I always use the litter box when I visit my grandmother.

She forgets that the cat has been dead for four years, and I don't want to break her heart.

I've been rethinking my position on the Michelle Carter case. I know that there's at least one person on this blog (whom I won't name) who thinks changing one's mind on an issue is incomprehensible and a crime worthy of death, but I did anyway.

Michelle Carter is the young lady who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for persuading her boyfriend, Conrad Roy, to commit suicide. She was sentenced to 15 months. She comes up again, because, unsurprisingly, she's appealing her conviction.

Her lawyers argue that her speech is protected; she did not give Roy the means to commit suicide, nor is she responsible for his emotional state.

That is the position I used to hold.

But after discussing it with some of my friends who are attorneys (and finding myself arguing effectively for the opposite position on Twitter), I now believe the conviction was just.

To those those that argue that it isn't a crime to convince someone to kill themselves, I countered with, "So, I have the right to convince a toddler to run into traffic?"

I don't have that right. That would be exploiting the child's ignorance of the danger and programming to obey adults. I didn't cause the toddler's ignorance and obedient nature, but I did take advantage of them.

In much the same way, Carter did not cause Conrad Roy's depression or his willingness to comply with her wishes, but she did exploit them.

Moreover, you have a duty to notify the authorities when your actions, whether by accident or design, create a dangerous situation. (See Commonwealth v. Levesque.) There is a crucial juncture during Conrad Roy's suicide in which he stepped out of the truck, because he got "scared," to use his words. She told him to "fucking get back in there."

And he did.

Would Roy have gotten back into that truck without her 'loving encouragement'? Possibly, but I think most people would agree that's highly doubtful. Which makes it seem likely that her actions brought about a deadly situation that wouldn't have otherwise occurred. She moved from casual (if malicious) observer to engineer of a deadly situation.

As such, she had a duty to notify the authorities of the situation she had a hand in, and she failed that obligation.

It seems strange to categorize her crime as "involuntary manslaughter," since nothing she did in encouraging/demanding/cajoling Conrad's suicide was involuntary, but based on the definition used in Massachusetts, it applies.

I never understood how she was stupid enough to use text messaging

lujlp: I never understood how she was stupid enough to use text messaging

You're right. That is pretty dumb. Not only does texting leave more and better evidence, but if I were going to try and persuade someone by emotional appeal to do anything, I would think it would be more effective if I communicated directly, using my own voice.

But it obviously never occurred to her that she was doing something illegal. She saw only the role of grieving girlfriend that she was desperate to become.

Laquisha Jones, that vile 30-year-old woman who beat a 91-year-old man with a brick and instigated a group of men to start kicking him, is being charged with attempted murder, elder abuse and infliction of injury.

If convicted, and I hope she is, she could face 29 years in prison.

Patrick, thanks for the interesting bit of reading re Commonwealth v. Levesque. I do note that it is a state rather than a federal court decision, so it is not directly applicable outside of Massachusetts. I wonder if that decision was ever appealed up the federal chain. In a brief Bing search, I didn't come up with anything, but there is a lot more research I could do there.

I still haven't decided what I think of the Michelle Carter case. What she did was morally wrong -- there is no doubt in my mind about that. But can a narrow enough speech exception be drawn around this case so as to not infringe on the First Amendment? I'm not sure. There are a lot of potential pitfalls. Consider the case of a race car driver who is chastised by a team manager for not pushing hard enough, goes back out on the track, and suffers a fatal crash. Is the team manager liable? You can maybe draw a distinction in that it was not the driver's intention to kill himself, so in this case the team manager is not liable and the First Amendment is not threatened. Maybe a law that prohibits encouraging of a person who has already stated an intention, by words or deeds, to harm himself, is narrowly enough drawn to pass Constitutional scrutiny.

We had a discussion here a few weeks ago that led me to go look up some state laws on whether or not a bystander (not someone who is employed as a first responder) has a duty to render aid to someone in distress. U.S. courts have pretty consistently stated that the bystander does not. A few states have a "duty to notify" law; in practice, this duty is satisfied by calling 911 or otherwise contacting a first responder. I couldn't find anything on the constitutionality of this.

Hey, Cousin Dave. Glad you enjoyed the Levesque case. I found it rather cut-and-dried myself. I wonder if Isab would agree.

They started the fire -- by accident, true, but they still did it. They were cognizant of the danger and they had the means to call 911. I have no problem for holding people responsible for notifying the authorities when they create a situation that endangers innocent people.

You wrote:

Consider the case of a race car driver who is chastised by a team manager for not pushing hard enough, goes back out on the track, and suffers a fatal crash. Is the team manager liable?

I would argue that the team manager didn't chastise the race car driver intending him to kill himself. And the race car driver wasn't pushing himself in an attempt to kill himself.

In Michelle Carter's case, she persuaded him back into the truck fully intending his death. I know she claims otherwise, but I don't believe her and neither did the judge. Why else would you try to convince someone to enter a truck that is filling with carbon monoxide? Moreover, Conrad Roy got back into the truck intending to kill himself.

That's the distinction between the race car driver's team manager and Michelle Carter. The manager (and the driver) only wanted a better performance, not the driver's death. Michelle Carter wanted his death, no matter what she claims.

I prefer the analogy I used above. Should I be charged with a crime if I maliciously convince a toddler to run into busy highway?

Of course. I took advantage of the toddler's ignorance of the danger and compliant nature to bring about his death. In much the same way, Michelle Carter took advantage of Conrad Roy's depressed state of mind and willingness to please her to bring about his death.

In both cases, we preyed upon the vulnerabilities of our victims to bring about their deaths.

I think your concerns Cousin Dave can be covered based on intent. The classic example of falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater seems to apply here. Making a false statement with clear intent to cause harm to others is already not protected under the first amendment. Inciting violence is also usually not protected under the first amendment. So the difference between this lady and the team manager would be intent. Now the manager may be guilty of other crimes. If you setup a situation where harm is easily predicted there are a number of crimes you may have committed. But the speech isn't criminal, it is the situation in general. For your racing situation as long as this team isn't doing anything substantially more risky than the other teams and everyone is aware and accepts the risks then it is most likely legal.

On the practical side, proving intent is often difficult. Which is why some laws don't require it. But at least in this case she left a substantial trail of evidence.

Patrick, I agree that the charge sounds weird. But if the statute applies then so be it.

I believe Carter herself had some mental and emotional issues for which she was taking antidepressants. Called as an expert witness, Dr. Peter Breggin, a vocal and frequent critic of the use of prescription drugs in psychiatry, testified that the antidepressants Michelle Carter was taking "had a debilitating and intoxicating effect" on her.

It's also my understanding that Conrad Roy had been depressed and threatening suicide for years following his parents' divorce. He'd even urged Carter to join him in a "Romeo and Juliet" -esque mutual suicide. She declined.

In an article in Psychology Today, USF professor Mark L. Ruffalo theorizes that Carter had grown weary of Roy's constant threats of suicide. Perhaps so. However, her texts to Roy do not show a flippant "just go ahead and kill yourself" attitude, but a strong, decisive urge to him to "push off."

Ruffalo also argues the responsibility is entirely Roy's and that "Encouraging someone to commit suicide, recommending suicide as an option, or telling a person to carry through with his suicidal plans may be of questionable morality, but it is no crime."

Yet, taking advantage of the mentally ill for personal gain is considered a crime in many states. That Carter's personal gain was not financial is of little consequence. The prosecutor theorizes that her gain from Roy's suicide was the opportunity to play the grieving girlfriend, with the attendant sympathy and attention that brings.

In all, it's an ugly case, full of teen angst and melodrama.

Quartz has an interesting take on it:

In the American legal tradition, there’s no duty to rescue a person in danger—except if you’re the one who creates the danger, putting someone in peril. Say you see a kid drowning in a pool. You don’t have to do anything. But if you deliberately or otherwise pushed the child in, you must act.

One could argue that by telling a mentally ill person to get back in the truck and finish committing suicide, Michelle Carter is the one who put Conrad Roy in peril. And one could argue that she was not.

The verdict is controversial. Massachusetts law doesn’t criminalize encouraging suicide, for one. There is also no duty to report a suicide attempt in the state. The messages encouraging Roy to kill himself were certainly reprehensible, but some argue that considering them criminal could be a leap, legally speaking.

The article includes descriptions of the 1816 Bowen and 1999 Levesque precedents on which the judge based his decision.

The defense lawyer Ed Ryan, who represented one of the accused in the Levesque case, told radio station WBUR that he doesn’t believe that failure to report a fire, the issue in his case, is instructive in Carter’s criminal matter because she didn’t create the danger. Here, Roy was already a danger to himself, says Ryan, so Carter had no duty to save him.

Somehow this feels like a scam.

https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/1017753697655410688

From Patrick's link to Laquisha:

"I heard her saying, go back to your country, go back to Mexico," she told CNN by phone. "When I tried to videotape her with my cell phone, she threw that same concrete block, tried to hit my car."

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said in a statement Wednesday that "detectives have discovered that this is not a hate-related incident."

Huh, not a hate crime?

I'm so sad I can't wipe the smile off my face.

Russia announced earlier this month that the Su-57, its proposed entry into the world of fifth-generation stealth fighters, would not see mass production.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-admits-defeat-su-57-not-going-into-mass-production-2018-7

"Huh, not a hate crime?"

Well, it wasn't done by a white male, so yeah.

The vegans are coming for you -

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/13/wework-meat-events-expense-ban

US: Government Has Planted Spy Phones With Suspects

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/07/13/us-government-has-planted-spy-phones-suspects

Harvey Weinstein: ‘I offered acting jobs in exchange for sex, but so does everyone – they still do’

https://usa.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/harvey-weinstein-i-offered-acting-jobs-in-exchange-for-sex-but-so-does-everyone-they-still-do/

'You are going to die': Horrific footage shows women and children being blindfolded and EXECUTED at point blank range by 'soldiers' in Cameroon

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5947085/Cameroon-investigates-video-showing-apparent-execution-women-children.html

Gay actors should not be allowed to play straight characters -

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/scarlett-johansson-exit-rub-and-tug-trans-backlash-1202872981/

The press now criticizes those who report the truth -

https://twitter.com/joshrogin/status/1017808894167539713

Being gay is wrong -

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiAPIOcWAAI03x6.jpg:large

Patrick: about inducing someone else to harm themselves...

If I posted,
"Patrick! Go {do something harmful to yourself}!"
"Patrick! Go {do something harmful to yourself}!"
"Patrick! Go {do something harmful to yourself}!"
"Patrick! Go {do something harmful to yourself}!"
"Patrick! Go {do something harmful to yourself}!"

...how close to the action you choose to harm yourself do I have to be to be at fault? How often would this have to be repeated?

And what, exactly, would a court use to determine that *I* was in charge of what you do?

Ozzy won a suit claiming that "Suicide Solution" caused a death. Kurt Loder asked, roughly, if we should believe that if Ozzy sang about cleaning your room, the kid would do that?

-----

In other news, August Ames killed herself after Twitter users shamed her for being concerned that a bisexual partner would increase her risk of contracting HIV. That risk has actually been demonstrated by actual cases.
Who took that fall?

Funny thing about that Variety article

The story is about a trans man, a bio woman living as a man

They quotes upset trans women actresses, bio men living as women

People who under this theory wouldn't be considered for the role of a tran man because they are not trans men

New plan, use their tools against them

What do you think of this statement? Simpering a victim seeking enough?

"Umm Latinix is a troubling term as it steal the cultural significance of their native language and forces it to conform to our white ethnocentric view of how English operates, it is cultural obliteration and racist"

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1017812902001238016

Radwaste, your questions were already addressed.

I'll never be able to prove this, but I suspect the judge was determined to punish Michelle Carter and was desperate to find a loophole in which he could.

And I believe he did, which comes as a bit of a stretch, but plausible enough for people to buy into it.

As shown in the Levesque case I mentioned earlier, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that you have a duty to notify when you create a situation that endangers lives, whether by accident or design.

Ordinarily, this would not be a case at all, but there was one moment in which Carter moved from malicious bystander to engineer of the deadly situation.

Conrad Roy, by his own statements, got scared and left the truck, thereby removing himself from immediate danger.

Question at this point: would he have gotten back into the truck to complete his suicide, if left to his own devices?

As I said before, it's possible he would have, but highly doubtful. And the judge apparently agrees with this.

Michelle Carter demanded he "fucking get back in there."

And he did.

So, the question is, did Michelle Carter's 'loving encouragement' instigate Conrad Roy back into his truck, filling with deadly carbon monoxide, when he otherwise wouldn't have gone back in?

The judge apparently decided yes, she caused him to reenter a deadly situation that he wouldn't have otherwise done on his own. Hence, according to the judge, she created this "new" situation, which began when Conrad Roy reentered this truck.

And since she moved from heartless bystander to engineer of the deadly situation, she had a duty to notify the authorities, which she could have fulfilled by calling 911. She failed in this, hence she is charged with Conrad Roy's death.

Like in the Levesque case, in which the courts determined that the squatters in an abandoned building who started a fire had a duty to notify the authorities. Five firefighters died when their lives might have been spared if they had been notified in a timely manner. So, the courts ruled that the squatters were responsible.

And if you don't like this reasoning, go argue with the judge, not me. I didn't decide this.

There are arguments to be made both for and against this.

First, I'll make the case for criminalizing her conduct: To say that Michelle Carter had the constitutionally protected right to convince Conrad Roy to reenter that truck is to say that I have the constitutionally-protected right to convince a preschool child to run into traffic.

In this situation, I preyed upon the kid's ignorance of the danger and programming to obey adults and engineered that toddler's death.

In much the same way, Michelle Carter preyed upon Conrad Roy's depressed state of mind and willingness to please his girlfriend and persuaded him into placing himself in a situation that brought about his death.

Now, for an argument against criminalizing her conduct, consider the following scenario that plays itself out with distressing frequency...

A depressed man is balanced on the ledge of a small building, apparently intending to jump off. Heartless onlookers gather below and start yelling encouragement, calling for him to jump.

Now, suppose he does it.

Social workers summoned by the police to talk this man out of ending his life are convinced they would have persuaded him to reenter the building safely had it not been for the gawkers below yelling for him to jump.

So, do we now charge the cruel onlookers with manslaughter?