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.
He killed himself. She did not kill him. She said some pretty bad things, but this is a TERRIBLE precedent to set.
This is one royally messed up verdict and charge to begin with. This charge should have never been brought. Involuntary manslaughter? I think not.
on the outside the 'most' that gal should have gotten is reckless endangerment.
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?
He killed himself. She did not kill him. She said some pretty bad things, but this is a TERRIBLE precedent to set.
Nonsense, this is an EXCELLENT precedent. The judge read every one of those texts and did not make this decision lightly.
I hope she gets serious prison time. She caused his death, no different than if she had stood alongside the car, berated him until he got back in and slammed the door behind him, then stood there and watched while he died.
He alone is responsible for his suicide. The decision was his.
on the outside the 'most' that gal should have gotten is reckless endangerment.
No, it is not like that at all, and that is not what happened. If that was what had happened, then you might have an argument.
No, it is not like that at all, and that is not what happened. If that was what had happened, then you might have an argument.
It is what happened. He had doubts, had gotten out of the carbon monoxide filled car. She continued to text him to get back in the car. He expressed worry about his parents and she told him that SHE would take care of them. Did that mean she was going to kill them too?
She has no conscience, no heart, no soul. She could have called 911, she could have called his parents, she continued to push him to kill himself.
I thank God that there are not more people like her or who support her. What a horrid place this would be. A world where people with critical mental health issues are shoved to the side or encouraged to kill themselves is not a good place.
He alone is responsible for his suicide. The decision was his.
on the outside the 'most' that gal should have gotten is reckless endangerment.
I would go as far as criminal negligence but that is as far as it should go, IMO.
Criminal Negligence
To constitute a crime, there must be an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence). Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious, and recklessness being of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence. The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation. (In the United States, there may sometimes be a slightly different interpretation for willful blindness.) The degree of culpability is determined by applying a reasonable person standard. Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life" (see the discussion in corporate manslaughter).
The test of any mens rea element is always based on an assessment of whether the accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those consequences to occur. The three types of test are:
The most culpable mens rea elements will have both foresight and desire on a subjective basis. Negligence arises when, on a subjective test, an accused has not actually foreseen the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, and has gone ahead, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering injury or loss. The accused is a social danger because he or she has endangered the safety of others in circumstances where the reasonable person would have foreseen the injury and taken preventive measures. Hence, the test is hybrid.
- subjective where the court attempts to establish what the accused was actually thinking at the time the actus reus was caused;
- objective where the court imputes mens rea elements on the basis that a reasonable person with the same general knowledge and abilities as the accused would have had those elements; or
- hybrid, i.e., the test is both subjective and objective.
She texted him is all. She did not force him to go back into the vehicle. She did not hold the door shut. The ultimate decision to take his own life was up to him, and he made the final decision.
What she did was definitely wrong in a moral perspective, but no matter how you slice it, she did not kill him.
No, it is not like that at all, and that is not what happened. If that was what had happened, then you might have an argument.
It is what happened. He had doubts, had gotten out of the carbon monoxide filled car. She continued to text him to get back in the car. He expressed worry about his parents and she told him that SHE would take care of them. Did that mean she was going to kill them too?
She has no conscience, no heart, no soul. She could have called 911, she could have called his parents, she continued to push him to kill himself.
I thank God that there are not more people like her or who support her. What a horrid place this would be. A world where people with critical mental health issues are shoved to the side or encouraged to kill themselves is not a good place.
I really think she wanted the sympathy after he diedMany 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.
I really think she wanted the sympathy after he died
All the attention would shift to her as she told everyone how much she tried to save him
Like one of those women who kill their own kids to get the attention as a grieving mother
He killed himself. She did not kill him. She said some pretty bad things, but this is a TERRIBLE precedent to set.
Nonsense, this is an EXCELLENT precedent. The judge read every one of those texts and did not make this decision lightly.
I hope she gets serious prison time. She caused his death, no different than if she had stood alongside the car, berated him until he got back in and slammed the door behind him, then stood there and watched while he died.
You said it was like . . . , and then you went on to describe a scenario that did NOT happen. So no, it did NOT happen like that. She did send him texts. She was miles away. Sure, she could have done a lot of things, but since when is it the LAW to show compassion?
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?
You said it was like . . . , and then you went on to describe a scenario that did NOT happen. So no, it did NOT happen like that. She did send him texts. She was miles away. Sure, she could have done a lot of things, but since when is it the LAW to show compassion?
If she had been in the same room, nobody would have known how it went downwhat 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?
I think you are stretching to make a weak argument. But that's okay.
If this woman had been in the same room with him and goaded him until he killed himself, there would be no issue here. The fact she did it electronically is the technical issue to be addressed. The law is catching up with the technology.
