So crimes are based on your feelings about someone elses thinking (that you cannot prove)?
If saying go ahead basically is a crime, its a crime no matter who does it.
young girl tells "friend" to kill himself. Is she responsible?
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
So crimes are based on your feelings about someone elses thinking (that you cannot prove)?
If saying go ahead basically is a crime, its a crime no matter who does it.
GFR7
New member
:think: Touche. I guess I just find this girl despicable. Not sure really what the legal grounds are, but the DA and police seem to believe there is ample evidence of manslaughter.
And lots of people thought Darren Wilson was guilty of a crime... based on feelings.
Lots of that going around these days.
man·slaugh·ter
ˈmanˌslôdər/
noun
noun: manslaughter; plural noun: manslaughters
the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.
:think:
She didn't kill anyone, and you are arguing she was malicious (cant prove her thoughts)
GFR7
New member
How is the DA reasoning? How are the police justifying it? :think: They believe her actions did indeed result in his preventable death.
How do they justify it in loads of cases where they dont meet the burden of proof? Do you think the media should be the ones trying the case?
Is every person charged with something automatically guilty now, because the police and the da, thinks so and you like sensational news?
Why do you think a teenager is responsible to prevent the death of a guy his parents and other friends and therapist didnt even prevent the death of?
You are reaching, ill wager right now, she wont be found guilty. She didnt commit the crime shes charged with.
GFR7
New member
:think:
yes think about it long and hard because if she is guilty because she didnt prevent it, just imagine the precedent of that.
His parents, his other friends, his therapist and anyone who knew he talked about suicide and threatened it all the time and especially those (his parents and doctors) who knew he had already tried to do it before he even knew that girl, should be heading to jail along with her, since they knew those things for a fact and didnt lock him away to prevent it.
Wow, how many things could we blame on others, if a precedent like that is set, well your honor x supports/didnt prevent this, so...
District Attorney Thomas Quinn is a third cousin of the victim.
Think that might have something to do with it?
PureX
Well-known member
DAs tend to be political animals. When people are wrongly convicted, it's often because the DAs cut corners to get the conviction. And the police are not lawyers or judges, either. They tend to act according to their "gut" and in this case, anyone's "gut" wiil be repulsed by this woman's behavior. But that still doesn't necessarily make it criminal.
No, but this scenario has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual situation in the OP.
Its still someone saying go ahead and do it already. If thats a crime, then she should be locked up too. In fact everyone who tells someone else to drop dead and if they do, they should be in jail too, right?
Completely different circumstances, completely different mindset. So, no, the two scenarios have next to nothing to do with each other at all.
PureX
Well-known member
Question: why would a man be excused for taking his own life in a moment of weakness and confusion, but would not be excused for taking someone else's life in a moment of weakness and confusion?
Answer: because his own life was his own to dispose of as he chose. Someone else's life was not his to dispose of.
Thus: the imperative factor, here, is the right of self-determination. Am I right?
That being the case, how does this woman become responsible for this man's death? Since he retained his right of self-determination to the end. Even if he turned control of his own actions over to her, he still had to CHOOSE to do so, and he still could have chosen to take self-control back at any time. So that in effect, she was never really controlling him. And since she did not at any time actually usurp or deny his right to self-determination, how can she be held responsible for his actions?
If, as some of you assert, the man HAD lost his capacity for self-control and for some reason could not gain it back, how could we possibly determine this had happened? How could we know that he could not simply have changed his mind at any point and chosen not to kill himself? Was he mentally impaired in some way? If so, where is the evidence that would cause us to 'know' this?
I'm not disputing the outrageousness of her behavior. I just don't understand on what basis we are blaming her for HIS behavior.
Answer: because his own life was his own to dispose of as he chose. Someone else's life was not his to dispose of.
Thus: the imperative factor, here, is the right of self-determination. Am I right?
That being the case, how does this woman become responsible for this man's death? Since he retained his right of self-determination to the end. Even if he turned control of his own actions over to her, he still had to CHOOSE to do so, and he still could have chosen to take self-control back at any time. So that in effect, she was never really controlling him. And since she did not at any time actually usurp or deny his right to self-determination, how can she be held responsible for his actions?
If, as some of you assert, the man HAD lost his capacity for self-control and for some reason could not gain it back, how could we possibly determine this had happened? How could we know that he could not simply have changed his mind at any point and chosen not to kill himself? Was he mentally impaired in some way? If so, where is the evidence that would cause us to 'know' this?
I'm not disputing the outrageousness of her behavior. I just don't understand on what basis we are blaming her for HIS behavior.
I like the question. Here's an alternative answer: the man who takes his own life can't be excused except in the sense that we recognize anyone acting against their own self interest in that particular likely isn't in their right mind and it arouses compassion. If we catch that person in the attempt we stop them and we put them on watch in a mental health facility or wing. Because while we don't want to penalize the mentally ill for an act we believe they wouldn't have chosen rationally, we also don't want to let them yield to the impulse and harm themselves or others.
PureX
Well-known member
But why would we assume that this woman was any more "in her right mind" when her behavior was clearly not in anyone's best interest, either. Including her own. Why is she presumed sane and he presumed insane when both of their behaviors were clearly irrational and destructive. Why is harming someone else for no apparent reason considered sane, while harming one's self for no apparent considered insane?
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.
Perhaps you believe his parents should send the nasty little brat a thank you card?
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.
Ultimately the truth is for a trier of fact to determine, but the suspicion is a reasonable one given the facts before us.
He extinguished himself. That's a clear sign of mental instability and illness. 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.
Because people do all sorts of things with a clear understanding of the nature and consequence of their actions that we might term evil and would, in fact, be a violation of law. And the reason for the act is something to consider and to be determined.
If you're honestly confused by this issue, and not just putting us on, you're a potentially dangerous individual. I find it hard to believe this is anything but a ruse or some kind of exercise on your part. Otherwise, you're heartsick.
Because as we know everyone's especially tight with their third cousin.:chuckle:
And I doubt he stacked the grand jury with third cousins...of course the question is rarely, "Is it possible?" and almost always, "Is it reasonable?"