Posted on 07/02/2016 9:13:22 AM PDT by BenLurkin
But instead of trying to stop her teenage boyfriend from taking his life, prosecutors in Massachusetts believe that Carter pressured Conrad Roy III to go through with the act.
And on Friday, the state’s highest court ruled that she could go to trial for her alleged role in his death.
“I hope they hold her accountable for her actions,” Roy’s grandfather, Conrad Roy Sr., told the Boston Globe. “She told him to get back in the truck. She prodded him on. All of the text messages are pretty much self-explanatory.”
The Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling — which found that a grand jury was justified in returning an indictment in Carter’s case — was unanimous, the Associated Press reported. Justice Robert Cordy wrote:
“We conclude that, on the evidence presented to the grand jury, the verbal conduct at issue was sufficient and, because a conviction of involuntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in State prison and inherently involves the infliction of serious bodily harm, the grand jury properly returned an indictment under the youthful offender statute.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“She is truly evil. She pushed him and pushed him. She is a sociopath. She wanted the attention she would garner after he died. This was a manipulative ***** who used the ultimate power over another vulnerable human being. There really are no words to describe this person.
That all said, she will get away with it.”
You described her perfectly. I would classify her as sub-human.
That being said, if I were the boy’s Mother, I would be the one in jail after I got my hands on the evil b###h. She needs to suffer & suffer horribly.
Spoiled, entitled brat. I can just imagine the witch’s mother crying that her “beautiful, innocent princess” is being unfairly persecuted.
I wish this creature nothing but the absolute worst.
So yelling fire in a crowded theater is okay? After all, it was the fault of the people who fell and got trampled that they ran without seeing if there was a fire, right?
Asking someone if they would kill your wife for $125,000 is okay too, correct? After all, your words didn’t hurt them.
The problem as I see it is you think this is a hypothetical case about someone “urging” another to commit suicide. And it isn’t.
You need to read the texts to see the level of manipulation and control that she had over him. She killed him as surely as if she had locked him in that truck cab herself. And the fact that she used her words instead of her hands to do it makes no difference.
This isn’t about free speech, after all there are plenty of ways that your words can land you in jail. This is about manipulation of someone who is under diminished mental capacity. And she acted in a clearly criminal manner.
A gun kills. Speech does not, especially when you choose to kill yourself.
By making this creature responsible, you are saying that people have no free choice. The government will make us responsible for another persons behavior.
This trend is already starting, like the attempts by the Democrats to make gun makers liable for gun violence.
Speech is exhaled air and vocal cords. It does not kill unless acted on.
Look at the bullying prosecutions on Facebook. A girl kills herself because of Facebook bullying, and they want to make that criminal.
Then we should confiscate guns away from people with diminished mental capacity. Because, the Democrats say that the presence of guns cause increased violence.
Is that what you want?
You finally get it!
Just as the words of a dictator to slaughter innocents are culpable when they are acted on, so also the words of someone who has manipulated and controlled someone of diminished mental capacity are culpable when they are acted on!
You understand!
Instead of trying to deflect this into a gun-control argument, why don’t you simply read the texts that are the basis of this criminal case? They go well beyond a simple urging.
I kind of thought you might be joking, but I wasn’t sure.
It’s the kind of joke only another Irish person can make.
A dictator uses the military and police by force to kill people. The dictator is then an accomplice.
A gun is an inanimate object, it does not kill unless acted on, just like speech.
Therefore, ban the gun because it has the same characteristics as speech.
All human beings are responsible for their own behavior, even when the behavior is suicide. No matter how much a person gets encouraged to commit suicide, in the end the ultimate choice is up to the individual.
No, the dictator uses his words and other people, made up of the military and police, use force to enforce his words.
Words can be criminal in many ways: incitement, fraud, sedition, conspiracy, etc.
Read the texts. This goes into the criminal. If you don’t read the texts, you are just trying to argue a hypothetical that doesn’t make any sense to those who have read the texts.
These guys are all fine and turned out well - without me in their life.
##########################################################
I don’t know how they did, you’re such a nice person.
While he was in the truck with the pump running, he was on the phone texting and talking with Carter, she told her friend.
“Like, honestly I could have stopped it,” Carter texted Samantha months later. “I was on the phone with him and he got out of the car” because the carbon monoxide was working, she said. She added that she “told him to get back in.”
Reading the headline I thought it was the usual DA trying to make a name for himself bringing these charges. But reading the messages she sent, she definitely goaded him repeatedly into killing himself. This goes way beyond a flippant remark. It really looks sick on her part.
Your response made me laugh. Thanks. Love your pics. I generally try to be nice but I am a Leo and have zero patience with people who don’t have a clue what they are talking about. And pity anyone who doesn’t think my grandsons are simply awesome.
lol
So two possible scenarios, First, she was some evil Lady Macbeth type evil whisperer who was out to have him kill himself to amuse herself. Or Second, she had tried to urge him to get help and failed, so she stupidly thought if she pushed him he'd chicken out and finally get help and ooops, he succeeded. It's not a slam dunk based on the story posted which of those two scenarios it is.
Lady Nancy Astor: Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea.
Churchill: Nancy, if I were your husband, I'd drink it.”
This psychopath needs to be under the contol of the courts for the rest of her life
She is really dangerous.
Not really.
She needs to have an accident.
She’s a sociopath, and she scandalized him.
Difference between inciting others to murdering and telling someone to kill themselves.
What does the un-confusing law actually say about this particular case, in context?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.