Prison for talking friend into suicide—a significant ruling

xx Prison for talking friend into suicide—a significant ruling
August 05, 2017, 01:26:52 AM by Kerry
KXAN "Teen girl charged with manslaughter for encouraging friend to commit suicide." Or, as I would have reported; teen girl in prison for recreating a friend's intention, for communicating in support of his intention to kill himself.* —euphemistically referred to as assisted suicide.

The judge reportedly ". . . focused his ruling . . ." on three words “Get back in,” and sentenced her to 15-months in prison. "Get back in" referring to her communication when he temporarily got out of the car—which he was using to kill himself via exhaust gas.

Here's some cookies for your mind: (Not to worry, I don't think the following contains enough words to kill you.)

How many words does it take to be jailed for the results of a communication between you and another?: One word: "Quit." Two words: "Stop now." Or, the alleged killing blow: "Get back in." —you can get where this is going. Eventually we'd arrive at 1,130,296 words (the entire "court testimony") all the words, from beginning to end, that Michelle Carter texted in support of Conrod Roy killing himself.

The judge's decision acknowledges Newton's 3rd Law. "For every action there is an equal and opposite (force)** reaction." From now on a smartphone recording (either text or a verbal message) containing the words, "Screw you, you lazy ass-hole. I hope you die." could be used to convict you of any action your partner may take—including suicide or murder.

The decision further acknowledges that Conrod was not responsible for setting Michelle up to talk him into killing himself. In truth we know that Conrod used his leadership-communication-skills to con her into talking him into killing himself, as does the "victim" of spouse abuse who cons their partner into hitting them. The decision brings to light the confusion of the definition of the word responsible (as in cause).
 
The long range implications of this decision is that eventually police will arrest both partners involved in domestic abuse. The premise: A "victim's" communication causes the violence—both equally intended the abuse and both blame the other. In other words, if a person can talk another into killing him/herself using just 1,130,296 words then anyone can use fewer words to get another to hit them.

The judge's decision places greater blame on the woman for the results of their communications.

The decision poses the question: "Can you be absolved of murdering someone if another talked you into it?

* The word intention has an uncomfortable definition; "Results equals intention." For example: The way to discover what your intentions have been, using your leadership-communication skills, is to look at the results you've been producing (for yourself and for those with whom you relate). Typically a blamer will say, "If I hurt your feeling I didn't mean it." The word 'if" communicates invalidation and denial yet the results prove otherwise. 

** The word "force" means that words have power, they exert a force on another.   The judge implies that one person's communications can exert a greater force on another and therefore if another's words feel forceful, uncomfortable then a "victim" is choosing to be forced, led, guided, ruled, controlled. What's ignored is that non-verbal communications have equal power as evidence by the public consistently thwarting fundings requested by their former teachers-mentors.  Read: The Teacher's Pay Conversations Project and About Leah Remini — Scientology and the Aftermath.

Last edited 10/29/17


Write a Comment:

Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment!

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Comments:

No comments have been posted for this post yet.
Powered by SMFBlog by CreateAForum.com