- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,517
- 2,165
- Banned
- #101
To voluntarily, knowingly, and willingly engage in a pattern of speech to encourage a mentally ill person to hurt or kill himself is actionable under the law.
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.
To voluntarily, knowingly, and willingly engage in a pattern of speech to encourage a mentally ill person to hurt or kill himself is actionable under the law.
Oh, so the guy was going to kill himself eventually anyway judge, he was a right wing nutjob. Oh, okay Joe. You did good. Lol!
.Instructions on how to kill yourself is not illegal! You may wish to visit the hemlock society for their books on the subject as proof.
I don't agree at all. Body autonomy. The government should not be able to dictate what you can do to yourself if you are an adult anyways. Agree or disagree?
Nope. Sometimes we need to be protected from ourselves.
Weak argument. You have no free speech or religious right to voluntarily, willingly, and knowingly encourage another person to suicide. None.To voluntarily, knowingly, and willingly engage in a pattern of speech to encourage a mentally ill person to hurt or kill himself is actionable under the law.
Both free speech and religion took it up rear on this one.
She and most likely he believed he would go to heaven, hence the religous element the courts have no 'legitimate' jurisdiction or authority to adjudicate.
Next she has the right to free speech and as disturbing as that may be again the state has no 'legitimate' jurisdiction or authority to adjudicate.
Nope cant think of any scenario to charge her with that does 'NOT' destroy our rights.
The state and courts are under no obligation to protect anyone, there are plenty of cases to the effect, and if anyone here thinks they are be my guest and rty suing da gubmint for failure to protect you and see where it gets you.
I agree to a point. If suicide were legal, then the girlfriend should not be prosecuted for convincing her boyfriend to legally commit suicide. In fact, if we agree to the mindset that adults should be free to commit suicide, then the girlfriend should not be stigmatized at all. What's the big deal if the BF killed himself......it's his decision that he is free to make.From a technicality perspective, yes. From a practicality perspective, no. An otherwise healthy person who attemps suicide needs psychological help, not criminal prosecution.I believe the charge us correct in this case. If the information in the article is correct, then she conspired with her boyfriend to convince him go kill himself. Conspire is my word. If she had talked her boyfriend into killing someone else in a similar way as she talked him into committing suicide, there would be no question in charging her with murder or conspiracy to murder. She would be an accessory to murder. The difference is that her boyfriend committed suicide, so he murdered himself rather than someone else.
So do you also feel that if a person tries to commit suicide and fails that the person should be charged with attempted murder?
I don't agree at all. Body autonomy. The government should not be able to dictate what you can do to yourself if you are an adult anyways. Agree or disagree?
What she did fits the legal definition of accessory. People get convicted of being accessories to crimes all the time with out physically taking part in the crimes.I've thought about this off and on throughout the day, and I am still against charging this woman with any crimes. She didn't break any laws that I'm aware of, and she certainly didn't kill anyone.
What she did fits the legal definition of accessory. People get convicted of being accessories to crimes all the time with out physically taking part in the crimes.I've thought about this off and on throughout the day, and I am still against charging this woman with any crimes. She didn't break any laws that I'm aware of, and she certainly didn't kill anyone.
Read post 110. An accessory does not have to be at the scene.She was definitely not an accessory as she was nowhere near the scene.
Read post 110. An accessory does not have to be at the scene.She was definitely not an accessory as she was nowhere near the scene.
True. Maybe they should charge her with being an accessory instead of manslaughter. Regardless of what they call it, their case will be to show that she was an accessory in convincing her boyfriend to commit suicide.Read post 110. An accessory does not have to be at the scene.She was definitely not an accessory as she was nowhere near the scene.
She isn't being charged as an "accessory." She is being charged with involuntary MANSLAUGHTER.
True. Maybe they should charge her with being an accessory instead of manslaughter. Regardless of what they call it, their case will be to show that she was an accessory in convincing her boyfriend to commit suicide.Read post 110. An accessory does not have to be at the scene.She was definitely not an accessory as she was nowhere near the scene.
She isn't being charged as an "accessory." She is being charged with involuntary MANSLAUGHTER.