• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

It's Official. Words CAN Kill

it is not nice that it has took a death to get this official but we;as vulnerable adults have always known words can hurt you [there are the rare few autists who have escaped bullying and nasty people], i attempted suicide many times after a online bully kept telling me to kill myself and that i wasnt worth anything and that i was a burden on society,i KNOW words can kill.
 
(AP) TAUNTON, Mass. — A woman who sent her boyfriend a barrage of text messages urging him to kill himself when they were both teenagers was convicted Friday of involuntary manslaughter in a trial that raised questions of whether words can kill.

Michelle Carter found guilty in boyfriend's texting suicide

I followed this story since it's start. I am glad she was convicted. The decision was a no brainer. She could have easily stopped that death on that day, with a few simple and more reasonable words and actions, showing true care, but instead she was putting pressure on him to do it, when he was showing mixed feelings then of wanting to do that.

Words have convicted others before, so why should this be any different? Let's say a wife tells a hitman to kill the husband, then she should be guilty if that occurs, and is almost always prosecuted for that. Let's say a man yells "Fire" in a crowded theatre, and people die after trampled over. If there was no fire, he could be found guilty for negligence or willful misconduct, depending on his sanity or intentions.

So, regardless if she wanted the attention of his death, or had some condition, she was very reckless and unreasonable in her actions and inactions. I did not see any history of her being insane. One biased doctors opinions of temporary insanity. Whatever. Nice try. Even if she had some psychotic condition or was self-centered that is not an excuse to not take accountability.

So, like the saying goes, "If you do not want to do the time (in jail or prison), then do not do the crime." Some might argue, "Well, it was is his choice. He did it himself." I would argue, "It was not his choice, but her choice, as he was saying he was scared to do it, and was trying to back out, but she kept encouraging it and saying it was the right choice." He was taken advantage of and pressured in his moment of severe despair, and trying to please her, thinking erroneously she cared.

Let's also say some therapist used their own untruthful words, or words that they knew would contribute to a patient's death, to get a patient to kill themself or to commit a crime. In most cases they would be held liable, for a failure to provide reasonable, professional care, and for being negligent and showing malice or gross misconduct. Yes, this girl was not a professional, but it is just Common Sense and reasonable for most to assume that should any lay person encourage another to commit a suicide, that they should be convicted.

Was there not a story recently where some fast food ice cream store manager bullied a young employee and he committed suicide, and she was being held accountable for that. So, yes, I agree with taking a stance on bullies, and mean persons that harm others directly and indirectly and causing death should face severe consequences, if not deemed legally insane by adequate medical history. Only with accountability, will this society get safer and better. Just my rant and personal feelings.
 
I think society at large is slowly coming to the conclusion that electronic media is no longer to be perceived as any diminished form of communication in the eyes of the law. That it's every bit as as profound as someone shouting at you no more than at an arm's distance.

As it should be, particularly given that electronic media these days seems to be the most common form of communication, for better or worse in society.
 
I think society at large is slowly coming to the conclusion that electronic media is no longer to be perceived as any diminished form of communication in the eyes of the law. That it's every bit as as profound as someone shouting at you no more than at an arm's distance.

As it should be, particularly given that electronic media these days seems to be the most common form of communication, for better or worse in society.

The next thing to look out for is
Overuse
Then
Misuse

Both things kind of go together when authorities are involved.
But a good step to publicise this as it will certainly make people think twice.

One imagines a large cull of people who have made comments on YouTube:)

Initially it was used as people could comment without filter - as there was no social disgrace from communicating without consideration.

Kind of what that guy says about you to his wife in private..

But is this kind of unfiltered communication what people really think?

Ie the un-niceified social version of themselves

Or is it just thoughtlessness and lack of consideration?

I'm going for the latter, anyway enough rambling.
 
I think the judge rightly based the decision on her instructions. She told him "get back in the truck" that was filling with carbon monoxide.

Hard to spin that one any other way.
 
as can advice.

However intent can be interpreted in a court of law. With the possibility of reflecting the act of a Good Samaritan, and all the legal protection that may come with it. Depending on of course, the circumstances involved. Hopefully advice not involving any perceived assistance or promotion of suicide. Where court precedents continue to reflect a likely outcome.

Overtly encouraging someone to commit suicide remains another matter in the eyes of the law. Dr. Jack Kevorkian couldn't overcome such a consideration, so it doesn't surprise me that Michelle Carter couldn't either.
 
Last edited:
indeed, words can most definitely kill. The intent is key and I believe that this girl was correctly sentenced. Quite possibly needs her jail cell muffled...
 
indeed, words can most definitely kill. The intent is key and I believe that this girl was correctly sentenced. Quite possibly needs her jail cell muffled...

Yep. I saw nothing to reflect her intent as caring or compassionate. Apparently neither did the jury.

Though as a first offender, it wouldn't surprise me if she gets a sentence that amounts to less than three years. Should be interesting to see what her sentence will be on 8/3. And whether or not her attorney is willing to appeal.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom