Girl charged with manslaughter over firends suicide

o2gt said:

I think the verdict is fine. Its a hard case to figure out. Im sure the prosecutors struggled with some of the issues, I know I would have. in the end based on what I know about the facts I would have taken it to trial. she knew what she was doing and understood who she was dealing with and took advantage of it to achieve her goal.

Click to expand...

If she had a premeditated goal wouldn't the charge be greater than involuntary manslaughter? I'm (obviously) no legal expert; but if your basis for prosecution is she intended for Roy to die, I would think you would chase the more severe charge. But if you knew that despite her intent you were on shaky legal ground, so you pursued the lesser charge. Would that not then be dishonest?

o2gt said:

I think the verdict is fine. Its a hard case to figure out. Im sure the prosecutors struggled with some of the issues, I know I would have. in the end based on what I know about the facts I would have taken it to trial. she knew what she was doing and understood who she was dealing with and took advantage of it to achieve her goal.

Click to expand...

They defense asssumed the judge would follow the law. Moonbat judge was the wildcard.

ssj4sadie said:

If she had a premeditated goal wouldn't the charge be greater than involuntary manslaughter? I'm (obviously) no legal expert; but if your basis for prosecution is she intended for Roy to die, I would think you would chase the more severe charge. But if you knew that despite her intent you were on shaky legal ground, so you pursued the lesser charge. Would that not then be dishonest?

Click to expand...

I think she wanted him to kill himself. Im not sure why that was the case and I would guess the state believed the same thing. with that said that would be hard to prove and I suspect that worried the state. I would have done just what they did. its not dishonest at all. they believed she caused this guys death and believed justice needed to be served. based on the evidence they could bring into court and the nature of the case they believed manslaughter was the best they could do. I suspect strongly if they have brought a murder charge she would have been found not guilty.

remember I have to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. sometimes I could be sure in my own mind that someone did something on purpose. But I would need to prove a mental state of knowingly or intentionally for example. But I might be better off taking a charge that does not require me to prove that higher mental state. sure the punishment might be less, but at the end of the day it gives me a chance to take a case to trial and find some justice.

Words are not actions. Judge got it wrong.

The judge felt she encouraged an already unstable individual to kill himself. It's hard to prove if she was the main reason, but I see no problem with the verdict.

Sinister04L said:

Words are not actions. Judge got it wrong.

Click to expand...

judge got it right. GENERALLY words are not actions but under some circumstances you can get charged for your words i.e. if you yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire you are liable for the results. there were plenty of texts between the two that pretty much proved the states case for them. i.e. he actually got out of the truck at only poiont and she convinced him to get back in and finish the job

RDJ said:

judge got it right. GENERALLY words are not actions but under some circumstances you can get charged for your words i.e. if you yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire you are liable for the results. there were plenty of texts between the two that pretty much proved the states case for them. i.e. he actually got out of the truck at only poiont and she convinced him to get back in and finish the job

Click to expand...

Respectfully disagree. He had the choice to do whatever he wanted to do. She provided him with nothing and wasn't even present. She got convicted over text messages. Ridiculous.

This reminds me of assisted suicide and the uproar about that

She got what she deserved.

Wow a topic that there is disagreement on for once. I think she got what she deserved. There were plenty of texts that show she wanted him to follow through with it and actually meant it.


Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com

I believe she got what she deserved. Yes she was not there did not start the generator, did not force him in the car. And THAT is the reason she's not being charged with murder and being charged with involuntary manslaughter. I believe someone post the legal definition so I'm not going to but she contributed to his death. If one of you told a 3 year old to stab themselves and they did you don't think that you contributed? Some would say a 3 year old is different. In what way? Yes their 3 but that guy suffered from legit depression and mental problems that the girl knew about. So no different than a 3 year old not knowing any better. She played off his mental state. And I'm NOT a liberal or anything like that but I believe she got what she deserved. I think the max 20 years is harsh but if I'm not mistaken sentencing hasn't happened and that's just the max I believe she should get a 10 year sentence she'd serve probably 5-6 if she acts right and doesn't get in trouble and be a probation for x number of years. Which is probably what she'll get and what I think is right.


Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com

Sinister04L said:

Respectfully disagree. He had the choice to do whatever he wanted to do. She provided him with nothing and wasn't even present. She got convicted over text messages. Ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Would it change your mind if she was there in person and told him to get back in, but never physically assisted him getting back into the truck?
Just curious.

Sort of going back and forth on it but believe for the most part that was the right ruling.

Imagine if you will that it was a father standing there ordering his 12 yo daughter back into the truck. Would the father be culpable? He unfortunately gave her power over him for whatever reason. But in all likelihood she could have talked him out of it. I hope she gets the 20 years and they are so hard she faces the same end he did.

7998 said:

Imagine if you will that it was a father standing there ordering his 12 yo daughter back into the truck. Would the father be culpable? He unfortunately gave her power over him for whatever reason. But in all likelihood she could have talked him out of it. I hope she gets the 20 years and they are so hard she faces the same end he did.

Click to expand...

thats different. parents have "control" over their children. she had no control over him, in the legal sense. just because he's pussy whipped doesnt make it so. its not power of attorney. in fact, legal speaking, its a minor telling an adult to do something. he was in control of himself and he could have just told her to piss off or ignore her and she would not be able to compel him to do it (control).

maybe state of mind? like if you told a drunk person or someone high on bath salts go do something? that would be a tough argument.

after reading another article right now i see they mention the definition of involuntary manslaughter as being Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing resulting from recklessness or criminal negligence.
so it comes down to determining whether her actions could be determined to be "reckless" or not, which i could see how you could easily argue that it was. and all you have to do is convince a jury that it was. thats much easier to do then to prove the direct causation. what is reckless? you know what the potential result of your actions could be yet you decide to do it anyways. example, street racing on a busy main street at 100mph through traffic and with pedestrians everywhere. or shooting a gun into a passing passenger train even though you have no idea if there is anyone on board or not. or yelling "fire" into a movie theater. all have been precedent court cases defining reckless. the last two being infamous in legal history and used in law schools.

regardless of which side of the fence youre on im surprised she could be looking at 20 years since she was 17 at the time of the alleged crime. i dont know MA juvenile law but normally when youre under 18 they charge you as a juvenile unless there are special circumstances like gang enhancements. it appears she was tried in adult court. all i found so far is
Carter was charged as a youthful offender, which means that even though she was a minor at the time of the incident, she was charged as an adult.
i dont think that would be the case in CA. im surprised there as well. 17 year olds commit murders all the time and are tried as juveniles and get just a few years. but different states can vary quite a bit on juvenile law.


dont get me wrong. i think shes a POS and deserve everything that's coming to her. she appears to be a textbook sociopath and probably should be locked up to keep other people safe. God knows what she would do next if they had never even charged her for this. kind of reminds me of the movie Heathers.

but we have to be careful. it can easily be a slippery slope as to when free speech turns into a crime.

Blk04L said:

Would it change your mind if she was there in person and told him to get back in, but never physically assisted him getting back into the truck?
Just curious.

Sort of going back and forth on it but believe for the most part that was the right ruling.

Click to expand...

Good question. I don't know.

7998 said:

Imagine if you will that it was a father standing there ordering his 12 yo daughter back into the truck. Would the father be culpable? He unfortunately gave her power over him for whatever reason. But in all likelihood she could have talked him out of it. I hope she gets the 20 years and they are so hard she faces the same end he did.

Click to expand...

Completely different. A father is responsible for the well being of his 12 year old child. This was not his father, this was just a girl, and he was an 18 year old legal adult.

Steve@TF said:

thats different. parents have "control" over their children. she had no control over him, in the legal sense. just because he's pussy whipped doesnt make it so. its not power of attorney. in fact, legal speaking, its a minor telling an adult to do something. he was in control of himself and he could have just told her to piss off or ignore her and she would not be able to compel him to do it (control).

maybe state of mind? like if you told a drunk person or someone high on bath salts go do something? that would be a tough argument.

after reading another article right now i see they mention the definition of involuntary manslaughter as being Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing resulting from recklessness or criminal negligence.
so it comes down to determining whether her actions could be determined to be "reckless" or not, which i could see how you could easily argue that it was. and all you have to do is convince a jury that it was. thats much easier to do then to prove the direct causation. what is reckless? you know what the potential result of your actions could be yet you decide to do it anyways. example, street racing on a busy main street at 100mph through traffic and with pedestrians everywhere. or shooting a gun into a passing passenger train even though you have no idea if there is anyone on board or not. or yelling "fire" into a movie theater. all have been precedent court cases defining reckless. the last two being infamous in legal history and used in law schools.

regardless of which side of the fence youre on im surprised she could be looking at 20 years since she was 17 at the time of the alleged crime. i dont know MA juvenile law but normally when youre under 18 they charge you as a juvenile unless there are special circumstances like gang enhancements. it appears she was tried in adult court. all i found so far is
Carter was charged as a youthful offender, which means that even though she was a minor at the time of the incident, she was charged as an adult.
i dont think that would be the case in CA. im surprised there as well. 17 year olds commit murders all the time and are tried as juveniles and get just a few years. but different states can vary quite a bit on juvenile law.


dont get me wrong. i think shes a POS and deserve everything that's coming to her. she appears to be a textbook sociopath and probably should be locked up to keep other people safe. God knows what she would do next if they had never even charged her for this. kind of reminds me of the movie Heathers.

but we have to be careful. it can easily be a slippery slope as to when free speech turns into a crime.

Click to expand...

Very well put.

Sinister04L said:

Good question. I don't know.



Completely different. A father is responsible for the well being of his 12 year old child. This was not his father, this was just a girl, and he was an 18 year old legal adult.

Click to expand...

there have been plenty of cases where parents have ordered their children to commit crimes or enter dangerous situations. the children are typically not held liable because its almost as if they are under duress. when you're a kid, you do what your parents tell you too.

It really is a case that caused a lot of debate. Most prosecutors I have talked with like the outcome, but do worry some about your ramifications going forward. I think it's a very fact specific situation and restraint should be used in charging cases like this.

I read the text messages between them yesterday, and after doing so, I believe she deserved what she got. They couldn't even have a conversation without her saying "are you going to do it?" "When are you going to?" "Stop avoiding the question." "Just do it already." and things of that nature.

Just ****ed up all the way around

MystiChrome Coupe said:

So what if there is someone on a ledge of a building/bridge and a group of people chanting jump, and he does. Are they all responsible?

Click to expand...

When words are the new tactical nuke, then absolutely.
I always thought that only "You" can kill yourself in a suicide. I am pretty sure the death certificate said suicide and not homicide.