Curse

Fril Estelin · May 24, 2008, 10:51 AM // 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Why bother asking if you can't accept other views?

I think you have an understanding problem, I shall return you the question, because you didn't bother noticing that I actually asked you a question and was expecting an answer, I was not waiting for anything in particular.

This is my last post here and probably on GWG, except for the PvP tournament and Ventari I guess. Feel free to close this thread. (I guess you'll see this reaction as a sign of my weakness or my inability to cope with the internet? no I'm not going to commit suicide, I have a life ...)

/wave

blurmedia · May 24, 2008, 12:12 PM // 12:12

Can I get a tl;dr version. Seriously it's like a billion words.

Terrokian · May 24, 2008, 01:18 PM // 13:18

In Ohio and most other jurisdictions, two things are required for an act or omission to qualify as a criminal offense. First, the law must prohibit the unlawful act or conduct, or there must be a failure to perform some duty required by the law. (This is called actus reus, or guilty act.) Second, at the time of the unlawful act, conduct, or omission, the person committing the offense must have a certain guilty state of mind, or culpable mental state (in Latin, mens rea).
Depending on the specific crime with which an offender is charged, it must be shown that he
or she:

• acted in a reckless manner; or
• acted with purpose or knowledge; or
• acted with criminal negligence.

With few exceptions, for an act or omission
to be considered a crime, at least one of these culpable mental states must be present.
For example, the crime of murder is defined as purposely causing the death of another person. Thus, causing someone’s death accidentally is not murder (though it may be negligent homicide).

The following list is basic felonies in Ohio.

• homicide, assault and menacing threats;
• kidnapping, abduction, false imprisonment, extortion and coercion;
• patient abuse and neglect;
• rape and other sexual assaults, prostitution, obscenity and disseminating matter harmful
to juveniles;
• arson and other property damage offenses;
• robbery, burglary, breaking and entering, safecracking and trespassing;
• theft, bad check and credit card offenses, forgery, fraud and other theft offenses;
• gambling;
• inciting violence;
• riot, disorderly conduct and false alarms;
• certain aspects of abortion, nonsupport, endangering children and domestic violence;
• bribery, perjury, resisting arrest, harboring criminals, escape, graft, conflict of interest, dereliction of public duty and violation of
civil rights;
• conspiracy, attempt and complicity;
• weapons and explosives control;
• corrupt activity (racketeering); and
• drug offenses including possession, sale, manufacture and cultivation.

In my opinion that woman met many of the standards needed to convict her of negligent homicide.And had she or the child been in Ohio,she would have most certainly faced that.Unfortunately she would only receive 1-10 years due to it being negligent.

Personally I feel the woman should spend some quality time with Hannibal Lector.Let him whisper sweet nothings in her ear and see how long she survives.Afterall that is pretty much what she did.But that is simply daydreaming and unreal.

Avarre · May 24, 2008, 01:59 PM // 13:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

disseminating matter harmful to juveniles;

Quote:

When the fictional "Josh" broke up with the pre-adolescent MTM, the distraught girl committed suicide.

Are you saying breaking up is illegal? I don't think all of those are harmonious and result in no abusive talk, and they certainly aren't charged.

The fact that this crime was done by means of a proxy identity, too, is irrelevant - the outcome would likely have been the same if Josh had been a real person who performed the same acts.

If that had been the case, this would have received no coverage. It wasn't the act that people took notice to, but the method, which makes all the attention surrounding this ridiculous.

bhavv · May 24, 2008, 02:20 PM // 14:20

The fault here is this kids parents who obviously didnt teach her not to speak to strangers on the interwebz.

All chat rooms should be 16+ imo. Kids shouldnt be allowed on them.

Terrokian · May 24, 2008, 02:26 PM // 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

The fault here is this kids parents who obviously didnt teach her not to speak to strangers on the interwebz.

All chat rooms should be 16+ imo. Kids shouldnt be allowed on them.

To a major point i do agree with this.Just as age limits are set on so many things,it would be nice to be able to set an age limit on chat rooms,myspace,etc etc.Basically 21 and under would have no access to 21 and older whatsoever.But this is merely wishful thinking.However IMO a great idea.

RiKio · May 24, 2008, 02:33 PM // 14:33

Another accident commited due to general unknowledge of the Internet.

Internet is much more than a tool- its a world.

This crime is stupid. If I break up with a girl and she commites suicide, it is only an accident, but, if it happens on Internet, its a crime.

i dont get it, seriusly.

Terrokian · May 24, 2008, 02:50 PM // 14:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Are you saying breaking up is illegal? I don't think all of those are harmonious and result in no abusive talk, and they certainly aren't charged.

By the woman's OWN admission,she sought this girl out to subvertly gain information on her.The break up AND nasty comments came later.It wasn't the break up alone that did it.It was the comment"You should go kill yourself,because you are worthless" along with what?Some 30 nasty grams?Breaking up with someone is obviously not the issue here.The issue is this woman actively seeking out this girl and then actively trying to harm this girl mentally.Maybe she had simply hoped to mind GO RED ENGINEGO RED ENGINEGO this girl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

The fact that this crime was done by means of a proxy identity, too, is irrelevant - the outcome would likely have been the same if Josh had been a real person who performed the same acts.

Very true.This girl obviously was a ticking time bomb of some sorts.Perhaps with age and maturity she may have waded through this.However we shall never know,because she is dead.But this does not change the fact that an adult actively sought her out deliberately.This implies premeditation and intent.The fact the adult started a fake relationship with her(talk about pedophilia)in order to gain this girls trust and pry into her mind INTIMATELY is quite frankly disgusting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

If that had been the case, this would have received no coverage. It wasn't the act that people took notice to, but the method, which makes all the attention surrounding this ridiculous.

Another sad truth.The fact an adult mentally manipulated a child into suicide is not what people are yammering about.They are up in arms over the fact that she did it through cyber space,interwebz,etc etc.

My point on this whole thing is
#1 The woman went after this child deliberately.She has said as much.She targeted her.Like it or not.
#2 The woman went after this child with intentions of gaining information from her.Now I ask you.WTF information could a 13 year old child have that an adult would need?
#3 Once this woman had whatever she was after,she intentionally set about to do mental and emotional DAMAGE to this girl.Once again this is by the woman's own admission.She deliberately set about to HARM the child.The sad fact that the child caved in and committed suicide AS A RESULT of her "attack"(for lack of a better term) simply furthers the case against her.
#4 A mental "battle"(for lack of a better terminology)between an adult and a child seems fair to you?Well so long as I do it over the internet,then I may tear into as many children as I like AND not be punished.This just is FLAT WRONG on many levels.

I did state my opinion earlier.This woman is breathing our oxygen and really needs to stop.The day when adults think it is fine to mind screw children is a sad day indeed.Kill the worthless pig and be done with her.Shame we can't torture her first.

pumpkin pie · May 25, 2008, 06:05 AM // 06:05

Terrokian,

1) Lori Drew did not act alone

2) She did not ask the MySpace account set up to harm Megan, she had it set up because Megan was being unkind to her daughter and she wanted to know if Megan had been saying bad things about her daughter.

3) According to the person who set up the MySpace Account, Lori Drew only give suggestion of what to say when they (i am assuming they means Lori Drew's daughter and the person who set up the account) ran out of ideas, and that happen 2 times, and Lori wasn't the person who type it, it was them.

4) and the supposedly last message that has sent Megan on her suicide isn't even a message from Lori Drew, it was the person who set up the MySpace Account. She cut a deal with the DA.

So while you want this stupid woman prosecuted, you also need to not fabricated something that isn't there to begin with. Lori Drew is simply a stupid mother who love her daughter very much that she go along with her game and help her when she need it, with the wrong method obviously. All this time the daughter have been kept out of this whole mess, why do you think that is? And what about the other neighbour's daughter who apparently also send a lot of mean and hurtful messages to Megan?

Chthon · May 25, 2008, 07:13 PM // 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrokian

By the woman's OWN admission,she sought this girl out to subvertly gain information on her.The break up AND nasty comments came later.It wasn't the break up alone that did it.It was the comment"You should go kill yourself,because you are worthless" along with what?Some 30 nasty grams?Breaking up with someone is obviously not the issue here.The issue is this woman actively seeking out this girl and then actively trying to harm this girl mentally.Maybe she had simply hoped to mind GO RED ENGINEGO RED ENGINEGO this girl....
My point on this whole thing is...
#3 Once this woman had whatever she was after,she intentionally set about to do mental and emotional DAMAGE to this girl.

And, I say to this, IF she intended to drive the girl to suicide, or knew that suicide was a highly likely result of her words, or should have known that suicide was a highly likely result of her words, then it would be proper for the Missouri authorities to be charging her with some form of homicide.

Now, I do not personally know enough about the facts of this case to second guess their decision not to charge her. But I do know that the people working in the Missouri Att. Gen's office are thoroughly competent attorneys (I had the pleasure of meeting some of them when I lived in Missouri) and I don't doubt that they would have charged her if they thought they could prove it.

Kanyatta · May 25, 2008, 08:05 PM // 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by blurmedia

Can I get a tl;dr version. Seriously it's like a billion words.

From what I can tell (I havent read a whole lot), but someone was making fun of someone over MySpace and the person who was being made fun of killed themselves and now the person who was making fun of them is getting sued.

Sleeper Service · May 25, 2008, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Natural selection, lovely mechanism.

on the other hand trust the US judicial system in finding a way to successfully carry a case against common sense.

Divinitys Creature · May 25, 2008, 10:31 PM // 22:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

If someone commits suicide over things that exist purely on the internet, my blame is solely on that person and whoever helped develop them. I don't know the case under discussion, but it seems absurd.

You don't know, either, if that was the case here. People are pretty quick to label a person as having 'problems' that explain their behavior, when in quite a lot of cases, the person needs to grow up. Again, I don't know the full story and can't make a final judgment here - but somehow I doubt a 13-year old girl has such crippling depression that the internet makes them kill themselves.

Anyways, the idea law against this (activity on the internet) is absurd. It's far too open-ended a kind of scenario.

In my opinion the problem here is vicious emotional abuse and the internet is clouding the subject. Why can't the lady be prosecuted under laws against abusing people emotionally? Aren't there any? I don't know. If there isn't, shouldn't there be? Laws seem to revolve around anything that has a quantifiable value or the power to control people what about emotional well being?

The girl who took her life is not to blame, she was very young and the victim of abuse from an adult. Don't blame her. Maybe her parents could have been more supportive and stepped in so they might deserve some blame.

As usual someone is pushing an agenda to remove freedoms on the internet because of a tragic case. The internet was just the method of communication. This fake and abusive relationship could have happened by letter or notes sent by carrier pigeon or by text messages etc etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

Natural selection, lovely mechanism.

on the other hand trust the US judicial system in finding a way to successfully carry a case against common sense.

Please STFU.

Sleeper Service · May 25, 2008, 11:14 PM // 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divinitys Creature

Please STFU.

oh noes you hurted my feelings i go cut myself now and then blame YOU.

the girl would have killed herself eventually for X reasons, the mother obviously is looking for someone to blame for HER failure in upbringing her daughter and the prosecuted mother clearly was an idiot.

thats 3 less useless people out the system. ALL good.

Chthon · May 26, 2008, 05:53 PM // 17:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divinitys Creature

Why can't the lady be prosecuted under laws against abusing people emotionally? Aren't there any?

Overview of potentially applicable laws:

As I mentioned a couple of times, if she intended/knew/should have known this girl was so fragile that she would commit suicide upon hearing those words, then it would be some form of homicide. That's probably not the case, because it seems that she had no way of knowing the girl was so fragile.
Assault. Not applicable because it requires a threat (or implied threat) of immediate bodily injury (ie "I'm going to punch your face in!!!") which we didn't have here.
Harassment. Missouri's harassment law is Mo. Rev. Stat. s 565.090. It seems that it only applies to threats and annoying phone calls.
This is probably the law that should apply to this case, if only the MO legislature had written it better.
Stalking. Missouri's stalking law is Mo. Rev. Stat. s 565.225. Stalking includes "repeatedly 'engag[ing] in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and that actually causes substantial emotional distress to that person,' with the intent [to do so]." I see 3 problems with trying to apply the stalking statute:
- It wasn't repeated. The emotionally distressing conduct was a one-shot deal at the end.
- Arguably, it had a legitimate purpose. At least at the beginning, she had the odd, but colorably credible, purpose of finding out who was picking on her daughter. So she didn't have a "course of conduct" that lacked a legitimate purpose. (The final breakup thing didn't serve the purpose, but it wasn't a "course of conduct" on its own.)
- I'm not sure a breakup would cause a reasonable person "substantial emotional distress." The MO courts seem to think that "substantial" really means "substantial," like soliciting-sex-from-a-child-and-threatening-to-kill-them-if-they-tell-anyone kinda "substantial." I'm not sure the loss of an internet boyfriend quite raises to that level of "substantial."
In any event, a first violation is just a misdemeanor, and wouldn't carry enough of a penalty to make the "execute her now" crowd happy, even if she were charged and convicted.

Couple of other notes:

There is a point where one person's right to not be offended runs up against other person's right to speak his or her mind and say things that others might not want to hear. The resolution of that conflict can be very interesting. But this case doesn't really venture into that territory. No one is really thinking of this in terms of this woman's right to express her opinion on this girl trumping the girl's right to not be offended; rather people are looking at the question of whether and when emotionally distressing someone should carry criminal penalties.
All of the above pertains to criminal law only. There's no doubt that the child's family can sue and win in a civil lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and perhaps a wrongful death claim as well.

Quote:

If there isn't, shouldn't there be?

I think that's the question that Fril wanted to discuss from the outset, but the asshattery in this thread is perhaps at too high a level to do so.

Anarkii · May 27, 2008, 08:32 AM // 08:32

Blaming the parents or the child in such cases is pretty insensitive. That's not so different than blaming a girl who got raped for wearing skimpy clothes.

Some people are more emotionally vulnerable than others. And particularly during the teenage period, they can be easily exploited and taken advantage of. This is not about the internet. This is not about education. This is not about bad parenting. This is plainly emotional harassment and the law would view it as such.

Terrokian · May 27, 2008, 10:40 PM // 22:40

I do got to admit much of this case hinges on what the motives were in the whole thing.

We know that the woman and her daughter intentionally set up a fake account to engage this girl in some sort of activity online.Allegedly to garner information from her along the lines of had she been saying bad things about her daughter.

We know they later engaged this girl in some sort of online relationship.Allegedly an "e-romance" or boyfriend+girlfriend type of relationship.

We know they later ended this relationship with the intentions of hurting her feelings as much as possible.Allegedly after they knew she "liked" this fictitious boy,it was time for "revenge" for the nasty things she allegedly had done to her daughter.(side note here and this is my PERSONAL opinion,which has no bearing on the legal ramifications of this,the woman's daughter IS an ugly 250+ lb cow who I wouldn't date with a stunt double)

We know the girl committed suicide over this break up and the "nastiness"of it.Allegedly they sent over 30 messages that were meant to destroy as much of the girls self esteem as possible.One of them stating"Go kill yourself,you are worthless."

Their self admitted intent was to go after this particular girl,play mind games,then emotionally hurt her.I did state earlier the fact she caved in and did commit suicide is sad.

It does not change the fact their motives were to do harm of some sort.Now maybe they did not intend her death,but their actions helped lead to it.This is the key point of the whole thing.YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS.

Just because you never meant for an unseen outcome is to a point irrelevant.Just because you did it over the internet changes what?Suppose they had hired an actor and did this in RL?Would that make them more guilty?

Using the internet as a cover does not excuse the INTENT of this whole thing.

We couldn't convict OJ of murder either,but he did get blasted in Civil Court and I do see the same thing happening here.

I also see some internet changes that have already taken place.

Terrokian · May 27, 2008, 10:47 PM // 22:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarkii

Blaming the parents or the child in such cases is pretty insensitive. That's not so different than blaming a girl who got raped for wearing skimpy clothes.

Some people are more emotionally vulnerable than others. And particularly during the teenage period, they can be easily exploited and taken advantage of. This is not about the internet. This is not about education. This is not about bad parenting. This is plainly emotional harassment and the law would view it as such.

I agree with this.Had I been a boyfriend to a woman,and simply emotionally abuse her,I am still guilty of Domestic Violence.

In this case they started an online relationship with her.They admitted as much,then abused her.Now if Domestic Violence is a crime(and it does cover mental and emotional and physical abuse),how is it this woman and her daughter are not guilty of it?They did engage in an online relationship.

Once again I will state.SO LONG AS I DO IT ONLINE you can't touch me.Be it a child or adult I decide to target.

Think about it.

Divinitys Creature · May 28, 2008, 12:41 PM // 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeper Service

thats 3 less useless people out the system. ALL good.

Will you say this if one of your family members takes their life? You're talking about evolution. Making social structures to help us survive was part of evolution, you're a broken part of our evolved society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

Overview of potentially applicable laws:

As I mentioned a couple of times, if she intended/knew/should have known this girl was so fragile that she would commit suicide upon hearing those words, then it would be some form of homicide. That's probably not the case, because it seems that she had no way of knowing the girl was so fragile.
Assault. Not applicable because it requires a threat (or implied threat) of immediate bodily injury (ie "I'm going to punch your face in!!!") which we didn't have here.
Harassment. Missouri's harassment law is Mo. Rev. Stat. s 565.090. It seems that it only applies to threats and annoying phone calls.
This is probably the law that should apply to this case, if only the MO legislature had written it better.
Stalking. Missouri's stalking law is Mo. Rev. Stat. s 565.225. Stalking includes "repeatedly 'engag[ing] in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and that actually causes substantial emotional distress to that person,' with the intent [to do so]." I see 3 problems with trying to apply the stalking statute:
- It wasn't repeated. The emotionally distressing conduct was a one-shot deal at the end.
- Arguably, it had a legitimate purpose. At least at the beginning, she had the odd, but colorably credible, purpose of finding out who was picking on her daughter. So she didn't have a "course of conduct" that lacked a legitimate purpose. (The final breakup thing didn't serve the purpose, but it wasn't a "course of conduct" on its own.)
- I'm not sure a breakup would cause a reasonable person "substantial emotional distress." The MO courts seem to think that "substantial" really means "substantial," like soliciting-sex-from-a-child-and-threatening-to-kill-them-if-they-tell-anyone kinda "substantial." I'm not sure the loss of an internet boyfriend quite raises to that level of "substantial."
In any event, a first violation is just a misdemeanor, and wouldn't carry enough of a penalty to make the "execute her now" crowd happy, even if she were charged and convicted.

Couple of other notes:

There is a point where one person's right to not be offended runs up against other person's right to speak his or her mind and say things that others might not want to hear. The resolution of that conflict can be very interesting. But this case doesn't really venture into that territory. No one is really thinking of this in terms of this woman's right to express her opinion on this girl trumping the girl's right to not be offended; rather people are looking at the question of whether and when emotionally distressing someone should carry criminal penalties.
All of the above pertains to criminal law only. There's no doubt that the child's family can sue and win in a civil lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and perhaps a wrongful death claim as well.

I think that's the question that Fril wanted to discuss from the outset, but the asshattery in this thread is perhaps at too high a level to do so.

Thanks for giving me this info! It adds a lot to this thread

I never cease to be amazed at how vicious some people can be over the internet. I hope this evil lady and her daughter are brought to justice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackhearted

Nah. I more so agree with him cause your posts imply that you think that anyone who's not flawless is useless.

TY so much. Most people are flawed in some way, it's called being a real human person. Maybe Sleeper Service will see that one day.

Avarre · May 28, 2008, 01:21 PM // 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divinitys Creature

In my opinion the problem here is vicious emotional abuse

Evidence that it was 'vicious'? For all you know, it was some harsh passing remarks. Are the actual comments publicly known?

Quote:

The girl who took her life is not to blame, she was very young and the victim of abuse from an adult. Don't blame her. Maybe her parents could have been more supportive and stepped in so they might deserve some blame.

She committed suicide over someone that didn't even exist or have interactions with her in real life - anything that pushed her to it was in her own mind. She was old enough to make her own choices, clearly, as she decided to kill herself. That's old enough to have the sense not to.

Some responsibility has to go on the parents as well, of course.

Quote:

As usual someone is pushing an agenda to remove freedoms on the internet because of a tragic case. The internet was just the method of communication. This fake and abusive relationship could have happened by letter or notes sent by carrier pigeon or by text messages etc etc.

A major reason why the medium for the crime shouldn't be an issue, but rather the act itself.

As was mentioned earlier, this kind of thing doesn't really fall under the law - and really shouldn't. There's far too many variables - if the girl didn't commit suicide, nobody would give a damn, which means the severity of the event is determined by the victim as well. Unless it can be proven the woman specifically had pushing her to suicide as a goal, there's no crime here.