|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| (CNN) In a case that hinged largely on a teenage couple's intimate text messages, Michelle Carter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter Friday in the 2014 death of her boyfriend, who poisoned himself by inhaling carbon monoxide in his pickup truck, a Massachusetts judge ruled. |
What she did was disgusting
She wanted the attention of being the grieving GF
Seriously.
I think she was suffering from depression or mental illness as well. Not trying to justify anything she did but that's where she was coming from.
Unless he had some disability etc., I agree.
I'm kind of leaning towards this myself. Why couldn't he hang up on her? Why couldn't he just not kill himself? I think in a civil case she should get crushed. Criminal, not so sure. But heck, im happy she did get locked up. Screw that vile human piece of filth.
Yup. Whole lot of cans of worms being opened here.
She might be the person most responsible for his suicide, but ultimately one person rigged his truck to fill up with carbon monoxide, and that was Conrad Roy.
There's a kid who graduated from my HS a year above me who filmed his roommate having sex with another guy and posted it. Was at Rutgers like 5-6 years ago. Was at risk of getting deported but IIRC he had light sentence or no sentence at all. Dharun Ravi was his name.
That's obviously a light-hearted simplification of the matter, but my point is that as long as he was capable of thinking for himself, she is not responsible for his actions. This is ridiculous.
Having said all of that, at the end of the day, if she does a few months in Juvi it might actually be good for her. Because whether legally responsible or not, no one would dispute her behavior was despicable.
That's obviously a light-hearted simplification of the matter, but my point is that as long as he was capable of thinking for himself, she is not responsible for his actions. This is ridiculous.
Having said all of that, at the end of the day, if she does a few months in Juvi it might actually be good for her. Because whether legally responsible or not, no one would dispute her behavior was despicable.
She's going to prison. Not Juvi
This is a ludicrous thing to say. She didn't text him and say "go kill yourself" and he did. She spent weeks telling him he should do it, chastising him for not going through with it, telling him his family would not get over it quickly, and then ultimately saying nothing to anyone while he was actually doing it.
Say what you want about her level of guilt, but this not some sort of "slippery slope" case because she sent a careless text.
He was also clinically depressed.
So you have to make a determination whether or not there is a criminal liability in the act of encouragement. My thought is no.
That's quite different than "get back in".
Force is not required under the Mass. statute.
This is an awful story--and a really tough one to deliberate. Part of me agrees with Greg and part agrees with frying her.
I think one way of settling this debate is to factor in how much of a threat to society this girl might be. It takes a pretty sick and twisted mind to encourage someone to kill themselves like she did. She had many chances to back up and reverse her delivery--everyone says shit they don't mean, but she kept at it. Sounds like a sociopath to me.
So? Is he not a sentient adult who is responsible for his own actions?
Quote:
and didn't contact the authorities. Not only did she talk him into it, but she had the chance to stop it and did nothing.
So? Is he not a sentient adult who is responsible for his own actions?
I think the argument can be made, and was, that he was in a mentally fragile state at the time.
This is the part I think many are missing. If it were just texts, then yes, the verdict would be a joke. Knowing he was taking his last breaths, and not notifying the authorities or family wasn't just despicable it was illegal. Shame on her.
Again, she's a wretched person. Should a relative of the dead guy be tried for beating the living shit out of her, and I were on the jury, I'd vote to acquit in a heartbeat. But, as a matter of law, I think this verdict is a mistake borne of a desire to see someone punished for abominable, yet not criminal, behavior.
Link - ( New Window )
Texts - ( New Window )
His life was in his own hands, not hers.
His life was in his own hands, not hers.
I agree with the point above like posts 5 and 6 I think that it shouldn't be manslaughter and I retract my statement she should get the chair..
However I don't feel bad at all that she caught this charge..
AP quoted the judge: "The court finds that the instruction to Mr. Roy to 'get back in' constitutes 'wanton and reckless conduct' under the law" It was not a jury trial and that seems to be the Mass. standard.
A judge's statement is not informed legal analysis?
That is where this is different than the "go throw yourself off a bridge" scenario. Technically, you can say that to someone and they can take you up on it, but if you don't know, there's no obligation.
This seems like a crime of omission to me.
Not necessarily. Judges make mistakes.
LOL. But unfortunately, even though you are making a joke, there is some truth in what you say
I think legal realism goes back to the 1920s, but I could be wrong about that.
But in any event, this is obviously a judgment that reflects PC culture. Not surprising it's Massachusetts. Doubt you would get that verdict in Alabama.
It's insane
Quote:
this is obviously a judgment that reflects PC culture.
How does PC figure in?
Gay marriage made her do it in a trans bathroom.
It's insane
Hanged *just sayin*
Quote:
2 days ago because of bullying
It's insane
Hanged *just sayin*
Well besides dropping out of college and high school I I almost got leftback in 8th grade. So thanks for the correction ! Always good to learn.
Might as well claim the pickup truck didn't have a carbon monoxide shut-off
I'd swear some of you would blame a poison victim because after all, he ate the poisoned food himself, nobody forced him.
Quote:
this is obviously a judgment that reflects PC culture.
How does PC figure in?
Because it propagates victim culture, of which this verdict is an offshoot.
If he ate it knowingly? Sure.
Quote:
In comment 13502118 Vanzetti said:
Quote:
this is obviously a judgment that reflects PC culture.
How does PC figure in?
Because it propagates victim culture, of which this verdict is an offshoot.
LOL. This guy.
Quote:
In comment 13502118 Vanzetti said:
Quote:
this is obviously a judgment that reflects PC culture.
How does PC figure in?
Because it propagates victim culture, of which this verdict is an offshoot.
And campus date rape culture. You can draw a straight line.
Quote:
I'd swear some of you would blame a poison victim because after all, he ate the poisoned food himself, nobody forced him.
If he ate it knowingly? Sure.
Yes - even knowingly - the person responsible belongs in prison. Without their actions, the victim would not be dead.
This one's really not that complicated. Yes, there are times where people go to great lengths to find someone to blame for something bad happening. This isn't one of them.
Quote:
In comment 13502150 jcn56 said:
Quote:
I'd swear some of you would blame a poison victim because after all, he ate the poisoned food himself, nobody forced him.
If he ate it knowingly? Sure.
Yes - even knowingly - the person responsible belongs in prison. Without their actions, the victim would not be dead.
This one's really not that complicated. Yes, there are times where people go to great lengths to find someone to blame for something bad happening. This isn't one of them.
Not a criminal lawyer, but generally the law distinguishes between but-for causation and proximate or legal cause. Many things satisfy the but-for standard but are held to be too attenuated to be considered the legal cause.
Typically, suicide has been thought to break the proximate causation chain. It comes up in cases where people try to sue doctors after a loved one's suicide. Suicide is held the be an INDEPENDENT, intervening and superceding event that severs the causal link between alleged wrongdoing (malpractice or whatever) and harm (death).
Typically, suicide has been thought to break the proximate causation chain. It comes up in cases where people try to sue doctors after a loved one's suicide. Suicide is held the be an INDEPENDENT, intervening and superceding event that severs the causal link between alleged wrongdoing (malpractice or whatever) and harm (death).
But has a doctor ever said "get back in". That would seem to me to reestablish the link.
Quote:
Typically, suicide has been thought to break the proximate causation chain. It comes up in cases where people try to sue doctors after a loved one's suicide. Suicide is held the be an INDEPENDENT, intervening and superceding event that severs the causal link between alleged wrongdoing (malpractice or whatever) and harm (death).
But has a doctor ever said "get back in". That would seem to me to reestablish the link.
No idea. I'd also suspect that a doctor owes a greater duty to his patients than some juvenile on the phone.
That's what Jerry thought.
Not exactly something Alabama would wear as a badge of honor, I'd think.
Quote:
I'd swear some of you would blame a poison victim because after all, he ate the poisoned food himself, nobody forced him.
If he ate it knowingly? Sure.
How about someone who shot himself during a round of a Russian Roulette game orchestrated by others? Do the others have culpability?
That's an actual case where the defendants were found guilty, under the same "wanton or reckless conduct" reasoning if I'm not mistaken.
Quote:
Doubt you would get that verdict in Alabama.
Not exactly something Alabama would wear as a badge of honor, I'd think.
Even if, I'm not sure Alabama is some great bastion of justice that the rest of the country should line up to follow...
Quote:
In comment 13502150 jcn56 said:
Quote:
I'd swear some of you would blame a poison victim because after all, he ate the poisoned food himself, nobody forced him.
If he ate it knowingly? Sure.
Yes - even knowingly - the person responsible belongs in prison. Without their actions, the victim would not be dead.
This one's really not that complicated. Yes, there are times where people go to great lengths to find someone to blame for something bad happening. This isn't one of them.
I wrote my response and then went back to read what other people on here were saying. Wow... yes he's a grown man, he makes his own decisions but obviously he was battling some severe demons and depression. She gave him the push he needed to go over the edge. She is absolutely guilty and pure evil.
Link - ( New Window )
I feel she should be found guilty, just no idea what sentence is be comfortable with.
Many people who have depression or other issues kill themselves without anyone pushing them to do so, so the whole 'personal responsibility' thing doesn't apply here. If you knew someone was on the edge, would you buy them a gun or give them a bunch of pills, or causally tell them to kill themselves? No, of course you wouldn't. But this woman went further, she encouraged and pushed and gave him advice on how to do it. She's guilty as hell.
Had she shown even a bit of human decency and called the authorities or family, she'd probably walk away from this.
First she asks him if he "deleted the texts" (and he did) and second
Carter said to a friend (post-suicide) something to the effect of "they're going to search his phone and if they find the texts...
I think it's a shitty story, the kid had severe mental problems but the girl definitely is guilty of something.
people who equate this to someone saying "go jump off a bridge" or say he's a grown man and needs to accept responsibility are way off base.
There have been numerous instances of strong willed individuals being convinced to act in manners counter to societal norms because they were influenced by others preying on their emotions and psyche. Since beginning of society, humans have waged psychological warfare on each other in one form another. And in many instances, they've been successful against individuals and large groups alike.
Now apply that kind of persistent psychological attack against an individual with a history of emotional sand psychological issues as well as suicidal thoughts, and you are creating a recipe for disaster. Put an emotional attachment of the victim to his/her abuser, and that disaster becomes almost a certainty.
This isn't about what you think you would have or haven't done. This is about a young emotionally and psychologically damaged individual being tormented by someone he thought cared about him that he found emotional attachment to, as crazy as that sounds to many of you. So while you may have been stronger in such a case with your own emotional and psychological state, this individual was not you with such grounded view of the world.
Sometimes you have to a step back and look through the perspective of others instead of your own insulated perspective.
But once you allow "mental incapacity" to be invoked for psychological issues, you are on the slippery slope. What about anxiety disorders, PTSD, chronic depression, Chronic Fatigue, Fybromyalgia? Or whatever new disorders will be discovered in the future.
If someone is severely autistic or has some severe form of incapacity,then this verdict makes sense. But if "depression" can be cited as indicating mental incapacity, then you are opening a whole new can of worms. Granted, what she did was extreme but the way our court system works is through precedents. This case can now be cited as a precedent in a case where the circumstances are less extreme and that starts the ball rolling down the hill.
I do not want this young woman to get off scot free. What she did was truly terrible. But you have to look at principle involved and citing depression or emotional turmoil as a form of mental incapacity is a really bad precedent to set.
If the circumstances were different the charge would have been more serious.
If you don't want to charge her with manslaughter, fine. But this woman needs to go to prison for something. This is not behavior that should be acceptable under the law. She was fully aware someone was in the middle of taking their own life, and not only did she do nothing to prevent it, she helped him, persuaded him, and even guilted him to go through with it. Absolutely despicable.
It doesn't open a can of worms either. This wasn't one or two angry, careless texts, or even bullying. This was a woman actively pushing this man to commit suicide, fully aware of what she was doing.
If the circumstances were different the charge would have been more serious.
Is it? Usually IM is just the opposite -- the person charged actually did the killing, but lacked intent to cause death. An unintentional killing from recklessness or negligence or a misdemeanor act that causes death. Some places call it criminally negligent homicide. So lets say you're intentionally fucking around behind the wheel, cause a crash, and someone dies. You had the necessary intent to act (the driving), it was reckless, but you didnt intended to kill or cause death.
IM seems like a poor fit.
There are some really good reasons that the law has generally held that suicide breaks the causal chain. I expect this to get a thorough looking over on appeal. He sentence should be suspended pending appeal IMO given the substantial possibility of reversal.
[also people keep calling here a woman. She was 17 at the time of the crime. Pretend all you want that 17 year olds are fully functional adults with good judgment.]
What about someone who was merely indifferent in the face of suicidal expressions?
I get why this case with gross facts makes people want justice, but I think the notion of causing another person, not in your care/charge, to commit suicide is a very dangerous path for the law.
this was in no way, shape, or form any way analogous to saying go jump off a bridge. get real. this was a woman who helped someone plan his death, pressured him into doing it, and actively assisted him in committing it, including the very damning instructions to get back in the truck and finish it. Physically, she didn't do it, he did. in every other aspect, she's a killer.
I am all in favor of the right to commit suicide. I am not in favor of having someone encouraging another to do it, and putting pressure on that other to do it. her emotional weapons were just as real as physical force.
So apparently she grasped the fact she played a role in his death even if some of you do not.
So apparently she grasped the fact she played a role in his death even if some of you do not.
Who is arguing that she didnt play a role in his death? The question is whether she is criminally culpable for manslaughter for another person committing suicide.
Quote:
she said in text to a third party "if they check his cell phone and see the texts I'm done". "His family will hate me and I could go to jail".
So apparently she grasped the fact she played a role in his death even if some of you do not.
Who is arguing that she didnt play a role in his death? The question is whether she is criminally culpable for manslaughter for another person committing suicide.
So then in your opinion she played a role in his death, but not a criminally culpable one?
Not sure I get the distinction. When is it ok to play a role in someone's death and have no consequences for that role?
She, the defendant, felt there could be jail for her actions, so again, I'll rephrase it, she felt her contribution to his death was criminally culpable even if you and your fan club don't.
Quote:
In comment 13502895 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
she said in text to a third party "if they check his cell phone and see the texts I'm done". "His family will hate me and I could go to jail".
So apparently she grasped the fact she played a role in his death even if some of you do not.
Who is arguing that she didnt play a role in his death? The question is whether she is criminally culpable for manslaughter for another person committing suicide.
So then in your opinion she played a role in his death, but not a criminally culpable one?
Not sure I get the distinction. When is it ok to play a role in someone's death and have no consequences for that role?
She, the defendant, felt there could be jail for her actions, so again, I'll rephrase it, she felt her contribution to his death was criminally culpable even if you and your fan club don't.
I think the distinction is fairly simple. Merely because someone is a but-for cause in the causation chain, here thru encouragement (at least), does not mean that we decide they are the legal cause. 3 guys standing in a bar. X says to Y "you should totally kick the shit out of Z". Y had never thought about it before, but decided to kick the shit out of Z then and there. Is X guilty of a crime? What if X, a bitter rival of Z, had come to the bar to show Y evidence that Z was banging Mrs. Y, and X was hoping that this would make Y receptive to a suggestion of an ass kicking. Criminal? The law must draw a line somewhere that says "that wouldnt have happened without you, but you're still not criminally responsible". US Supreme Court precedent allows the criminalization of fighting words and other incitements to violence, but our law has moved much more towards an absolutist view of the 1st Amendment since WWII (especially the Roberts court).
Here I have no opinion formally, because I dont know all the facts. As a general matter I am pretty skeptical of the conviction. Barring a legal duty to this guy (e.g. she was his guardian), I am troubled by the idea of saying one person committed manslaughter by merely berating/convincing a person to commit suicide. It's a shitty thing to do, but if we hold her responsible for this suicide (based on extreme facts), where is the line drawn?
The fact that she felt like she could go to jail for this is relevant to her guilty conscience/intent. It's not relevant to whether she is the proximate/legal cause of Roy's death. Much like an idiot selling oregano who thinks it is pot has not trafficked in controlled substances (note there may be statutes re drug look alikes).
and on top of it while person z is dying person x knows person z is dying but not yet dead (could possibly be revived) and makes no effort to seek help for person z allowing them to die.
The defendant was aware of her actions effect on the victim, she had intent with her actions, and was even blatantly aware of the consequences. This could be turned over on appeal really because it's new ground IMO, but I don't have to struggle even a little to see how someone should be jailed for her actions and she didn't have to struggle to see it either, she anticipated it.
this is not a case where the defendant could claim "I had no idea he'd die from that" or "I didn't want him to die" it's exactly what she wanted and exactly what she thought would happen.
Im not broken up about her going to jail. I have real slippery slope concerns. What if your daughter's boyfriend says "if you break up with me I'll kill myself". Does she have to say with him?
I guess if there was evidence that she had some sort of effective control over him I'd hear the case. I would certainly say that talking someone who was mentally disabled into committing suicide has the hallmarks of a crime. So Im not an absolutist here. It's why I dont have a position on this case -- I'd need to know a lot about the boy, the girl, and their relationship.
Im not broken up about her going to jail. I have real slippery slope concerns. What if your daughter's boyfriend says "if you break up with me I'll kill myself". Does she have to say with him?
I guess if there was evidence that she had some sort of effective control over him I'd hear the case. I would certainly say that talking someone who was mentally disabled into committing suicide has the hallmarks of a crime. So Im not an absolutist here. It's why I dont have a position on this case -- I'd need to know a lot about the boy, the girl, and their relationship.
I think you should read up on this case. I didn't until I saw the Dateline special on it last night.
This is not a simple case of if you break up with me I'll kill myself or go jump off a bridge.
this was hundreds of texts, including when he expressed fears of the act of committing suicide she reassured him it would be fine and was his best choice, when he expressed remorse toward how his family would feel she assured him his family would eventually accept it, when he actually got out of the car filling up with carbon monoxide because he was fearful and couldn't breathe she urged him back into the car.
She helped him with the method, she pushed him to this end (and it didn't start out that way, she initially befriended him and said she'd help him out of his depression).
she knew his mental state, she knew he was impaired and when he dropped the phone due to being overtaken by the fumes and lay dying in his truck she did nothing but listen to his gasping breaths.
Maybe slightly extreme but I almost view him as autistic or otherwise unable to act responsibly on his behalf - I don't mean to offend autistic parents I use that as an example only because in his mental state I do not believe he was capable of knowing right from wrong and the defendant 100% knew this. Not sure I agree with the prosecution on her motive, but I haven't read enough about her outside of this case to know if I buy that or not.
the judge viewed her actions as reckless and negligent and warranting the charge involuntary manslaughter. I agree.
I think if this went to jury they would not have deliberated very long and reached the same conclusion.
It is a slippery slope, but one where I feel like this case it passes the reasonable man theory. And I don't think every case will, but this one does.
This girl was the aggressor and made him feel guilty for not killing himself. Big difference, imo.
And for those who believe if she didn't hold a gun to his head to force him to do it, I'd ask this. Charles Manson was convicted of the Tate murders even though he was not present and did not murder anyone in that house. In hindsight, do you think he is not legally responsible for those murders because he only encouraged those who committed the crimes do do them? Or are there cases where someone manipulating others can be held responsible (other than holding a gun to their head)?
So the term slippery slope now means either this case could serve as precedent for future prosecutions or new and/or unintended situations can qualify as involuntary manslaughter.
The slippery slope has zero to do with her role, but the legal precedent, so if you don't get that, it's on you and Deej and I are on opposite sides of the outcome but both see how the decision creates a slippery slope for future cases.
Charles Manson is completely irrelevant - that was not a suicide by anyone's definition, he's more akin to the examples already discussed above.
To top it all off, Massachusetts is one of the few states that does NOT have any laws against assisting in or encouraging suicide (aka they are assisted suicide friendly).
The prosecution said she wanted the attention of being the grieving "girlfriend" which I find plausible in general, and I think her actions post suicide help the point, but I don't know the defendant well enough and didn't see enough evidence to to say if that's 100% legit.
this is a new definition of present, the judge even commented on her being "virtually present".
There are multiple links around talking about the uniqueness of the case.
I believe the verdict was correct, but I do see how it could be groundbreaking or at worst present a slipper slope with future decisions about prosecution.
And the Manson reference was not addressing suicide/homicide specifically. It was addressing the point "how could she make him do something unless she held a gun to his head." There is precedent to show you can be guilty of a crime physically committed by others outside of your presence based on your influence over them.
Quote:
She sat there telling him he's the love of her life while encouraging him to die..WTF?
The prosecution said she wanted the attention of being the grieving "girlfriend" which I find plausible in general, and I think her actions post suicide help the point, but I don't know the defendant well enough and didn't see enough evidence to to say if that's 100% legit.
Thanks Pj, a warped version of Munchhausen
I'm not sure that many people are saying he isn't responsible for his own actions. However, neither are many of us stating that she's completely absolved of her not only abhorrent but criminal (in some of our opinions) actions. They're not mutually exclusive.
Whether you think she is criminally responsible or not, you have to be living in a black and white world to completely dismiss her part in this man's suicide. To state that he was in total control of his actions is negating any play that mental illness has on one's susceptibility to psychological abuse by someone, who the individual formed an emotional bond with. It's a fucked up case that can't just be oversimplified by stating "he's a grown man, his actions were his own." That's not how human emotions, psyche, and mental illness work.
Not guilty of manslaughter, though.
Not guilty of manslaughter, though.
With regards to the whole criminal case and verdict, I think we all have our own differing opinions on this one. Probably more so because it's so fucked up.
This is something different. If anything, voluntary manslaughter makes more sense because it was her intent for him to commit suicide. Even then, however, I see her actions as disgusting but not criminal.
It seems her intent all along was to encourage a person she knew was suicidal to go through with it. She didn't plant the idea, and she didn't physically force him to do it, but she played a very active part in it, all the way through the actual moment he died.
Generally I agree with you that people are responsible for their own actions. But I think it is reasonable to conclude in this case that she knew he was suicidal, and she did everything she could to make sure he went through with it. Is manslughter the right charge? I don't know for sure.