No, I know what I’m talking about.
If this stands, this will open the door to subjective, politically motivated trials. It’s convicting someone for thought crime since it’s not on actual behavior, like that she pushed him off a bridge or drove while intoxicated.
She is merely being guilty of murder for being a bad influence. HE DID IT. He’d wanted to, and he did. I can see trying to prosecute her on something like a Good Samaritan basis, but Massachusetts doesn’t have that.
But a manslaughter charge and conviction just shows how much secular humanism has taken over society.
Oh, and in everything from the Trayvon Martin and Ahmed Mohamed cases to Jeremy Christian in Seattle, and every other controversy, including Russia and Hillary’s emails, liberals already have denied objective evidence.
Giving them a subjective basis to hold people responsible for their (supposed/theorized) influence over others is wrong as well as reprehensible.
For instance, how can you know that she caused his death? Do you think he wouldn’t have done it except for her urging? Do you think only her urging caused him to get back in his truck and finish killing himself?
Sorry, this was not a “thought crime”. This sociopath took things well beyond thought.