7 ms·

In landmark case, woman found guilty of manslaughter for her texts

52 points by Mz 9y ago

jansho 9y ago
Awful case. I thought it was a bit extreme at first, until I read the details of how she really pushed for suicide. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40304433 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40304433
ErikVandeWater 9y ago
Does anyone have the definition of involuntary manslaughter used for the case? My memory and a basic search show involuntary manslaughter to generally be quite different from this: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-man...
didibus 9y ago
There's no good coming out of this case whatsoever. Just a very sad reality. The whole thing leaves me sore. A case like this shows the limits of the justice system I believe. It cannot deal with the complexity of the issue, and it has very little means to enact an outcome that will help anyone.
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  >> There's no good coming out of this case whatsoever. Would you mind explaining this further? I'm not sure I understand your position from your comments.
  - didibus 9y ago
    I won't pretend to know all the details, but I ask myself questions like: 1) How can we prevent this from happening again? 2) What kind of relief will this provide to the relatives? 3) How will it help rehabilitate the girl herself, so that her future contributions are positive and not even more negative? 4) What was or would have been best for the victim? 5) Who else is responsible for the situation? 6) What was the true causes that led to the death? And I don't feel like this case is answering any of these questions, trying to prevent recurrences, or support the people who are affected by the event. It's almost too complicated an issue, with too many layers and levels of indirection, reliability and blame. If we truly want to address the root cause, we'll need something much more thorough. At this point, I feel it probably will only work as a scape goat, allowing relatives to believe the boy had no issue, and that he would have managed to overcome and live a happy life if it wasn't for her, taking some of their guilt away and towards her. Are they right, we'll never know, but for sure other people could be argued to have also indirectly contributed to involuntary manslaughter, people who might have played a role with the original causes of depression and suicidal thoughts that led to him engaging in such a relationship in the first place and triggered the events that followed.
    - k-mcgrady 9y ago
      Thanks for explaining further. I see your points but I'd add one which I'd argue is an important (though obviously not the only) goal of the law - punishment/deterrence. If the girl committed the acts while also experiencing metal health problems that needs to be taken into consideration (maybe mandatory mental health treatment or something rather than prison) but at the end of the day she contributed significantly to a vulnerable person losing their life so she will have to lose her own freedom for a period of time in some way. I think that would satisfy the victims relatives to some degree. As for the 'true causes that led the the death' that seems pretty obvious to me from the facts - she was the cause. He had stepped off the ledge so to speak and if she hadn't intervened and told him to get back in the car it's likely he wouldn't have died that day. When considering her guilt that's all that matters. Why the victim was suicidal in the first place is irrelevant to establishing her part in the incident.
      - didibus 9y ago
        What activity is this even trying to deter? Assisted suicide? Bullying? Texting? And how does it do so? From the ruling, it seems the judge did not take anything into consideration except for the messages and inactions directly related to the incident. I understand why he didn't, legally speaking, because it's way too complicated if you do so. How can you reason about 2 years of exchanges in which he clearly expresses suicidal thoughts and toys with the idea of death to a teenage girl who herself struggles with these same issues and is under active antidepressants? I don't feel like it's obvious at all what the true cause is. She's spent more time and sent him more messages trying to deter him from committing suicide and pushing him to seek help prior to her assisting in his suicide attempt. Yet it seems that didn't do anything to help his depression. In his suicide note he thank her for all her support, and for being there for him and helping him. To me, him being suicidal is at the heart of it. She didn't make him suicidal. And if we could find who or what is responsible for him being suicidal in the first place, then wouldn't those who or what be even more responsible for his death? You could also claim he's made her assist him. He basically spent 2 years promoting to her the idea that he should do it, actively seeking her support in it. To me, that's as far fetched as what she's accused of. As soon as you make a conclusion from the premise that your words were the cause of someone's elses actions, you enter a realm of uncertainty, because we don't understand those psychological mechanism at all. They run deep, wide and complex. Yes, she's assisted him in his suicide, that's undeniable, to call that involuntary manslaughter is questionable. Suicide is illegal, and that's questionable too. Assisted suicide is also illegal, that's also questionable. The grounds for crime are fuzzy, but you're right, given the law and situation, she contributed, at least by making it easier for him. So I'm not objecting with the ruling, or anything like that. I feel more like we're just failing as a whole. Failing to prevent depression, failing to support it, failing to discuss it openly, failing to deal with it, failing to understand it, etc. And I don't see this court case improving on any of it. In fact, it might make it worse, by complicating an already complicated situation.
  - tdfx 9y ago
    I believe he's saying that this girl deserved punishment but the act of punishing her sets a dangerous precedent that may be twisted or abused in unforeseen ways later on.
    - qb45 9y ago
      In addition, she was on antidepressants so it's not clear what exactly her mental state was, she probably had some reasons to take them. And her defense argued that the drugs may have affected her actions, fwiw of course. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40304433 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40304433
lettergram 9y ago
I'd put money on having this over turned. It's a pretty long stretch to call this manslaughter based on the definition of the law (linked elsewhere in this thread).
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  Going by the definition in the linked page what do you think isn't satisfied? >> Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions. The victim got out of the car and only got back in because the defendant told him to. >> The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life. She may not have intended to kill him but given she knew of the poor mental state he was in, plus the fact he had just backed out of killing himself, it seems reckless to then tell him to get back into the car. >> The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others. As above really.
  - Simulacra 9y ago
    I think this is similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Someone is trampled to death as people rushed to get out. You didn't trample anyone, you didn't actually kill anyone, but your verbal actions set in motion a chain of events that caused the death of someone else. I think the same could also be said of someone on social media saying "this guy down the street is a rapist and a child molester, somebody should kill him." Well, if somebody takes you up on that and kills him, you should go to jail for manslaughter. This woman not only set the chain of events in motion, but she actively pushed them along.
    - k-mcgrady 9y ago
      Agreed.
    - jnwatson 9y ago
      That's quite insightful. I hadn't thought of it that way.
    - lettergram 9y ago
api 9y ago
Yeah, I've found that generally to be the case with superficially ridiculous sounding cases. Google the details of the famous 1990s McDonald's coffee scalding lawsuit. It wasn't just hot coffee. It was PWR nuclear reactor core hot coffee that caused serious third degree burns. This girl sounds like a psychopath. Gender stereotypes keep a lot of people from seeing it. Reverse the genders in your mind.
- the8472 9y ago
  > It was PWR nuclear reactor core hot coffee Unlikely, even if it you managed to get superheated water into a cup would would instantly flash into steam under standard pressure if you disturbed it. You wouldn't have a chance to hand it to the customer.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    My right arm disagrees. Superheated distilled water will stay superheated and liquid long enough to get you nicely roasted depending on how much water is spilled and what it lands on. Even ordinary water will do this if the cup it is in is smooth enough and the water pure enough (not sure how that would work with coffee). That's why you want to be very careful if your water still doesn't boil after you've microwaved it for the 3rd time. It may very well have become superheated, which you will find out as soon as you try to do anything with it, even moving the container can cause instant trouble.
    - the8472 9y ago
      > (not sure how that would work with coffee) Yes, I assumed that a paper cup and coffee solids will provide nucleation points. And the incident was about a coffee spill, not a flash boiling of superheated liquid. > During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). This is clearly not superheated liquid.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        No, but it clearly is third degree burn territory. http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_graph.html http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_wa... And considering you're strapped into a seat you are going to be exposed a lot longer than you'd otherwise be if you could jump away or have some other reflex act to make things better. First panic, then remove seatbelt, open door, get out. By the time that's all done you are probably 6 seconds (or longer, for an older person) in contact with the water, depending on the size of the cup that might as well be an eternity. The burn I have is pretty extensive, it is so deep that there is no pigmentation on the burned parts and EMTs would not believe it is just a water burn.
jakelazaroff 9y ago
I'm not sure why it's legally relevant that this happened over text message — isn't this just a specific manifestation of speech made to convince someone to kill themselves? Why is this different than e.g. finding someone on a bridge and telling them to jump?
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  I guess that's the precedent set here. That there is no difference between saying it in person/phone/text.
- digitalzombie 9y ago
  > Why is this different than e.g. finding someone on a bridge and telling them to jump? To be fair... she didn't found that person she was that person girl friend. I think they both had mess up mind and it's better if she were to be sentence to rehabilitate.
- nextweek2 9y ago
  I've recently read two interesting points: 1, It's different because she wasn't physically present, which is new in the eyes of the law. Unlike your bridge comparison. 2, If I wrote a book trying to convince people to kill themselves would I now be liable?
mnm1 9y ago
This is outrageous. The defendant is a child. Children do stupid things. Especially in a society in which 3/4 of the people believe that there is a "better life" after death, is it any wonder she said the things she did? Up to 20 years for a minor for involuntary manslaughter. How is that justice? Adult murderers often get less. Anyway, it's a great argument for using something like Signal with expiring messages on.
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  >> Up to 20 years Up. To. Pretty sure her age (and other factors) will be taken into account when a sentence is passed.
  - Simulacra 9y ago
    I'd give her 5 years at the least. Watching her throughout the trial and her actions after his death showed she had no remorse or emotion for what she did. I truly believe up until the judge read that verdict she thought she did absolutely nothing wrong. Maybe that was psychosis, or extreme immaturity...
    - cr0sh 9y ago
      Supposedly at the time she was telling her boyfriend to get back in the truck, etc - she was taking some kind of anti-depressant medicine herself, which a doctor testified could potentially cause her to think that getting him to commit suicide was a means of her helping him with his problems. That's not saying she's not guilty or making excuses for her. Suffice to say that it is likely that she is still on some kind of medication for something, so who knows if that (if true) played a part in how she reacted during the trial - or if how she acted when she committed her acts was caused in part or whole by the medication she was taking at the time. Likely, it was/is a combination of the medication, whatever her problems are/were to take such medication, combined with other possibly sociopathy (or "psychosis" as you termed it), possible immaturity at the time (and perhaps now), along with a host of other possible reasons.
    - DanBC 9y ago
k-mcgrady 9y ago
From what I've read about the case it was the fact that he got out of the car (i.e. decided not to kill himself) and she told him to get back in. She knew he wasn't fully in control of his actions because of his mental state and so telling him to get back in, whether she wanted him to die or not, was reckless. IANAL though. Any lawyers here who could explain the details of how they satisfied the elements required to prove involuntary manslaughter?
Simulacra 9y ago
I think the key point in all of the evidence, which really convicted her, was the moment when he got out of the truck and she told him to get back in. Then did absolutely nothing and told no one. Up until that moment she was just a vile human being, but then she crossed a line into something showing complete disregard for life.
- qb45 9y ago
  I'm afraid the craziest aspect of this story is that she wasn't even being vile, she actually believed that he wants to be dead and tried to help him. They had been planning it together for a few days, she threatened to "get him help" if he keeps hesitating, also: I fucking told him to get back in [...] because I knew he would do it all over again the next day and I couldnt have him live the way he was living anymore I couldnt do it I wouldnt let him https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14576490#14576855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14576490#14576855
  - Mz 9y ago
    I was not previously aware of this aspect of the story. I will note that it is very common for men to make their emotional crap the problem of some woman they are romantically interested in, even if she has zero desire to be with him. That doesn't excuse or justify her behavior. The correct thing to do would be to "get him help" if that was within her power. But sometimes there is a thin line between stalker and boyfriend, especially in online relationships. And she was just 17.
    - qb45 9y ago
      It looks like you are trying to suggest that she may have had reasons to wish him ill while I actually dare to question whether she wished him ill at all or just felt sorry for him. I read all the transcripts and the atmosphere somehow reminds me of those suicidal doomsday cults where they just know the world is fucked and there is no way out. Except in this case, only his life was fucked and he was convinced he has no way out and got her to believe that strengthening his will to die is all she can do for him. BBC says she was on antidepressants, so possibly depressed herself. May have been convincing to her, I think.
reader5000 9y ago
Effectively it looks like the guy was looking for a suicide-buddy. Initially she told him to get help, but he kept pestering her about wanting to commit suicide. So she helped him through it in a non-material way. That's one interpretation, and there's nothing criminal about that. Just a poor decision from the judge here. Reminiscent of a case from years ago where roommates secretly filmed a roommate having a gay encounter, and the roommate killed himself on finding out. I don't get how a person committing suicide in a non-intoxicated state is anybody's fault but their own. I guess you could argue if you find a drunk person and tell them to do something reckless, but none of these cases seem to fit that.
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  Why differentiate between intoxication and mental illness? Surely someone with severe enough mental illness that they're on the brink of suicide is much more suggestible than someone who is drunk.
  - Mz 9y ago
    IIRC, some articles frame this as a romantic relationship. That sort of involvement tends to give more than normal sway.
    - marchenko 9y ago
      Desiring someone else's esteem or romantic affection should not be considered sufficient to make you their mindless thrall in the eyes of the law. The defendant was a juvenile peer with no legal, physical, familial, or economic control over the victim. She was just a horrible person he found attractive and persuasive.
      - Mz 9y ago
        There is a lot of space between mindless thrall in the eyes of the law and wholly irrelevant to the case.
- Retra 9y ago
joatmon-snoo 9y ago
Here's the court opinion on Justia: http://cases.justia.com/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016-sjc-12043.pdf http://cases.justia.com/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016-sjc...
poikniok 9y ago
Does nobody here care about free speech? I guess this is how freedom dies.
- uptown 9y ago
  Free speech right and coercion laws aren't mutually exclusive.
- asmosoinio 9y ago
  Even with free speech, people are still responsible for their words and actions.
- openasocket 9y ago
  As someone else in the thread said, what's the difference between this and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? You may not have trampled people yourself, but your actions directly led to it and you clearly knew that would be the result. IMO this has exactly zero effect on free speech in this country
  - poikniok 9y ago
    Because all she did was give advice to somebody else. We can't even definitively say it was bad advice, maybe committing suicide was indeed the best option for him. Anyway I hope all the people commenting here don't support the right to die, because these kinds of rulings make it much harder for a doctor to ever have the ability to advise a patient about suicide.
    - openasocket 9y ago
      > Because all she did was give advice to somebody else And all the person in the example did was yell "Fire!". > We can't even definitively say it was bad advice, maybe committing suicide was indeed the best option for him. I will push back against this very strongly. This isn't someone with a terminal illness looking to end things free of pain. People with clinical depression have a mental illness, their suicidal actions are the product of a condition they have no control over. Their feelings are not the product of reason and rational thought, it's a disease. > these kinds of rulings make it much harder for a doctor to ever have the ability to advise a patient about suicide. No they do not. This is why we have specific legislation allowing doctors to discuss end of life options. It explicitly exempts them from prosecution like this.
marchenko 9y ago
This case stretches the theory of manslaughter to a point where it impinges on free speech. Not every evil act is an illegal act, and it is dangerous to over-extend legal theory to retroactively condemn a specific act.
- rhino369 9y ago
  It may not be direct manslaughter, she's still an accomplice to his suicide. Encouraging a crime makes you as culpable as the person carrying it out. Think of it as her spending years convincing her boyfriend to kill a third person. She'd be just as guilty. I'd have charged her for complicity and conspiracy for first degree murder.
  - marchenko 9y ago
    But suicide is not illegal in Mass.,so she is not an accomplice to any crime. She did not give any material or physical aid to help the victim effect his death, so it's hard to stretch this as assisted suicide, the closest related criminal charge (and it seems the prosecutor agrees as they charged her with manslaughter).
    - rhino369 9y ago
      That would explain why she wasn't charged with murder. I didn't consider that most states define murder as a the killing of another person, which rules out suicide.
- chc 9y ago
  How is not being allowed to induce a mentally ill person to kill himself any more of an infringement of free speech than fraud or libel or perjury or conspiracy laws? The freedom of speech is a freedom to express oneself, not a freedom from consequences for any harmful action that can be accomplished through speaking.
  - marchenko 9y ago
    She did not deceive him or collude with others to exert undue leverage over him. She made it clear that the intended result of the actions she advocated was death. She does not appear to have introduced the idea of suicide in the first place. She had no legal, physical, or economic control over him, was not in proximity to him during the suicide, and does not appear to have involved third parties at any time. He carried out an act that was legal for him to perform in large part because of her persuasive speech. Her words were chilling, but his act was the result of speech between two peers, and was not itself illegal.
dronemallone 9y ago
What's the guarantee that someone else didn't send the texts from her phone?
- openasocket 9y ago
  The part where the defense didn't make that claim? The defense completely conceded that these were her texts
forgotpwtomain 9y ago
The entire concept of suicide being illegal is appalling to begin with. No one ever asks a human being whether they want to live life, and for any entity to presume jurisdiction over that is ridiculous. This is the legacy of centuries of religious superstition...
- DanBC 9y ago
  Where in the US is suicide illegal?
  - qb45 9y ago
    It's not, but apparently assisting can get you in trouble regardless. The court ruling in this case cites a precedent involving somebody handing a loaded gun to a person who said in an impulse that she wants to kill herself and then actually did and another case when people were sentenced for playing Russian roulette until somebody "lost". FWIW, I agree with the first case but the second one is stretching it IMO. Ultimately, you can't really disagree that most of the time, people generally want others to live, whether they like it or not.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- openasocket 9y ago
  Suicide isn't really illegal, you can't be prosecuted for it or for attempting it. It does have some interesting corner cases. If police believe you are attempting suicide they can enter your house to stop you without a warrant. A person who attempted suicide but was stopped or saved by someone cannot sue that person for any injuries sustained during their rescue. And of course if you are considered an active threat to yourself by a qualified mental health professional you can be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric institution.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
  There is a marked difference between someone who has a terminal, painful illness and has made a cold, rational, and sober decision to end their life and someone who has a mental disorder/abnormality or is facing a major crisis and makes an impulsive decision. The vast majority of suicide attempts are caused by temporary, immediate stressors that recede with the oassage of time. 70% of people who commit suicide do so within an hour of of making the decision. 90% of people who survive suicide attempts do not try it again.[1] It is an overwhelmingly impulsive act when people, caught up in the emotion of a major crisis, cannot see any path forward.[1] I'm not sure if this is the legacy of religiosity, but modern attitudes towards suicide are clinically shaped that understand the fleeting nature and temporary sway of many suicide crises. You present a romanticized view of it(a sober, rational decision made over a period of time, perhaps due to a legacy of classic greek philosophers, that is inaccurate and dangerous. I say this as someone who had a friend commit suicide in 8th grade in a typical dad pushes son too hard academically and athleticly, son feels depressed, finds dad's gun and ends life scenario. He couldnt see the options in front of him... running away, seek emancipation, put up with shit for another 4 years before finally telling his family to frak off... Public suicide should be illegal for the often melodramatic way in which they choose to end their life and the extreme trauma that witnesses suffer. Watching someone as they jump off a bridge/building, splatter on the sidewalk, or blowing their brains out leaves scars no amount of therapy can heal. [1] New England Journal of Medicine - Guns and Suicide Rates in US => http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923#t=article http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923#t=article
codecrusade 9y ago
Psycopath. Must get capital punishment. Meanwhile an interesting debate on Quora https://www.quora.com/In-India-a-married-man-commits-suicide-every-9-minutes-Section-498a-and-a-woman-is-raped-every-20-minutes-Why-do-you-think-the-latter-is-highlighted-by-local-and-international-media-while-the-former-seems-to-be-largely-ignored https://www.quora.com/In-India-a-married-man-commits-suicide...

52 points by Mz 9y ago

Awful case. I thought it was a bit extreme at first, until I read the details of how she really pushed for suicide. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40304433 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40304433

ErikVandeWater 9y ago

Does anyone have the definition of involuntary manslaughter used for the case? My memory and a basic search show involuntary manslaughter to generally be quite different from this: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-man...

didibus 9y ago

There's no good coming out of this case whatsoever. Just a very sad reality. The whole thing leaves me sore. A case like this shows the limits of the justice system I believe. It cannot deal with the complexity of the issue, and it has very little means to enact an outcome that will help anyone.

k-mcgrady 9y ago
>> There's no good coming out of this case whatsoever. Would you mind explaining this further? I'm not sure I understand your position from your comments.
- didibus 9y ago
  I won't pretend to know all the details, but I ask myself questions like: 1) How can we prevent this from happening again? 2) What kind of relief will this provide to the relatives? 3) How will it help rehabilitate the girl herself, so that her future contributions are positive and not even more negative? 4) What was or would have been best for the victim? 5) Who else is responsible for the situation? 6) What was the true causes that led to the death? And I don't feel like this case is answering any of these questions, trying to prevent recurrences, or support the people who are affected by the event. It's almost too complicated an issue, with too many layers and levels of indirection, reliability and blame. If we truly want to address the root cause, we'll need something much more thorough. At this point, I feel it probably will only work as a scape goat, allowing relatives to believe the boy had no issue, and that he would have managed to overcome and live a happy life if it wasn't for her, taking some of their guilt away and towards her. Are they right, we'll never know, but for sure other people could be argued to have also indirectly contributed to involuntary manslaughter, people who might have played a role with the original causes of depression and suicidal thoughts that led to him engaging in such a relationship in the first place and triggered the events that followed.
  - k-mcgrady 9y ago
    Thanks for explaining further. I see your points but I'd add one which I'd argue is an important (though obviously not the only) goal of the law - punishment/deterrence. If the girl committed the acts while also experiencing metal health problems that needs to be taken into consideration (maybe mandatory mental health treatment or something rather than prison) but at the end of the day she contributed significantly to a vulnerable person losing their life so she will have to lose her own freedom for a period of time in some way. I think that would satisfy the victims relatives to some degree. As for the 'true causes that led the the death' that seems pretty obvious to me from the facts - she was the cause. He had stepped off the ledge so to speak and if she hadn't intervened and told him to get back in the car it's likely he wouldn't have died that day. When considering her guilt that's all that matters. Why the victim was suicidal in the first place is irrelevant to establishing her part in the incident.
    - didibus 9y ago
      What activity is this even trying to deter? Assisted suicide? Bullying? Texting? And how does it do so? From the ruling, it seems the judge did not take anything into consideration except for the messages and inactions directly related to the incident. I understand why he didn't, legally speaking, because it's way too complicated if you do so. How can you reason about 2 years of exchanges in which he clearly expresses suicidal thoughts and toys with the idea of death to a teenage girl who herself struggles with these same issues and is under active antidepressants? I don't feel like it's obvious at all what the true cause is. She's spent more time and sent him more messages trying to deter him from committing suicide and pushing him to seek help prior to her assisting in his suicide attempt. Yet it seems that didn't do anything to help his depression. In his suicide note he thank her for all her support, and for being there for him and helping him. To me, him being suicidal is at the heart of it. She didn't make him suicidal. And if we could find who or what is responsible for him being suicidal in the first place, then wouldn't those who or what be even more responsible for his death? You could also claim he's made her assist him. He basically spent 2 years promoting to her the idea that he should do it, actively seeking her support in it. To me, that's as far fetched as what she's accused of. As soon as you make a conclusion from the premise that your words were the cause of someone's elses actions, you enter a realm of uncertainty, because we don't understand those psychological mechanism at all. They run deep, wide and complex. Yes, she's assisted him in his suicide, that's undeniable, to call that involuntary manslaughter is questionable. Suicide is illegal, and that's questionable too. Assisted suicide is also illegal, that's also questionable. The grounds for crime are fuzzy, but you're right, given the law and situation, she contributed, at least by making it easier for him. So I'm not objecting with the ruling, or anything like that. I feel more like we're just failing as a whole. Failing to prevent depression, failing to support it, failing to discuss it openly, failing to deal with it, failing to understand it, etc. And I don't see this court case improving on any of it. In fact, it might make it worse, by complicating an already complicated situation.
- tdfx 9y ago
  I believe he's saying that this girl deserved punishment but the act of punishing her sets a dangerous precedent that may be twisted or abused in unforeseen ways later on.
  - qb45 9y ago
    In addition, she was on antidepressants so it's not clear what exactly her mental state was, she probably had some reasons to take them. And her defense argued that the drugs may have affected her actions, fwiw of course. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40304433 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40304433

lettergram 9y ago

I'd put money on having this over turned. It's a pretty long stretch to call this manslaughter based on the definition of the law (linked elsewhere in this thread).

k-mcgrady 9y ago
Going by the definition in the linked page what do you think isn't satisfied? >> Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions. The victim got out of the car and only got back in because the defendant told him to. >> The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life. She may not have intended to kill him but given she knew of the poor mental state he was in, plus the fact he had just backed out of killing himself, it seems reckless to then tell him to get back into the car. >> The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others. As above really.
- Simulacra 9y ago
  I think this is similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Someone is trampled to death as people rushed to get out. You didn't trample anyone, you didn't actually kill anyone, but your verbal actions set in motion a chain of events that caused the death of someone else. I think the same could also be said of someone on social media saying "this guy down the street is a rapist and a child molester, somebody should kill him." Well, if somebody takes you up on that and kills him, you should go to jail for manslaughter. This woman not only set the chain of events in motion, but she actively pushed them along.
  - k-mcgrady 9y ago
    Agreed.
  - jnwatson 9y ago
    That's quite insightful. I hadn't thought of it that way.
  - lettergram 9y ago

api 9y ago

Yeah, I've found that generally to be the case with superficially ridiculous sounding cases. Google the details of the famous 1990s McDonald's coffee scalding lawsuit. It wasn't just hot coffee. It was PWR nuclear reactor core hot coffee that caused serious third degree burns. This girl sounds like a psychopath. Gender stereotypes keep a lot of people from seeing it. Reverse the genders in your mind.

the8472 9y ago
> It was PWR nuclear reactor core hot coffee Unlikely, even if it you managed to get superheated water into a cup would would instantly flash into steam under standard pressure if you disturbed it. You wouldn't have a chance to hand it to the customer.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  My right arm disagrees. Superheated distilled water will stay superheated and liquid long enough to get you nicely roasted depending on how much water is spilled and what it lands on. Even ordinary water will do this if the cup it is in is smooth enough and the water pure enough (not sure how that would work with coffee). That's why you want to be very careful if your water still doesn't boil after you've microwaved it for the 3rd time. It may very well have become superheated, which you will find out as soon as you try to do anything with it, even moving the container can cause instant trouble.
  - the8472 9y ago
    > (not sure how that would work with coffee) Yes, I assumed that a paper cup and coffee solids will provide nucleation points. And the incident was about a coffee spill, not a flash boiling of superheated liquid. > During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). This is clearly not superheated liquid.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      No, but it clearly is third degree burn territory. http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_graph.html http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_wa... And considering you're strapped into a seat you are going to be exposed a lot longer than you'd otherwise be if you could jump away or have some other reflex act to make things better. First panic, then remove seatbelt, open door, get out. By the time that's all done you are probably 6 seconds (or longer, for an older person) in contact with the water, depending on the size of the cup that might as well be an eternity. The burn I have is pretty extensive, it is so deep that there is no pigmentation on the burned parts and EMTs would not believe it is just a water burn.

jakelazaroff 9y ago

I'm not sure why it's legally relevant that this happened over text message — isn't this just a specific manifestation of speech made to convince someone to kill themselves? Why is this different than e.g. finding someone on a bridge and telling them to jump?

k-mcgrady 9y ago
I guess that's the precedent set here. That there is no difference between saying it in person/phone/text.
digitalzombie 9y ago
> Why is this different than e.g. finding someone on a bridge and telling them to jump? To be fair... she didn't found that person she was that person girl friend. I think they both had mess up mind and it's better if she were to be sentence to rehabilitate.
nextweek2 9y ago
I've recently read two interesting points: 1, It's different because she wasn't physically present, which is new in the eyes of the law. Unlike your bridge comparison. 2, If I wrote a book trying to convince people to kill themselves would I now be liable?

mnm1 9y ago

This is outrageous. The defendant is a child. Children do stupid things. Especially in a society in which 3/4 of the people believe that there is a "better life" after death, is it any wonder she said the things she did? Up to 20 years for a minor for involuntary manslaughter. How is that justice? Adult murderers often get less. Anyway, it's a great argument for using something like Signal with expiring messages on.

k-mcgrady 9y ago
>> Up to 20 years Up. To. Pretty sure her age (and other factors) will be taken into account when a sentence is passed.
- Simulacra 9y ago
  I'd give her 5 years at the least. Watching her throughout the trial and her actions after his death showed she had no remorse or emotion for what she did. I truly believe up until the judge read that verdict she thought she did absolutely nothing wrong. Maybe that was psychosis, or extreme immaturity...
  - cr0sh 9y ago
    Supposedly at the time she was telling her boyfriend to get back in the truck, etc - she was taking some kind of anti-depressant medicine herself, which a doctor testified could potentially cause her to think that getting him to commit suicide was a means of her helping him with his problems. That's not saying she's not guilty or making excuses for her. Suffice to say that it is likely that she is still on some kind of medication for something, so who knows if that (if true) played a part in how she reacted during the trial - or if how she acted when she committed her acts was caused in part or whole by the medication she was taking at the time. Likely, it was/is a combination of the medication, whatever her problems are/were to take such medication, combined with other possibly sociopathy (or "psychosis" as you termed it), possible immaturity at the time (and perhaps now), along with a host of other possible reasons.
  - DanBC 9y ago

k-mcgrady 9y ago

From what I've read about the case it was the fact that he got out of the car (i.e. decided not to kill himself) and she told him to get back in. She knew he wasn't fully in control of his actions because of his mental state and so telling him to get back in, whether she wanted him to die or not, was reckless. IANAL though. Any lawyers here who could explain the details of how they satisfied the elements required to prove involuntary manslaughter?

Simulacra 9y ago

I think the key point in all of the evidence, which really convicted her, was the moment when he got out of the truck and she told him to get back in. Then did absolutely nothing and told no one. Up until that moment she was just a vile human being, but then she crossed a line into something showing complete disregard for life.

qb45 9y ago
I'm afraid the craziest aspect of this story is that she wasn't even being vile, she actually believed that he wants to be dead and tried to help him. They had been planning it together for a few days, she threatened to "get him help" if he keeps hesitating, also: I fucking told him to get back in [...] because I knew he would do it all over again the next day and I couldnt have him live the way he was living anymore I couldnt do it I wouldnt let him https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14576490#14576855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14576490#14576855
- Mz 9y ago
  I was not previously aware of this aspect of the story. I will note that it is very common for men to make their emotional crap the problem of some woman they are romantically interested in, even if she has zero desire to be with him. That doesn't excuse or justify her behavior. The correct thing to do would be to "get him help" if that was within her power. But sometimes there is a thin line between stalker and boyfriend, especially in online relationships. And she was just 17.
  - qb45 9y ago
    It looks like you are trying to suggest that she may have had reasons to wish him ill while I actually dare to question whether she wished him ill at all or just felt sorry for him. I read all the transcripts and the atmosphere somehow reminds me of those suicidal doomsday cults where they just know the world is fucked and there is no way out. Except in this case, only his life was fucked and he was convinced he has no way out and got her to believe that strengthening his will to die is all she can do for him. BBC says she was on antidepressants, so possibly depressed herself. May have been convincing to her, I think.

reader5000 9y ago

Effectively it looks like the guy was looking for a suicide-buddy. Initially she told him to get help, but he kept pestering her about wanting to commit suicide. So she helped him through it in a non-material way. That's one interpretation, and there's nothing criminal about that. Just a poor decision from the judge here. Reminiscent of a case from years ago where roommates secretly filmed a roommate having a gay encounter, and the roommate killed himself on finding out. I don't get how a person committing suicide in a non-intoxicated state is anybody's fault but their own. I guess you could argue if you find a drunk person and tell them to do something reckless, but none of these cases seem to fit that.

k-mcgrady 9y ago
Why differentiate between intoxication and mental illness? Surely someone with severe enough mental illness that they're on the brink of suicide is much more suggestible than someone who is drunk.
- Mz 9y ago
  IIRC, some articles frame this as a romantic relationship. That sort of involvement tends to give more than normal sway.
  - marchenko 9y ago
    Desiring someone else's esteem or romantic affection should not be considered sufficient to make you their mindless thrall in the eyes of the law. The defendant was a juvenile peer with no legal, physical, familial, or economic control over the victim. She was just a horrible person he found attractive and persuasive.
    - Mz 9y ago
      There is a lot of space between mindless thrall in the eyes of the law and wholly irrelevant to the case.
Retra 9y ago

joatmon-snoo 9y ago

Here's the court opinion on Justia: http://cases.justia.com/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016-sjc-12043.pdf http://cases.justia.com/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016-sjc...

poikniok 9y ago

Does nobody here care about free speech? I guess this is how freedom dies.

uptown 9y ago
Free speech right and coercion laws aren't mutually exclusive.
asmosoinio 9y ago
Even with free speech, people are still responsible for their words and actions.
openasocket 9y ago
As someone else in the thread said, what's the difference between this and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? You may not have trampled people yourself, but your actions directly led to it and you clearly knew that would be the result. IMO this has exactly zero effect on free speech in this country
- poikniok 9y ago
  Because all she did was give advice to somebody else. We can't even definitively say it was bad advice, maybe committing suicide was indeed the best option for him. Anyway I hope all the people commenting here don't support the right to die, because these kinds of rulings make it much harder for a doctor to ever have the ability to advise a patient about suicide.
  - openasocket 9y ago
    > Because all she did was give advice to somebody else And all the person in the example did was yell "Fire!". > We can't even definitively say it was bad advice, maybe committing suicide was indeed the best option for him. I will push back against this very strongly. This isn't someone with a terminal illness looking to end things free of pain. People with clinical depression have a mental illness, their suicidal actions are the product of a condition they have no control over. Their feelings are not the product of reason and rational thought, it's a disease. > these kinds of rulings make it much harder for a doctor to ever have the ability to advise a patient about suicide. No they do not. This is why we have specific legislation allowing doctors to discuss end of life options. It explicitly exempts them from prosecution like this.

marchenko 9y ago

This case stretches the theory of manslaughter to a point where it impinges on free speech. Not every evil act is an illegal act, and it is dangerous to over-extend legal theory to retroactively condemn a specific act.

rhino369 9y ago
It may not be direct manslaughter, she's still an accomplice to his suicide. Encouraging a crime makes you as culpable as the person carrying it out. Think of it as her spending years convincing her boyfriend to kill a third person. She'd be just as guilty. I'd have charged her for complicity and conspiracy for first degree murder.
- marchenko 9y ago
  But suicide is not illegal in Mass.,so she is not an accomplice to any crime. She did not give any material or physical aid to help the victim effect his death, so it's hard to stretch this as assisted suicide, the closest related criminal charge (and it seems the prosecutor agrees as they charged her with manslaughter).
  - rhino369 9y ago
    That would explain why she wasn't charged with murder. I didn't consider that most states define murder as a the killing of another person, which rules out suicide.
chc 9y ago
How is not being allowed to induce a mentally ill person to kill himself any more of an infringement of free speech than fraud or libel or perjury or conspiracy laws? The freedom of speech is a freedom to express oneself, not a freedom from consequences for any harmful action that can be accomplished through speaking.
- marchenko 9y ago
  She did not deceive him or collude with others to exert undue leverage over him. She made it clear that the intended result of the actions she advocated was death. She does not appear to have introduced the idea of suicide in the first place. She had no legal, physical, or economic control over him, was not in proximity to him during the suicide, and does not appear to have involved third parties at any time. He carried out an act that was legal for him to perform in large part because of her persuasive speech. Her words were chilling, but his act was the result of speech between two peers, and was not itself illegal.

dronemallone 9y ago

What's the guarantee that someone else didn't send the texts from her phone?

openasocket 9y ago
The part where the defense didn't make that claim? The defense completely conceded that these were her texts

forgotpwtomain 9y ago

The entire concept of suicide being illegal is appalling to begin with. No one ever asks a human being whether they want to live life, and for any entity to presume jurisdiction over that is ridiculous. This is the legacy of centuries of religious superstition...

DanBC 9y ago
Where in the US is suicide illegal?
- qb45 9y ago
  It's not, but apparently assisting can get you in trouble regardless. The court ruling in this case cites a precedent involving somebody handing a loaded gun to a person who said in an impulse that she wants to kill herself and then actually did and another case when people were sentenced for playing Russian roulette until somebody "lost". FWIW, I agree with the first case but the second one is stretching it IMO. Ultimately, you can't really disagree that most of the time, people generally want others to live, whether they like it or not.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
openasocket 9y ago
Suicide isn't really illegal, you can't be prosecuted for it or for attempting it. It does have some interesting corner cases. If police believe you are attempting suicide they can enter your house to stop you without a warrant. A person who attempted suicide but was stopped or saved by someone cannot sue that person for any injuries sustained during their rescue. And of course if you are considered an active threat to yourself by a qualified mental health professional you can be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric institution.
FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
There is a marked difference between someone who has a terminal, painful illness and has made a cold, rational, and sober decision to end their life and someone who has a mental disorder/abnormality or is facing a major crisis and makes an impulsive decision. The vast majority of suicide attempts are caused by temporary, immediate stressors that recede with the oassage of time. 70% of people who commit suicide do so within an hour of of making the decision. 90% of people who survive suicide attempts do not try it again.[1] It is an overwhelmingly impulsive act when people, caught up in the emotion of a major crisis, cannot see any path forward.[1] I'm not sure if this is the legacy of religiosity, but modern attitudes towards suicide are clinically shaped that understand the fleeting nature and temporary sway of many suicide crises. You present a romanticized view of it(a sober, rational decision made over a period of time, perhaps due to a legacy of classic greek philosophers, that is inaccurate and dangerous. I say this as someone who had a friend commit suicide in 8th grade in a typical dad pushes son too hard academically and athleticly, son feels depressed, finds dad's gun and ends life scenario. He couldnt see the options in front of him... running away, seek emancipation, put up with shit for another 4 years before finally telling his family to frak off... Public suicide should be illegal for the often melodramatic way in which they choose to end their life and the extreme trauma that witnesses suffer. Watching someone as they jump off a bridge/building, splatter on the sidewalk, or blowing their brains out leaves scars no amount of therapy can heal. [1] New England Journal of Medicine - Guns and Suicide Rates in US => http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923#t=article http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923#t=article

codecrusade 9y ago

Psycopath. Must get capital punishment. Meanwhile an interesting debate on Quora https://www.quora.com/In-India-a-married-man-commits-suicide-every-9-minutes-Section-498a-and-a-woman-is-raped-every-20-minutes-Why-do-you-think-the-latter-is-highlighted-by-local-and-international-media-while-the-former-seems-to-be-largely-ignored https://www.quora.com/In-India-a-married-man-commits-suicide...