth in my own mind, the only thing I am pretty sure about is that it was really a bad call to give one person (the judge) all the authority in this case.
"For the 3rd and final time Inga, you were listing diseases that you thought justified extermination, death panels based on the patient's low quality of life. I simply said that by that logic, you would be including the clinicly depressed in your mass grave."
NO, you don't get to misrepresent that discussion, but I won't argue it here. I suggest anyone who is interested follow the link and read the comments in that thread.
Historically, suicide was a sin against God, and our common law dates from a time when God and the state were one.
Her lack of 'prevent' weighed so much that it tipped the scales to 'cause.'
Amend that to "Her 'prevent' weighed so little that it tipped the scales to 'cause.'"
At 17 she's a legal child, but one with the pathology of an adult. 20 years isn't long enough time for her. The parents of the boy won't get their son back in 20 years.
Mark, thanks for the research!
If I'm not mistaken, Reichsfuhrer A. Hitler had some serious discussions with General Erwin Rommel in which he very strongly advised Rommel to commit suicide, to which advice Rommel speedily complied. Of course, Hitler's hands were clean. Uhh ohhh! I just lost the argument because Godwin's Law.
That's the best part Inga. You are too stupid to understand what the coversation was about, so stupid that you'll ask people to go over and see for themselves.
They'll see it as I have described - Inga listing diseases that justify euthanasia because of a low quality of life, Inga deciding she knows better than the victim whether his quality of life merits a stay of execution, and Fen snarking that if quality of life is the qualifier, it's just a slippery slope for Inga to add Depression to her list of walking dead.
But you know what Inga, no one is going to go look all that up. You know why? Because no one cares.
Now can we get back to the actual topic instead of the Inga Show where you continually show your ass publicly? Thanks.
@Jeyi: No worries. You didn't explain Goehring's or Himmler's suicides, so there's that.
No no jeyi, Godwin's law has been revoked by Dems so they could call Trump the next Hitler. Carry on :)
As for endurance contests? Pussy always beats dick. Anything less is feigning.
Suicide is illegal in Massachusetts.
Maybe the way to think about this case is both of them committed the crime together.
The way it seems to be presented is that he's the victim and she's the killer.
That's kind of ridiculous, for people who believe in free will.
But if suicide is the crime, and both are guilty, and she and he are co-conspirators, that makes a lot more sense.
"pathology of an adult"
But there's really no evidence of that. Lot's of people here are playing arm chair psychologists, over the internet, based on a story in the NYTs of all places.
5/25/17, 11:42 AM
Inga said...
I found the video to be beautiful, moving and uplifting. It presents a choice and choice is what many people desire. France made an error banning it. If women are feeling guilty because of it, that could happen also by merely seeing a person with Downs Symdrome that is doing well. Many women who chose to abort due to Downs Syndrome will be just fine, most won't be negatively affected by their choice. We who believe in choice need to be respectful of others choices, as we want them to respect ours.
5/25/17, 11:45 AM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
Inga made very clear she doesn't think the French government made the right call and that she actually found the commercial very beautiful. Can we maybe acknowledge that and ease up on the attacks, FFS?
Hear, hear.
5/25/17, 6:29 PM
Yes, Downs Syndrome makes your death panel. As I said. I know a couple with an Downs kid, delightful boy of 12. Pulled his younger sister out of traffic and saved her life.
Can we talk about this case instead? Because as much as you get off showing us your ass, it's pocked and wrinkled and saggy. And you're drunk.
"Can we talk about this case instead?"
If you want to talk about this case you shouldn't have misrepresented my comments in that thread. I did not misrepresent yours. I merely copied and pasted what you said, I took you at your word, which apparently one should not do. And judging by your behavior it is not I that is under the influence. You obviously are embarrassed by what you said about suicide and depression, that is understandable.
Blah blah blah you lied. And your insipid little attack backfired in your face.
Go to bed, you're drunk.
Tsk tsk. What a way to ruin a thread.
Can we talk about this case instead? Because as much as you get off showing us your ass, it's pocked and wrinkled and saggy. And you're drunk.
It's been my experience that most older women protect and shield their best parts from the sun's ravages (unless your name is Versace).
As a wag, I'd wager that Inga is no different.
Chickie, lol.
💋
LOL Inga, you're the one who launched an unprovoked attack out of nowhere. I wasn't even talking to you.
Good night Chickie, gotta get up early and crow with the roosters.
'Night Inga. Stay supple and pliant. It's a survival strategy.
Inga said...
There was once a very stupid commenter here who told me once that depressed people should be allowed to commit suicide. It's no wonder he takes the side of the girl who bullied a young man into suicide.
I like juxtaposition and demonstration as a teaching tool...
Inga said...
At 17 she's a legal child, but one with the pathology of an adult. 20 years isn't long enough time for her. The parents of the boy won't get their son back in 20 years.
There was once a stupid commenter who liked to ruin threads with vapid idiocy and approved of Stalinist tactics. And it looks like Stalinists like indefinite jail sentences for 17 year old girls too.
There was once a stupid commenter who liked to ruin threads with vapid idiocy and approved of Stalinist tactics. And it looks like Stalinists like indefinite jail sentences for 17 year old girls too.
Has Carter been sentenced? For how long? Let's be definite!
St Croix@12:31:
Well reasoned. Bravo!
One other thing. She was at a different physical location then the suicide. How did she know he wasn't just jerking her around? Play acting? I can think of all kinds of ways to introduce reasonable doubt.
"She basically bullied him into killing himself. Or, if you prefer a sexist analysis, she nagged him into killing himself."
My first thought was to draw the line here between nagging and bullying, but, yes, nagging is a kind of verbal bullying, probably used more by women on men, than the other way around. Arguably the female equivalent of a guy slapping his gal around a bit to get her to do what he wants her too.
I do think that we should rethink the idea that women's verbal manipulations cannot be as destructive as male ones. One of the striking things about the way that boys and girls tend to grow up is that while the boys are practicing dominance games that, on occasion, include some physical bullying, the girls are practicing their manipulation skills, at times resulting in verbal bullying. When one girl is the BFF one day, then not speaking the next, often there is a bit of bullying going on. But somehow, this sort of emotional bullying is considered not nearly as bad as when a boy gets shoved a bit.
My big pet peeve here is that we get set up for our Fri evening together time befote the TV. That usually means CBS, which this year means McGuyver, Hawaii Five-0, then Blue Bloods. But not last night. Instead, they had rushed out a 48 Hours on this case, and preempt end McGuyver with it. So, the schedule said McGuyver, which CBS had been advertising all week, and we get an in depth look at this case, with the result today presumably added at the end. And, I know this is mean, but the woman doing the interviews was really pretty ugly. Which made watching the show almost unbearable (combining the subject at hand, the handling of it by 48 hrs, and their interview). Unbearable enough that we switched to something that I had prerecorded to the Dish DVR.
Still, I agree with the poster above who noted how different people here ended up on different sides of this issue, with traditional opponents becoming allies, and allies becoming opponents, in this thread.
With my #200 comment, I think my views are fairly predictable, but to be clear, as a masculinist, I think the verdict was a good one. If the roles had been reversed, and the guy had used his natural advantage over the girl (his size and strength), we would likely expect to see some variation of the battered spouse defense. And everyone would feel bad for the girl, because she had no choice in the matter, with the physical bullying overriding her will. Flip the script, and let the girl use her natural advantages over the boy to bully him, and she is still seen, in some quarters as the victim here, despite exhibiting the requisite men's rea required for a conviction. Maybe it is time to realize that women's better verbal ability and ability to manipulate relationships can be abused to cause harm, just, maybe, as easily as men's superior size and strength can.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा