I’m creating no strawman, only responses to questions and scenarios brought up by other people.
I opine that she didn’t kill the kid. And she didn’t bully him into committing suicide. And she should not have been found guilty, or even charged with anything. I understand that law enforcement and the judge/jury disagree, but I disagree with them. You can’t bully someone by text message. You can’t FORCE someone to do something by text message.
If you think you can, then you must be using a different definition of bullying or forcing than I am. Which is why I asked for clarification.
I disagree that any of her actions were against the law. If they were, then assuming the kid didn’t die, would she still be charged with anything? I doubt it.
Is this, like, an actual thing? In the articles I’ve read, what the defense has said, what I’ve read here and a few other places I don’t think I’ve come across anyone even suggesting that he was abusing her, much less that she killed him (with her words dun dun dun) in self defense. Frankly, you’re going to have to flesh out that idea considerably more. All the texts are on the internet for you to read through them. I’ve read them, I’ve not seen anything that indicates anything other than her, actively, attempting to get him to kill himself. Granted, I don’t know what state of mind she was in, maybe she hated getting messages from him, but I don’t recall them sounding abusive.
What kind of parenting? You’re just gonna drop that line and run?
What it shows is that he was looking forward. It doesn’t have anything to do with being high achieving. But to enroll in college suggests you’re planning to be alive a few months from now. Getting your maritime captains license, would imply you’ll use it next summer. Speaking of which, is it really that easy to get that license, I’ve never looked into it?
So is it all or none, or as you said at the beginning “They are not mutually exclusive”.
But, either way, you can show improvement, but still have some girl that’s got you wrapped around her finger constantly kicking you down. Keep in mind, they didn’t see each other very often and mainly communicated via text. Perfectly healthy people get pushed around by manipulative partners, now think about what one that’s not totally health would do.
In the end, I think she knew exactly, 100% what she was doing. Mental illness or not, I think she was totally lucid and was pushing him into killing himself for her own gain. Personally, I think she should be prosecuted for that. Oddly, they used her mental illness as a defense, but a stated earlier, if she’s that mentally unstable, then I still think she’s a clear threat to the public.
For the billionth time, the definition of bullying includes texting. You don’t have to like it, but it’s the case.
From their state
“Bullying”, the repeated use by one or more students of a written, verbal or electronic expression or a physical act or gesture or any combination thereof, directed at a victim that: (i) causes physical or emotional harm to the victim
<snip>
For the purposes of this section, bullying shall include cyber-bullying.
Bolding mine.
Bullying is mainly when both kids are minors and/or in school. I don’t recall if that’s the case here, if not, I believe it morphs into stalking or harassment. They both contain similar language to cover text messages. It’s possible a case could be made against her for harassment, but I’m not sure due to some of the wording.
However, bullying includes texting. If you don’t like that, call your lawmaker, but stop dragging it through this thread.
Strange that you are not going into any of the threads in the Pit to chastise people for bullying then, if you really think this is a good definition.
That definition is crap. It doesn’t included “unwanted” before any of the actions. How can it be bullying if the so-called victim welcomes it? Makes no sense. Your post caused me emotional harm. Have I been bullied by you? :rolleyes:
In any event, I’ve stated my opinion on her conviction. I hope it gets overturned.
Ladies and gentlemen, when you start with a conclusion (it doesn’t count if it is online) and try to find justification for it, no matter whether it makes sense or not, this is the dog’s breakfast of an argument that results.
I can see how this is going to end. You wanted a definition, I got you one, and another one and another one. I’m not going to work with the one you’ve made up, not am I going to continue to argue with you about it.
Some people, especially young school age kids, don’t know they’re getting bullied. These laws help protect them by giving adults something to work with. My daughter had a bully for a few years, this little shit was so manipulative my kid didn’t even know it was going on. It wasn’t until she mentioned a few things to me and I started looking into it that I realized what was going on. My daughter didn’t realize this was ‘unwanted’, but leaving that word out gives the school (or myself) the ability to do something about it when the parents won’t or can’t.
At least that’s my assumption for why it’s worded that way, but I have to admit I’ve never really looked into the laws and never given them that much thought.
You can disagree with it until you’re blue in the face, but what you’re doing is suggesting that it’s not a thing. It’s like saying I don’t think it should be against the law to stab someone in the face with a knife since no one could ever do that to me. Bad example, I know, but it’s what you’re doing. You’re just suggesting that something that’s hurt a lot of people shouldn’t be illegal simply because it hasn’t/can’t hurt you.
That’s very much the ‘screw you, I got mine’ mentality.
Oh, and to answer your question above about my post being bullying. No, it’s not, it also tells me you’re not even reading what’s being written or looking at the links that are being tossed at you or, for that matter, taking this seriously. A post isn’t a repeated electronic communication, therefore can’t be bullying.
Go ahead, I know say ‘fine, what if…’ It’s all you’ve done in this thread.
I wonder if the crux of this issue is whether people believe suicide is something people have a right to engage in. That is, does anyone here believe this young man had the right to take his own life, but his girlfriend did not have the right to urge him to exercise that right?
And if you think that his wish to take his own life inherently means he was not competent to decide his own affairs, shouldn’t all murderers be judged not guilty by reason of insanity? Is it really more sane to kill another than to kill oneself?
A post addressed at someone (such as when quoting their post and then challenging it in some way) is certainly an electronic communication. If you address the same person on the same topic more than once in a relatively short interval of time, that is a repeated communication.
I didn’t see the person you’re addressing claiming she played no part. Playing a part doesn’t make it a crime. When I was a junior in high school, there was a popular senior girl in one of my classes. I never met her, but I thought was the most beautiful girl I’d ever seen. One morning, the counselor came in to tell us she had died by suicide after her boyfriend broke up with her, and he added that the boyfriend was getting intensive counseling. Everyone understood that she had laid an unimaginable guilt trip on him on her way out. No one that I heard was blaming him. But by the logic you are using, he is in fact the agent of her demise–since it is clear that she would not have taken this action if she had not been dumped by him.
This is some bullshit. I can defend people’s legal rights and civil liberties without being sympathetic to them, just like the Jewish ACLU lawyer who defended the Nazis’ right to march in Skokie. People do all kinds of shitty things to each other all the time, and I can observe what they do and decide that someone is a total piece of shit, absolutely hate them even, but not believe they have committed a crime for which they should be able to be prosecuted and imprisoned. Apparently you believe all acts you consider immoral should also be illegal, which I find a pretty scary prospect and nothing like the kind of society I wish to live in. I also think it’s clear this is not what our constitution prescribes (see below).
So it does look like you would be all for banning swastikas and so on, more like the European approach. I don’t agree with this at all, and not for “woo” reasons.*
As Justice Jackson so eloquently put it in *W. Virginia v. Barnette:
*
Does this rationale strike you as “woo”? In any event, it is a Supreme Court opinion regarding constitutional rights which has not been overturned as far as I know. And it certainly seems to me that this Massachusetts ruling is “prescribing what shall be orthodox in…other matters of opinion” (namely, that one can express the opinion that one’s boyfriend should not take his own life, but not the opinion that he should in fact do so).
It’s pretty obvious that she is in fact being punished for “abnormal attitudes” that are seen as repellant by the vast majority of the population. And notice that Jackson’s majority opinion specifically warns that the right to have such abnormal attitudes is “not limited to things that do not matter much”, nor to “harmless” attitudes as in the specific case they were deciding (refusal to recite the Pledge of Allegiance), as that “would be a mere shadow of freedom”. He was very emphatic about not construing the opinion narrowly but instead very, very broadly.
This is a really great point. I have known at least three guys who stayed with a girlfriend for literally years because she threatened suicide if he dumped her. Think about how fucked up that is. That is no way to live, with this Damocles sword not only hanging over you, but putting a nasty taint on the most intimate part of your life. And then try being a teenager while it’s all going on! But no, let’s just lock her up. Burn the witch!
*BTW, your utilitarian approach to morality seems quite right to many people, but it withers under cross-examination like that I heard in a Sam Harris podcast. I’ll spoiler bar the rest of this tangent as it is so off topic:
Sam pointed out that if a doctor had three patients about to die for lack of organs to transplant into them, and a fourth patient came in with a sprained ankle injured playing pickup basketball, utilitarian ethics would say it’s an easy call: anaesthetize the weekend warrior and distribute his organs to the other three. You have four patients, and you can finish the day with three dead ones and one live one, or one dead one and three live ones. No contest! Yet it is obviously morally abhorrent. (Or maybe you don’t think so?!?)
In the spirit of a good debate, I’m going to attempt to run through this…
Off the top of my head, I don’t know whether it’s legal or not, I think it should be legal. I don’t have an issue with people using it as a way to end their suffering. Going all the way back to high school, when we would have to do persuasive speeches/essays, my go to was always pro-euthanasia. Granted, when I was doing this, it was typically doctor assisted (Dr Kevorkian was in the news quite a bit then) and used to end terminal diseases that involved a lot of physical suffering. IIRC from the Kevorkian patients, he required them to sign something stating they were of sound mind and when it was time, he hooked everything up and left the room and the person pushed the button to turn the machine on. As I write this, I want to head something off, I don’t think he would talk someone back into it if he came back in and they had changed their mind. In fact, he turned down a lot of people that he didn’t think were ready.
On another note, I remember when Kurt Cobain killed himself. My mom said something about him being a coward and when I asked why she’d say that, she said something about family, kids etc and he ‘took the easy way out’. Maybe this is the atheist in me, but my reply was ‘who cares, he was in pain and now it’s all over, it’s done.’
When does agreeing with becoming urging? When does urging move on to pestering? When does it move to bullying?
If we can move past the ‘he didn’t have to look at the text messages’ thing for now. I think there was more then ‘urging him’ to do it. It’s not like she said it a few times and then let it go. Just went on about it for years, she helped him figure out how to do it, where to do it, how to not get caught. During those few years, he would continuously not go through with it and she would “urge” him to do it the next night.
I’m going to leave that one alone since I’m not sure yet what it has to do with this case or how the ramifications of answer may undermine other things I’ve said.
Ahhh, but manson said “post” not “posts” small, but meaningful. I would also suggest that (from the link), my posts were not used for the " for the sole purpose of harassing, annoying or molesting". However, an argument could be made that hers were. Also, it should be noted, to further expound being bullied via texts, the link I dropped earlier also states that there doesn’t actually have to be a conversation for there to be harassment (bullying). So, all the emails can go write to my spam folder, all your texts can be blocked, all your calls can go to voicemail, it’s still harassment.
Every part of the quote, until the part I set off on it’s own, suggests she didn’t play a part, or at least she had no responsibility. Maybe I used the wrong word. Does it make more sense if I say "you can’t say she’s not responsible because you can’t kill someone with words, but then turn around and say that it’s self defense, that she pushed him to kill himself because she feared for her own life, because, what, he was going to kill her with words’
I don’t know, it’s just that the two parts don’t jive. Maybe I read it wrong.
While similar, it’s different.
In one case, a person was told to kill themself, then did it.
In the other case, a person threatened to kill themself, then followed through on it.
Greatly oversimplified, I know, but I’m just trying to quickly show how they differ.
If you look into it further, I think you’d find that in your case, the boyfriend didn’t try to convince his girlfriend to kill herself. In fact, he did what I stated earlier that no one would have blamed the girl in this case for, he left her. Killing yourself because your partner leaves you is different than your partner “urging” you to off yourself.
Did the boyfriend intend to kill her? No. That’s why it’s not his fault. You need both intent (or extreme negligence) and an action that causes a death to be guilty.
If he dumped her because he wanted her to kill herself, and he knew she was depressed so it was an actual possibility, thus knowing his action could actually lead to her death, then I’d treat him pretty much the same.
The sole addition is that telling someone you want them to kill themselves is a worse action than dumping someone, and doing it over and over is harassment. I want to also stop harassment.
I really don’t get why there is even a question abou t whether this woman was wrong, and barely understand any argument that she did not cause his death. I want to protect suicidally depressed people from people who would egg them on to do it, rather than try encourage them to get help and actually likely fix the problem that makes them want to kill themselves. (90% chance)
I see this girl as attacking the mentally ill, and I will not stand for that.
See post 107 for the quote re why I think she was also mentally ill.
Threatening suicide is always emotionally abusive. It evokes horror, and fear, and is incredibly stressful.
I mean the kind of parenting where the kid has a years-long suicidal depression, but as long as he gets into college and achieves various milestones the parents decide all is fine and fail to notice or address the continued misery.
Right, they mainly communicated by text. One simple click of a button could have freed him from her communications. All he had to do was hit [block]. At some level he was allowing/encouraging this. He made some lousy choices, and yes, she was one of the lousier ones, but he still chose for himself. He is responsible for all of his actions, including who he chose to communicate with and the kind of communication he indulged.
Maybe you’re right, this is all necessarily supposition. I’m just saying there’s another possibility here, and it’s not as clear cut as you claim.
You said you had read the texts, do you have a link? I’d be very interested to skim through some of those, but haven’t found any comprehensive postings.
Everything I find is just “examples” of her texts. Examples in quotes because they are carefully chosen to support the idea that she is a monster. Maybe so, but maybe not.
It could also be a twist on a “Munchausen-by-proxy” case. The girl clearly enjoyed a great deal of attention as a result of her martyred status as the abandoned girlfriend. Still though, this wasn’t a Mother imposing symptoms and treatments upon an infant or child. He could have walked away at any time.
Exactly. My contention is that she is not in any way responsible for his death. Was she a miserable part of the miserable life that he wanted to get away from? Maybe. But there was a healthier (and even simpler!) solution.
Agreed also re: rights to opinion. There was a time when people who argued in support of Dr. Kevorkian’s cause were accused of contributing to future deaths. I find it spurious.
What she did was (IMO) reprehensible, but not illegal.
As to your “four patients”, I would say that the Dr’s moral decision is clear, “First do no harm.” It is never acceptable to cause disease in one person in order to save another, especially against that person’s will, as your example seems to indicate.
The disease from which those three are dying came about organically, no Dr. imposed it upon them. Even if they were ankle-guy’s three children, and he begged the Dr. to use his parts to save them, it still could not be done except in the case of a kidney, or a piece of liver that the donor can live without.
Where it gets really tough is in cases where minor siblings have “extra” organs or bone marrow which may save the life of another sibling. Parents are sometimes allowed to redistribute the kidneys amongst their children, or to force a bone marrow donation. I find that reprehensible. But there are some who say it’s for the greater good, and they have a right to their opinions as well.
You don’t have to think it, she’s been in mental hospitals and the defense said that she had delusions of grandeur that caused her to think that he would be better off dead. Granted, they also said she was ‘intoxicated’ by the small dose antidepressants she was on as well.
I mean, it could be argued that she wasn’t mentally ill, but that would get us really side tracked.
Yeah and?
I still don’t understand how you can list all those reason that she could not have had anything to do with his murder, but then also say his death was the result of her defending herself. Again, you can’t have it both ways. If she can’t cause his death with her words, she can’t defend herself with her words (to the point that he kills himself).
Similarly, if he was emotionally abusing her and this was self defense, the flip side of the coin is exactly what happened. There’s years of evidence of him being emotionally abused by her and he’s dead.
Is that what’s going on? Maybe his parents were checking up on him. Maybe he was seeing docs regularly. Maybe he’s been getting worse and they have noticed and were working on a plan to get him some better care. Maybe, as far as they knew, he seemed a million times better, but inside he was suffering. I really have no idea, I haven’t seen or read much about the parents, so I don’t want to guess at it. But this case is about the girlfriend so I’m not really sure why people keep bringing the parent’s into it.
And I’m not sure why anyone thinks it’s as clear cut as blocking her phone number.
All the texts, PDF, at the end, when she seems ‘surprised’ that’s when she deleted everything and sent new ones.
This is part of the court case and is very biased (as it would be), but I sticking in here because it includes some of the phone calls that she made to friends around the time of the suicide.
Oddly, while skimming through it, they mention another case where a husband was convicted of wanton and reckless behavior when his wife was suicidal and instead of helping her, told her were to find a loaded gun, which she used to kill herself. This, together with her very specifically saying that she knew she could have stopped it, starts to build good case against her, I think.
Here’s the case referenced in the Carter case. I misread part of it. The gun wasn’t already loaded, he did that for her. But other than that, it’s very similar. She said she was going to kill herself. He told her she would chicken out, she did it anyways. In this case, he was convicted for, more or less, make it just about as easy as possible to do it (also, she was drunk and upset).
I don’t agree with the conviction in the gun case either. But it is far less of a travesty. He physically loaded a gun and gave it to her, yet got charged with a far less serious crime than manslaughter.
Would people be out for the same vengeance against this girl if she had made a suicide pact with her boyfriend but then chickened out?
My first response to this story was that if the boy were my son, I might have to be restrained from killing her myself. Whether she was “wrong” is beside the point. People do things that are morally wrong, even heinous, all the time, without committing any crime. How about that deformed (but sweet and very intelligent) girl who put her dancing/singing videos online and received hateful comments about how her appearance ruined the commenters’ appetites? That made me so angry at them, and sad for her. But if they were prosecuted, I would oppose that very strongly on similar civil liberties grounds.
BTW, do you typically refer to high school girls as “women”? That’s a pretty blatant attempt to put your thumb on the scale.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a “thing” I think it’s a stupid thing. Laws that are designed protect peoples feelings from things they can easily ignore are stupid. Sue me.
There are always threads in the Pit that are “bullying” Why don’t you go into them and tell people to stop?
