Jump to content
drvoke

Can you be found guilty of killing someone with words?

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Chuck! said:

 

 

So you think that "Congress shall make no law" refers to conspiring to cause death?
Or is it conspiracy in general that you oppose?

 

 

 

 

Who conspired to cause death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The girl in this story, the one that you think ought to go free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chuck! said:

 

 

So you think that "Congress shall make no law" refers to conspiring to cause death?
Or is it conspiracy in general that you oppose?

 

 

 

 

that is not in line with ANYTHING I have said....past present or in the future...….you need to clarify yerself chief....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Chuck! said:

The girl in this story, the one that you think ought to go free

wow....you understand the second yet get inbred type retard on the first? interesting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, personreal said:

Remember the Bernie Sanders volunteer that shot Scalise?

 

Someone convinced him to hate repubs/conservatives.

 

Gee...I wonder who that could be?  

The entire DNC SWAMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, personreal said:

How about leftist celebs that engage in rhetoric about assassinating Trump or bombing the White House?

 

Or a dem Congresswoman who approved of this kind of rhetoric by a person on the internet that wanted Trump to be assassinated? That dem refused to apologize.

 

 

 

 

LIBs are always righteous.....

 

their hate is righteous

their death threats are righteous

 

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, bigsky said:

wow....you understand the second yet get inbred type retard on the first? interesting 

 

You said talking that kid into killing himself was freedom of speech.
I'm trying to figure that out. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law" 
I would argue that free speech covers political speech and not convincing someone to eat a bullet

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, bigsky said:

well....even by that standard it isn't....do you people ever define the words being used?

in·vol·un·tar·y man·slaugh·ter

[involuntary manslaughter]

NOUN

law

the crime of killing another human being unlawfully but unintentionally.

 

would you explain to me HOW THE FU CK SHE KILLED HIM.....AND WHAT FU CKING LAW SHE BROKE? AND WHAT WAS UNINTENTIONAL ABOUT WHAT SHE DID?

there is not one god damn thing unintentional and she did not kill him.....he was the murderer.....

yer wrong dude.

the judge is wrong

and this country just lost another civil liberty with this verdict

Nope. In legal terms, unintentionally means that a person meant to do what they did but did not intend to cause the death itself. And by that definition, she was tried and charged correctly. She helped him plan how and where it was gonna be, and admitted that she could have stopped it. Her reckless behavior contributed to his death.

 

Now deal with it. I'm not wrong, and the judge is not wrong. And if you think what this chick did is a civil liberty, then there is truly something wrong with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chuck! said:

 

You said talking that kid into killing himself was freedom of speech.
I'm trying to figure that out. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law" 
I would argue that free speech covers political speech and not convincing someone to eat a bullet

 

actually he was the adult and she was a minor....

why are you so quick to abridge the first amendment?

or abridging the freedom of speech,

a·bridge

[əˈbrij]

law

curtail (a right or privilege).

its pretty fu cking clear....kinda like a stop sign.....do you need a lesson on its meaning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, duck33 said:

Nope. In legal terms, unintentionally means that a person meant to do what they did but did not intend to cause the death itself. And by that definition, she was tried and charged correctly. She helped him plan how and where it was gonna be, and admitted that she could have stopped it. Her reckless behavior contributed to his death.

 

Now deal with it. I'm not wrong, and the judge is not wrong. And if you think what this chick did is a civil liberty, then there is truly something wrong with you.

oh...so now we just legislate the bill of rights away? we can just make laws overriding the supreme law of the land that says.....FREEDOM OF SPEECH CANT BE ABRIDGED......

your dork ass is siding with an unconstitutional law...and applauding it....you are a progressive and have no leg to stand on when the communists turn the constitution into a meaningless document of ages long gone.....you are just as big a part of the problem as the left in all their attacks....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bigsky said:

actually he was the adult and she was a minor....

why are you so quick to abridge the first amendment?

or abridging the freedom of speech,

a·bridge

[əˈbrij]

law

curtail (a right or privilege).

its pretty fu cking clear....kinda like a stop sign.....do you need a lesson on its meaning?

 

I'm not quick at all.
I am very deliberate, because I like being right.

Further, I didn't abridge anything.
I agreed with a court decision based on long established law.
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bigsky said:

oh...so now we just legislate the bill of rights away? we can just make laws overriding the supreme law of the land that says.....FREEDOM OF SPEECH CANT BE ABRIDGED......

 

No, it says that "Congress shall make no law"
Congress didn't
Her state did.
Perfectly constitutional

If it said "shall not be infringed" it'd be different. But it doesn't, and I say it doesn't for a reason.
How about you?
Do you know how to reason?
Show us
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chuck! said:

 

I'm not quick at all.
I am very deliberate, because I like being right.

Further, I didn't abridge anything.
I agreed with a court decision based on long established law.
 

 

 

right....long established UNCONSTITUTIONAL law....wanna see?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

now...how do you reconcile yer LONG ESTABLISHED LAW....with the first amendment and the supremacy clause?

 

dont bother answering....we dont need more progressives popping out of the woodwork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bigsky said:

oh...so now we just legislate the bill of rights away? we can just make laws overriding the supreme law of the land that says.....FREEDOM OF SPEECH CANT BE ABRIDGED......

your dork ass is siding with an unconstitutional law...and applauding it....you are a progressive and have no leg to stand on when the communists turn the constitution into a meaningless document of ages long gone.....you are just as big a part of the problem as the left in all their attacks....

No one is legislating any rights away in this case. Conspiring in the death of another is not free speech. Period. Deal with it. And while you're at it, learn how terms are used legally before running your mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 10:51 AM, drvoke said:

 

Image result for " Michelle Carter"

 

 

 

 

A Massachusetts court says: 'Yes'.

Good.

Her lawyer can quote the First Amendment, can parse it with hifalutin legalese until his Jew hook nose falls off.

The only thing that matters to me is: Was justice served? The answer is yes.

She is an evil bitch and should pay for it.

 

 

 

Mass. Woman Will Go to Prison for Urging Boyfriend in Texts to Kill Himself, Court Rules

The Massachusetts high court rejected Michelle Carter's appeal of her manslaughter conviction in the 2014 death by suicide of Conrad Roy II

https://people.com/crime/michelle-carter-suicide-text-case-urging-boyfriend-suicide-texts/

(Full article at above link)

 

 

A Massachusetts woman must serve prison time after she urged her boyfriend to kill himself in a series of text and phone conversations, a Massachusetts court ruled Monday.

The court’s ruling rejected an appeal by Michelle Carter, who was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for the 2014 suicide of 18-year-old Conrad Roy II, when she was 17.

Carter had been sentenced to 15 months in jail after her conviction but remained free during her appeal. Her defense argued that her statements and texts urging Roy forward as he contemplated suicide were covered by First Amendment free-speech protections.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, concluding in its ruling that “the evidence was sufficient to support the judge’s finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed involuntary manslaughter as a youthful offender, and that the other legal issues presented by the defendant, including her First Amendment claim, lack merit,” in the opinion written by Justice Scott L. Kafker.

Roy died in his pickup truck from carbon monoxide poisoning — an act Carter had supported and encouraged in exchanges that came to light after Roy’s death on July 13, 2014.

Testimony at Carter’s 2017 trial revealed that Carter, who was not present with Roy at the time he died, was on the phone with him as he expressed doubts about his actions.

In finding Carter guilty, Bristol County Juvenile Court Judge Lawrence Moniz highlighted two revelations from Carter’s trial. As Roy expressed his desire to abort his fatal plan by getting out of the truck, Carter told him to get back in.  

 

Roy was a “vulnerable, confused, mentally ill, 18-year-old” who had stepped out of his truck as it filled with carbon monoxide,” Kafker wrote. “But then in this weakened state he was badgered back into the gas-infused truck by the defendant, his girlfriend.”

“After she convinced him to get back into the carbon monoxide filled truck,” he wrote, “she did absolutely nothing to help him: she did not call for help or tell him to get out of the truck as she listened to him choke and die.”

An attorney for Carter, Daniel N. Marx, said in a statement that her defense team was “disappointed” by Monday’s high court ruling, reports the Boston Globe.

“We continue to believe that Michelle Carter did not cause Conrad Roy’s tragic death, and she should not be held criminally responsible for his choice to end his own life,” said Marx. “Today’s decision stretches the law to assign blame for a tragedy that was not a crime.”

But he did not concede defeat, vowing to “evaluate all legal options for Michelle including a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,” according to his statement.

The high court’s ruling “has very troubling implications, for free speech, due process, and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, that should concern us all,” he said. “There are good reasons why nearly every other state has passed a law to address ‘assisted suicide,’ which inevitably involves complicated circumstances better addressed as a matter of policy by the legislature than in any particular case by the court.”

 

 

Related image

 

 

Boo hoo, bitch. Rot.

And this stint in prison will be nothing compared to how her actions will effect her entire life.

 


 

 

Outragious!!! Anyone dumb enough to take the woman seriuosly deserves to be dead. The only question now is how do we get rid of the idiotic leftwing  judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chuck! said:

 

No, it says that "Congress shall make no law"
Congress didn't
Her state did.
Perfectly constitutional

If it said "shall not be infringed" it'd be different. But it doesn't, and I say it doesn't for a reason.
How about you?
Do you know how to reason?
Show us
 

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

 

curtail (a right or privilege).

 

cur·tail

[kərˈtāl]

VERB

reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on.

 

now...why dont you go ahead and explain the differenced in the first two definitions

 

I just got off work.....my kid is demanding my attention....I have to go for now...ill be back you inbred retard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bigsky said:

right....long established UNCONSTITUTIONAL law....wanna see?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

now...how do you reconcile yer LONG ESTABLISHED LAW....with the first amendment and the supremacy clause?

 

dont bother answering....we dont need more progressives popping out of the woodwork

 

Do you know the story of Benedict Arnold? The traitor during the Revolutionary War?
He TOLD the British where Washington's troops were.
Just freedom of speech, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bigsky said:

now...why dont you go ahead and explain the differenced in the first two definitions

 

Those definitions have nothing to do with it.
One amendment says "shall not be infringed" meaning never
And the other amendment says "Congress shall make no law" which means there shall be no laws on the national law book.

And as the tenth amendment says, any rights not specifically reserved to the federal becomes the right of the several states, or the people.

The first amendment says the feds can't and the tenth amendment says the states can if it is the will of the people.

Do you understand what I am saying?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


 

Image result for gavel striking

 

 

 

GUILTY!

 

 

 

Image result for "Michelle Carter"

 

 

That's what I'm talkin' about. Drink deep the pain.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chuck! said:

 

Those definitions have nothing to do with it.
One amendment says "shall not be infringed" meaning never
And the other amendment says "Congress shall make no law" which means there shall be no laws on the national law book.

And as the tenth amendment says, any rights not specifically reserved to the federal becomes the right of the several states, or the people.

The first amendment says the feds can't and the tenth amendment says the states can if it is the will of the people.

Do you understand what I am saying?

 

 

lofl....that line of reasoning went out the window when "congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion" and county court houses cant have the ten commandments in front of them...no right to abortion or privacy with doctors are specifically granted and yet the federal government gets all up in that sh it.....there are way too many case laws and court decisions that shoot yer premise full of holes....

perhaps you never read Gitlow v New York.....maybe you should....

free speech extends to the states

the second amendment doesn't though...because you were too busy killing speech rights and not defending gun rights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, drvoke said:

 


 

Image result for gavel striking

 

 

 

GUILTY!

 

 

 

Image result for "Michelle Carter"

 

 

That's what I'm talkin' about. Drink deep the pain.

 

 

 

freedom of speech is an incorporated right.....placed on the states.....by the supreme court....she isn't guilty of sh it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CrimeaRiver said:

LIBs are always righteous.....

 

their hate is righteous

their death threats are righteous

 

lol

Sucking dicks is what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, bigsky said:

lofl....that line of reasoning went out the window when "congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion" and county court houses cant have the ten commandments in front of them...no right to abortion or privacy with doctors are specifically granted and yet the federal government gets all up in that sh it.....there are way too many case laws and court decisions that shoot yer premise full of holes....

perhaps you never read Gitlow v New York.....maybe you should....

free speech extends to the states

the second amendment doesn't though...because you were too busy killing speech rights and not defending gun rights

 

I can only tell you what the constitution says, not the reasoning they use to violate it.
 

You can blame me for "killing free speech" if that makes you feel better.
I'll even give you a time I actively advocated against the press.

There was a self defense shooting in Columbus Ohio where a lady killed her baby's daddy the third day after he was released from a three year stint in prison.
She had her Civil Protection Order and a .40 caliber Glock. When he pried open the dining room window with a crowbar and went upstairs where she was hiding with the kid, she shot him to death. 

The Columbus Dispatch named her, named her children, and gave where they went to school and even had a graphic in the paper with a map to her house.
I took it upon myself to question the reporter who wrote the story and got quickly moved up to the editor. After several email exchanges, she seemed to lose her temper and told me that me would release names and addresses of any crime victims who defended themselves with a gun.

A full year after that, one of my favorite legislators introduced a bill preventing the press from having access to the state's Concealed Handgun License rolls.
News papers were making FOIA requests, (called public records requests in Ohio) and printing the name and address everyone who obtained a CHL. I testified in Committee before the Ohio Senate and detailed the story I just told you, and provided copies of all the emails to the committee. Even the democrats were enraged at the callous way the paper disregarded this lady's safety, and the safety of her children, just because she owned a gun and used it to defend herself.

So yes, I killed you right to free speech, if that makes you feel better.
Now that you no longer have that right, kindly STHU and leave us alone.
You've already shown you can't understand reason.

Thank you
 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what responsibility for his own actions that actually caused his death is he responsible for?

 

This ruling takes the responsibility away from the person actually committed suicide and places it on someone who wasn’t responsible of anything more than some insensitive words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...