Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Agree. Her chances of finding a resonable person to vote her way, were12 times higher, had she chosen a jury trial. She clearly had terrible counsel through this ordeal, for him to support forgoing a jury. Huge mistake. There are only 2 possible outcomes when you forgo a jury. With a jury, there are 3; 2 of which benefit the defendant.Only if there is a jury: which there wasn'tNo you wouldn't have and couldn't have.he's wrong
If I was on that jury I would have voted not guilty
Of course I could have
I can vote any way I want to on a jury
That was her first mistake then
There's no way a jury would have come to a guilty verdict because there are at least a few people out there smart enough to know that telling a person to jump off a bridge doesn't equal manslaughter
Makes no difference
he called her all he had to do was hang up and not call again
no one made him kill himself he and he alone made the choice as is his right
Obviously, you are again posting without the benefit of knowing the FACTS.
What thrill do you get out of boasting about your ignorance about topics where you post.
Involuntary manslaughter In most states involuntary manslaughter results from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while performing a legal act, or while committing an act that is unlawful but not felonious.
She committed no unlawful act
Is ignorance your stock in trade?
Agree. Her chances of finding a resonable person to vote her way, were12 times higher, had she chosen a jury trial. She clearly had terrible counsel through this ordeal, for him to support forgoing a jury. Huge mistake. There are only 2 possible outcomes when you forgo a jury. With a jury, there are 3; 2 of which benefit the defendant.Only if there is a jury: which there wasn'tNo you wouldn't have and couldn't have.
Of course I could have
I can vote any way I want to on a jury
That was her first mistake then
There's no way a jury would have come to a guilty verdict because there are at least a few people out there smart enough to know that telling a person to jump off a bridge doesn't equal manslaughter
She and her defense knew that a jury trial would leave them wide open to sympathy for the young man and hate for her when they read the texts she had sent and told the young man to be sure to delete.
They got their wish, the case was decided strictly on merit and the judge had harsh words for her. I hope and pray those harsh words would carry over to his sentence. Serious jail time and a long probation. She decided to take a life and become convicted felon.
Makes no difference
he called her all he had to do was hang up and not call again
no one made him kill himself he and he alone made the choice as is his right
Obviously, you are again posting without the benefit of knowing the FACTS.
What thrill do you get out of boasting about your ignorance about topics where you post.
The FACT is that a person talking to another person from miles away via telephone is not responsible for a suicide the person on the other end of the line
Michelle Carter text suicide trial verdict: Guilty
Unbelievable.. Another attack on free speech. He was going to kill himself either way so it had NOTHING to do with her but hey its Commiechusets so what do we expect.
I disagree.Makes no difference
he called her all he had to do was hang up and not call again
no one made him kill himself he and he alone made the choice as is his right
Obviously, you are again posting without the benefit of knowing the FACTS.
What thrill do you get out of boasting about your ignorance about topics where you post.
The FACT is that a person talking to another person from miles away via telephone is not responsible for a suicide the person on the other end of the line
Nonsense. She contributed to his death so she bears some responsibility. 3 years in jail. It will do her good.
The FACT is that a person talking to another person from miles away via telephone is not responsible for a suicide the person on the other end of the line
So tell me where it is unlawful to tell a person to kill himself.
That's all this girl did.
The FACT is that a person talking to another person from miles away via telephone is not responsible for a suicide the person on the other end of the line
Another Progressive who pretends to care about people! Hypocrits!
So sad you need a LAW to force you to hold someone responsible for the death of another.
I'll be you blame the fetus when a woman has an abortion!
So tell me where it is unlawful to tell a person to kill himself.
That's all this girl did.
Even you know you are making a feeble attempt to oversimplify this instance. There were thousands of texts between the two with her pushing him to commit suicide. He had gotten in his truck and it filled with carbon monoxide. He had second thoughts and got out. She continued to text him telling him all variety of things to entice him to get back into the car.
Why do Progressives profess to care about the underdog, the minority but when the rubber hits the road, but here comes the real Progressive.
so what?
it's still not a crime
he's wrong
If I was on that jury I would have voted not guilty
That was the girl's first mistake.he's wrong
If I was on that jury I would have voted not guilty
Good, there was no jury. Thankful you, nor anyone like you, is in my circle of friends.
Still not a crime to tell someone to kill himselfso what?
it's still not a crime
You need to read the texts.
Still not a crime to tell someone to kill himself
Still not a crime to tell someone to kill himself
Insofar as she has been convicted, in this case, you have been proven wrong...again.
Common law[edit]
In the common law of most English-speaking countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another.[1] Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril.[2][3]However, such a duty may arise in two situations:
Duty to rescue - Wikipedia
- A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.[4]
- Such a duty may also arise where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
- Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters.[5]
- Common carriers have a duty to rescue their patrons.[6]
- Employers have an obligation to rescue employees, under an implied contract theory.[7]
- In some U.S. jurisdictions, real property owners have a duty to rescue invitees but not trespassers from all reasonably foreseeable dangers on the property. Other jurisdictions, such as California, extend the duty to rescue to all persons who enter upon real property regardless whether they are classified as invitees, social guests or trespassers.[8]
- Spouses have a duty to rescue each other in all U.S. jurisdictions.[9]
- In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California,[10][11]Florida,[10][12][13] Hawaii,[10][14] Massachusetts,[10][15] Minnesota,[10][16] Ohio,[10][17] Rhode Island,[10][18]Vermont,[10][19] Washington,[10][20][21] and Wisconsin.[10][22] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals who try to help another person.[1] These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.[1]
End of thread Skull Pilot.
She had no way to call 911, or his parents, or at least try to talk him out of it? The judge ruled that because she had encouraged and pressured him to take his own life, she created a duty to care because she helped create and was involved in, the hazardous situation.Still not a crime to tell someone to kill himself
Insofar as she has been convicted, in this case, you have been proven wrong...again.
Common law[edit]
In the common law of most English-speaking countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another.[1] Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril.[2][3]However, such a duty may arise in two situations:
Duty to rescue - Wikipedia
- A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.[4]
- Such a duty may also arise where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
- Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters.[5]
- Common carriers have a duty to rescue their patrons.[6]
- Employers have an obligation to rescue employees, under an implied contract theory.[7]
- In some U.S. jurisdictions, real property owners have a duty to rescue invitees but not trespassers from all reasonably foreseeable dangers on the property. Other jurisdictions, such as California, extend the duty to rescue to all persons who enter upon real property regardless whether they are classified as invitees, social guests or trespassers.[8]
- Spouses have a duty to rescue each other in all U.S. jurisdictions.[9]
- In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California,[10][11]Florida,[10][12][13] Hawaii,[10][14] Massachusetts,[10][15] Minnesota,[10][16] Ohio,[10][17] Rhode Island,[10][18]Vermont,[10][19] Washington,[10][20][21] and Wisconsin.[10][22] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals who try to help another person.[1] These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.[1]
End of thread Skull Pilot.
completely irrelevant to the topic.
She was miles away and had no way to recuse this guy. For all she knew he was just whining that he was going to kill himself and she got sick of hearing it.
and I notice you didn't post a statute that says telling a person to kill himself is illegal
She had no way to call 911, or his parents, or at least try to talk him out of it? The judge ruled that because she had encouraged and pressured him to take his own life, she created a duty to care because she helped create and was involved in, the hazardous situation.Still not a crime to tell someone to kill himself
Insofar as she has been convicted, in this case, you have been proven wrong...again.
Common law[edit]
In the common law of most English-speaking countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another.[1] Generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril.[2][3]However, such a duty may arise in two situations:
Duty to rescue - Wikipedia
- A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.[4]
- Such a duty may also arise where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
- Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters.[5]
- Common carriers have a duty to rescue their patrons.[6]
- Employers have an obligation to rescue employees, under an implied contract theory.[7]
- In some U.S. jurisdictions, real property owners have a duty to rescue invitees but not trespassers from all reasonably foreseeable dangers on the property. Other jurisdictions, such as California, extend the duty to rescue to all persons who enter upon real property regardless whether they are classified as invitees, social guests or trespassers.[8]
- Spouses have a duty to rescue each other in all U.S. jurisdictions.[9]
- In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California,[10][11]Florida,[10][12][13] Hawaii,[10][14] Massachusetts,[10][15] Minnesota,[10][16] Ohio,[10][17] Rhode Island,[10][18]Vermont,[10][19] Washington,[10][20][21] and Wisconsin.[10][22] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals who try to help another person.[1] These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.[1]
End of thread Skull Pilot.
completely irrelevant to the topic.
She was miles away and had no way to recuse this guy. For all she knew he was just whining that he was going to kill himself and she got sick of hearing it.
and I notice you didn't post a statute that says telling a person to kill himself is illegal
