YES! an indictment in the MySpace suicide case

Moderator speaking.

This thread can take the dog piling, sarcasm, and snark down a couple of levels...now. Voice your opinions and debate the topic...no need to be personal or nasty. Thanks.

denise m

ottoluv

Antidepressants don't encourage suicide, the first thing that gets better are your physical symptoms, so therefore where before someone was suicidal they didn't have the energy to do it. Give them the energy before the mind is better and there can be an increased incidence. You have no evidence that she was just started on them. IMO you have a very uninformed view of mental illness.

Sorry Ottoluv, it was not my intention to "misquote" you. My post was not to support 4iC, prove a point or IMO "inappropriate". I expressed my personal opinion in a subsequent post.

As it is straying off topic I won't comment further on antidepressants and suicide other than to say that I can also quote many studies/opinions that  support/explain a link. For now suffice to say the jury is still out but I am somewhat bias and skeptical regarding to influence large drug companies have on such studies. A topic for another day perhaps.

BUT, many, many teens commit suicide when they are not on meds too--it's a balancing act that the doctors have to perform.  Nobody can really speculate on whether this girl would have been in a worse state on meds or not.  I tried to kill myself when I was 17 and never too an antidepressant until I was in my early 20's. 

FourIsCompany

Truley

I guess what some of us see, in that gray area of internet forums, is support.

Just so I can be clear on what you're saying here, people are thinking that I support what this lady did? If so, let me remind you of some of the things I've said here.

"I agree the lady needs to be accountable for her part in this.
Yeah, the lady needs to pay for what she did. I am, in no way, defending this cruel and insane act.
No one is saying she's not wholly responsible for her acts.
She is certainly guilty and sick and should pay. I'm not arguing with that.
NO ONE is condoning what the woman did.
NO ONE is saying that it was OK. Of course it's not OK."

And after all that, there's the feeling that I support what this woman did? If that's the case, I suspect anyone who doesn't want to lynch this woman is assumed to be supportive of her. Sorry. I believe in innocent until proven guilty and even then, she's not charged with the death of the girl and I do not think she's responsible for the death of the girl. If that means to you, that I support what she did, then all I can say is that you are mistaken.

While they may not be able to prove that she is legally responsible, she is most definitely morally responsible IMHO.  In all likelyhood, that little girl would be alive if not for this woman's actions. 

From what I understand, not only did the fake online boy send nasty messages, but also others on myspace.  It was a coordinated attack on this girl.  This was not a simple "break up," this was an attack intended to destroy this girl--and it worked.

I hope that the criminal courts come down hard on this woman.  I want them to make an example out of her.  Since she seems so confused as to how her actions could have possibly pushed an unstable child over the edge, perhaps she needs a few long years behind bars to think about it.

Dog_ma

FourIsCompany

Dog_ma

Would anyone condone pushing a kid in a wheelchair down a hill?

 

This is what I don't understand. NO ONE is condoning what the woman did.

Secondly, pushing a kid in a wheelchair is not comparable. Standing next to the kid, saying awful things to him is. It's immature and cruel, but if the kid tips himself down the hill to be injured or killed, the person saying the awful things is responsible for saying awful things. Not for killing the child.

There's an interesting discussion on another board here. Some very interesting points.  

 

 

Ok, condone was the wrong word. Minimize, perhaps?

I think pushing a wheelchair is absolutely comparable. Mental illness is a disability. The girl was struggling with mental illness (depression) and this ADULT woman engaged in behavior that is a known contributor to depression. Chances are she didn't do the mental math - maybe like kicking the wheelchair not thinking it would roll, only to watch as it heads off down the hill.

 

I agree 100% with this. 

Does anyone disagree with the statement that

• the adults involved in this online emotional assault on a child are guilty of recklessly endangering the well-being of the child? 

This charge category would also include such things as leaving a small child home alone or in a hot car.

janet_rose

the adults involved in this online emotional assault on a child are guilty of recklessly endangering the well-being of the child?

I agree. Here's why:

It doesn't matter what the girl would have done in other circumstances, it doesn't matter what her state of mental health was, it doesn't matter what the doctor thought or didn't think.

The girl was 13, not of legal majority. The woman who endangered her was of legal majority. If I hand out beer and cigarettes to middle schoolers but I don't make them partake, am I still guilty of reckless endangerment? You bet. And if one of the kids got drunk and had an accident that resulted in loss of life, I may or may not be criminally liable but I would be civilly liable (different burden of proof).

Freedom of speach also includes responsibility.

janet_rose

the adults involved in this online emotional assault on a child are guilty of recklessly endangering the well-being of the child? 

I disagree. The definition of Reckless Endangerment:  

Reckless Endangerment - A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person.

While leaving a small child home alone or in a hot car places them at risk to serious physical injury, saying something to them over the internet does not.

However, I DO believe that the adults in the case are guilty of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

The term "emotional distress" means mental distress, mental suffering or mental anguish. It includes all highly unpleasant mental reactions, such as fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation and indignity, as well as physical pain.

A defendant intended to inflict emotional distress if it is established that he or she desired to cause such distress or knew that such distress was substantially certain to result from his or her conduct.

A defendant's conduct is in reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress if he or she has knowledge of a high degree of probability that emotional distress will result and acts with deliberate disregard of that probability or with a conscious disregard of the probable results.

Examination of the possibility of IIED Civil Case.

Could a civil suit be filed against the adults who reportedly perpetrated the hoax? In this column I will explore that question.

The disconnect here is that Lori Drew and Ashley Grills lied, with the intent to cause emotional distress, knowing that they would be successful. What they did not do (or at least it cannot be legally proven) is put Megan at physical risk. They didn't lock her in a hot car, drive recklessly and hit her or rig the brakes on her bicycle. Those are Reckless Endangerment. And if they resulted in death, it would be certain to be a felony,

Just as an aside, using cocaine while pregnant is NOT considered Reckless Endangerment. Source 

ron2

If I hand out beer and cigarettes to middle schoolers but I don't make them partake, am I still guilty of reckless endangerment?

sillysally

Nobody can really speculate on whether this girl would have been in a worse state on meds or not.  I tried to kill myself when I was 17 and never too an antidepressant until I was in my early 20's. 

You are right Sillysally, no one can speculate although there is a lot of it going on in this thread. I am sorry to hear about your suicide attempt. I must have been a very difficult period for you. My oldest son (now 25) also attempted suicide as a teenager. He suffered from depression and like the majority of teenagers had a lot of external social pressures. Although we knew he was depressed and sought medical advice, like Megan's parents, we never thought he was suicidal. Thankfully, he recovered and is a normal, mentally healthy, happy individual who will be married in 2 weeks. However, looking back and relating to Megan's story, things could have tragically turned out different. A teacher could have humiliated him. A friend could have abandoned him. His father or I could have critized or harshly punished him. Any of those things could have pushed him over the edge. Would I hold any of those individuals responsible? I would probably like to. I think it is human nature to try to explain the sometimes unexplainable and hold someone responsible in the face of tragedy. When there is no individual to blame then we blame god. It is how we cope. The world is filled with 'what ifs'. Personally I believe it is very rare that ONE thing triggers a suicide. It is much more complicated and complex. I think what this woman did was cruel and probably did contribute to Megan's fateful decision, but it doubt it was the ONLY factor. Convicting her may help the parents cope with their lose by providing an answer to the question "Why?" Unfortunately the true answer as to why anyone takes their own lives is often elusive, known only to the victim.

Very nice post, denise.

denise m

Would I hold any of those individuals responsible? I would probably like to.

But that's a different thing entirely than the legal system. And since this thread was about her being legally charged, that's what I've been discussing. I LOVE law. The emotional, empathic side of the issue is an entirely different subject for me because the law is supposed to be objective, not emotional. Justice is blind. That's why the statue of Justice is wearing a blindfold.

If we want to discuss the empathy for the parents and Megan, or what we'd LIKE to see happen to the adults involved in this case, I can do that. But that's not what I've been discussing here. And I suspect that's why it's so hard for some to understand my viewpoint.

I am in agreement with Carla that this matter seems to fit best in civil court.  However as I said earlier, these supposed Internet "crimes" are new thing so it's possible this case could set precedent and re-define what "reckless endangerment", etc really mean.  That is how our court system works, it is always evolving and changing based on precedent set by the cases themselves. 

I'd like to separate the moral and the legal cases. Legally, I do not know what the proper charges should be. I don't think Lori Barnes "murdered"  Megan. And suicide is never a simple case of A leading to B.

On the other hand - morally? Lori Barnes is sadistic and, in the conventional use of the word, pretty evil. That a grown woman and a mother would deliberately do what she did to a child is disgusting. Also pretty creepy, because there's a tinge of sociopathy about her actions and her response to the suicide. It's as though Megan weren't fully real to her.

4IC, I adore you and don't mind disagreeing with you (or anyone else I like). I do think you are wrong to assume Megan would have killed herself anyway. I think those comments were unintentionally hurtful to some because they imply that suicidal people are sort of "lost causes." And I think it is insulting to Megan, and a minimization of what she experienced - which was a situation *engineered* to play on her weaknesses.

On a slightly different tangent, this case is a good example of how female aggression is different than male aggression, yet still very serious. You see it on the playgrounds at a very young age. Boys tend to hit and push, which gets a lot of attention from teachers and parents. Meanwhile, little girls (as young as 3!!!) are quietly saying nasty things, using the power of exclusion, etc.  

What, exactly, started this whole thing anyway?  Does Lori have a daughter that "got into it" with Megan over something? I'm sure that came out somewhere, but I can't remember reading/hearing about what the original cause was.

Joyce

Dog_ma

I do think you are wrong to assume Megan would have killed herself anyway.

fuzzy_dogs_mom

What, exactly, started this whole thing anyway? 

Here's a story. 

Megan was teased because she was overweight. I have also read accounts about her being bullied by the groups that she hoped to "belong" to. Her parents transferred her to a new school, where they hoped she could make new friends and avoid cliques. She stopped associating with Lori Drew's daughter, who was Megan's age, but did keep her MySpace page. Lori Drew and her daughter wanted to find out if Megan was talking badly about the daughter. That's where the idea of "Josh" came into being. Just to find out if Megan was gossiping.

When Megan and "Josh" formed a friendship, Ashley Grills started feeling guilty about the manipulation and started to break it off. Megan resisted. Finally, "Josh" (Ashley) told her that he had heard horrible things about her and he didn't want to be her friend anymore. When she resisted, Ashley told her that the world would be a better place without her.

That's a composite of what I have read over the past few days.  

Dog_ma

And I think it is insulting to Megan, and a minimization of what she experienced - which was a situation *engineered* to play on her weaknesses.

This is what I have been trying, far less eloquently, to say.