Saturday Open Thread 

10 comments to Saturday Open Thread 

  • He said he didn’t want to kill himself. Nevertheless she persisted.

    Some on the right are wringing their hands over this verdict, saying that the First Amendment should’ve protected her from legal consequences, but I disagree. This is akin to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, as far as I’m concerned. She manipulated an emotionally damaged and vulnerable young man into killing himself after he had already made the choice not to. The fact that she didn’t actively do it herself is why she got manslaughter instead of Second Degree Murder, but it doesn’t excuse her from all culpability.

    That’s just my opinion. What say you, legal experts of Threedonia?

    • INFJ

      If the right to privacy can be interpreter to mean that a woman can kill her unborn child, then the right to free speech could also be twisted to allow the persuasion of a weak, vulnerable person to commit suicide. To me, both of these are perverted interpretations of our civil rights.

    • I won’t be surprised if this conviction is reversed. Suicide is an intentional act and he bears most of the “blame” for it. From what I gather from local media — she was just as troubled as him and they alternately had suicide pacts where they would promise to go together. If she is/was mentally ill then she may have thought suicide was a good thing and one she would do later or wanted to do herself.

      That being said… a lot of people are diagnosing her from armchairs and laptops as sociopathic, etc., but we have no idea. The more I read the less she sounds like a heartless monster who cared nothing for him and only about herself. BUT — who knows from any angle if what we’re reading is the truth?

      After all that — I won’t be surprised if an appellate court reverses the conviction or lowers it to some other charge. I won’t be surprised, in good lawyerly fashion, if they uphold it either.

      The whole thing is awful and tragic. Where were their parents in all this? They both seemed to be suffering mightily… are they involved at all?

    • I’m no lawyer, but I think the right to free speech doesn’t mean there can be no culpable abuse of speech. A con game is speech. A fraudulent offer is speech.

      • Right… the first amendment is no defense here. There is a concept called “imminence” when it comes to incitement to violence. The argument here would be that her speech did not incite him or wasn’t imminent to the act of violence (self-harm here — as opposed to inciting a riot for example).

        I would say her speech did incite violence but it’s another thing to say she caused someone to do an intentional act such that she bears the responsibility for the direct result of that act. The general rule of criminal law is that we are all responsible for our acts and the consequences directly attached to those acts. She is guilty of reckless endangerment, etc. and one can make a good cause responsible for his death, but he still sat in the truck of his own volition until he died. He intended to cause his own death and in the criminal law — that will almost always carry the day. Though this case is repugnant — it is probably better for us all that the principle of the general rule is upheld — even if in this particular case a distasteful result happens.

        Belief in Justice requires that we don’t need to cut corners to get short term satisfaction. These things will be appealed to the High Court eventually and in Good time.

        I will also note — this is why we discuss these things when it’s not us. If that was my son — I’d want that girl’s head on a stick — yesterday.

  • Scott M.

    Another horrible child death down Memphis way

    We had a spate of these about 20 years ago.When the day care workers started landing in jail,they stopped.Harsh punishment worked then,it should now.No reason at all this poor boy should have died,but for the last neglect of these bums.