The Verdict guilty of manslaughter yes or no ?

So if you are not aware, now know. That this girl was on the phone with a guy/friend/boyfriend whatever, who stated he would commit suicide. She told him go ahead and get back into the truck which apparently was set to kill him, and he did die, led to her getting a guilty verdict in court. Thats pretty much the facts, obviously if you read into details, know this is the main point.

Do you think she is guilty ? Or is texting or saying to kill yourself actually deserve a manslaughter conviction ? What say you OT ?

Details below:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/judge-announce-verdict-today-texting-suicide-case-144606716--abc-news-topstories.html

She's guilty. Anyone with a conscience wouldn't send out texts/messages like that.

Before reading the article what's on my mind is: She might be a bitch, he might have sent her dozens of that sort of messages before just to get her attention/prevent her from breaking up with him...who knows? In the end I think the only person responsible for a suicide is the person wanting to die. Is she a shitty person if she thought he was going to do it and still told him to? Definitely.

After reading the article: "During the trial, the prosecution claimed Carter, then 17, was reckless and caused his death by telling Roy to get back in the car even though they say he didn’t want to die". To me this makes all the difference...if he had changed his mind and she told him to go through with it then yeah, it's partly her fault. She didn't lock him in the car though; then again she's not being charged with homicide.

She is shitty, but its tough to say.

I'm not a lawyer but involuntary manslaughter in particular seems fair. Obviously she's not the one who actually killed him and he's personally responsible for his own actions but what she did was incredibly shitty. Even under the best of circumstances she's an awful person.

-Byshop

To me, it's the same as egging on a jumper to jump. Ultimately, the final decision to commit suicide is on that of the one committing suicide, but inaction to prevent, and in this case provocation, carries with it a certain responsibility.

I think she's responsible partly she essentially egged him on and results ended in his death. Involuntary manslaughter sounds right.

Yeah, she's guilty after reading those texts.

It's hard to say, but I do think she deserves to go to prison, so I'm happy with a guilty verdict.

Reminds me of a similar incident on 4chan:

Young man stages horrifying online suicide attempt by trying to burn himself to death as 200 4Chan viewers egged him on

Would've been nice if the 4channers egging him on went to prison.

@Jag85: disgusting. Place is vile.

She was pretty messed up mentally, but I think she was fully aware that her actions would probably lead that guy to harm. I don't know how many cases like this there have ever been, but it's been my understanding that people get blamed/punished for the suicides of others somewhat often. Might be totally wrong on that, but anyway the definition of "involuntary manslaughter" seems to fit well in this scenario.

If you egged on someone is emotionally unstable/depress to commit suicide..there should be consequences.

This reminds me why I'd never want to be tried by a citizen jury.

On the other hand, she got found guilty by a judge.

she is directly and partially responsible for a person's death. That's not murder, but that's gotta be some sort of manslaughter.

What's worse, it seems like A.) malicious intent B.) premeditated, and C.) just plain mean.

Also the guy changed his mind and she convinced him to get back in. You could easily make the case she is more responsible than he is.

I think the girl was screwy in the head, and felt that the boyfriend's depression was so bad that the only way to truly let go of the pain was to commit suicide. I think she liked the kid, but did it because she thought it was what was best for him. Of course, she wasn't looking out for his best interests, she was a pessimist and egged him into doing it. It's pretty difficult when someone who is supposed to care about you tells you to kill yourself.

I think you have to look at the larger picture of their relationship before coming to conclusions personally. I think that I read that he asked her to commit suicide with him and she initially resisted and said they didn't need to die, so I'm wondering what transpired that changes things.

I would slay while she sucks as a human it was his choice to end his life. Verdict is ridiculous.

If a jumper is on the edge of a tall building and you arrive and say I bet you cant do it...do it! and then the jumper jumps to death.

It is incentive and involuntary manslaugter seems right

Indeed.

Sith lords do exist huh?

This verdict opens a can of worms.

I think that is a fair verdict, what she did was a vile and disgusting thing to do and there should be consequences for that sort of thing.

Enjoyed reading your comments, but honestly in my opinion she had a terrible attorney. I think she could have gotten off with a lighter sentence, i believe this case needs a retrial. I think she's a bit nuts herself, and wasn't in the right state of mind. Her texts were cruel, and yes there should be some sort of punishment, but manslaughter is a bit harsh for a response which was given when under pressure, and she had been dealing with this issue for quite some time. I think they need to make sure teens of today understand their responsibility when dealing with someone who is suicidal. If or when behind bars, she definitely needs to show that she is going to make sure all others in her position out in this world know how to respond to this type of situation, and show that she has been aware of what she could have done different. This would result in her time going super short. She is not solely responsible for his actions. Doesn't change the fact she has a terrible personality. I don't think we've seen the end of her.

It really doesn't. There has to be hundreds, if not thousands, of precedents for psychological manipulation out there. Maybe my phrasing was wrong in a legal sense ("she convinced him to get back in") but that is more or less what happens.

I mean, when your 7 year-old kid is in a car and the car is sliding into a lake and your kid jumps out, and you yell at your kid "GET BACK IN THE CAR!!!" the kid is going to get back in the car. You didn't exactly kill you kid, but you did use the power you hold over them to kill them...so you did.

This kind of power exists with adults, too.

An authority figure (parent) commanding his/her child is not the same as two adults such as those in question. You might want to take a mulligan. Now that doesn't mean I disagree with the sentiment surrounding what she has done but the example you gave is problematic.

@Solaryellow: she has the authority of the coochie, though.

Ha, ha, you so crazy. Lol ..

You've seen her, right?

Yeah, she is like a "What would their child look like?" mashup of Nicole Richie and Eugene Levy.

Was the sperm of Frankenstein's Monster used in error?

gotta say I agree with this, reading the posts here and on the article looks like were in the minority too.

While she may be sum, black hearted it was the guys choice.

Have the courts totally taken personal responsibility out of the equation?

I'm conflicted about it. She was taking anti-depressant medication herself and had tried to killed herself before. She recommended the guy multiple times to seek help plus apparently she was "cutting herself" in the days/weeks before this whole thing went down. A tragedy all around.

Now that i did not know. Its a mess of a situation. She should just pleaded insanity, and be in a loony home for a bit.

She's guilty imo but I don't feel the crime committed suits the penalty they are trying to give her. It was him who ultimately went through with it even if she gave him a nudge...

Since people feel so strongly about those who are suicide risks, it would've been far more effective to send her off to get help for her problems instead of giving her even less reasons to want to live...

So, like, should people also be allowed to pressure others to commit murders?

he who has not commited sin throw the first stone

Ive had a cop tell me to kill myself before. Hes still roaming the streets

@MrGeezer: Ummm...in the end it doesn't matter who pressured who it's who actually did the killing, or in this case the suicide. I really enjoy how personal responsibility is just thrown out the window anymore, who needs it right!

So, just to be clear...you think that it should be legal for say, white supremacists, to pressure people to go out and lynch blacks? That it should be totally legal for the KKK to pressure their supporters and members to murder black people, and then get off scott free because "hey, I didn't make that dude murder anyone."

Am I understanding that correctly? If not, what's the difference?

This is definitely a toughie. One argument states your culpability ends when someone else's action begins, assuming they are free to act. However, this argument doesn't work as well as it seems. Murder for instance you can still find people guilty of murder who had no involvement in the actual murder, just the planning, or procurement of such. And this applies not just to murder. A lot of crimes have similar extensions for those not involved in the actual act, but involved again in planning or procurement. If we use that as our basis, this becomes a lot more in favor of the guilty verdict as she definitely had active involvement in getting him killed, it just happens that he himself was the killer. As such I do think this is a proper verdict, but it definitely is a gray area one.

So what you're saying is that Osama Bin Laden was innocent?

Osama was responsible for the actions of the people under his hierarchy because he sat at the top of the same hierarchy.

The woman, in this case, does not. I mean, she's a lowlife for egging on the dead guy. In the end, it's still the dead guy's actions that killed him.

The hierarchy is only relevant in terms of influence, dude. As in, he's not responsible simply because he's at the top of the hierarchy.

If you're the grand wizard of the KKK and you tell your subordinate KKK members to go lynch a guy, you're going to prison.

If you're the grand wizard of the KKK and one of your subordinate KKK members just decides on his own to lynch a guy, you're not automatically gonna be held responsible just because "you're at the top of the hierarchy."

Meanwhile, if you're a bottom-rung member of the KKK and you persuade another bottom rung member of the KKK to go out and lynch a guy, you're still going to be held partly responsible even though it's not top-down influence.

You really think this only applies when it comes to top-down influence? If I'm a newly recruited cop fresh out of training, and I convince some other cops to go out and take a bribe or violate a citizen's rights, are you saying that I get a pass just because I don't outrank the other cops?