Girl found guilty for boyfriend for killing himself

[pinqy]

"his texts bullied me into robbing that store officer"
"Ok you are free to go. The precedent has been set"
Yayyy America!

Umm how do you think that that's the precedent that's been set? In reality, the robber would be charged with robbery and the texted with accessory or conspiracy.

And this case only dealt with defining manslaughter.

No I'm talking about how the actions of the robber is blamed on a text from someone else.
Did they redefine manslaughter for this case? Link?

There is no statutory definition of manslaughter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Common law interpretation does allow involuntary manslaughter for wanton and reckless acts that result in another's death. As I have already mentioned, in 1944 a nightclub owner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter even though he wasn't even at the scene at the time. But because he did not keep up the fireproofing of wall hangings, and because he knew the fire escapes weren't up to code, his failure to act was considered wanton and reckless and he was convicted of manslaughter in the deaths of hundreds of people who died in a fire at his club.

Similarly, her encouragement, and failure to try and stop him or call the authorities, was wanton and reckless and led to his death. She could have saved him, but didn't even try.

 

[TNHarley]

"his texts bullied me into robbing that store officer"
"Ok you are free to go. The precedent has been set"
Yayyy America!

Umm how do you think that that's the precedent that's been set? In reality, the robber would be charged with robbery and the texted with accessory or conspiracy.

And this case only dealt with defining manslaughter.

No I'm talking about how the actions of the robber is blamed on a text from someone else.
Did they redefine manslaughter for this case? Link?

There is no statutory definition of manslaughter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Common law interpretation does allow involuntary manslaughter for wanton and reckless acts that result in another's death. As I have already mentioned, in 1944 a nightclub owner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter even though he wasn't even at the scene at the time. But because he did not keep up the fireproofing of wall hangings, and because he knew the fire escapes weren't up to code, his failure to act was considered wanton and reckless and he was convicted of manslaughter in the deaths of hundreds of people who died in a fire at his club.

Similarly, her encouragement, and failure to try and stop him or call the authorities, was wanton and reckless and led to his death. She could have saved him, but didn't even try.

terrible comparison.

 

[pinqy]

"his texts bullied me into robbing that store officer"
"Ok you are free to go. The precedent has been set"
Yayyy America!

Umm how do you think that that's the precedent that's been set? In reality, the robber would be charged with robbery and the texted with accessory or conspiracy.

And this case only dealt with defining manslaughter.

No I'm talking about how the actions of the robber is blamed on a text from someone else.
Did they redefine manslaughter for this case? Link?

There is no statutory definition of manslaughter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Common law interpretation does allow involuntary manslaughter for wanton and reckless acts that result in another's death. As I have already mentioned, in 1944 a nightclub owner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter even though he wasn't even at the scene at the time. But because he did not keep up the fireproofing of wall hangings, and because he knew the fire escapes weren't up to code, his failure to act was considered wanton and reckless and he was convicted of manslaughter in the deaths of hundreds of people who died in a fire at his club.

Similarly, her encouragement, and failure to try and stop him or call the authorities, was wanton and reckless and led to his death. She could have saved him, but didn't even try.

terrible comparison.

It's not a comparison, it's the principle that lack of action when one has a duty to care is wanton and reckless. Please explain how you disagree.

 

[TNHarley]

"his texts bullied me into robbing that store officer"
"Ok you are free to go. The precedent has been set"
Yayyy America!

Umm how do you think that that's the precedent that's been set? In reality, the robber would be charged with robbery and the texted with accessory or conspiracy.

And this case only dealt with defining manslaughter.

No I'm talking about how the actions of the robber is blamed on a text from someone else.
Did they redefine manslaughter for this case? Link?

There is no statutory definition of manslaughter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Common law interpretation does allow involuntary manslaughter for wanton and reckless acts that result in another's death. As I have already mentioned, in 1944 a nightclub owner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter even though he wasn't even at the scene at the time. But because he did not keep up the fireproofing of wall hangings, and because he knew the fire escapes weren't up to code, his failure to act was considered wanton and reckless and he was convicted of manslaughter in the deaths of hundreds of people who died in a fire at his club.

Similarly, her encouragement, and failure to try and stop him or call the authorities, was wanton and reckless and led to his death. She could have saved him, but didn't even try.

terrible comparison.

It's not a comparison, it's the principle that lack of action when one has a duty to care is wanton and reckless. Please explain how you disagree.

That stuff is illegal suicide isn't

 

[rightwinger]

Umm how do you think that that's the precedent that's been set? In reality, the robber would be charged with robbery and the texted with accessory or conspiracy.

And this case only dealt with defining manslaughter.

No I'm talking about how the actions of the robber is blamed on a text from someone else.
Did they redefine manslaughter for this case? Link?

There is no statutory definition of manslaughter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Common law interpretation does allow involuntary manslaughter for wanton and reckless acts that result in another's death. As I have already mentioned, in 1944 a nightclub owner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter even though he wasn't even at the scene at the time. But because he did not keep up the fireproofing of wall hangings, and because he knew the fire escapes weren't up to code, his failure to act was considered wanton and reckless and he was convicted of manslaughter in the deaths of hundreds of people who died in a fire at his club.

Similarly, her encouragement, and failure to try and stop him or call the authorities, was wanton and reckless and led to his death. She could have saved him, but didn't even try.

terrible comparison.

It's not a comparison, it's the principle that lack of action when one has a duty to care is wanton and reckless. Please explain how you disagree.

That stuff is illegal suicide isn't

Suicide is not illegal....assisting in a suicide is

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What if she had texted him that unless he killed another person, she would no longer be his girlfriend?
That would be accessory to murder

In this case she texted that unless he killed himself, she would no longer be his girlfriend
Makes her an accessory to the suicide....in this case voluntary manslaughter

Suicide isn't a crime. Apples and oranges

Technically, suicide is a crime and carries the death penalty.

Years ago it was not anymore

Your sarcasm detector needs calibration.

If you kill yourself, you get the death penalty!

 

[pinqy]

Umm how do you think that that's the precedent that's been set? In reality, the robber would be charged with robbery and the texted with accessory or conspiracy.

And this case only dealt with defining manslaughter.

No I'm talking about how the actions of the robber is blamed on a text from someone else.
Did they redefine manslaughter for this case? Link?

There is no statutory definition of manslaughter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Common law interpretation does allow involuntary manslaughter for wanton and reckless acts that result in another's death. As I have already mentioned, in 1944 a nightclub owner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter even though he wasn't even at the scene at the time. But because he did not keep up the fireproofing of wall hangings, and because he knew the fire escapes weren't up to code, his failure to act was considered wanton and reckless and he was convicted of manslaughter in the deaths of hundreds of people who died in a fire at his club.

Similarly, her encouragement, and failure to try and stop him or call the authorities, was wanton and reckless and led to his death. She could have saved him, but didn't even try.

terrible comparison.

It's not a comparison, it's the principle that lack of action when one has a duty to care is wanton and reckless. Please explain how you disagree.

That stuff is illegal suicide isn't

Why do you think that makes a difference? Her acts were wanton, reckless, and she failed to prevent his death when she could have.
And how is an accidental fire illegal? The 1942 Coconut Grove fire was a complete accident, but it was the owner's failure to take proper precautions that caused hundreds to die.

 

[featherlite]

Words are now an accomplice
Yayyyy America!

Times are changing and the law needs to change with it.

What has changed? People 50 years ago could have said the same things to one another except in person as opposed to over a text message. Is the text message more powerful than the spoken word?

Do try and keep up. Im referring to the 15 to 20 years where internet communication has become so common.
Law enforcement is just now catching up to it.

 

[TNHarley]

No I'm talking about how the actions of the robber is blamed on a text from someone else.
Did they redefine manslaughter for this case? Link?

There is no statutory definition of manslaughter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Common law interpretation does allow involuntary manslaughter for wanton and reckless acts that result in another's death. As I have already mentioned, in 1944 a nightclub owner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter even though he wasn't even at the scene at the time. But because he did not keep up the fireproofing of wall hangings, and because he knew the fire escapes weren't up to code, his failure to act was considered wanton and reckless and he was convicted of manslaughter in the deaths of hundreds of people who died in a fire at his club.

Similarly, her encouragement, and failure to try and stop him or call the authorities, was wanton and reckless and led to his death. She could have saved him, but didn't even try.

terrible comparison.

It's not a comparison, it's the principle that lack of action when one has a duty to care is wanton and reckless. Please explain how you disagree.

That stuff is illegal suicide isn't

Why do you think that makes a difference? Her acts were wanton, reckless, and she failed to prevent his death when she could have.
And how is an accidental fire illegal? The 1942 Coconut Grove fire was a complete accident, but it was the owner's failure to take proper precautions that caused hundreds to die.

You said the owner ignored regulations

 

[TNHarley]

Words are now an accomplice
Yayyyy America!

Times are changing and the law needs to change with it.

What has changed? People 50 years ago could have said the same things to one another except in person as opposed to over a text message. Is the text message more powerful than the spoken word?

Do try and keep up. Im referring to the 15 to 20 years where internet communication has become so common.
Law enforcement is just now catching up to it.

Seems you missed her point.
I guess you are saying the Internet is justification for changing the meanings of words and assaulting ones right to speak and responsibility?

 

[pinqy]

There is no statutory definition of manslaughter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Common law interpretation does allow involuntary manslaughter for wanton and reckless acts that result in another's death. As I have already mentioned, in 1944 a nightclub owner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter even though he wasn't even at the scene at the time. But because he did not keep up the fireproofing of wall hangings, and because he knew the fire escapes weren't up to code, his failure to act was considered wanton and reckless and he was convicted of manslaughter in the deaths of hundreds of people who died in a fire at his club.

Similarly, her encouragement, and failure to try and stop him or call the authorities, was wanton and reckless and led to his death. She could have saved him, but didn't even try.

terrible comparison.

It's not a comparison, it's the principle that lack of action when one has a duty to care is wanton and reckless. Please explain how you disagree.

That stuff is illegal suicide isn't

Why do you think that makes a difference? Her acts were wanton, reckless, and she failed to prevent his death when she could have.
And how is an accidental fire illegal? The 1942 Coconut Grove fire was a complete accident, but it was the owner's failure to take proper precautions that caused hundreds to die.

You said the owner ignored regulations

Ah, moving the goal posts. You've been saying that since Roy didn't do anything illegal when he killed himself, then Carter couldn't be guilty of manslaughter.
The parallel in the Coconut Grove case would be whether the fire which killed the people was illegal (it was not).

And ignoring fire safety regulations is not criminal.

But that's all irrelevant. The only questions are whether Carter's actions and failure to act were wanton and reckless and led to his death.

 

[TNHarley]

terrible comparison.

It's not a comparison, it's the principle that lack of action when one has a duty to care is wanton and reckless. Please explain how you disagree.

That stuff is illegal suicide isn't

Why do you think that makes a difference? Her acts were wanton, reckless, and she failed to prevent his death when she could have.
And how is an accidental fire illegal? The 1942 Coconut Grove fire was a complete accident, but it was the owner's failure to take proper precautions that caused hundreds to die.

You said the owner ignored regulations

Ah, moving the goal posts. You've been saying that since Roy didn't do anything illegal when he killed himself, then Carter couldn't be guilty of manslaughter.
The parallel in the Coconut Grove case would be whether the fire which killed the people was illegal (it was not).

And ignoring fire safety regulations is not criminal.

But that's all irrelevant. The only questions are whether Carter's actions and failure to act were wanton and reckless and led to his death.

So you can ignore building regulations legally? Interesting

 

[featherlite]

Words are now an accomplice
Yayyyy America!

Times are changing and the law needs to change with it.

People are just more emotional and irresponsible.
With emotion comes failure. Look at history.

If you are overly emotional yes, but squelching real issues and keeping rotten deeds in the dark is far more damaging.
History has proven ( when done appropriately) its beneficial to bring it all out.
Half the topics on these boards are about this.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Good verdict

The bitch had it coming

Of course a liberal sees nothing wrong with an attack on free speech. What she did is disgusting and vile but it is NOT criminal.

So you're saying that Charlie Manson is not guilty because he didn't kill those people he just told others to do it. He can't be held responsible for other people doing what he told them to do.

False equivalency. Murder is a crime.

Actually it's not a false equivalency. It's very comparable. The difference is she convinced him to kill himself. Manson convinced his followers to kill others. Someone is dead because a vicious person told them killing a person or persons was the answer.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Good verdict

The bitch had it coming

Of course a liberal sees nothing wrong with an attack on free speech. What she did is disgusting and vile but it is NOT criminal.

So you're saying that Charlie Manson is not guilty because he didn't kill those people he just told others to do it. He can't be held responsible for other people doing what he told them to do.

False equivalency. Murder is a crime.

Actually it's not a false equivalency. It's very comparable. The difference is she convinced him to kill himself. Manson convinced his followers to kill others. Someone is dead because a vicious person told them killing a person or persons was the answer.

Murder is a crime suicide isn't. False equivalency

 

[pinqy]

It's not a comparison, it's the principle that lack of action when one has a duty to care is wanton and reckless. Please explain how you disagree.

That stuff is illegal suicide isn't

Why do you think that makes a difference? Her acts were wanton, reckless, and she failed to prevent his death when she could have.
And how is an accidental fire illegal? The 1942 Coconut Grove fire was a complete accident, but it was the owner's failure to take proper precautions that caused hundreds to die.

You said the owner ignored regulations

Ah, moving the goal posts. You've been saying that since Roy didn't do anything illegal when he killed himself, then Carter couldn't be guilty of manslaughter.
The parallel in the Coconut Grove case would be whether the fire which killed the people was illegal (it was not).

And ignoring fire safety regulations is not criminal.

But that's all irrelevant. The only questions are whether Carter's actions and failure to act were wanton and reckless and led to his death.

So you can ignore building regulations legally? Interesting

I didn't say that. There's a difference between a civil violation and a criminal violation. Violating traffic laws is illegal, but most are not crimes.

 

[featherlite]

Words are now an accomplice
Yayyyy America!

Times are changing and the law needs to change with it.

What has changed? People 50 years ago could have said the same things to one another except in person as opposed to over a text message. Is the text message more powerful than the spoken word?

Do try and keep up. Im referring to the 15 to 20 years where internet communication has become so common.
Law enforcement is just now catching up to it.

Seems you missed her point.
I guess you are saying the Internet is justification for changing the meanings of words and assaulting ones right to speak and responsibility?

I didnt miss the point. smh lol

...and you are really trying to twist it all into a pretzel. A couple frustrated, even angry texts would be totally different and easily dismissed. Im a little surprised a 17 yr old could be so demented and cruel.
This was an ongoing and sick attempt to hurt this boy and use any weakness she could behind the scenes. Usually toxic people like this make sure they have people on their side.
I'm glad the judge held her accountable and her fellow HS students were smarter than she thought.

change is good. =)

 

[Vastator]

The duty to act is the part I really have a problem with... If one sees a person they hate wreck their car ahead of them; and just by circumstance has the opportunity to save their life; but instead chooses to let them burn to death, because they hate that person... Said witness can be charged with a crime!? Fuck that! No one should be obligated to play hero for anyone, unless they've taken an oath, and hold a job where they are required to do so.

 

[TNHarley]

The duty to act is the part I really have a problem with... If one sees a person they hate wreck their car ahead of them; and just by circumstance has the opportunity to save their life; but instead chooses to let them burn to death, because they hate that person... Said witness can be charged with a crime!? Fuck that! No one should be obligated to play hero for anyone, unless they've taken an oath, and hold a job where they are required to do so.

Fuck that!!
Too much individuality and not enough fascism!

 

[pinqy]

The duty to act is the part I really have a problem with... If one sees a person they hate wreck their car ahead of them; and just by circumstance has the opportunity to save their life; but instead chooses to let them burn to death, because they hate that person... Said witness can be charged with a crime!? Fuck that! No one should be obligated to play hero for anyone, unless they've taken an oath, and hold a job where they are required to do so.

That's why the judge was very careful to note that, in this particular case, because she involved herself in his situation...because she gave advice and encouragement, then she created for herself a duty of care.

This case does NOT create a precedent for a random passer-by.