|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Judge finds Michelle Carter guilty of manslaughter in texting suicide case |
| 1-7 of 7 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 06-17-17 05:08pm - 2745 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Judge finds Michelle Carter guilty of manslaughter in texting suicide case Judge finds Michelle Carter guilty of manslaughter in texting suicide case By Ray Sanchez and Natisha Lance, CNN Updated 5:22 AM ET, Sat June 17, 2017 Story highlights Conrad Roy III, 18, killed himself in July 2014 A Massachusetts judge decides Michelle Carter's fate after she waived her right to a jury trial (CNN)In a case that hinged largely on a teenage couple's intimate text messages, Michelle Carter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter Friday in the 2014 death of her boyfriend, who poisoned himself by inhaling carbon monoxide in his pickup truck, a Massachusetts judge ruled. Carter's own words -- preserved in hundreds of text messages presented as evidence over six days of testimony -- helped seal her conviction in the death of 18-year-old Conrad Roy III, Bristol County Juvenile Court Judge Lawrence Moniz said during a 15-minute explanation of his rationale. "She admits in ... texts that she did nothing: She did not call the police or Mr. Roy's family" after hearing his last breaths during a phone call, Moniz said. "And, finally, she did not issue a simple additional instruction: Get out of the truck." Carter, 20, cried silently as Moniz spoke. She stood to receive the ruling, which could set legal precedent for whether it's a crime to tell someone to commit suicide. 'There are no winners here' Prosecutors had argued that Carter sent Roy numerous text messages urging him to commit suicide, listened over the phone as he suffocated and failed to alert authorities or his family that he'd died. The judge agreed. "This court has found that Carter's actions and failure to act where it was her self-created duty to Roy since she put him in that toxic environment constituted reckless conduct," the judge said. "The court finds that the conduct caused the death of Mr. Roy." With Carter standing, Moniz said, "This court, having reviewed the evidence, finds you guilty on the indictment with involuntary manslaughter." Although Cater was not present when Roy killed himself, her text messages and conversations with him proved damning. One July 2012 exchange of texts messages was typical: Roy: "I'm overthinking" Carter: "I thought you wanted to do this. The time is right and you're ready, you just need to do it! You can't keep living this way. You just need to do it like you did last time and not think about it and just do it babe. You can't keep doing this every day." Roy's relatives, who sat near Carter in the front row of the courtroom, wept as the judge ticked through the steps Roy took to end his life, as well as Carter's complicity. Sitting opposite them, Carter's family members also sobbed. "Although we are very pleased with the verdict, in reality there are no winners here," prosecutor Katie Rayburn told reporters later. "Two families had been torn apart and will be affected by this for years to come. We hope verdict will bring some closure... It's been an extremely emotionally draining process for everyone involved." Roy aspired to be a tugboat captain and would be alive if not for Carter's actions, Rayburn said. He had been trying to better himself, and "we all wish he had the opportunity" to grow up, she said. Added Roy's father, Conrad Roy Jr.: "This has been a very tough time for our family, and we would just like to process this verdict that we are happy with." Moniz let Carter, who was tried as a juvenile because she was 17 at the time of the crime, remain free on bail until her sentencing on August 3. She could face up to 20 years in prison, though experts say such a lengthy sentence is unlikely. She was ordered to have no contact with members of the Roy family. She cannot apply for or obtain a passport, nor can she leave Massachusetts without permission from a judge. Case was watched closely The ruling, which may spur lawmakers to codify the behavior highlighted in the case as criminal, was closely watched by legal experts. "Given the expansive definition of manslaughter under Massachusetts law, the guilty verdict is not a surprise," CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos said. "Still, this verdict is concerning because it reflects a judicial willingness to expand legal liability for another person's suicide, an act which by definition is a completely independent choice," he said. "Historically, suicide has been considered a superseding act which breaks the chain of legal causation." In charging Carter with involuntary manslaughter, prosecutors were threading a legal needle, another legal expert said. "I thought it was a square peg in a round hole, it wasn't a great fit for manslaughter," Daniel Medwed, professor of law and criminal justice at Northeastern University, said after the decision. "Her behavior was so morally reprehensible, but I wasn't sure how, as a matter of law, it constituted as manslaughter." Medwed said manslaughter involves direct action such as a drunk driver who slams into a car or someone who fires a gun into a crowd to recklessly cause a death. "This case involves mainly words, but ultimately [Roy] decided to do the deed, so it didn't fit in with the classic patter of manslaughter," he said. "But the facts are so powerful, so compelling and her behavior so apparent that I'm not shocked she got convicted for manslaughter." Texts drove suicide, prosecutors argued Carter secretly nudged Roy toward suicide by sending him numerous text messages encouraging him to take his life, prosecutors said. In closing arguments Tuesday, prosecutors said Carter berated her vulnerable boyfriend when he had second thoughts about killing himself, listened by phone as he died and used his suicide to get from friends the attention that she desperately craved. Teens and texts: Suicide case exposes risks of messaging Carter went from offering "words of kindness and love" to aggressively encouraging Roy via text message to carry out longtime threats to commit suicide, Rayburn told the court. "It got to the point that he was apologizing to her, ... apologizing to her for not being dead yet," she said in her closing argument. Rayburn reminded the judge of text messages in which Carter encouraged Roy to get back in the truck. In text messages to a friend, she described hearing his final words and breaths on the phone. Roy's body was found July 13, 2014, a day after his suicide in his parked truck in a Kmart parking lot in Fairhaven, nearly 40 miles from his home. 'Tragic ... not a homicide,' defense said Carter's attorney argued she was a troubled, delusional young woman who was "dragged" into the suicidal journey of Roy, who had long been intent on killing himself. Assistance or coercion? Intent is key in text message suicide case, experts say "The evidence actually established that Conrad Roy caused his own death by his physical actions and by his own thoughts," defense attorney Joseph Cataldo said. "You're dealing with an individual who wanted to take his own life. ... He dragged Michelle Carter into this." Carter was "overwhelmed" by Roy's talk of suicide while at the same time dealing "with all of her baggage," including the side effects of medication for depression, Cataldo said. "It's sad, it's tragic," he said. "It's just not a homicide." Earlier in the trial, a psychiatrist testified that Carter was delusional after becoming "involuntarily intoxicated" by antidepressants. She was "unable to form intent" after switching to a new prescription drug months before Roy's suicide, and she even texted his phone for weeks after he died, the psychiatrist testified. CNN's Michelle Krupa, Jessica Suerth, Sarah Jorgensen and Darran Simon contributed to this report. | |
|
||
| 06-19-17 09:04am - 2743 days | #2 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
And yet another police officer was found not guilty of shooting an innocent black man. I can't help but feel that the US is in so much trouble when it comes to legal matters. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-19-17 09:46am - 2743 days | #3 | |
|
merc77 (0)
Disabled User Posts: 291 Registered: Apr 17, '16 |
Here is a site that explains manslaughter in the US: https://www.hg.org/manslaughter-law.html Depraved indifference to human life is the legal definition of manslaughter in some states. The young woman showed she was depraved and indifferent when it came to her boyfriend's death. I would have convicted if I was on the jury. "Dogs think people are Gods. Cats don't as they know better." - Kedi (2016) Dogs have masters; Cats have staff. | |
|
||
| 06-19-17 12:05pm - 2743 days | #4 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
IF A COP SHOOTS AND KILLS AN UNARMED CIVILIAN, THE CIVILIAN IS AUTOMATICALLY DEEMED A THREAT TO THE COP'S SAFETY. THAT EXPLAINS WHY COPS CARRY GUNS, AND IF A CIVILIAN CARRIES A GUN, THE CIVILIAN IS AUTOMATICALLY DEEMED A THREAT. AND IF THE CIVILIAN DOES NOT CARRY A GUN, THE CIVILIAN IS A THREAT, BECAUSE THE COP BELIEVES THE CIVILIAN MAY BE HIDING A GUN. SO: A COP IS JUSTIFIED SHOOTING A CIVILIAN, BECAUSE THE COP IS IN FEAR OF VIOLENCE. AND THE BEST STRATEGY TO AVOID VIOLENCE (BY THE COP) IS TO SHOOT FIRST, AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER. WHICH IS A STRONG LEGAL DEFENSE. EVEN IF THE CIVILIAN HAS STOPPED AND HOLDS HIS HANDS ABOVE HIS HEAD, THE COP IS STILL JUSTIFIED IN SHOOT TO KILL, BECAUSE THE CIVILIAN MIGHT HAVE A GUN, OR EVEN WORSE, BE ON DRUGS. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT A CIVILIAN ON DRUGS IS DANGEROUS. I'VE READ THAT IF A CIVILIAN SHOOTS A PERSON IN THE BACK, THE CIVILIAN IS A LOWER-THAN-DOG CRIMINAL. BUT IF A COP OR COPS SHOOT A CIVILIAN 5 OR 10 TIMES IN THE BACK, IT'S A MATTER OF THE COP(S) ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE. JUSTICE IS A TWO-WAY STREET. ONE STREET FOR COPS. A DIFFERENT STREET FOR CIVILIANS. | |
|
||
| 06-20-17 11:15am - 2742 days | #5 | |
|
Loki (0)
Active User  Posts: 395 Registered: Jun 13, '07 Location: California |
It wasn't a jury trial. The defendant waived her right to a jury trial and was tried and sentenced by the judge. And to be complete, "Depraved indifference to human life" is not illegal. Only if your actions cause a death and your motivation is deprave indifference to human life would that be manslaughter. Misanthropes rejoice! "A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself." | |
|
||
| 06-21-17 01:59am - 2741 days | #6 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
================================ I READ A DIFFERENT ARTICLE A SHORT WHILE BACK. THIS WAS IN CALIFORNIA. WHERE A POLICE OFFICER SHOT AND KILLED AN UNARMED MAN. THE OFFICER CLAIMED HE WAS IN FEAR OF HIS LIFE, WHICH JUSTIFIED THE SHOOTING. BECAUSE THE OFFICER CLAIMED HE THOUGHT THE MAN WAS REACHING FOR A GUN. THERE WAS NO GUN. AND FROM WHAT I READ, THE MAN WAS FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE OFFICER. THE OFFICER TOLD THE MAN NOT TO MOVIE. THE OFFICER TOLD THE MAN TO SHOW BOTH HIS HANDS. WHEN THE MAN MOVED HIS RIGHT HAND TO SHOW THE OFFICER, THE COP SHOT THE MAN, BECAUSE THE COP SAID THE MAN WAS APPARENTLY REACHING FOR A GUN (EVEN THOUGH THE COP TOLD THE MAN TO SHOW BOTH HIS HANDS TO THE OFFICER. HOW CAN YOU FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS? DON'T MOVE. SHOW ME BOTH OF YOUR HANDS. AND WHEN THE MAN MOVED HIS RIGHT HAND TO SHOW THE OFFICER HIS HAND, THE OFFICER SHOT AND KILLED THE MAN (BECAUSE THE OFFICER THOUGHT THE MAN HAD A GUN, OR WAS REACHING FOR A GUN--EVEN THOUGH THE ONLY GUN INVOLVED WITH THE COP'S GUN). THE OFFICER WAS NOT CHARGED IN THE FATAL SHOOTING. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDS, BUT THE OFFICER WAS CLEARED BECAUSE HE WAS FOLLOWING POLICE PROCEDURE. ================================ http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448...-miscarriage-justice The Philando Castile Verdict Was a Miscarriage of Justice by David French June 17, 2017 2:27 PM Yesterday, a Minnesota jury acquitted St. Anthony, Minnesota, police officer Jeronimo Yanez of second-degree manslaughter charges in the shooting of Philando Castile. In considering the rightness of the verdict, pay close attention to the transcript of the fatal encounter. Here it is, via CNN: 9:05:00 p.m. — Castile’s vehicle came to a complete stop. 9:05:15 – 9:05:22 p.m. — Yanez approached Castile’s car on the driver’s side. 9:05:22 – 9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez exchanged greetings with Castile and told him of the brake light problem. 9:05:33 p.m. — St. Anthony Police Officer Joseph Kauser, who had arrived as backup, approached Castile’s car on the passenger’s side. 9:05:38 p.m. — Yanez asked for Castile’s driver’s license and proof of insurance. 9:05:48 p.m. — Castile provided Yanez with his proof of insurance card. 9:05:49 – 9:05:52 p.m. — Yanez looked at Castile’s insurance information and then tucked the card in his pocket. 9:05:52 – 9:05:55 p.m. — Castile told Yanez: “Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me.” Before Castile completed the sentence, Yanez interrupted and replied, “Okay” and placed his right hand on the holster of his gun. 9:05:55 – 9:06:02 p.m. — Yanez said “Okay, don’t reach for it, then.” Castile responded: “I’m… I’m … [inaudible] reaching…,” before being again interrupted by Yanez, who said “Don’t pull it out.” Castile responded, “I’m not pulling it out,” and Reynolds said, “He’s not pulling it out.” Yanez screamed: “Don’t pull it out,” and pulled his gun with his right hand. Yanez fired seven shots in the direction of Castile in rapid succession. The seventh shot was fired at 9:06:02 p.m. Kauser did not touch or remove his gun. 9:06:03 – 9:06:04 p.m. — Reynolds yelled, “You just killed my boyfriend!” 9:06:04 – 9:06:05 p.m. — Castile moaned and said, “I wasn’t reaching for it.” These were his last words. 9:06:05 – 9:06:09 p.m. — Reynolds said “He wasn’t reaching for it.” Before she completed her sentence, Yanez screamed “Don’t pull it out!” Reynolds responded. “He wasn’t.” Yanez yelled, “Don’t move! F***!” If you read carefully, you’ll note that it appears that the officer shot Castile for doing exactly what the officer told him to do. Yanez asked for Castile’s license. Castile told him that he had a gun, and the officer – rather than asking for his carry permit, or asking where the gun was, or asking to see Castile’s hands – just says, “Don’t reach for it then.” At that point, Castile is operating under two commands. Get his license, and don’t reach for his gun. As Castile reaches for his license (following the officer’s orders), and he assures him that he’s not reaching for the gun (also following the officer’s orders). The entire encounter, he assures Yanez that he’s following Yanez’s instructions. He died anyway. Yes, the evidence indicates that Yanez was afraid for his life. He thought he might have been dealing with a robber (a fact he apparently didn’t tell Castile), and he testified that he smelled marijuana. But Castile was following Yanez’s commands, and It’s simply false that the mere presence of a gun makes the encounter more dangerous for the police. It all depends on who possesses the gun. If he’s a concealed-carry permit-holder, then he’s in one of the most law-abiding demographics in America. In recent months we’ve seen a number of cases where courts have excused police for shooting citizens even after the police made mistakes — and the citizens were doing nothing wrong — simply because these citizens were exercising their Second Amendment rights. This is unacceptable, and it represents the most extreme possible deprivation of civil rights and civil liberties. I understand the inherent danger of police work. I also understand the legal responsibilities of men and women who volunteer to put on that uniform, and the legal rights of the citizens they’ve sworn to protect and serve. I’m aware of no evidence that Yanez panicked because Castile was black. But whether he panicked because of race, simply because of the gun, or because of both, he still panicked, and he should have been held accountable. The jury’s verdict was a miscarriage of justice. | |
|
||
| 06-21-17 04:11am - 2741 days | #7 | |
|
iknowwazzup (0)
Active User  Posts: 132 Registered: Jan 06, '16 Location: United States |
Back to the Michelle Carter case... I am always curious why someone chooses to waive his or her right to a jury trial. Maybe, her defense team thought that a judge might be less emotional about her crime and rule based on the letter of the law? But personally I don't feel what made her guilty of a crime was her text messages per se. She could have called them "tough love" and suggested that she was trying to shock the victim into valuing his own life instead of looking for someone else to talk him out of suicide. Not a good way to deal with someone who is suicidal, but she could use her youth and lack of formal training in mental health issues to excuse her ill-advised reaction. However, the fact that she didn't contact the authorities to report the suicide made her criminally responsible for his death. If she had called 911, even if the response team hadn't managed to save the boy, it would have shown that she didn't want him to die. But it seems like she was fed up with dealing with him and all his problems so she had reached the point where she did want him to die. And she did what she could to make sure that the suicide happened with no chance of his being saved at the last minute. | |
|
||
| 1-7 of 7 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
