young girl tells "friend" to kill himself. Is she responsible?

[PureX]

HIS behavior did not include texting someone who had decided against killing themselves and urging them to go through with it.

You are right, PureX. She didn't point the gun to his head and pull the trigger. She just goaded him and encouraged him to point it at himself and pull the trigger.

I understand what she did. I just don't see how she is responsible for his actions. You all seem to think she is, and I'm not seeing the reasoning of this assumption.

 

[Town Heretic]

I understand what she did. I just don't see how she is responsible for his actions.

She isn't. She's responsible for her own, wanton and reckless, etc.

You all seem to think she is, and I'm not seeing the reasoning of this assumption.

I gave you the charges and case law establishing how she finds herself in this particular trouble. So...there's the water. If you're parched it's because you mean to be.

 

[Rusha]

I understand what she did. I just don't see how she is responsible for his actions. You all seem to think she is, and I'm not seeing the reasoning of this assumption.

Show me one post where I stated that she should be charged for his actions?

I have implied throughout this thread that she *morally contributed* to his actions. FTR, it would be completely understandable if the deceased's family and friends treated her like something that is stuck on the bottom of their shoe.

 

[PureX]

We shouldn't assume. But we know that there are dangerous people out there who delight in harming others. We have very specific terms for some of those. She appears to be behaving in a manner consistent with that sort of person.

That makes her sick in the head. It doesn't make her responsible for his suicide, or any other crime I'm aware of.

Ultimately the truth is for a trier of fact to determine, but the suspicion is a reasonable one given the facts before us.

Suspicion of what? … Wanting some else to kill themselves? Telling them to? I'm still not seeing her responsibility, or her crime. At no time did she deny him his right to choose his own course of action. So how is she responsible for the course of action he chose?

He extinguished himself. That's a clear sign of mental instability and illness.

So is her wanting him to extinguish himself. So, if his mental illness excuses him of responsibility, in your mind, why doesn't her mental illness excuse her responsibility, in your mind?

Also, mentally disturbed or not, there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that would indicate that he had lost his ability to choose his own course of action. And without it, there is no reason to assume that she had control of him. (Something that is nearly impossible to achieve.)

She urged him to it. That isn't necessarily a similar sign. And he had a history of that instability. She looks like a wolf, calculating her response to the death she urged. Her actions aren't necessarily irrational.

What she "looks like" to you, or me, is not particularly relevant, is it? Though I'm puzzled why so many here have jumped to that conclusion without even a thought to the possible mental instability she might be experiencing. Somehow his instability is automatically presumed tantamount to mind control while hers is simply inconceivable.

 

[Granite]

Being suicidal and being sociopathic aren't the same thing, PureX, so stop insisting that a disorder of the mind somehow levels the playing field.

 

[PureX]

She isn't. She's responsible for her own, wanton and reckless, etc.

She will have to have been responsible for his well-being in some way, at the time, for any of those charges to apply. And she was not. (As with a baby-sitter, for example.)

 

[Granite]

She will have to have been responsible for his well-being in some way, at the time, for any of those charges to apply. And she was not. (As with a baby-sitter, for example.)

You couldn't be more wrong if you were trying, and for a while there I was convinced you were trying.

 

[Town Heretic]

She will have to have been responsible for his well-being in some way, at the time, for any of those charges to apply.

You didn't read my set out on the controlling law. You're mistaken. Now had she an obligation it would have added additional charges relating to a failure to act, but that's not how she's being charged. I set out the how and why and reasonableness of the charges proceeding within that context a while ago. How it all shakes out is a matter for the trier.

 

[PureX]

Being suicidal and being sociopathic aren't the same thing, PureX, so stop insisting that a disorder of the mind somehow levels the playing field.

I'm not looking to exonerate her, so I don't need to "level" anything. All I'm looking for is the reasoning behind holding her responsible for the choices he made.

 

[Town Heretic]

That makes her sick in the head.

Sociopaths aren't relieved of responsibility under the law, assuming that's her problem.

It doesn't make her responsible for his suicide, or any other crime I'm aware of.

See: my last referencing how you're wrong as a matter of law on the point.

Suspicion of what? …

Being culpable under the standard I noted prior.

So is her wanting him to extinguish himself. So, if his mental illness excuses him of responsibility, in your mind, why doesn't her mental illness excuse her responsibility, in your mind?

I've answered on the point. You can be a sociopath and understand the nature and consequence of your actions, that what you're doing is violative of the law. She evidences it with her attempts after the fact using social media.

Also, mentally disturbed or not, there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that would indicate that he had lost his ability to choose his own course of action.

Of course there is. If you're suicidal I can have you involuntarily committed because the law recognizes you aren't in your right mind and can't make an informed choice in your own best interest.

And without it, there is no reason to assume that she had control of him. (Something that is nearly impossible to achieve.)

Not the standard. You need to look at and address what is or you're just tap dancing around the problem.

What she "looks like" to you, or me, is not particularly relevant, is it?

Depends on what we know and what we're determining.

Though I'm puzzled why so many here have jumped to that conclusion without even a thought to the possible mental instability she might be experiencing.

Because he looks desperate, vulnerable and out of control and she looks sociopathic.

Somehow his instability is automatically presumed tantamount to mind control while hers is simply inconceivable.

Supra.

 

[Granite]

I'm not looking to exonerate her, so I don't need to "level" anything. All I'm looking for is the reasoning behind holding her responsible for the choices he made.

These objections of yours have been answered repeatedly. You're being contrary for its own sake at this point. Either that or you're genuinely incapable of understanding what we're saying: We are not holding her responsible for anyone's actions but her own.

 

[bybee]

These objections of yours have been answered repeatedly. You're being contrary for its own sake at this point. Either that or you're genuinely incapable of understanding what we're saying: We are not holding her responsible for anyone's actions but her own.

I did an experiment once. My first baby began to coo and smile very early. I would hold her and look into her face and smile at her and say "What a good girl you are!", etc.
She would be all serious and then break into a smile in response to my smiling and cooing at her. I tried (as an experiment) to smile and coo at her whilst saying Oh what a bad baby, still she responded with a smile. I tried (as an experiment) to say my usual sweet words to her but without a smile and her little face wilted. She was profoundly affected by my tone and the affect in my voice.
My point? From the beginning we are profoundly affected by words. Words have power.
A person in acute mental distress is vulnerable. I would use words with great care in dealing with any vulnerable person.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Completely different circumstances, completely different mindset. So, no, the two scenarios have next to nothing to do with each other at all.

You know what other people are thinking?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Because as we know everyone's especially tight with their third cousin.:chuckle:

And because as we know, everyone isnt tight with a grandparent pushing for this....

 

[Granite]

You know what other people are thinking?

You laid out a hypothetical scenario and I responded to it. As for the predator in question in the OP, her motives seem clear enough.

 

[PureX]

I did an experiment once. My first baby began to coo and smile very early. I would hold her and look into her face and smile at her and say "What a good girl you are!", etc.
She would be all serious and then break into a smile in response to my smiling and cooing at her. I tried (as an experiment) to smile and coo at her whilst saying Oh what a bad baby, still she responded with a smile. I tried (as an experiment) to say my usual sweet words to her but without a smile and her little face wilted. She was profoundly affected by my tone and the affect in my voice.
My point? From the beginning we are profoundly affected by words. Words have power.
A person in acute mental distress is vulnerable. I would use words with great care in dealing with any vulnerable person.

There are a couple of problems with your theory. One is that we are no longer infants, whose very lives depend on the disposition of that 'cooing face before us'.

Second, is that all your experiment proves is that babies are effected by intonation (not by words, as they have no idea what the words even mean).

So I don't really see how any of this proves that this man was being effected by the words of this young woman so profoundly that he lost his ability to act according to his own will, while all the other young men of the world are not being so profoundly influenced by all the other young women of the world in a similar way.

Sorry if my tone, here, should cause you to fly into an uncontrollable depression. :freak:

 

[bybee]

There are a couple of problems with your theory. One is that we are no longer infants, whose very lives depend on the disposition of that 'cooing face before us'.

Second, is that all your experiment proves is that babies are effected by intonation (not by words, as they have no idea what the words even mean).

So I don't really see how any of this proves that this man was being effected by the words of this young woman so profoundly that he lost his ability to act according to his own will, while all the other young men of the world are not being so profoundly influenced by all the other young women of the world in a similar way.

Sorry if my tone, here, should cause you to fly into an uncontrollable depression. :freak:

My friend your points are well taken. I always hold sane people to account for their own words and their own deeds.
This hard-hearted young woman was deliberately cruel and provocative. For that I hold her to the mark.
There is a charge called "aiding and abetting" a criminal act. I would consider her to be guilty of this charge.
No doubt, this young man's ability to make rational decisions was severely compromised before this Hag entered his life.
That is why it is important to be careful about placing blame or responsibility anyplace but on the performer of a word or deed. Where is it to end?
Again, I would stress that decent people do not egg others on to commit negative behaviors.

 

[GFR7]

My friend your points are well taken. I always hold sane people to account for their own words and their own deeds.
This hard-hearted young woman was deliberately cruel and provocative. For that I hold her to the mark.
There is a charge called "aiding and abetting" a criminal act. I would consider her to be guilty of this charge.
No doubt, this young man's ability to make rational decisions was severely compromised before this Hag entered his life.
That is why it is important to be careful about placing blame or responsibility anyplace but on the performer of a word or deed. Where is it to end?
Again, I would stress that decent people do not egg others on to commit negative behaviors.

I agree fully.

 

[PureX]

My friend your points are well taken. I always hold sane people to account for their own words and their own deeds.
This hard-hearted young woman was deliberately cruel and provocative. For that I hold her to the mark.
There is a charge called "aiding and abetting" a criminal act. I would consider her to be guilty of this charge.

That would seem reasonable, except that I'd have a little trouble seeing verbal encouragement, alone, as aiding and abetting a criminal act. Providing the gun, disposing of a body, etc., these I would consider 'aiding and abetting' a criminal act. Giving verbal instructions I could accept (she may have done this) as aiding and abetting. But verbal encouragement, alone, … I'm not seeing that as aiding and abetting.

 

[GFR7]

That would seem reasonable, except that I'd have a little trouble seeing verbal encouragement, alone, as aiding and abetting a criminal act. Providing the gun, disposing of a body, etc., these I would consider 'aiding and abetting' a criminal act. Giving verbal instructions I could accept (she may have done this) as aiding and abetting. But verbal encouragement, alone, … I'm not seeing that as aiding and abetting.

As Shakespeare said, the greatest crimes can be "born of an airy word". Words have consequences.