There's no good coming out of this case whatsoever. Just a very sad reality. The whole thing leaves me sore. A case like this shows the limits of the justice system I believe. It cannot deal with the complexity of the issue, and it has very little means to enact an outcome that will help anyone.
I believe he's saying that this girl deserved punishment but the act of punishing her sets a dangerous precedent that may be twisted or abused in unforeseen ways later on.
In addition, she was on antidepressants so it's not clear what exactly her mental state was, she probably had some reasons to take them. And her defense argued that the drugs may have affected her actions, fwiw of course.
I won't pretend to know all the details, but I ask myself questions like:
1) How can we prevent this from happening again?
2) What kind of relief will this provide to the relatives?
3) How will it help rehabilitate the girl herself, so that her future contributions are positive and not even more negative?
4) What was or would have been best for the victim?
5) Who else is responsible for the situation?
6) What was the true causes that led to the death?
And I don't feel like this case is answering any of these questions, trying to prevent recurrences, or support the people who are affected by the event. It's almost too complicated an issue, with too many layers and levels of indirection, reliability and blame. If we truly want to address the root cause, we'll need something much more thorough.
At this point, I feel it probably will only work as a scape goat, allowing relatives to believe the boy had no issue, and that he would have managed to overcome and live a happy life if it wasn't for her, taking some of their guilt away and towards her. Are they right, we'll never know, but for sure other people could be argued to have also indirectly contributed to involuntary manslaughter, people who might have played a role with the original causes of depression and suicidal thoughts that led to him engaging in such a relationship in the first place and triggered the events that followed.
Thanks for explaining further. I see your points but I'd add one which I'd argue is an important (though obviously not the only) goal of the law - punishment/deterrence. If the girl committed the acts while also experiencing metal health problems that needs to be taken into consideration (maybe mandatory mental health treatment or something rather than prison) but at the end of the day she contributed significantly to a vulnerable person losing their life so she will have to lose her own freedom for a period of time in some way.
I think that would satisfy the victims relatives to some degree. As for the 'true causes that led the the death' that seems pretty obvious to me from the facts - she was the cause. He had stepped off the ledge so to speak and if she hadn't intervened and told him to get back in the car it's likely he wouldn't have died that day. When considering her guilt that's all that matters. Why the victim was suicidal in the first place is irrelevant to establishing her part in the incident.
What activity is this even trying to deter? Assisted suicide? Bullying? Texting? And how does it do so?
From the ruling, it seems the judge did not take anything into consideration except for the messages and inactions directly related to the incident. I understand why he didn't, legally speaking, because it's way too complicated if you do so. How can you reason about 2 years of exchanges in which he clearly expresses suicidal thoughts and toys with the idea of death to a teenage girl who herself struggles with these same issues and is under active antidepressants?
I don't feel like it's obvious at all what the true cause is. She's spent more time and sent him more messages trying to deter him from committing suicide and pushing him to seek help prior to her assisting in his suicide attempt. Yet it seems that didn't do anything to help his depression. In his suicide note he thank her for all her support, and for being there for him and helping him. To me, him being suicidal is at the heart of it. She didn't make him suicidal. And if we could find who or what is responsible for him being suicidal in the first place, then wouldn't those who or what be even more responsible for his death?
You could also claim he's made her assist him. He basically spent 2 years promoting to her the idea that he should do it, actively seeking her support in it. To me, that's as far fetched as what she's accused of. As soon as you make a conclusion from the premise that your words were the cause of someone's elses actions, you enter a realm of uncertainty, because we don't understand those psychological mechanism at all. They run deep, wide and complex.
Yes, she's assisted him in his suicide, that's undeniable, to call that involuntary manslaughter is questionable. Suicide is illegal, and that's questionable too. Assisted suicide is also illegal, that's also questionable. The grounds for crime are fuzzy, but you're right, given the law and situation, she contributed, at least by making it easier for him.
So I'm not objecting with the ruling, or anything like that. I feel more like we're just failing as a whole. Failing to prevent depression, failing to support it, failing to discuss it openly, failing to deal with it, failing to understand it, etc. And I don't see this court case improving on any of it. In fact, it might make it worse, by complicating an already complicated situation.
FWIW, the law seems to be against her in this case: the court ruling quotes a precedent where people were sentenced for playing Russian roulette because one of them died. I think it's idiotic but that's what there is.
I'd put money on having this over turned. It's a pretty long stretch to call this manslaughter based on the definition of the law (linked elsewhere in this thread).
Going by the definition in the linked page what do you think isn't satisfied?
>> Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.
The victim got out of the car and only got back in because the defendant told him to.
>> The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
She may not have intended to kill him but given she knew of the poor mental state he was in, plus the fact he had just backed out of killing himself, it seems reckless to then tell him to get back into the car.
>> The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.
I think this is similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater. Someone is trampled to death as people rushed to get out. You didn't trample anyone, you didn't actually kill anyone, but your verbal actions set in motion a chain of events that caused the death of someone else. I think the same could also be said of someone on social media saying "this guy down the street is a rapist and a child molester, somebody should kill him." Well, if somebody takes you up on that and kills him, you should go to jail for manslaughter. This woman not only set the chain of events in motion, but she actively pushed them along.
Yeah, I've found that generally to be the case with superficially ridiculous sounding cases. Google the details of the famous 1990s McDonald's coffee scalding lawsuit. It wasn't just hot coffee. It was PWR nuclear reactor core hot coffee that caused serious third degree burns.
This girl sounds like a psychopath. Gender stereotypes keep a lot of people from seeing it. Reverse the genders in your mind.
Unlikely, even if it you managed to get superheated water into a cup would would instantly flash into steam under standard pressure if you disturbed it. You wouldn't have a chance to hand it to the customer.
My right arm disagrees. Superheated distilled water will stay superheated and liquid long enough to get you nicely roasted depending on how much water is spilled and what it lands on. Even ordinary water will do this if the cup it is in is smooth enough and the water pure enough (not sure how that would work with coffee).
That's why you want to be very careful if your water still doesn't boil after you've microwaved it for the 3rd time. It may very well have become superheated, which you will find out as soon as you try to do anything with it, even moving the container can cause instant trouble.
And considering you're strapped into a seat you are going to be exposed a lot longer than you'd otherwise be if you could jump away or have some other reflex act to make things better. First panic, then remove seatbelt, open door, get out. By the time that's all done you are probably 6 seconds (or longer, for an older person) in contact with the water, depending on the size of the cup that might as well be an eternity.
The burn I have is pretty extensive, it is so deep that there is no pigmentation on the burned parts and EMTs would not believe it is just a water burn.
I actually looked that case up at some point. She was wearing some kind of pants of synthetic material which melted into her lap. She was quite elderly, so she moved slowly anyway, and was in a public space. The only way she could have avoided this becoming a serious burn would have been to promptly leap up and whip her pants off right then and there for all the world to see.
Now, I have done something like that in front of medical personnel in an ER, pulling my pants off when I realized they were the source of the exposure that was causing my throat to close up. Even I would probably hesitate to do so in the middle of a McDonald's knowing that I would likely be charged with something for suddenly getting naked in public. If the maneuver was successful in protecting against burns, good luck convincing people that you had to get naked to prevent being maimed. This woman WAS maimed and her case still gets dismissed in internet comments left and right, like yours.
I was dismissing the claim that this was "PWR core" hot water, which would be > 100°C. Selling superheated liquids would indeed be grossly negligent because they can flash-boil just by handling them. Merely hot water on the other hand does not pose that particular risk.
Perhaps you think you are merely being pedantic, but the overall effect is to be dismissive of the case referenced. If that is not your intent, then you are framing your remarks here rather poorly. It would be fine to say something like "That sounds hyperbolic because (FACTS), but (affirm that the lady was in fact seriously injured)."
That is not what you are doing. Given context, the effect of your comments comes across as dismissive of the case.
> but (affirm that the lady was in fact seriously injured)
Something feels wrong about this supposed requirement. I just stated facts. I don't want to insert disclaimers, signalling, agreement or something like that on the surrounding issue. It strikes me as a crazy social ritual.
Note that I have nowhere made a statement on the case in general.
What I am trying to suggest here is that people are arguing with you because of the context of your remarks implying that "the woman was not really injured, it was a made-up BS case."
You aren't required to do anything in particular. But telling me I am wrong to explain to you how you are coming across is... all kinds of tunnel vision, at best. This is how it looks to me as a minimum. You don't have to care how it looks to me, but you can't tell me I am wrong in my assessment of how it appears to me.
And I think I am done with this apparently completely pointless discussion with you.
> Merely hot water on the other hand does not pose that particular risk.
Now you're being silly. If you checked that link I posted below then you'd see that there is hardly any difference in damage done with 100 versus 88 degree Celsius water at the same exposure times. Both are pretty much instantaneous and will give you 3rd degree burns in a matter of seconds.
Flashboiling or not doesn't in the end matter. You'll get burned, badly, the difference is maybe where you'll get burned. I'm not even sure if I would not prefer being hit with liquid that has flashed to steam rather than by the actual liquid but I don't think I'm going to try to find out. Once was more than plenty for me.
That is conditional on spilling. With superheated water that's not necessary. That's my point. Superheated water provides a far worse risk profile since it can flash boil on you and delid the container even if you handled the container properly.
So equating 82–88°C coffee to PWR water is vastly overstating the risk.
>details of the famous 1990s McDonald's coffee scalding lawsuit.
Yes, the burns were serious. Educators have latched on to this example to argue that it wasn't frivolous.
>The Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) recommends a range of 175° to 180°F (80° - 85°C) for holding and a serving temperature range of 155° to 175°F (70° - 80°C).
McDonalds was holding their coffee at 180-190, just slightly hotter. You're getting a beverage produced by pouring near-boiling water over coffee beans. It's going to be dangerous. Maybe don't order it at a drive-through.
If I recall things correctly, the woman who was burned was older, with thinner skin in the region where she was burned.
Furthermore, the cup the coffee was served in was, at the time, made of styrofoam. To say they are a bit pliable without a lid is an understatement.
So the woman was served the hot coffee in a pliable cup, with a lid - which gave it a margin of structural integrity. Then, doing something she had likely done many times before, she wanted to take the lid off of the cup. Why? I don't honestly know, but likely to add some cream or sugar would be my guess. Apparently though, she needed both hands for this, and did what she likely did in the past:
She placed the coffee between her legs, likely to grip it, so she could remove the lid. At which point, the cup collapsed (because it was now a pliable styrofoam cup without a lid, so its structural integrity was lost), spilling the hot contents on her legs and other nearby regions, and burning her severely.
This is what I recall from the case and time period. This write-up appears to support that recollection:
Apparently, based on the above, she was also wearing sweatpants (known for absorbing liquid, as they are designed for this), and was a passenger in the vehicle (so was likely handed the cup by the driver passing it over).
No, not the same at all. Selling knives comes with the knowledge there is a certain amount of known danger - selling hot coffee at the temperature McDonalds served back then wasn't generally known it could cause such burns by the general public.
The case was remarkable in part because McDonalds knew that a certain percentage of customers would be severely injured, they worked out the percentages and assumed it would be ok.
McDonalds in fact at the time required coffee to be served at 188-90 degrees F (88 degrees C), which will scald in 3-5 seconds; most coffee shops serve it at 140 degrees F (60 degrees C) which increases burn time to 20 seconds.
In fact, the attorneys found that McDonalds knew about this problem already and over 500 people had been scalded already; they had paid out $500,000 in the year of the case alone.
I'm not sure why it's legally relevant that this happened over text message — isn't this just a specific manifestation of speech made to convince someone to kill themselves? Why is this different than e.g. finding someone on a bridge and telling them to jump?
This is outrageous. The defendant is a child. Children do stupid things. Especially in a society in which 3/4 of the people believe that there is a "better life" after death, is it any wonder she said the things she did? Up to 20 years for a minor for involuntary manslaughter. How is that justice? Adult murderers often get less.
Anyway, it's a great argument for using something like Signal with expiring messages on.
I'd give her 5 years at the least. Watching her throughout the trial and her actions after his death showed she had no remorse or emotion for what she did. I truly believe up until the judge read that verdict she thought she did absolutely nothing wrong. Maybe that was psychosis, or extreme immaturity...
Supposedly at the time she was telling her boyfriend to get back in the truck, etc - she was taking some kind of anti-depressant medicine herself, which a doctor testified could potentially cause her to think that getting him to commit suicide was a means of her helping him with his problems.
That's not saying she's not guilty or making excuses for her.
Suffice to say that it is likely that she is still on some kind of medication for something, so who knows if that (if true) played a part in how she reacted during the trial - or if how she acted when she committed her acts was caused in part or whole by the medication she was taking at the time.
Likely, it was/is a combination of the medication, whatever her problems are/were to take such medication, combined with other possibly sociopathy (or "psychosis" as you termed it), possible immaturity at the time (and perhaps now), along with a host of other possible reasons.
There is no reason to assume a connection with a belief in the afterlife and risk for suicide. You'll note that atheists are just as likely to commit suicide as Christians.
Like facilitating your boyfriend's suicide even when he was reluctant to? Really? If that's the argument you're going to make, then we might as well throw out all those cases where the high school football team gangraped someone. After all, they were just silly little children.
No, like texting stupid things. Her boyfriend killed himself. Did the girls gang-raped by the high school football team rape themselves? Obviously not.
He attempted suicide, then stopped and got out of the truck. And she said "Get back in." Her saying those words directly led to him getting back in the truck and finish committing suicide.
From what I've read about the case it was the fact that he got out of the car (i.e. decided not to kill himself) and she told him to get back in. She knew he wasn't fully in control of his actions because of his mental state and so telling him to get back in, whether she wanted him to die or not, was reckless. IANAL though.
Any lawyers here who could explain the details of how they satisfied the elements required to prove involuntary manslaughter?
I think the key point in all of the evidence, which really convicted her, was the moment when he got out of the truck and she told him to get back in. Then did absolutely nothing and told no one. Up until that moment she was just a vile human being, but then she crossed a line into something showing complete disregard for life.
I'm afraid the craziest aspect of this story is that she wasn't even being vile, she actually believed that he wants to be dead and tried to help him. They had been planning it together for a few days, she threatened to "get him help" if he keeps hesitating, also:
I fucking told him to get back in [...] because I knew he would do it all over again the next day and I couldnt have him live the way he was living anymore I couldnt do it I wouldnt let him
I was not previously aware of this aspect of the story. I will note that it is very common for men to make their emotional crap the problem of some woman they are romantically interested in, even if she has zero desire to be with him.
That doesn't excuse or justify her behavior. The correct thing to do would be to "get him help" if that was within her power. But sometimes there is a thin line between stalker and boyfriend, especially in online relationships. And she was just 17.
It looks like you are trying to suggest that she may have had reasons to wish him ill while I actually dare to question whether she wished him ill at all or just felt sorry for him. I read all the transcripts and the atmosphere somehow reminds me of those suicidal doomsday cults where they just know the world is fucked and there is no way out. Except in this case, only his life was fucked and he was convinced he has no way out and got her to believe that strengthening his will to die is all she can do for him. BBC says she was on antidepressants, so possibly depressed herself. May have been convincing to her, I think.
It looks like you are trying to suggest that she may have had reasons to wish him ill
No, that is not what I am suggesting.
and got her to believe that strengthening his will to die is all she can do for him.
This is in line with what I am saying. It is common for men to insist some woman is somehow responsible for his (emotional) welfare because he is romantically interested in her. All of society tends to reinforce this idea. It can be incredibly hard for a woman to find a way to effectively tell a man "This it not my problem to solve. You need to handle it. It is your life." Even if she has that kind of clarity, everyone around her may act like, no, his welfare and emotional state is your responsibility.
She may have been in a no win situation. If she had told him "Get lost. I can't deal with this." and he committed suicide and left some suicide note blaming her for failing to love him, maybe she wouldn't be literally facing jail time, but many people would still hold her morally responsible for a thing she may have had no real control over.
These type situations can be incredibly hard to sort out and courts have a long history of, for example, giving men who finally beat their abused wife to death less jail time than abused wives who kill their husband in self defense. And I think we, as a society, aren't going to come up with good answers without acknowledging these larger patterns and how they place an undue psychological burden on young women.
Effectively it looks like the guy was looking for a suicide-buddy. Initially she told him to get help, but he kept pestering her about wanting to commit suicide. So she helped him through it in a non-material way. That's one interpretation, and there's nothing criminal about that. Just a poor decision from the judge here.
Reminiscent of a case from years ago where roommates secretly filmed a roommate having a gay encounter, and the roommate killed himself on finding out. I don't get how a person committing suicide in a non-intoxicated state is anybody's fault but their own.
I guess you could argue if you find a drunk person and tell them to do something reckless, but none of these cases seem to fit that.
Why differentiate between intoxication and mental illness? Surely someone with severe enough mental illness that they're on the brink of suicide is much more suggestible than someone who is drunk.
Desiring someone else's esteem or romantic affection should not be considered sufficient to make you their mindless thrall in the eyes of the law. The defendant was a juvenile peer with no legal, physical, familial, or economic control over the victim. She was just a horrible person he found attractive and persuasive.
As someone else in the thread said, what's the difference between this and yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? You may not have trampled people yourself, but your actions directly led to it and you clearly knew that would be the result. IMO this has exactly zero effect on free speech in this country
Because all she did was give advice to somebody else. We can't even definitively say it was bad advice, maybe committing suicide was indeed the best option for him.
Anyway I hope all the people commenting here don't support the right to die, because these kinds of rulings make it much harder for a doctor to ever have the ability to advise a patient about suicide.
> Because all she did was give advice to somebody else
And all the person in the example did was yell "Fire!".
> We can't even definitively say it was bad advice, maybe committing suicide was indeed the best option for him.
I will push back against this very strongly. This isn't someone with a terminal illness looking to end things free of pain. People with clinical depression have a mental illness, their suicidal actions are the product of a condition they have no control over. Their feelings are not the product of reason and rational thought, it's a disease.
> these kinds of rulings make it much harder for a doctor to ever have the ability to advise a patient about suicide.
No they do not. This is why we have specific legislation allowing doctors to discuss end of life options. It explicitly exempts them from prosecution like this.
I do have to inquire exactly how far you think this logic extends. Lets say I am BMX biking with a friend, and there is a tricky jump we are considering doing. I advise him to try it, he does and breaks his neck. Am I guilty of assault and battery on my friend?
No. There's a whole body of law that deals with this subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence is a good place to start. It becomes criminal negligence when a "reasonable person" in your situation would have known that he would get hurt if he tried it. As in the jump was so risky it was obvious it would end in injury. Does that make sense?
Ok thanks for bearing with me, can you explain one more example. Lets say just as a hypothetical there is a military draft in place. I advise my friend to shoot himself in the foot in order to avoid the draft. Have I then committed some criminal act? Obviously my advice when taken directly results in injury. However there are some upsides, much as with suicide.
My overall point is I think it is absurd to punish somebody for giving advice that you think is bad. The girl was in no position of power over the boy (as a doctor or lawyer might be). She gave her unbiased opinion the matter. And this is a crime somehow. Makes one very weary of what can be said.
In your example, dodging the draft is a crime, so you're accessory to a crime.
This girl wasn't just giving advice. When he was committing suicide, he got cold feet and got out of the truck. She texted him "get back in the truck." That's not giving advice or her opinion by any stretch of the imagination; that's giving a command to someone in a very fragile mental state, and it's obvious based on the context what that command would lead to.
> Makes one very weary of what can be said.
Unless your words will directly and obviously lead to harm, you don't have to. And if you think your words might do that, well then you probably should choose your words carefully.
The entire reason this is a landmark case is because of the element of the communication being not in person:
Legal experts say the decision could have national implications as courts grapple with how to apply long-standing laws as technological changes have taken interactions online.
I think this is a thing that very much needs to be grappled with. People often say that online communications don't really count, it isn't the same as meatspace. And yet people can get jobs, create companies with long distance cofounders, meet future spouses etc etc online. People seem to say "It doesn't really count" when they are doing something shitty they wouldn't do in person. These same people often laud kindness that occurs in cyberspace or that happens because of connections made that way.
This case is saying it still counts. I am fine with that having a potential chilling effect on shitty behavior generally that occurs online, on the phone, etc.
And, in this case it isn't clear that involuntary manslaughter actually applies, which is why many people have called this a bad decision from a judge who appears to have invented new law.
Instead of downvoting you someone should explain why you are wrong.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't commit a crime by using speech. Plenty of crimes involve speech, like fraud. Most relevantly, encouragement of a crime has long made someone an accomplice in a crime.
If you talk someone into murdering someone else, you will rightfully get convicted. Here, just change someone else to themselves.
The crime isn't the speech. The crime is him killing himself. How she brought it about doesn't really matter. That's why the first amendment isn't strongly implicated here.
Though the first amendment would likely protect someone who said "killself nerd" if the person actually did it. In that situation there is no intent for the person to actually kill them self.
This case stretches the theory of manslaughter to a point where it impinges on free speech. Not every evil act is an illegal act, and it is dangerous to over-extend legal theory to retroactively condemn a specific act.
But suicide is not illegal in Mass.,so she is not an accomplice to any crime. She did not give any material or physical aid to help the victim effect his death, so it's hard to stretch this as assisted suicide, the closest related criminal charge (and it seems the prosecutor agrees as they charged her with manslaughter).
That would explain why she wasn't charged with murder. I didn't consider that most states define murder as a the killing of another person, which rules out suicide.
How is not being allowed to induce a mentally ill person to kill himself any more of an infringement of free speech than fraud or libel or perjury or conspiracy laws? The freedom of speech is a freedom to express oneself, not a freedom from consequences for any harmful action that can be accomplished through speaking.
She did not deceive him or collude with others to exert undue leverage over him. She made it clear that the intended result of the actions she advocated was death. She does not appear to have introduced the idea of suicide in the first place. She had no legal, physical, or economic control over him, was not in proximity to him during the suicide, and does not appear to have involved third parties at any time. He carried out an act that was legal for him to perform in large part because of her persuasive speech. Her words were chilling, but his act was the result of speech between two peers, and was not itself illegal.
Right or not, all speech is not protected. If you spill government secrets, you can be thrown in jail (assuming you aren't politically powerful). If you threaten someone, you could be prosecuted. Yelling fire in a crowded theater... Some of these are grey areas. I would say in this case, helping to convince someone who is obviously mentally ill that they should kill themself was decided to be one of those types of speech that is not protected.
The entire concept of suicide being illegal is appalling to begin with. No one ever asks a human being whether they want to live life, and for any entity to presume jurisdiction over that is ridiculous. This is the legacy of centuries of religious superstition...
Suicide isn't really illegal, you can't be prosecuted for it or for attempting it. It does have some interesting corner cases. If police believe you are attempting suicide they can enter your house to stop you without a warrant. A person who attempted suicide but was stopped or saved by someone cannot sue that person for any injuries sustained during their rescue. And of course if you are considered an active threat to yourself by a qualified mental health professional you can be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric institution.
There is a marked difference between someone who has a terminal, painful illness and has made a cold, rational, and sober decision to end their life and someone who has a mental disorder/abnormality or is facing a major crisis and makes an impulsive decision.
The vast majority of suicide attempts are caused by temporary, immediate stressors that recede with the oassage of time. 70% of people who commit suicide do so within an hour of of making the decision. 90% of people who survive suicide attempts do not try it again.[1] It is an overwhelmingly impulsive act when people, caught up in the emotion of a major crisis, cannot see any path forward.[1]
I'm not sure if this is the legacy of religiosity, but modern attitudes towards suicide are clinically shaped that understand the fleeting nature and temporary sway of many suicide crises. You present a romanticized view of it(a sober, rational decision made over a period of time, perhaps due to a legacy of classic greek philosophers, that is inaccurate and dangerous. I say this as someone who had a friend commit suicide in 8th grade in a typical dad pushes son too hard academically and athleticly, son feels depressed, finds dad's gun and ends life scenario. He couldnt see the options in front of him... running away, seek emancipation, put up with shit for another 4 years before finally telling his family to frak off...
Public suicide should be illegal for the often melodramatic way in which they choose to end their life and the extreme trauma that witnesses suffer. Watching someone as they jump off a bridge/building, splatter on the sidewalk, or blowing their brains out leaves scars no amount of therapy can heal.
It's not, but apparently assisting can get you in trouble regardless.
The court ruling in this case cites a precedent involving somebody handing a loaded gun to a person who said in an impulse that she wants to kill herself and then actually did and another case when people were sentenced for playing Russian roulette until somebody "lost". FWIW, I agree with the first case but the second one is stretching it IMO.
Ultimately, you can't really disagree that most of the time, people generally want others to live, whether they like it or not.
105 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 152 ms ] threadWould you mind explaining this further? I'm not sure I understand your position from your comments.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40304433
1) How can we prevent this from happening again?
2) What kind of relief will this provide to the relatives?
3) How will it help rehabilitate the girl herself, so that her future contributions are positive and not even more negative?
4) What was or would have been best for the victim?
5) Who else is responsible for the situation?
6) What was the true causes that led to the death?
And I don't feel like this case is answering any of these questions, trying to prevent recurrences, or support the people who are affected by the event. It's almost too complicated an issue, with too many layers and levels of indirection, reliability and blame. If we truly want to address the root cause, we'll need something much more thorough.
At this point, I feel it probably will only work as a scape goat, allowing relatives to believe the boy had no issue, and that he would have managed to overcome and live a happy life if it wasn't for her, taking some of their guilt away and towards her. Are they right, we'll never know, but for sure other people could be argued to have also indirectly contributed to involuntary manslaughter, people who might have played a role with the original causes of depression and suicidal thoughts that led to him engaging in such a relationship in the first place and triggered the events that followed.
I think that would satisfy the victims relatives to some degree. As for the 'true causes that led the the death' that seems pretty obvious to me from the facts - she was the cause. He had stepped off the ledge so to speak and if she hadn't intervened and told him to get back in the car it's likely he wouldn't have died that day. When considering her guilt that's all that matters. Why the victim was suicidal in the first place is irrelevant to establishing her part in the incident.
From the ruling, it seems the judge did not take anything into consideration except for the messages and inactions directly related to the incident. I understand why he didn't, legally speaking, because it's way too complicated if you do so. How can you reason about 2 years of exchanges in which he clearly expresses suicidal thoughts and toys with the idea of death to a teenage girl who herself struggles with these same issues and is under active antidepressants?
I don't feel like it's obvious at all what the true cause is. She's spent more time and sent him more messages trying to deter him from committing suicide and pushing him to seek help prior to her assisting in his suicide attempt. Yet it seems that didn't do anything to help his depression. In his suicide note he thank her for all her support, and for being there for him and helping him. To me, him being suicidal is at the heart of it. She didn't make him suicidal. And if we could find who or what is responsible for him being suicidal in the first place, then wouldn't those who or what be even more responsible for his death?
You could also claim he's made her assist him. He basically spent 2 years promoting to her the idea that he should do it, actively seeking her support in it. To me, that's as far fetched as what she's accused of. As soon as you make a conclusion from the premise that your words were the cause of someone's elses actions, you enter a realm of uncertainty, because we don't understand those psychological mechanism at all. They run deep, wide and complex.
Yes, she's assisted him in his suicide, that's undeniable, to call that involuntary manslaughter is questionable. Suicide is illegal, and that's questionable too. Assisted suicide is also illegal, that's also questionable. The grounds for crime are fuzzy, but you're right, given the law and situation, she contributed, at least by making it easier for him.
So I'm not objecting with the ruling, or anything like that. I feel more like we're just failing as a whole. Failing to prevent depression, failing to support it, failing to discuss it openly, failing to deal with it, failing to understand it, etc. And I don't see this court case improving on any of it. In fact, it might make it worse, by complicating an already complicated situation.
FWIW, the law seems to be against her in this case: the court ruling quotes a precedent where people were sentenced for playing Russian roulette because one of them died. I think it's idiotic but that's what there is.
>> Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.
The victim got out of the car and only got back in because the defendant told him to.
>> The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
She may not have intended to kill him but given she knew of the poor mental state he was in, plus the fact he had just backed out of killing himself, it seems reckless to then tell him to get back into the car.
>> The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.
As above really.
This girl sounds like a psychopath. Gender stereotypes keep a lot of people from seeing it. Reverse the genders in your mind.
Unlikely, even if it you managed to get superheated water into a cup would would instantly flash into steam under standard pressure if you disturbed it. You wouldn't have a chance to hand it to the customer.
That's why you want to be very careful if your water still doesn't boil after you've microwaved it for the 3rd time. It may very well have become superheated, which you will find out as soon as you try to do anything with it, even moving the container can cause instant trouble.
Yes, I assumed that a paper cup and coffee solids will provide nucleation points.
And the incident was about a coffee spill, not a flash boiling of superheated liquid.
> During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C).
This is clearly not superheated liquid.
http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_wa...
And considering you're strapped into a seat you are going to be exposed a lot longer than you'd otherwise be if you could jump away or have some other reflex act to make things better. First panic, then remove seatbelt, open door, get out. By the time that's all done you are probably 6 seconds (or longer, for an older person) in contact with the water, depending on the size of the cup that might as well be an eternity.
The burn I have is pretty extensive, it is so deep that there is no pigmentation on the burned parts and EMTs would not believe it is just a water burn.
Now, I have done something like that in front of medical personnel in an ER, pulling my pants off when I realized they were the source of the exposure that was causing my throat to close up. Even I would probably hesitate to do so in the middle of a McDonald's knowing that I would likely be charged with something for suddenly getting naked in public. If the maneuver was successful in protecting against burns, good luck convincing people that you had to get naked to prevent being maimed. This woman WAS maimed and her case still gets dismissed in internet comments left and right, like yours.
I was dismissing the claim that this was "PWR core" hot water, which would be > 100°C. Selling superheated liquids would indeed be grossly negligent because they can flash-boil just by handling them. Merely hot water on the other hand does not pose that particular risk.
That is not what you are doing. Given context, the effect of your comments comes across as dismissive of the case.
This is what I think I did.
> but (affirm that the lady was in fact seriously injured)
Something feels wrong about this supposed requirement. I just stated facts. I don't want to insert disclaimers, signalling, agreement or something like that on the surrounding issue. It strikes me as a crazy social ritual.
Note that I have nowhere made a statement on the case in general.
You aren't required to do anything in particular. But telling me I am wrong to explain to you how you are coming across is... all kinds of tunnel vision, at best. This is how it looks to me as a minimum. You don't have to care how it looks to me, but you can't tell me I am wrong in my assessment of how it appears to me.
And I think I am done with this apparently completely pointless discussion with you.
Now you're being silly. If you checked that link I posted below then you'd see that there is hardly any difference in damage done with 100 versus 88 degree Celsius water at the same exposure times. Both are pretty much instantaneous and will give you 3rd degree burns in a matter of seconds.
That is conditional on spilling. With superheated water that's not necessary. That's my point. Superheated water provides a far worse risk profile since it can flash boil on you and delid the container even if you handled the container properly.
So equating 82–88°C coffee to PWR water is vastly overstating the risk.
Or watch the 80's movie Heathers
Yes, the burns were serious. Educators have latched on to this example to argue that it wasn't frivolous.
>The Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) recommends a range of 175° to 180°F (80° - 85°C) for holding and a serving temperature range of 155° to 175°F (70° - 80°C).
McDonalds was holding their coffee at 180-190, just slightly hotter. You're getting a beverage produced by pouring near-boiling water over coffee beans. It's going to be dangerous. Maybe don't order it at a drive-through.
If I recall things correctly, the woman who was burned was older, with thinner skin in the region where she was burned.
Furthermore, the cup the coffee was served in was, at the time, made of styrofoam. To say they are a bit pliable without a lid is an understatement.
So the woman was served the hot coffee in a pliable cup, with a lid - which gave it a margin of structural integrity. Then, doing something she had likely done many times before, she wanted to take the lid off of the cup. Why? I don't honestly know, but likely to add some cream or sugar would be my guess. Apparently though, she needed both hands for this, and did what she likely did in the past:
She placed the coffee between her legs, likely to grip it, so she could remove the lid. At which point, the cup collapsed (because it was now a pliable styrofoam cup without a lid, so its structural integrity was lost), spilling the hot contents on her legs and other nearby regions, and burning her severely.
This is what I recall from the case and time period. This write-up appears to support that recollection:
https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
Apparently, based on the above, she was also wearing sweatpants (known for absorbing liquid, as they are designed for this), and was a passenger in the vehicle (so was likely handed the cup by the driver passing it over).
Maybe don't sell it at a drive through.
The case was remarkable in part because McDonalds knew that a certain percentage of customers would be severely injured, they worked out the percentages and assumed it would be ok.
McDonalds in fact at the time required coffee to be served at 188-90 degrees F (88 degrees C), which will scald in 3-5 seconds; most coffee shops serve it at 140 degrees F (60 degrees C) which increases burn time to 20 seconds.
In fact, the attorneys found that McDonalds knew about this problem already and over 500 people had been scalded already; they had paid out $500,000 in the year of the case alone.
To be fair... she didn't found that person she was that person girl friend.
I think they both had mess up mind and it's better if she were to be sentence to rehabilitate.
1, It's different because she wasn't physically present, which is new in the eyes of the law. Unlike your bridge comparison.
2, If I wrote a book trying to convince people to kill themselves would I now be liable?
Anyway, it's a great argument for using something like Signal with expiring messages on.
Up. To. Pretty sure her age (and other factors) will be taken into account when a sentence is passed.
That's not saying she's not guilty or making excuses for her.
Suffice to say that it is likely that she is still on some kind of medication for something, so who knows if that (if true) played a part in how she reacted during the trial - or if how she acted when she committed her acts was caused in part or whole by the medication she was taking at the time.
Likely, it was/is a combination of the medication, whatever her problems are/were to take such medication, combined with other possibly sociopathy (or "psychosis" as you termed it), possible immaturity at the time (and perhaps now), along with a host of other possible reasons.
That's not what psychosis is. People with psychosis are mostly not violent. Did you mean psychopathy?
A child of 18 years of age?...
> Especially in a society in which 3/4 of the people believe that there is a "better life" after death.
What a stupid remark.
That is something systematically taught by people holding positions of authority over children (in most cases both parents and school teachers).
In light of that, it is not that surprising so many people young see suicide a respite.
Like facilitating your boyfriend's suicide even when he was reluctant to? Really? If that's the argument you're going to make, then we might as well throw out all those cases where the high school football team gangraped someone. After all, they were just silly little children.
Any lawyers here who could explain the details of how they satisfied the elements required to prove involuntary manslaughter?
I fucking told him to get back in [...] because I knew he would do it all over again the next day and I couldnt have him live the way he was living anymore I couldnt do it I wouldnt let him
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14576490#14576855
That doesn't excuse or justify her behavior. The correct thing to do would be to "get him help" if that was within her power. But sometimes there is a thin line between stalker and boyfriend, especially in online relationships. And she was just 17.
No, that is not what I am suggesting.
and got her to believe that strengthening his will to die is all she can do for him.
This is in line with what I am saying. It is common for men to insist some woman is somehow responsible for his (emotional) welfare because he is romantically interested in her. All of society tends to reinforce this idea. It can be incredibly hard for a woman to find a way to effectively tell a man "This it not my problem to solve. You need to handle it. It is your life." Even if she has that kind of clarity, everyone around her may act like, no, his welfare and emotional state is your responsibility.
She may have been in a no win situation. If she had told him "Get lost. I can't deal with this." and he committed suicide and left some suicide note blaming her for failing to love him, maybe she wouldn't be literally facing jail time, but many people would still hold her morally responsible for a thing she may have had no real control over.
These type situations can be incredibly hard to sort out and courts have a long history of, for example, giving men who finally beat their abused wife to death less jail time than abused wives who kill their husband in self defense. And I think we, as a society, aren't going to come up with good answers without acknowledging these larger patterns and how they place an undue psychological burden on young women.
Reminiscent of a case from years ago where roommates secretly filmed a roommate having a gay encounter, and the roommate killed himself on finding out. I don't get how a person committing suicide in a non-intoxicated state is anybody's fault but their own.
I guess you could argue if you find a drunk person and tell them to do something reckless, but none of these cases seem to fit that.
"My friend asked for a heart transplant. Never-mind that I'm not a doctor, I did the surgery anyway. Not my fault I have a corpse on my dinner table."
I feel strongly that nonconsensual sexual filming of people where they have an expectation of privacy ought to be an offence.
Anyway I hope all the people commenting here don't support the right to die, because these kinds of rulings make it much harder for a doctor to ever have the ability to advise a patient about suicide.
And all the person in the example did was yell "Fire!".
> We can't even definitively say it was bad advice, maybe committing suicide was indeed the best option for him.
I will push back against this very strongly. This isn't someone with a terminal illness looking to end things free of pain. People with clinical depression have a mental illness, their suicidal actions are the product of a condition they have no control over. Their feelings are not the product of reason and rational thought, it's a disease.
> these kinds of rulings make it much harder for a doctor to ever have the ability to advise a patient about suicide.
No they do not. This is why we have specific legislation allowing doctors to discuss end of life options. It explicitly exempts them from prosecution like this.
My overall point is I think it is absurd to punish somebody for giving advice that you think is bad. The girl was in no position of power over the boy (as a doctor or lawyer might be). She gave her unbiased opinion the matter. And this is a crime somehow. Makes one very weary of what can be said.
This girl wasn't just giving advice. When he was committing suicide, he got cold feet and got out of the truck. She texted him "get back in the truck." That's not giving advice or her opinion by any stretch of the imagination; that's giving a command to someone in a very fragile mental state, and it's obvious based on the context what that command would lead to.
> Makes one very weary of what can be said.
Unless your words will directly and obviously lead to harm, you don't have to. And if you think your words might do that, well then you probably should choose your words carefully.
Legal experts say the decision could have national implications as courts grapple with how to apply long-standing laws as technological changes have taken interactions online.
I think this is a thing that very much needs to be grappled with. People often say that online communications don't really count, it isn't the same as meatspace. And yet people can get jobs, create companies with long distance cofounders, meet future spouses etc etc online. People seem to say "It doesn't really count" when they are doing something shitty they wouldn't do in person. These same people often laud kindness that occurs in cyberspace or that happens because of connections made that way.
This case is saying it still counts. I am fine with that having a potential chilling effect on shitty behavior generally that occurs online, on the phone, etc.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't commit a crime by using speech. Plenty of crimes involve speech, like fraud. Most relevantly, encouragement of a crime has long made someone an accomplice in a crime.
If you talk someone into murdering someone else, you will rightfully get convicted. Here, just change someone else to themselves.
The crime isn't the speech. The crime is him killing himself. How she brought it about doesn't really matter. That's why the first amendment isn't strongly implicated here.
Though the first amendment would likely protect someone who said "killself nerd" if the person actually did it. In that situation there is no intent for the person to actually kill them self.
Think of it as her spending years convincing her boyfriend to kill a third person. She'd be just as guilty.
I'd have charged her for complicity and conspiracy for first degree murder.
The vast majority of suicide attempts are caused by temporary, immediate stressors that recede with the oassage of time. 70% of people who commit suicide do so within an hour of of making the decision. 90% of people who survive suicide attempts do not try it again.[1] It is an overwhelmingly impulsive act when people, caught up in the emotion of a major crisis, cannot see any path forward.[1]
I'm not sure if this is the legacy of religiosity, but modern attitudes towards suicide are clinically shaped that understand the fleeting nature and temporary sway of many suicide crises. You present a romanticized view of it(a sober, rational decision made over a period of time, perhaps due to a legacy of classic greek philosophers, that is inaccurate and dangerous. I say this as someone who had a friend commit suicide in 8th grade in a typical dad pushes son too hard academically and athleticly, son feels depressed, finds dad's gun and ends life scenario. He couldnt see the options in front of him... running away, seek emancipation, put up with shit for another 4 years before finally telling his family to frak off...
Public suicide should be illegal for the often melodramatic way in which they choose to end their life and the extreme trauma that witnesses suffer. Watching someone as they jump off a bridge/building, splatter on the sidewalk, or blowing their brains out leaves scars no amount of therapy can heal.
[1] New England Journal of Medicine - Guns and Suicide Rates in US => http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923#t=article
The court ruling in this case cites a precedent involving somebody handing a loaded gun to a person who said in an impulse that she wants to kill herself and then actually did and another case when people were sentenced for playing Russian roulette until somebody "lost". FWIW, I agree with the first case but the second one is stretching it IMO.
Ultimately, you can't really disagree that most of the time, people generally want others to live, whether they like it or not.