Posted on 06/17/2017 2:52:43 PM PDT by Trump20162020
No, I know what I’m talking about.
If this stands, this will open the door to subjective, politically motivated trials. It’s convicting someone for thought crime since it’s not on actual behavior, like that she pushed him off a bridge or drove while intoxicated.
She is merely being guilty of murder for being a bad influence. HE DID IT. He’d wanted to, and he did. I can see trying to prosecute her on something like a Good Samaritan basis, but Massachusetts doesn’t have that.
But a manslaughter charge and conviction just shows how much secular humanism has taken over society.
Oh, and in everything from the Trayvon Martin and Ahmed Mohamed cases to Jeremy Christian in Seattle, and every other controversy, including Russia and Hillary’s emails, liberals already have denied objective evidence.
Giving them a subjective basis to hold people responsible for their (supposed/theorized) influence over others is wrong as well as reprehensible.
For instance, how can you know that she caused his death? Do you think he wouldn’t have done it except for her urging? Do you think only her urging caused him to get back in his truck and finish killing himself?
Sorry, this was not a “thought crime”. This sociopath took things well beyond thought.
Yes, it was. People have not been prosecuted on this basis for GOOD REASON. This is in no way a traditional manslaughter case. People used to be rightly considered responsible for their own suicides. Now maybe just prosecute everyone who contributed to it? Why not? Michelle Carter didn’t make him suicidal, and she’d tried to talk him out of it. He tried to talk her into committing the murder of herself - committing suicide with him. If they’d tried and only she died, would you want him prosecuted for that? Where does the line get drawn in these situations? ARBITRARILY is going to be the answer.
From dealing with disturbed, morally twisted people close to me for a long time, and studying a lot more about it, I think it’s entirely possible that he manipulated her into being entirely fed up with him and urge him to go through with it, in order to spare his parents some grief and even anger at him, so they could grieve him more easily.
If he could manipulate her into saying such things, then both he and his family would be victims, which is what has happened, and that would allow him to feel better about killing himself, which he wanted to do.
Did it happen this way? I can’t say for sure, but it’s really quite likely. I’ve witnessed and experienced so many of these dynamics that that sort of thing is the norm. What’s more, I really spent years studying this, and participating on different forums, and there is one that isn’t in operation anymore, but it had quite a few people with professional backgrounds. I wrote different pieces on the dynamics of personality disorders that were very well received. So I’m not just saying that things can be very twisted in these situations, I know it. Twisted people have twisted meanings for things that are very important to them. It’s their reality.
But in any case, if you dismiss what I’m saying as mere psychologizing and psychobabble, that’s exactly what she was convicted on - an imaginary, projected cause and effect.
She was in no way a person qualified to deal with someone as disturbed as he was. He was suicidal. Those sorts of people can put tremendous pressure on others and manipulate them badly - even middle-aged adults and people with psychology degrees. Do you know much about BPD and what they can put others through? A teenager with her own mental health issues might be cruel in return under such dire circumstances. That doesn’t make her guilty of manslaughter, and it’s pure speculation to convict her of it.
This is what we’re moving to. Well-connected people like Hillary Clinton can not be indicted for a crime they committed since they intended no harm.
While now anyone that the state wants to get for any reason can be charged and convicted of the crime of being a bad influence, “causing” someone to do wrong. Liberals are going to love this, since they are absolutely immune from being charged for such things. If you can see how spending money can be a form of free speech, you should be able to see how talking to someone and not actually physically doing anything to them but attempting to influence is only thought, not action, in a legal sense (unless, for instance, that person is a child, or mentally retarded, and so it’s proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they can’t be exercising their own free will).
I think you just don’t see that this moves the line from hard, objective evidence into speculation, interpretation, differences of opinion, and unevenness due to lack of information and differences in values.
Why? Because the matter isn’t one of guilt or innocence, but whether a crime was committed at all in the first place. When someone drives under the influence and kills or injures someone, the evidence is readily there that they committed a crime. They took the alcohol and drugs and were driving the car.
But with this, the line could be drawn anywhere. All the messed up opinions that come from “experts” are now in play in the court room. Many if not most people who commit suicide come from abusive family backgrounds, so why not charge those families? Or maybe some of them, or some family members? But on what basis? I think there was a father in recent years that punished his daughter by cutting her hair and putting a video of it on YouTube, and she killed herself right afterward.
Many people on social media called for him to be prosecuted. I suppose now that’s a slam dunk case. And that’s just the beginning. With today’s reasoning being that men are women and vice versa, and a white woman can identify as a black woman, a case like this has potential to abused in the court of law to the utmost. And it will be the “thought criminals” who will be the ones charged.
For example, any pastor who preaches on sins will now be guilty if someone in the congregation commits suicide and it can in any way be tied to his preaching, even that a relative believed firmly in the pastor and so didn’t treat someone else who didn’t even go to the church in way the suicidal person liked. Any “influence” seen to “cause” someone to do something can be criminalized.
she probably gaslighted him for months.
It’s called “Depraved Indifference” - could be 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. She was guilty if that - no doubt about it, and the law is clear really.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.