The Glade 4.0

Sorry, I don't understand what Dutch laws have to do with here?

_________________
The Dude abides.

My question was posed with a listing of three states that are NOT where this happened.

You accepted that premise, why now are you balking?

_________________

Still not sure how Physician Assisted Suicide ties in here.

She's not a doctor, and he doesn't seem to have had the mental capacity to consent.

Why are you making this argument?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I didn't say that age should excuse her; I said that the act she committed did not (in my reading) violate the MA statute of Involuntary Manslaughter. That is a deficiency of the statute, not an excuse of her behavior.

As to her age, that's a response to the "lol she's a terrible person **** her" reaction, and an indication of how I think an appropriate statute written in the future would read - a conviction for something like this should not rely heavily on assumed motivations and understandings of the accused.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah, and you linked a Buzzfeed article discussing a case not in those three states. The last time I read up on the Oregon law (like 2010/2011), mental illness would not have fit the criteria for legal PAD. Not trying to be obtuse, I just don't understand why you're applying that article here.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Was diminished capacity established by a physician and/or a court of law? If not, that is irrelevant.

Gross negligence for failing to call authorities when you believed imminent harm (self-harm, in this case) to another, depending on the law of the jurisdiction, at most.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

The glaring problem with this conviction is involuntary manslaughter in Massachusetts requires that a person cause the death of another either by "a killing unintentionally caused as a result of wanton and reckless conduct" or "as the result of a dangerous battery"; the second of which obviously does not apply in this case.

The problem with the first one is that while it's fairly easy to say that her speech was wanton and reckless, her conduct wasn't. Speech and conduct are not the same thing; this is an underpinning of the scope of the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. Her conduct was limited to sending text messages.

"Diminished capacity" is not an issue here. "Diminished capacity" has to do with consent, and there was nothing for him to consent to. She was not taking any action or receiving any thing of value from him. She was not even physically capable of engaging in coercion at the time of the incident as she was not physically present. All he had to do was stop texting her back.

The question of whether this is morally reprehensible is separate from whether it's illegal, and it not only does not appear to be illegal under the law used to convict her, it represents a dangerous extension of that law into territory where it doesn't belong.

A new law could be written that might suit such situations, without such dangerous extension, but it would not apply to this particular case because it would be an ex post facto law.

For these reasons, her conviction ought to be reversed on appeal, and she can be sent home to live with the enormity of what she has done and the prospect of a life serving McDonalds because she's been all over national TV and is widely regarded as a terrible person who few employers will ever want anything to do with. I think it would do her a lot of good to wear an orange jumpsuit for a year or two and freeze her *** off in a cell, but I don't think the law justifies doing that, and adhering to the law is more important than her getting what she morally has coming to her.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Elmarnieh simply, almost elegantly wrote


While true, and probably the statement on here I'm most on line with, it is a bit harsh.

Sometimes the truth has to be harsh to get the message across.

By the way, peer pressure has been driving people to suicide long before the internet. Japan got it down to a cultural norm.

We need to raise children who know how to fight back, have self esteem, and are willing to stand up for themselves. That is the best solution to bullying.

Pity so few of us do.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Fighting back and having self-esteem aren't ususally effective, because "bullies" aren't the distinct individuals that appear in children's books and cartoons. What usually happens is that there is a small core of "bullies" that gang up on acceptable targets and use numbers to overwhelm the victim.

The other kids in the class generally don't stand there scared to do anything about it; they stand there and snicker. The reason is that bullies pick targets who are unpopular, annoying, socially awkward, etc. Bullies are very good at picking their targets; they pick ones often that even the adults don't like very much. Bullies don't pick on kids in wheelchairs because the victim is obviously sympathetic. They pick kids that are awkward or different. They make it socially acceptable for other kids to join in, both because the target is disliked and because the other kids are glad they're not the target.

The usual techniques "stand up for yourself"or "just ignore them" don't work because the target is generally outnumbered, and the bullies engage in behavior that can't be ignored. Bullies also tend to be very good at provoking victims. They annoy, poke, prod, and distract the victim over and over, both getting the target to wear out adult patience complaining about constant "minor" matters (and loosing popularity as well due to "tattling") and getting more and more angry.

Adults are terrible at solving bullying problems. What adults are good at doing is lecturing, and getting kids to stop complaining about being bullied, thereby solving the adult problem of "I'm tired of hearing about this".

The right answer to bullying is not "kids, bullying is bad, mmmkay?" The right answer to bullying is "if there's a problem, the entire class is going to the gym and doing calisthenics until you can barely get on the bus to go home. If you weren't involved, you're still to blame for tolerating it."

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The best solution to bullying is a knee to the groin and a right cross.

Maybe grinding their balls into the ground with your foot afterwards as well.

They can go home to their abusive father for all I care and get their *** beat again. If someone had ground the father's balls into the ground then the current problem wouldn't exist.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Well now... Someone certainly went to a very dark place now didn't they...

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

How much actual ball-grinding have you ever done?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

On a scale of 1 to 10 how much do you like irrelevant questions?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'm guessing you've either never done this or never had it happen to you. It's not as incapacitating as you might expect. In fact, other than making a spectacular show (blood, etc.) hitting someone in the face is really only a good way to hurt your hand. It does have a certain stun effect, so if you're planning on running like a ***** (no judgement in this - done it many times), a knee to the groin and a shot to the face will get you a head start.

That's funny I atually said the same thing yesterday to someone who was talking about bare knuckled fighting. The head is a huge bunch of bone with not much covering it, its also the densist part of the body. I suppose more people read that as literal than I'd have thought. The point is bullies have chosen the language they speak and it would be discourteous to not respect that decision.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

At the elementary school level, I think a truly epic vocabulary of swear words and vulgar insults might go a long way. If some bully starts making fun of you, and you respond with a stream of the most vile **** any 11-year old in the history of the world has ever uttered, you stand a pretty good chance of stealing his thunder. If it turns violent, of course, your only option is to fight back. Even if you lose, at least you'll be more likely to keep your self-respect and avoid some of the long-term mental/emotional trauma that often goes with bullying.

You should totally be an elementary school teacher. Parents would love you. "Hey, let me help you with your vocabulary words... WTF????"

Fair enough.

Do you also think virgins are a good choice for sex advice?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."