Don’t Confuse Me With the Law

Another reason to avoid Massachusetts. I don’t see the verdict standing. It seems to me that to be guilty she would have to have committed an act or omission to complete the offense. To have an omission the judge would first have to find that she had a legal duty to act. Michelle-Carter-trial-decision-in-texting-suicide-case-coming-Friday

Ken Kesey wrote a book called Sometimes a Great Notion. It was about a family, the Stampers, in the Great Northwest that ran its own logging operation. Since the Stampers were a family business, they were exempt from participating in a long-running strike conducted by other loggers. The economic effects of the strike went far beyond the logging industry and started to hurt businesses in town. Here is my probably imperfect recollection of a scene where suicide is very much front and center.

One business owner confronted Hank Stamper. “You have killed my business, I’ve lost everything. I am going to kill myself.”

“Well, that up to you,” replied Stamper.

“That’s it, that’s all you have to say?” asked the businessman.

“Well, under the circumstances have a good time and bon voyage, didn’t seem appropriate,” replied Stamper.

Up until the time that the model penal code was adopted assault and battery sometimes paired together, constituted two separate offenses. Assault was the verbal abuse, which in many cases preceded the battery, that was the actual physical touching. In any case, the offer of the assault had to be imminent and possible. An offer to “whip a victim’s ass a week from Tuesday” is not an assault. Neither is a conditional offer or an offer made via long distance. With the adoption of the model penal code, “battery” was discarded in favor of assault to cover the verbal and physical abuse.

In Texas, a verbal assault is a Class “C” misdemeanor, on the same level as a traffic ticket. An actual blow struck causing pain is a Class “A” misdemeanor, calling for up to a year in county jail.

From what I have seen of the purported conversation I’m not sure the defendant said anything that would raise to the level of an assault. She didn’t offer to help him along, provide technical instruction, or offer to start the truck. To quote Elie Wiesel, “The opposite of love isn’t hate, its indifference.” So I don’t see an assault by any stretch of the imagination.

The second route to responsibility is to show that the defendant had a legal obligation and by not honoring that obligation, the omission, caused the death of the victim. The key here is a legal obligation. A parent-child, caregiver-patient, and therapist-wacko may entail a legal obligation to act. Surprisingly there is no legal obligation owed to an individual by the police or fire department. There is no obligation for a bystander to intervene or as far as I’m aware, girlfriends or soon to be ex-girlfriends.

The Judge in the case has apparently decided that words have the effect of physical blows. I guess in the Judge’s eyes the defendant beat the victim into submission. One thing to remember about Massachusetts Judges, it is a political patronage job with a lifetime appointment. Judges aren’t required to know the law, just who pulls the strings. This case is screaming to be overturned on appeal. The judge would have done well to remember the child’s saying.”

‘Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me’. As it is now, the next time, he sees the phrase it is liable to be a included in the decision overturning the conviction.