Originally Posted by Steve

Wouldn't it need to be shown that the woman intended for the girl to actually kill herself?

I think that would be a bit difficult to do. Even if the woman told the girl "the world would be better if you killed yourself", that's more akin to saying "Man, if my Dad finds out, he'll kill me" than it is to "I think you should kill yourself".

Again, I don't believe this woman is anything even approaching a decent human being.

But she's not a killer.

I’ve always had a problem with differing standards of proof in various courts. If someone is found not guilty of a crime in a criminal court, in my opinion, that should preclude any and all action against a person in a civil court. As much as I think he’s guilty, the Goldman family never should’ve been able to sue OJ Simpson. A criminal case, with a much higher standard of proof, found him not guilty. That should’ve been the end of it.

In this case, the woman did not physically kill the girl. She was mean to her, but she didn’t kill her, nor did she conspire with someone else to kill her. Ergo, she should not be held responsible for her death. To allow a civil suit, to me, would permit her to be held responsible for the death when, in fact, a court has already found her to be not liable for the death. That’s a dichotomy for which I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but it’s one which I think should be addressed and rectified…

Originally Posted by Steve

Wouldn't it need to be shown that the woman intended for the girl to actually kill herself?

I think that would be a bit difficult to do. Even if the woman told the girl "the world would be better if you killed yourself", that's more akin to saying "Man, if my Dad finds out, he'll kill me" than it is to "I think you should kill yourself".

Again, I don't believe this woman is anything even approaching a decent human being.

But she's not a killer.

I’ve always had a problem with differing standards of proof in various courts. If someone is found not guilty of a crime in a criminal court, in my opinion, that should preclude any and all action against a person in a civil court. As much as I think he’s guilty, the Goldman family never should’ve been able to sue OJ Simpson. A criminal case, with a much higher standard of proof, found him not guilty. That should’ve been the end of it.

In this case, the woman did not physically kill the girl. She was mean to her, but she didn’t kill her, nor did she conspire with someone else to kill her. Ergo, she should not be held responsible for her death. To allow a civil suit, to me, would permit her to be held responsible for the death when, in fact, a court has already found her to be not liable for the death. That’s a dichotomy for which I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but it’s one which I think should be addressed and rectified…

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

That's something I've thought about at times as well. In addition to the valid points you raise, the criminal/civil paradigm also smells a lot like violation of the spirit of double jeopardy.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

If you had read the link I posted about IED you would have read this:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

If you had read the link I posted about IED you would have read this:



And I don't want any shit about posting from Wiki.

Originally Posted by Steve

That doesn't address the point regarding one court finding someone not guilty, and another court being able to find them guilty. That shouldn't happen. As Dr. Goodtrips said, it kind of violates the spirit of "double jeopardy"...



Then don't do it.

But, please, do try to find something more convincing than Wikipedia. I would've thought a woman with your resume' would be able to find something just a bit more trustworthy...

Originally Posted by Sunshine

When OSB gets back I'm going to PM him this post and tell him the mighty black and white Steve (who I am sure is bald has forbidden us from using the Wkii.)

If you want a better source, go to law school.

Originally Posted by Slon

This was brought up during the Fred Phelps protests. Of course, it was just as stupid then as it is now. Prosecuting people for hurting others' feelings, unintentionally in particular, is ridiculous. It stomps on our free speech rights. It is like forcing everyone to be a police informant, except more so since you have to inform the things you see potentially to anyone, policeman or otherwise. Do you have any clue how many people feel emotional distress when reading contrary opinions, like things about their favorite lying politician? I've seen many on this very forum defending their man to the point where they themselves look ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

That is ridiculous. There is a standard for IED. It is not about 'hurting feelings.' It is about something that is SO outrageous that it would cause an ordinary person to proclaim 'THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS.' Like what this woman did.

Originally Posted by Slon

WTF do you think the spirit behind free speech rights is? Is it to protect the majority from saying "All Hail the King!"? Of course not! It's to protect the minority from saying the king sucks! And it is that minority opinion that is often found to be "outrageous," making it the unpopular/minority opinion in the first place. What you're essentially saying is that we can have free speech as long as we are saying all the mainstream bullshit.Maybe a violation of local procedure, but I don't see anything particularly bad for which he should be punished.
Ah yes, we can have our free speech, just as long as we are part of a group you like or say things you like. We can't lack both. So, if we're the regular folks, we can only agree with you. And if we're the aristocracy, then we can also say something that would be "outrageous" and criminal for the regulars to say.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

What I find funny is that there is more outrage and protection for terrorists that would kill anyone of you on a whim and yet his girl get's nothing. We really have our priorities straight. /end sarcasm

Originally Posted by fishjoel

What I find funny is that there is more outrage and protection for terrorists that would kill anyone of you on a whim and yet his girl get's nothing. We really have our priorities straight. /end sarcasm

Originally Posted by Sunshine

That is ridiculous. There is a standard for IED. It is not about 'hurting feelings.' It is about something that is SO outrageous that it would cause an ordinary person to proclaim 'THAT'S OUTRAGEOUS.' Like what this woman did.

The case I recall in law school involved a coroner who took a mother to view the dead body of her missing daughter. He picked the body up by the hair of the head out of a dirt filled box and said, 'is this her?'

What this woman did to that child is outrageous. Your argument might work if it were another child. People could feel sorry for BOTH of them as there would be some very difficult days ahead for the child left alive. THIS was not another teen doing this. It was an ADULT woman whose behavior as such was completely OUTRAGEOUS!

Originally Posted by John Drake

Look, what we call bullying is what adults call assault and battery. I've never yet figured why just because childen do it we're all told to ignore it. In any case, this isn't about bullying, this is about a predatory adult targeting a vulnerable child and killing her. The fact that she used the child's own illness to kill her makes her crime worse, it doesn't excuse it.

Originally Posted by Kyle

You are forgetting that this stupid little kid made choices.

She CHOSE to continue reading her Myspace.

She CHOSE to continue responding.

She CHOSE to sook about it instead of telling her parents that someone was bullying her

She CHOSE to commit suicide

She CHOSE to wrap that rope around her neck.

All were CHOICES, and all which she made, HERSELF.

She killed herself. End of story.