Posted on 02/16/2017 12:28:44 PM PST by simpson96
A former Dairy Queen manager has been charged with involuntary manslaughter, accused of bullying a high school worker who committed suicide just days before Christmas, authorities said.
Harley Branham, 21, made her first court appearance Tuesday in connection with the death of Kenny Suttner, 17, who shot himself outside his family’s home on Dec. 21 in Glasgow, Missouri.
Red: Family of Teen Who Killed Himself After Being Bullied at School Considers Wrongful Death Suit: 'You Failed Danny'
She did not enter a plea. She was released on $25,000 bail. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for May. Her attorney, Jeff Hillbrenner, said his client feels badly about Suttner’s death, The Associated Press reported.
The boy’s family released a statement Tuesday saying, “It is long overdue that the issue of bullying be brought to light.”
On Jan. 31, a six-person coroner’s jury found Branham was the principal cause of the teen’s suicide. She was charged the next day with second-degree involuntary manslaughter.
Several co-workers testified Branham had treated Suttner badly and forced him to perform demeaning tasks such as cleaning the floor while lying on his stomach, according to the Columbia Daily Tribune.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Restaurant work is even worse than working for Douglas Elliman Real Estate - one of my early jobs at 17 or 18! Not only was I bullied, I was made the scapegoat of one financial disaster because of my typing, I think...
Suicide has many fathers. It runs in families for many generations - Mariel Hemingway has been in the forefront of fighting this dread genetic disease. It also seems to be encouraged among young people today as an escape from life. Why? Why are our children not as resilient as we were?
There you go again, making stuff up just because you disagree. Militantly anti-FReeper, lol? What color is the sky on your planet?
On this topic, you are indeed, militantly anti-freeper. Freepers believe in taking responsibility for themselves and not blaming others - particularly not 21 year old girls. In other aspects, you may be on point.
I’m anti-hounding an apparently handicapped teenage boy to death. You’ll find that you’re not quite so safely within the “consensus” yourself. Try not to be so smug, it makes your @ss look big.
Either put down the moonshine or write decent English that can be understood.
Let’s see a photo of YOU, you assh*le! Scratch a sentimentalist, find a fascist.
Oh, sorry, did I hit a nerve unintentionally? I was joking and had no idea you actually were large. My apologies.
Actually, I’m a sylph. But even if I wasn’t, you’d still be a phony since some of this case hinges on the poor dead boy being fat and being called out on being fat.
Hypocrite, much?
You’re really digging down deep to find more stupid now, I suggest you stop.
I agree with the finding of the coroner’s jury, that this woman drove that boy to kill himself, and therefore she was rightfully charged with second-degree involuntary manslaughter under the appropriate statutes of the state of Missouri.
That’s it, that’s the sum total of what you’re hanging your hat upon.
You disagree, and keep dredging up all manner of weirdness trying to paint me as something that anyone could disprove going back through my posting history, all 12 years and nearly 40,000 replies worth.
Now, why don’t you just drop it?
Yeah, you’re the fat-shaming hypocrite, not me. I’m a regular American who thinks people should take responsibility for their own actions. Suicide being one.
If you believe your smugness actually does make your @ss look big, then I was fat shaming. If you actually have a big @ss, then I was fat shaming. You profess, however, to be a sylph. So?
Logis isn’t your strong suit, is it?
They were wrong.
Logis? Please put down the bottle and deal with logic: if you don’t like fat-shaming, don’t try it yourself whether you know the person or don’t know the person. It makes you look like a phony. Which gets back to my original charge that you are a virtue-signaler.
Time will tell. I agree with the jury, you don’t. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Are you suicidal? Do you have a gun to your head? I promise not to say one more word about your fat @ss if you do. Seriously. It’s not worth it.
Juries aren’t always right. Do you agree with every jury decision?
No, I don’t. That’s why there’s an appeals process.
Yes there are many causes to suicide and I agree I have seen suicide run in certain families.
I think most young people are not resilient because many parents do not expect them to be. I see many parents sheltering their children from life, running interference for them in every direction. Teaching their children that life must be fair and everything should go their way. If things don’t go their way someone is to blame; someone is racist, sexist, ETC. Many parents want to be friends with their children instead of parenting. I feel sorry for children raised this way, life is tough enough but can you imagine how impossible it would be if you had no realistic preparation?
LOL! You’re the phoniest person on FR at the moment. Begone, before a house falls on you.
Yes, absolutely! Everything you say is true! These poor children are without any early life experience aside from, perhaps, a peanut allergy - caused by helicoptering parents who refuse to allow dirt or mud to enter their dear little child’s life.
I wonder about this kid though. Working in a Dairy Queen sends a message that this kid might have been a working class kid whose harried parents may have ignored signals. But who really knows?
Although some courts permit appeals at preliminary stages of litigation, most litigants appeal final orders and judgments from lower courts.[19] A fundamental premise of many legal systems is that appellate courts review questions of law de novo, but appellate courts do not conduct independent fact-finding.[20] Instead, appellate courts will generally defer to the record established by the trial court, unless some error occurred during the fact-finding process.[21] Many jurisdictions provide a statutory or constitutional right for litigants to appeal adverse decisions.[22] However, most jurisdictions also recognize that this right may be waived. In the United States, for example, litigants may waive the right to appeal, as long as the waiver is “considered and intelligent.”[23]
Source: Wikipedia
Do you have any concept of how difficult it is to appeal a conviction?
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.