Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Girl charged with manslaughter over firends suicide
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Steve@TF" data-source="post: 15630849" data-attributes="member: 40308"><p>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). </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>after reading another article right now i see they mention the definition of involuntary manslaughter as being <strong>Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing resulting from recklessness or criminal negligence. </strong></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 </p><p><em>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.</em></p><p>i dont think that would be the case in CA. im surprised there as well. 17 year olds commit <strong>murders</strong> 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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>but we have to be careful. it can easily be a slippery slope as to when free speech turns into a crime.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Steve@TF, post: 15630849, member: 40308"] 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 [B]Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing resulting from recklessness or criminal negligence. [/B] 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 [I]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] i dont think that would be the case in CA. im surprised there as well. 17 year olds commit [B]murders[/B] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Girl charged with manslaughter over firends suicide
Top