HorrorMovieFans.com

I feel like we are getting dangerously close to "let's go after this musician because he sang about this and Johnny did that".

Foo wrote:

Dream wrote:

Foo wrote:Who has more compassion and empathy: The person who kills their unborn child because kids are a real drag when the awesome local garage band is playing Friday night at the dive bar? Or the person who carries their child to term, knowing it will not be a healthy child?

I'm gonna break the obvious choice and say the first, cause that kind of person having a child is going to result in a shitty child full of mental health issues and will more than likely be abused and neglected during the duration of its life, but hey, at least it's alive, right?

While the second person is allowing a child to be born solely for her own benefit depending on the severity of the unhealthiness of the child. (If the child will live hours in brutal pain, it is more compassionate and empathetic to put the child to sleep before birth, which is what happens when a late term abortion is provided. If the child will have a genetic defect that makes it imperfect, but not in physical pain for the duration of its life, then it would be unethical to kill it out of convenience of simply not wanting an imperfect child.)


But that's just my opinion and my opinion has fuck all to do with the opinion of the people in those situations.

I like to think that over the course of civilization there have been many unplanned pregnancies where people owned up to their responsibility and not only had the child, but cared for it and tried their best to provide for it.

In some cases that happens and it's awesome when it does.

But given the rise in mental health issues, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say people were having kids they had no business having just because they forced to continue the pregnancy and in a few generations, so long as abortions remain an option, mental health issues will decline because people are actively choosing if they are parent material or not, rather than having a kid they don't want and would rather kill than give up to adoption. Maternal infanticide rates are also slowly rising. Best way to combat all of this is to provide complete sex education and birth control without so many hoops to jump through, and making an implant (injection, IUD, whatever) more economically feasible because they are the most reliable forms of birth control and the least likely to end up with an unintended pregnancy.

Not to mention maternal mortality rate in the US is also on the rise. And I'll always value existing life over potential life. (in an ideal world, both can be saved, but that isn't always the case and the life that is already here should take precedence.)

I also think women who use abortion as birth control are, more likely than not, horrible people. But I also think the world is better off without their offspring, so I'm okay with them killing their offspring before it develops into an actual kid.

Foo wrote:

Dream wrote:

Foo wrote:

Dream wrote:back to the topic at hand:

These are the guidelines the jury had:
Involuntary manslaughter: An unlawful killing that was unintentionally caused as the result of the defendants' wanton or reckless conduct;

Reckless conduct: Conduct which creates a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another person. An example is Russian Roulette.

That is why she was convicted. It was viewed under the same guidelines as two people playing Russian Roulette, she didn't have to pull the trigger for it to result in the guy's death, just had to provide the gun and play along.

Couple problems here:

Was the killing unlawful? When is the last time a suicide victim or attempted suicide victims has been prosecuted under Massachusetts law?

Did she provide the weapon?

The conduct was not reckless nor unintentional. His death was not an accident. It was his intentional act.

what happened to supporting the jury who had all of the information available to them? Or is that only applicable if you support the outcome.


Honestly, I don't think there was enough to convict her, jury said differently. From their point of view, I'm guessing they saw the texts as the gun in a Russian Roulette case. He died by his hand at her initiating the game.

Either way, she was basically given a slap on the wrist, probably because of contention with legal definition and them barely edging it over to that viewpoint. In most suicide cases, there are no definitive ties to other people who may have pushed someone towards the end result, so not enough evidence to tie it back to the actions of another. In this case there was a shit-ton of evidence saying the dude was asking for help and she was giving him instructions on how to kill himself instead.

The odds of appeal are ridiculously high for this case.

I believe the jury was given bad instructions. This is like trying to find a crime versus trying a crime.

Nothing changes that he pulled the trigger and she was not even there. He provided the means of his own demise and carried it out.

I find pretty much everyone in this case to be repulsive. From the boy's parents to the girl. Like I said, I hope the girl gets hit by a truck. I don't buy into the parents being angels either. Something is off with them.

What I copied is the way the law is written. How a jury interprets it is up to the jury. Chances are I wouldn't have been able to convict the girl given what I know about the case. As morally bankrupt as her actions were, they weren't against the law to me, but I wasn't on the jury so I can disagree with the outcome, but I can't change the outcome even if I wanted to. In this case, even though I don't think she broke the law, I'm oddly okay with a wrongful conviction. I think I have more issue with guilty people getting off on a technicality than innocent people getting convicted because of a badly worded law. Probably cause those convictions tend to result in laws being reworded more clearly, but the people who get off can't be tried again. Chances are if her sentence were longer, it would end up being overturned. Given a less than two-year sentence and the molasses-like speed the justice system works at, I'm pretty sure she'll serve before her appeal is even heard.

Foo wrote:I feel like we are getting dangerously close to "let's go after this musician because he sang about this and Johnny did that".

Unless the musician were in actual one on one contact where he encouraged the act that he sang about, it wouldn't be able to proceed where this one did.


Ultimately you have a charlie manson situation here. Charlie wasn't present for the Tate murders, but was still convicted of them.

Dream wrote:

Foo wrote:

Dream wrote:

Foo wrote:Who has more compassion and empathy: The person who kills their unborn child because kids are a real drag when the awesome local garage band is playing Friday night at the dive bar? Or the person who carries their child to term, knowing it will not be a healthy child?

I'm gonna break the obvious choice and say the first, cause that kind of person having a child is going to result in a shitty child full of mental health issues and will more than likely be abused and neglected during the duration of its life, but hey, at least it's alive, right?

While the second person is allowing a child to be born solely for her own benefit depending on the severity of the unhealthiness of the child. (If the child will live hours in brutal pain, it is more compassionate and empathetic to put the child to sleep before birth, which is what happens when a late term abortion is provided. If the child will have a genetic defect that makes it imperfect, but not in physical pain for the duration of its life, then it would be unethical to kill it out of convenience of simply not wanting an imperfect child.)


But that's just my opinion and my opinion has fuck all to do with the opinion of the people in those situations.

I like to think that over the course of civilization there have been many unplanned pregnancies where people owned up to their responsibility and not only had the child, but cared for it and tried their best to provide for it.

In some cases that happens and it's awesome when it does.

But given the rise in mental health issues, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say people were having kids they had no business having just because they forced to continue the pregnancy and in a few generations, so long as abortions remain an option, mental health issues will decline because people are actively choosing if they are parent material or not, rather than having a kid they don't want and would rather kill than give up to adoption. Maternal infanticide rates are also slowly rising. Best way to combat all of this is to provide complete sex education and birth control without so many hoops to jump through, and making an implant (injection, IUD, whatever) more economically feasible because they are the most reliable forms of birth control and the least likely to end up with an unintended pregnancy.

Not to mention maternal mortality rate in the US is also on the rise. And I'll always value existing life over potential life. (in an ideal world, both can be saved, but that isn't always the case and the life that is already here should take precedence.)

I also think women who use abortion as birth control are, more likely than not, horrible people. But I also think the world is better off without their offspring, so I'm okay with them killing their offspring before it develops into an actual kid.

I am thinking the future we will just put babies immediately on mood altering drugs and just assume they will be depressed. Then big pharma will convince everyone that abortions are bad because they lose customers.

I will get affirmative action preferences as the tiny minority who is not battling anti-depressant abuse.

Everyone's a winner!

Foo wrote:

Dream wrote:

Foo wrote:

Dream wrote:

Foo wrote:Who has more compassion and empathy: The person who kills their unborn child because kids are a real drag when the awesome local garage band is playing Friday night at the dive bar? Or the person who carries their child to term, knowing it will not be a healthy child?

I'm gonna break the obvious choice and say the first, cause that kind of person having a child is going to result in a shitty child full of mental health issues and will more than likely be abused and neglected during the duration of its life, but hey, at least it's alive, right?

While the second person is allowing a child to be born solely for her own benefit depending on the severity of the unhealthiness of the child. (If the child will live hours in brutal pain, it is more compassionate and empathetic to put the child to sleep before birth, which is what happens when a late term abortion is provided. If the child will have a genetic defect that makes it imperfect, but not in physical pain for the duration of its life, then it would be unethical to kill it out of convenience of simply not wanting an imperfect child.)


But that's just my opinion and my opinion has fuck all to do with the opinion of the people in those situations.

I like to think that over the course of civilization there have been many unplanned pregnancies where people owned up to their responsibility and not only had the child, but cared for it and tried their best to provide for it.

In some cases that happens and it's awesome when it does.

But given the rise in mental health issues, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say people were having kids they had no business having just because they forced to continue the pregnancy and in a few generations, so long as abortions remain an option, mental health issues will decline because people are actively choosing if they are parent material or not, rather than having a kid they don't want and would rather kill than give up to adoption. Maternal infanticide rates are also slowly rising. Best way to combat all of this is to provide complete sex education and birth control without so many hoops to jump through, and making an implant (injection, IUD, whatever) more economically feasible because they are the most reliable forms of birth control and the least likely to end up with an unintended pregnancy.

Not to mention maternal mortality rate in the US is also on the rise. And I'll always value existing life over potential life. (in an ideal world, both can be saved, but that isn't always the case and the life that is already here should take precedence.)

I also think women who use abortion as birth control are, more likely than not, horrible people. But I also think the world is better off without their offspring, so I'm okay with them killing their offspring before it develops into an actual kid.

I am thinking the future we will just put babies immediately on mood altering drugs and just assume they will be depressed. Then big pharma will convince everyone that abortions are bad because they lose customers.

I will get affirmative action preferences as the tiny minority who is not battling anti-depressant abuse.

Everyone's a winner!

God I hope not. I'm hopeful that major restrictions will be put on pharma, but who am I kidding, so long as they line the pockets of politicians they will get away with murder (which is probably a side effect of some of their medication, but so long as it's disclosed they can't be held accountable...)

Admittedly, I'm using their crutch, but I'm also working towards not needing them. So here's hoping I get there before the world goes tits up.

If I am standing on the edge of a cliff and see a suicidal man who intends on jumping, and I tell him to jump, have I committed a crime? What about free soeech? Do I not have the right to tell someone they should kill themselves?

Foo wrote:If I am standing on the edge of a cliff and see a suicidal man who intends on jumping, and I tell him to jump, have I committed a crime? What about free soeech? Do I not have the right to tell someone they should kill themselves?

depends on if the dude survives and/or there are witnesses that can verify that you encouraged him, I guess. I suggest not giving him a signed note encouraging him to jump. At least while in Mass.

And I'm pretty sure that would fall under the same restrictions as yelling fire in a crowded theater.


Also, apparently in this case the guy had gotten out of the car and then the girl told him to go back in and finish the job while berating him for not following through.


So it would be more like casually telling someone to jump, but when they change their mind you start yelling at them and telling them what a waste of life they are, etc. until they decide to jump again. At that point, you would apparently be at fault in Mass, if anyone saw you do it or you left evidence that you did it.

Foo wrote:If I am standing on the edge of a cliff and see a suicidal man who intends on jumping, and I tell him to jump, have I committed a crime? What about free soeech? Do I not have the right to tell someone they should kill themselves?

I'd bring up fire and theaters but you know the drill. Free speech is not consequence free speech.

It definitely sounds like a crime to me. But I did initially think it seems odd to call it manslaughter.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:If I am standing on the edge of a cliff and see a suicidal man who intends on jumping, and I tell him to jump, have I committed a crime? What about free soeech? Do I not have the right to tell someone they should kill themselves?

I'd bring up fire and theaters but you know the drill. Free speech is not consequence free speech.

Shouting fire is not free speech. This is like Constitution 101.

I think the premeditated nature of this works in her favor, as the suicide was planned out more so than a spur of the moment act by the boy. Had he experienced sudden trauma and she gives him a gun and convinces him to use it right then, that would be a better case.

There is a lot of speculation atcwork about his lack of free will in his own choice.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:If I am standing on the edge of a cliff and see a suicidal man who intends on jumping, and I tell him to jump, have I committed a crime? What about free soeech? Do I not have the right to tell someone they should kill themselves?

I'd bring up fire and theaters but you know the drill. Free speech is not consequence free speech.

Shouting fire is not free speech. This is like Constitution 101.

I think the premeditated nature of this works in her favor, as the suicide was planned out more so than a spur of the moment act by the boy. Had he experienced sudden trauma and she gives him a gun and convinces him to use it right then, that would be a better case.

There is a lot of speculation atcwork about his lack of free will in his own choice.

Shouting fire and saying get back in the fumes seem largely equivalent.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:If I am standing on the edge of a cliff and see a suicidal man who intends on jumping, and I tell him to jump, have I committed a crime? What about free soeech? Do I not have the right to tell someone they should kill themselves?

I'd bring up fire and theaters but you know the drill. Free speech is not consequence free speech.

Shouting fire is not free speech. This is like Constitution 101.

I think the premeditated nature of this works in her favor, as the suicide was planned out more so than a spur of the moment act by the boy. Had he experienced sudden trauma and she gives him a gun and convinces him to use it right then, that would be a better case.

There is a lot of speculation atcwork about his lack of free will in his own choice.

Shouting fire and saying get back in the fumes seem largely equivalent.

Shouting fire creates an irrational panic in a crowd so that they harm each other unintentionally.

The boy here knew getting back into the car would lead to his death.

if there is no law that fits to your liking, then one should be created. she took somene's life in a calculated way, only not physically.

this is not comparable to lyrics you hear in a song, or a movie or whatever, that drives you to suicide. i think foo is reaching there. this also is not comparable to shouting fire, but it should still not be protected under free speech.

zombie wrote:if there is no law that fits to your liking, then one should be created. she took somene's life in a calculated way, only not physically.

this is not comparable to lyrics you hear in a song, or a movie or whatever, that drives you to suicide. i think foo is reaching there. this also is not comparable to shouting fire, but it should still not be protected under free speech.

What is the boy's role in this? Did she take his life or did he take it? Was this a suicide or something else?

I believe assisted suicide is against the law in Mass., even if assisted by a doctor. Maybe they should have used those laws and practicing medicine without a license.

Or maybe they do need a unique law. I think any such law is rife for abuse and challenges, though.

If she was not around, can you prove that he would not have killed himself? With murder and manslaughter that is part of the evidence. What is next, suing an employer because they fired a depressed and suicidal employee who kills themself? These are difficult issues.

fair enough. she didn't do anything wrong, outside of ma. law.

zombie wrote:fair enough. she didn't do anything wrong, outside of ma. law.

I think she did plenty wrong and should be hit by a truck or kill herself. I just don't believe in situations where the law is abused. This time it is a horrible person, next time it is you.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:fair enough. she didn't do anything wrong, outside of ma. law.

I think she did plenty wrong and should be hit by a truck or kill herself. I just don't believe in situations where the law is abused. This time it is a horrible person, next time it is you.

i wouldn't bully someone into committing suicide, and if i did something to cause their suicide.. i would definitely try to intervene when i heard them choking and dying on the phone.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:fair enough. she didn't do anything wrong, outside of ma. law.

I think she did plenty wrong and should be hit by a truck or kill herself. I just don't believe in situations where the law is abused. This time it is a horrible person, next time it is you.

i wouldn't bully someone into committing suicide, and if i did something to cause their suicide.. i would definitely try to intervene when i heard them choking and dying on the phone.

That's great! It is the moral thing to do. Immoral is not necessarily illegal, however, and this is definitely not manslaughter.

Out of curiosity, what is the legal penalty when you call 911 and they decide to not show up to help you? Is it a crime?