NFT: 20 Yr Old found guilty: Involuntary manslaughter by texting

in that example, no. People threatenthing to kill themselves in a breakup scenario isn't uncommon. I don't think anyone walking away from a relationship should be held responsible as they were the ones being threatened with the guilt.

This girl was the aggressor and made him feel guilty for not killing himself. Big difference, imo.

You do realize that the precedent set here involves someone encouraging someone to kill themselves over a long period of time, chastising them for not doing it, listening to them finally do it, and finally not contacting anyone to stop it. If you think this now sets precedent that everyone who hears someone threaten suicide is ultimately legally responsible for their death...well, I don't know what to tell you other that that is not how the law works. This is why we still have individual trials where specific facts and circumstances are presented. Yelling "go kill yourself" did not just become a criminal act.

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)?

nice post

because of whether or not people feel she contributed to or was responsible for his death, it's a slippery slope because manslaughter has never (from what I know) extended to a situation when the defendant was not present at the death. ever, as far as I know. It also never extended to words/texts. EVER. (from what I know).

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).

She sat there telling him he's the love of her life while encouraging him to die..WTF?

In comment 13503408 montanagiant said:

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.

she was present enough to talk him through it as he was doing it, including telling him to 'get back in the truck' and get it done, and hear his last breath. She was in a personal live time connection with him throughout.

In comment 13503464 fkap said:

Quote:

she was present enough to talk him through it as he was doing it, including telling him to 'get back in the truck' and get it done, and hear his last breath. She was in a personal live time connection with him throughout.

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.

The way some here have presented it, telling someone to kill themselves is the slippery slope argument which to me is silly. If your take is more nuanced (as I read it) to say "now you can be guilty of manslaughter if you are not physically present" - there may be some validity to that. I was reacting to the more silly extensions that were being posted on this thread.

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.

etc etc as reasons why he's not responsible for his own actions. Would that standard be applied to someone who committed a crime? Would they be considered blameless for killing someone else if they had been encouraging to kill in a depressed, fragile mental condition? How do you quantify such a thing? How do you determine the degree at which someone is now considered mentally incapacitated to the point of being incapable of making their own decisions?

In comment 13503459 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 13503408 montanagiant said: 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

In comment 13503625 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

etc etc as reasons why he's not responsible for his own actions. Would that standard be applied to someone who committed a crime? Would they be considered blameless for killing someone else if they had been encouraging to kill in a depressed, fragile mental condition? How do you quantify such a thing? How do you determine the degree at which someone is now considered mentally incapacitated to the point of being incapable of making their own decisions?

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.

I've said over and over again that she's a reprehensible person.

Not guilty of manslaughter, though.

In comment 13503643 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

I've said over and over again that she's a reprehensible person. 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.

Involuntary manslaughter is a charge appropriate to reckless behavior that resulting in the death of another but was not intended to harm anyone. An example that comes to mind was the nightclub fire a while back at a Great White show, when pyrotechnics that were part of the show sparked a fire that killed a hundred people. The club owners and the band manager were both tried for involuntary manslaughter.

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.

I think it comes down to what she knew about him, and what her intent was. She knew he was suicidal for a long time, so she knew he was vulnerable. I don't think you can prove that to a certain threshold, but if she told someone she didn't know was suicidal to go kill themselves and they did, I don't think you would have gotten this verdict.

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.