I just read through this whole thread. There are two points I keep reading being brought up here over and over, that I take issue with.
The first is that people keep mentioning the boy/young man was 18, so he was legally old enough to make up his own mind and decide to commit suicide if he chose to.
I don't know the law in MA, but in my state, an ADULT can be held on a suicide watch (I think for 72 hours) and/or be committed to an institution, against his/her will, if (s)he is evaluated and
is determined to be a danger to himself or to others.
He was obviously a danger to himself. It didn't matter that he was over 18. If anything, as a PP stated, being that age made it worse.
Also, suicide is still against the law. People mention he was old enough to decide he wanted to commit suicide like there is nothing wrong with it. (I believe in assisted suicide for elderly, terminally ill people. So I get that.) But, at the very least, he would be breaking the law.
Someone else mentioned he had some issues in his past where he may have always been suicidal. So, he was in a fragile state of mind, had past history and/or may have had chemical imbalances for depression or suicidal thoughts. Both of those could have been found out, and he could have been properly evaluated, held, treated or had counseling if he or his GF had called on his behalf.
Unfortunately, in the U.S., I think we still do not have laws
forcing people to be good samaritans - meaning if one comes upon someone in a car wreck and they are clearly bleeding out, as was the case with Princess Diana, that one MUST call and get help. Carter could have spoken to someone: called the police, told his mom, told a teacher, or spoken to someone to report he was suicidal. But she didn't. She chose not to. Even later, when his mom asked Carter if he had said something before he committed suicide about doing it, she lied. She hid the truth as she knew there was something wrong there. It wasn't like she was to young to know better.
This brings me to issue two. People keep saying it's about her words, her opinions, her stance, and freedom of speech. I am all for that. I also believe this is going down a very slippery slope. And this case will make precedent either way. However, as another PP stated, the Prosecution wouldn't be bringing this to trial and the judge wouldn't be hearing this case, if they didn't think there was some merit and the Prosecution could win.
What IS the basis of the Prosecution's case? Don't they have to say that in opening remarks? I don't think anyone has stated that yet.
I doubt it is based on what she actually SAID and in her texts to the deceased and the mother afterward. I think it will come down to her INTENT. All those texts and statements she made go to her frame of mind and intent. Just as a PP mentioned, a person watching a friend commit rape and saying "Do it!" it's not the
words, it's the intent. He didn't call the police or get help or pull his friend off of the victim. He egged on the rapist. He was an accessory. There was a payoff in him staying, watching and egging the rapist on.
It's the same with bullies. Bullies bully as there is a positive payoff to them. They enjoy seeing someone in pain, tortured or suicidal. They would even feel power at the thought that they
could make someone commit suicide. And the ultimate power would be if they DID make someone commit suicide.
From what I've read in this thread so far, Carter got a lot of payoff even AFTER his suicide, by being in contact with the family and planning out things to do
that highlight HER involvement and what she can do for the funeral and after.
It's about intent, power & influence over another weaker person, and connection, not what she
said to him.