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

[PureX]

"Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting."

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/

I understand, but we're getting off track. The system will do what it's laws dictate. I'm more interested in our interest in it. Our need to presume ourselves to be judge and jury when we have no connection to the actual incident. Seems to me that this need to judge has become epidemic in our culture in recent decades. And I'm wondering why.

 

[republicanchick]

Well, when he was in his car ready to gas himself, and then decided against it, got out, and texted her, she texted, "Get back in." This was her best friend, and she held a big vigil for him after his death. She needed to be exposed and punished in some manner.

I agree

True, people do not HAVE to listen to others. Humans are known for listening to other humans FAR too dang much... But that is beside the point. this young man was vulnerable (as all young people are).

She should be in jail for.. maybe accomplice to murder. Suicide is against the law in many states, as far as I recall... and so she assisted in this criminal act



+++

 

[Granite]

I understand, but we're getting off track. The system will do what it's laws dictate. I'm more interested in our interest in it. Our need to presume ourselves to be judge and jury when we have no connection to the actual incident. Seems to me that this need to judge has become epidemic in our culture in recent decades. And I'm wondering why.

I'd be more alarmed if folks didn't care at all.

When people rubberneck at the scene of an accident a certain lookie-loo voyeurism certainly is in play...but I also think (hope?) we look to make sure no one we care about is involved, too.

I for one have very little faith in "the system" as a whole.

 

[Rusha]

She hasn't even been charged, except by everyone here. And I doubt she will be, because proving a motive would be difficult, and her 'crime' depends completely on there being one.

This is similar to charging a hate speaker with complicity for crimes his hate speech "inspired". The difficulty is proving that he knew the crime would occur as a result of his speech, and intended the perpetrator to commit it.

Correct ... most likely she cannot be charged criminally. He did the act. She just gave him the thumbs up in hopes he would act on it. She got her wish.

Criminal prosecution. No. Should she be allowed to forget she was the head cheerleader who urged him on even when he abandoned his former plans to kill himself? No. Not ever. She DID play a role in this ... and she should have to live it, just like his family and friends have to live with it.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

There was a debate on FOX earlier about the teen who encouraged her "friend" (Some friend she ws) to kill himself.. very tragic that he listened to that demonized... uh.. female dog

And the people discussing it acted like she is not responsible for his death.

I think that is stupid. She may not be responsible for first degree murder (although you could reasonably conclude...) but she is guilty of manslaughter or something like that..

http://video.foxnews.com/v/40860148...urging-friend-to-kill-himself/?#sp=show-clips


Life is cheap since Roe v Wade came along

++

Responsibility implies another in authority that can rightfully hold the one "responsible" to account.

Bantering the word "responsible" about without considering the aforementioned usually ends up with the usual canards, as in "God is responsible for evil." Exactly who is in the position of rightfully placing God in the dock and forcing Him to given an account of Himself? Job and Co. tried this and we should know what answer they received. :AMR:

Absent any law established by the civil magistrate to the contrary, the person you discuss is responsible only to God and the authority of her parents for her actions.

AMR

 

[PureX]

I'd be more alarmed if folks didn't care at all.

When people rubberneck at the scene of an accident a certain lookie-loo voyeurism certainly is in play...but I also think (hope?) we look to make sure no one we care about is involved, too.

Curiosity and judgment are not the same things, though. I understand that we would be curious about the behavior of this young woman. Precisely because it's so odd, and apparently so devoid of empathy.

But curiosity is not what the people on this thread have been expressing. What they are expressing is their immediate judgment and contempt for the woman, irrespective of the possible reasons. A curious person would want to know those possible reasons/explanations. Even a judgmental person might consider the mitigating possibilities. But few of us, here, considered any of that. We jumped right to the assumption of blame and expressions of condemnation.



On a related issue:

Scalia’s perfect capital-punishment case falls apart
By Steve Benen

A little over two decades ago, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was dismissive of then-Justice Harry Blackmun’s concerns about the death penalty. In fact, Scalia had a case study in mind that demonstrated exactly why the system of capital punishment has value.

As readers may recall, Scalia specifically pointed to a convicted killer named Henry Lee McCollum as an obvious example of a man who deserved to be put to death. “For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat,” Scalia wrote in a 1994 ruling. “How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!”

For Scalia, McCollum was the perfect example – a murderer whose actions were so heinous that his crimes stood as a testament to the merit of capital punishment itself.

Yesterday, McCollum was pardoned. Scalia’s perfect example of a man who deserved to be killed by the state was innocent. North Carolina’s News & Observer reported:
Gov. Pat McCrory on Thursday pardoned two half-brothers who were exonerated of murder after spending three decades in prison.

The governor took nine months to make the decision, saying he thoroughly reviewed the pardons sought by Henry McCollum and Leon Brown. Both men are intellectually disabled.
If this story sounds at all familiar, it was last fall when a judge ordered the men released. The confessions appeared to have been coerced 30 years ago and new DNA evidence implicated another man whose possible involvement had been overlooked at the time.

As recently as 2010, the North Carolina Republican Party used a McCollum photo on campaign fliers to attack a Democratic candidate as “soft on crime.”

McCollum hadn’t done anything wrong.

The pardon is a welcome development, though the News & Observer added that the middle-aged men, after having spent most of their lives behind bars – and on death row – for a crime they didn’t commit, are struggling.
[T]he men have been living with their sister, who has struggled to pay rent and utilities on her home in Fayetteville. The Center for Death Penalty Litigation established a fund to help them survive.

Each man now qualifies for $50,000 for each year they were imprisoned, up to a maximum of $750,000. They needed a gubernatorial pardon in order to collect the compensation.
As best as I can tell, Scalia has not yet commented.

It took 30 years for the truth to come to light.

So much for our lust for quick and severe punishments.

The sad fact is, though, that most people really wouldn't have cared if they were executed for a crime they didn't commit. This strange desire for mindless vengeance seems to be more important to many of us than executing the wrong man, is.

 

[republicanchick]

Yes, What if he had texted her, "I am following a child and thinking of molesting her, but am scared to" and she had texted back, "Do it!". What would most people think?

good point.

again, the guy's youth. If someone told me to kill myself, I might have some choice unprintable words to say in response..

(assuming I bother to respond @ all)

I have lived long enough to know that there are more evil humans than good ones and I learned not to pay attn. to the evil ones if I didn't have to.. young people don't know such things... usually.

she is young too, but she did something wrong and the community/world should not excuse it



+++

 

[republicanchick]

The sad fact is, though, that most people really wouldn't have cared if they were executed for a crime they didn't commit. This strange desire for mindless vengeance seems to be more important to many of us than executing the wrong man, is.

and so you conclude that Scalia condones killing innocent people unjustly convicted?

again, you liberals' logic elevator does not normally go beyond the first floor



+++

 

[Granite]

Curiosity and judgment are not the same things, though. I understand that we would be curious about the behavior of this young woman. Precisely because it's so odd, and apparently so devoid of empathy.

Absolutely. She seems pretty wretched.

But curiosity is not what the people on this thread have been expressing. What they are expressing is their immediate judgment and contempt for the woman, irrespective of the possible reasons.

After a while, PureX, the "reasons" a person might have to nudge or prod a supposed friend to kill themselves stop being relevant. To be blunt I don't really give a damn what motivated this spider to encourage someone to commit suicide. Her motives are secondary at this point.

A curious person would want to know those possible reasons/explanations.

If she's as psychopathic as it seems I consider your beard-plucking to be pedantic, or at the very least, somewhat irrelevant. Trees from the forest and all that. My own take is that she was a bored, callous creature who wanted to get some drama in her life, and subsequently manufactured it. That's just me, an outsider looking in. If someone can put a positive spin on what this young woman did, go ahead--I'm all ears.

 

[TomO]

I understand, but we're getting off track. The system will do what it's laws dictate. I'm more interested in our interest in it. Our need to presume ourselves to be judge and jury when we have no connection to the actual incident. Seems to me that this need to judge has become epidemic in our culture in recent decades. And I'm wondering why.

Ah...Well, I was only commenting on the system. I personally have no interest in the case either way...With the exception of morbid curiosity, that is. :think:

 

[republicanchick]

Bantering the word "responsible" about without considering the aforementioned usually ends up with the usual canards, as in "God is responsible for evil." AMR

HUH?

this makes no sense and sounds like non sequitor



+++

 

[Town Heretic]

This is unprovable. She may have acted unreasonably, but proving that MADE him act as he did is just not possible.

He's going to say her words/conduct rose to the wanton and reckless degree required by the charge and that following her instruction led to his death.

Now words are considered affirmative acts. And this act would certainly appear to embody a disregard for the likely consequence/harm to another. That's why the D.A. leveled the charge and why the grand jury found the argument sufficient to proceed.

Her subsequent actions could be construed as evidence of a guilty conscience, of someone trying to look very different than the person who encouraged him to get back into that truck.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

HUH?

this makes no sense and sounds like non sequitor

If you read my post carefully the point is that using the word "responsible" in a careless manner often results in absurdities, such as my example of "God is responsible for ...{insert all manner of foolishness here}"

Hence, in response to the claim "she is responsible..." my answer notes the requirement of an authority rightfully holding another to account for one's actions. Absent that, "responsible" means nothing.

BTW, it is "sequitur"

AMR

 

[bybee]

If you read my post carefully the point is that using the word "responsible" in a careless manner often results in absurdities, such as my example of "God is responsible for ...{insert all manner of foolishness here}"

Hence, in response to the claim "she is responsible..." my answer notes the requirement of an authority rightfully holding another to account for one's actions. Absent that, "responsible" means nothing.

BTW, it is "sequitur"

AMR

How long shall it take before our society realizes the disastrous consequences of "The Blame Game"? It is always someone else's fault, someone else's responsibility. Therein lies a slide into immorality. Defendable standards become relative or non-existant.
Eventually, anything goes in terms of behavior.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Would that all understand that we are responsible to God for our actions. Our civil magistrates continue to legislate "morality" while ignoring the One True Moral Law Giver.

The fact we live under wicked magistrates is ever more the reason to pray that God relieve us from His judgment and appoint a Godly ruler that would bow the knee to Christ and kiss the Son so that the church of God would have a nursing mother.

AMR

 

[bybee]

Would that all understand that we are responsible to God for our actions. Our civil magistrates continue to legislate "morality" while ignoring the One True Moral Law Giver.

The fact we live under wicked magistrates is ever more the reason to pray that God relieve us from His judgment and appoint a Godly ruler that would bow the knee to Christ and kiss the Son so that the church of God would have a nursing mother.

AMR

Agreed!

 

[Angel4Truth]

Or maybe she's just a sociopath.

From that article I referenced earlier:

"The girl is also accused of sending text messages to her friends and Roy's mother expressing concern about Roy's whereabouts on the day he committed suicide, despite having been in constant contact with him and encouraging him to take his own life."​

Because of course after a bit, she couldnt possibly have tried to call him, or got worried that he didnt contact her again- got no response then felt worried that he might actually have done something, where before she didnt take it seriously and thought it was just talk because hes does it so many times before - so she was trying to see if anyone had seen him, right and was then getting really concerned?

nah cant be that can it, from a young teen and clearly an immature one, no, she has to be a psycopath or deranged and can have no other motive right?

Listen, i know your premise is that she must be gulilty because a grand jury indicted, but people are found not guilty all the time and its later found out that what was insisted on, after seeing all the evidence , its not quite what the media pushed it to be.

Then we have how on earth could you possibly prove her thinking (that she didnt take it seriously since it happened so often- him threatening suicide- which has also already been proven by his parents and other friends)?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I haven't adjudicated her guilt or attempted to. And I'd say you're not a public defender or a psychiatrist, but it hasn't kept you from speculating and defending on the point.

Sure you have, you've called her a sociopath multiple times, can i see your license to practice psychiatry? You've also insisted shes to blame and the trial isnt over is it?

 

[Granite]

Sure you have, you've called her a sociopath multiple times, can i see your license to practice psychiatry? You've also insisted shes to blame and the trial isnt over is it?

Would her "friend" be more or less likely to be alive right now without her meddling and manipulation?

Why the world anyone here would go to any lengths to defend this young woman's completely beyond me.

 

[PureX]

Would her "friend" be more or less likely to be alive right now without her meddling and manipulation?

It's impossible to know. And that's important to understand. She could have talked him out of it that moment, and he'd killed himself an hour later.

No matter how you look at this, you can't draw any more than a speculative correlation between her words and his deeds. So if she is to be condemned, it has to be on her actions, alone.

Why in the world anyone here would go to any lengths to defend this young woman is completely beyond me.

No one is defending her, that I can see. But the reaction to her behavior seems puzzlingly irrational to me, including the assumption that pointing this out is 'defending her'.