CDZ Woman charged with boyfriend's suicide

[ricechickie]

This was a child (not Alexander the Great) who was trying to deal with a suicidal boyfriend who apparently "vented" to her all the time as if she was his psychiatrist. There are a LOT of things she should have done and a lot of things she should not have said, but involuntary manslaughter? No. The choice was his and he is the one who killed himself.

If she were a psychologist and engaged in this sort of behavior, she'd be in jail.

the point is, she had lots of opportunities to tell his family, the authorities, anyone. Instead she goaded him into doing it.

Throw her in jail and throw away the key.

She was not a psychologist. She was not even an adult.

 

[ChrisL]

This was a child (not Alexander the Great) who was trying to deal with a suicidal boyfriend who apparently "vented" to her all the time as if she was his psychiatrist. There are a LOT of things she should have done and a lot of things she should not have said, but involuntary manslaughter? No. The choice was his and he is the one who killed himself.

Many 17 year olds go to prison

She pressured him to get back in the car after he made it clear he was having second thoughts. Reckless behavior leading to his death.....Manslaughter

He killed himself. She did not kill him. She said some pretty bad things, but this is a TERRIBLE precedent to set.

She aided and abetted his death. Reckless behavior that constitutes manslaughter

She not only told him to get back in the car. She said she would not be his girlfriend if he didn't go through with it. When he worried about what his parents would think, she said don't worry, I'll take care of your parents.

He was 18, one year older than she was. Did he not realize that once he died, she would not be his "girlfriend" anymore anyways? Why is she taking the heat for his decision?

 

[rightwinger]

She wasn't a psychologist. She was a 17-year-old girl who sent some text messages.

No, she sent hundreds of text messages, goading him into suicide. Then she said, "Hey, you deleted the text messages, right?"

She knew what she was doing was wrong, she did it anyway.

It was more than just a flippant .....go ahead and kill yourself

Over a period of days the kid was looking for a way out and she kept taking the side of he needs to kill himself...it is the only answer

She was an active participant in the decision

 

[rightwinger]

This was a child (not Alexander the Great) who was trying to deal with a suicidal boyfriend who apparently "vented" to her all the time as if she was his psychiatrist. There are a LOT of things she should have done and a lot of things she should not have said, but involuntary manslaughter? No. The choice was his and he is the one who killed himself.

Many 17 year olds go to prison

She pressured him to get back in the car after he made it clear he was having second thoughts. Reckless behavior leading to his death.....Manslaughter

He killed himself. She did not kill him. She said some pretty bad things, but this is a TERRIBLE precedent to set.

She aided and abetted his death. Reckless behavior that constitutes manslaughter

She not only told him to get back in the car. She said she would not be his girlfriend if he didn't go through with it. When he worried about what his parents would think, she said don't worry, I'll take care of your parents.

He was 18, one year older than she was. Did he not realize that once he died, she would not be his "girlfriend" anymore anyways? Why is she taking the heat for his decision?

Yes, damned if he did, damned if he didn't
Rather than offering a safe haven and offer to be there for him, she made it clear she expected him to kill himself

 

[2aguy]

She wasn't a psychologist. She was a 17-year-old girl who sent some text messages.

No, she sent hundreds of text messages, goading him into suicide. Then she said, "Hey, you deleted the text messages, right?"

She knew what she was doing was wrong, she did it anyway.

It was more than just a flippant .....go ahead and kill yourself

Over a period of days the kid was looking for a way out and she kept taking the side of he needs to kill himself...it is the only answer

She was an active participant in the decision

No..she isn't....

 

[ChrisL]

This was a child (not Alexander the Great) who was trying to deal with a suicidal boyfriend who apparently "vented" to her all the time as if she was his psychiatrist. There are a LOT of things she should have done and a lot of things she should not have said, but involuntary manslaughter? No. The choice was his and he is the one who killed himself.

Many 17 year olds go to prison

She pressured him to get back in the car after he made it clear he was having second thoughts. Reckless behavior leading to his death.....Manslaughter

He killed himself. She did not kill him. She said some pretty bad things, but this is a TERRIBLE precedent to set.

She aided and abetted his death. Reckless behavior that constitutes manslaughter

She not only told him to get back in the car. She said she would not be his girlfriend if he didn't go through with it. When he worried about what his parents would think, she said don't worry, I'll take care of your parents.

He was 18, one year older than she was. Did he not realize that once he died, she would not be his "girlfriend" anymore anyways? Why is she taking the heat for his decision?

Yes, damned if he did, damned if he didn't
Rather than offering a safe haven and offer to be there for him, she made it clear she expected him to kill himself

And that is not a crime. If she killed him, then you might have a point, but he did it. why is it that he is not responsible for his actions as a legal adult?

 

[JoeB131]

And that is not a crime. If she killed him, then you might have a point, but he did it. why is it that he is not responsible for his actions as a legal adult?

Um... because he's dead?

 

[ChrisL]

And that is not a crime. If she killed him, then you might have a point, but he did it. why is it that he is not responsible for his actions as a legal adult?

Um... because he's dead?

Yes, but he killed himself. No one else killed him. He did it to himself.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, but he killed himself. No one else killed him. He did it to himself.

would he have killed himself that day if she hadn't goaded him with hundreds of text messages?

If the answer is "no', then she is culpable.

More to the point, if this verdict stops the next asshole from cyberbullying the class nerd, i'm all for it.

If you can't serve as an inspiration, you can always serve as a warning!

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, but he killed himself. No one else killed him. He did it to himself.

would he have killed himself that day if she hadn't goaded him with hundreds of text messages?

If the answer is "no', then she is culpable.

More to the point, if this verdict stops the next asshole from cyberbullying the class nerd, i'm all for it.

If you can't serve as an inspiration, you can always serve as a warning!

He alone is responsible for his suicide. The decision was his.

 

[rightwinger]

Many 17 year olds go to prison

She pressured him to get back in the car after he made it clear he was having second thoughts. Reckless behavior leading to his death.....Manslaughter

He killed himself. She did not kill him. She said some pretty bad things, but this is a TERRIBLE precedent to set.

She aided and abetted his death. Reckless behavior that constitutes manslaughter

She not only told him to get back in the car. She said she would not be his girlfriend if he didn't go through with it. When he worried about what his parents would think, she said don't worry, I'll take care of your parents.

He was 18, one year older than she was. Did he not realize that once he died, she would not be his "girlfriend" anymore anyways? Why is she taking the heat for his decision?

Yes, damned if he did, damned if he didn't
Rather than offering a safe haven and offer to be there for him, she made it clear she expected him to kill himself

And that is not a crime. If she killed him, then you might have a point, but he did it. why is it that he is not responsible for his actions as a legal adult?

It is a crime....manslaughter
A reckless act that led to someone's death....she doesn't have to pull the trigger, that is murder

They are both responsible and both will pay a price

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, but he killed himself. No one else killed him. He did it to himself.

would he have killed himself that day if she hadn't goaded him with hundreds of text messages?

If the answer is "no', then she is culpable.

More to the point, if this verdict stops the next asshole from cyberbullying the class nerd, i'm all for it.

If you can't serve as an inspiration, you can always serve as a warning!

He alone is responsible for his suicide. The decision was his.

She helped him decide

 

[JoeB131]

He alone is responsible for his suicide. The decision was his.

Well, a court decided differently, so I hope she enjoys being a lesbian.

No mercy for evil people.

 

[Care4all]

The texts she sent sure seem to encourage the guy to commit suicide. She's a creep but involuntary manslaughter? I don't think so. At the same time, it's confusing. Massachusetts doesn't consider assisting in someone's suicide to be a crime. Why are they charging her then?

I can't answer that question. I don't know.

I just looked it up, and this says it is NOT legal in Mass.


Euthanasia Statutes in Massachusetts

The main provisions of Massachusetts laws are listed below, with links to related articles and resources.

Code Section

Ch. 201D §12

Euthanasia Condoned in Statutes?

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to constitute, condone, authorize, or approve suicide or mercy killing or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act to end one's own life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

Effect of Withholding of Life-Sustaining Procedures

-

As the law now stands, individuals do not have a constitutional right to physician assisted suicide. In 1997, the Supreme Court decided that the government's interest in preventing intentional killing and preserving life outweighed a patient's interest in the liberty to choose to die. Additionally, the Court differentiated between refusing life-saving medical treatment and asking a physician to end a patient's life, and allowed states the freedom to make laws treating the two acts differently.

 

[KokomoJojo]

THe law is finally catching up with the technology.

what an absurd thing to say, especially considering we have proctoscopes so does that mean we ahould all have one jammed up our asses to inspect for marywany brownie usage?

 

[KokomoJojo]

He alone is responsible for his suicide. The decision was his.

on the outside the 'most' that gal should have gotten is reckless endangerment.

 

[KokomoJojo]

He alone is responsible for his suicide. The decision was his.

Well, a court decided differently, so I hope she enjoys being a lesbian.

No mercy for evil people.

jurys in the us today are told how to judge a case by judicial instruction, they never read the jurors handbook because its never passed out, and if it were they would insure the part where the jury can determine if the law is fair and and judge the law as well as the facts assuredly would be left out. Anything that advertises the power of the people has been left out of our educational system.

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf


The jury could have acquitted because the punishment would be to harsh, accquittal is the only voice people have left in this renegade gubmint.

Georgia vs. Brailsford
The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added)

"...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

So you see, in an American courtroom there are in a sense twelve judges in attendance, not just one. And they are there with the power to review the "law" as well as the "facts"! Actually, the "judge" is there to conduct the proceedings in an orderly fashion and maintain the safety of all parties involved.

The only way any law can be changed if the people reject it in america is by the jury and today this is the instruction they get.

Each question on the verdict must be answered separately and independently. You should not speculate on the legal results of any item. The verdict is your final decision.

Instead of being part of the legal system the courts through misinformation and deceit have completely disassociated the people from changing law they believe is improper, too harsh, in appropriate, whatever and reserved that power to the gubmint alone, and as usual without the legitimate authority to do so constitutionally or otherwise.

Another deceitful sleight of hand the just-us club pulled is the idea the court is the judge, and it is if there is no jury, however when there is a jury the court is the 'jury' NOT the judge. When there is a jury the judge is place in a position of 'referee' to insure a fair trial nothing more, that is according to the way america was set up to operate before justice was converted to the just-us club.

1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))


"We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).

1804, Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence said: "The jury has the Right to judge both the law and the facts". And also keep in mind that "either we all hang together, or we most assuredly will all hang separately".

Begs the question was the jury informed of its rights and duty to judge the law?

 

[usmbguest5318]

While I think what this young lady did is really horrible and I wonder what kind of person would do such a thing, I'm not sure how I feel about her being charged with his suicide.

Well, I'm sure about how I feel about another person's suicide: it's their decision, their action and their fault. Indeed, the only thing I have to say about suicide is that if one is going to disregard all the avenues of assistance that might prevent that from happening and in fact bother trying to kill themselves, at least be successful at it.

 

[rightwinger]

He alone is responsible for his suicide. The decision was his.

Well, a court decided differently, so I hope she enjoys being a lesbian.

No mercy for evil people.

jurys in the us today are told how to judge a case by judicial instruction, they never read the jurors handbook because its never passed out, and if it were they would insure the part where the jury can determine if the law is fair and and judge the law as well as the facts assuredly would be left out. Anything that advertises the power of the people has been left out of our educational system.

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf


The jury could have acquitted because the punishment would be to harsh, accquittal is the only voice people have left in this renegade gubmint.

Georgia vs. Brailsford
The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added)

"...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

So you see, in an American courtroom there are in a sense twelve judges in attendance, not just one. And they are there with the power to review the "law" as well as the "facts"! Actually, the "judge" is there to conduct the proceedings in an orderly fashion and maintain the safety of all parties involved.

The only way any law can be changed if the people reject it in america is by the jury and today this is the instruction they get.

Each question on the verdict must be answered separately and independently. You should not speculate on the legal results of any item. The verdict is your final decision.

Instead of being part of the legal system the courts through misinformation and deceit have completely disassociated the people from changing law they believe is improper, too harsh, in appropriate, whatever and reserved that power to the gubmint alone, and as usual without the legitimate authority to do so constitutionally or otherwise.

Another deceitful sleight of hand the just-us club pulled is the idea the court is the judge, and it is if there is no jury, however when there is a jury the court is the 'jury' NOT the judge. When there is a jury the judge is place in a position of 'referee' to insure a fair trial nothing more, that is according to the way america was set up to operate before justice was converted to the just-us club.

1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))


"We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).

1804, Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence said: "The jury has the Right to judge both the law and the facts". And also keep in mind that "either we all hang together, or we most assuredly will all hang separately".

Begs the question was the jury informed of its rights and duty to judge the law?

There was no jury, it was decided by a judge

 

[Markle]

Many 17 year olds go to prison

She pressured him to get back in the car after he made it clear he was having second thoughts. Reckless behavior leading to his death.....Manslaughter

You're 100% right. He had decided to get out of the carbon monoxide filled car and had in fact gotten out. Instead of encouraging him to STAY OUT, while she dialed 911 for help to go to his location. She kept telling him to do the right thing and get back in the car. She was heartless, she intentionally, consciously worked hard to get him to back into the death car. There had been hundreds if not more than a thousand texts between the two.

She and her attorneys opted to have a bench trial instead of a jury trial believing a judge would not allow the sympathy for the young man to influence their decision. In making his decision finding her guilty he really had some choice words for her. She struck me as being one of those mean girls taken to an extreme.

We older folks don't realize how much the youth depend on texting. It is constant, all day long. For me, it is no different than had she been standing alongside the car when he got out then berating and holding the door for him to get back in then slamming it behind him and watching while he died.

Yep, she had freedom of speech but there can and often are, serious consequences for irresponsible speech. Internet bullying has become a critical problem, one that did not exist when most of us were that age.

I hope she gets serious jail time.