Most hated woman on the Internet indicted for MySpace suicide
posted at 10:47 pm on May 15, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If I believed in hell, I’d agree that she’s a person you’ll see there. Number one in Radar’s list of the worst people online, and richly deserved: Like Al Capone, she’ll escape the charges she deserves yet probably can’t be convicted of in favor of more mundane financial charges that’ll send her away for a long, long time. Here’s hoping:
A 49-year-old Missouri woman accused of pretending to be a love-struck teenage boy on MySpace and driving a 13-year-old girl to suicide with cruel messages was indicted on Thursday on federal charges…
Experts said the indictment, which was handed down in Los Angeles after Missouri authorities declined to prosecute Drew, was a first of its kind and could stretch the bounds of the federal statute on which it was based…
Lonergan said Drew was charged with accessing a protected computer to obtain information, a statute typically used against defendants who hack into government computers.
“While I think most people agree that it merits punishment to harass a young girl to the point where she commits suicide, it’s not clear that this conduct is covered by this federal statute,” she said…
Drew, who faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison if she is convicted on all of the charges, was expected to surrender to authorities in Missouri.
Suzy’s Law might have taken care of this but it’s not on the books yet. Here’s the statute I think they’re planning to charge her under, which seems dicey. I sympathize with any legislature trying to write a bill to deal with this sort of crime, in which definite psychological harm is intended but perhaps not the sort of grievous outcome that resulted here. Exit question: How do you criminalize cruelty?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Exactly. This woman is scum, but do I want laws that will inevitably transform over the next decades to be something the writers of said law wouldn’t recognize?
I think the good old Scarlet Letter is what this woman deserves. Excpet maybe a “B” or a “C” instead of an “A”.
VolMagic on May 15, 2008 at 10:52 PM
I’m glad she’s being charged. This story just inspires rage.
Spirit of 1776 on May 15, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Vile woman.
StephC on May 15, 2008 at 10:54 PM
There’s a lot of laws that do on the physical level: Assult, battery, rape, etc, but few that deal with mental cruelty. Verbal assult and harrasment are a couple, but nothing that has any real bite to it in the form of punishment.
- The Cat
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Enjoy your 15 years of fame, honey. Fighting prosecution is very expensive, and although this could be overreaching by the prosecutors, it couldn’t happen to a nicer person.
Nothing wrong with a nice shunning too, now that her name has been widely published.
funky chicken on May 15, 2008 at 10:55 PM
You stay classy in prison, Lori. Warden, don’t let her near an internet connection.
fossten on May 15, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Dayum, AP, that steak looked good! Fooled me again!
/sarc
I say we bring back the guillotine! And end all of those dayum appeals when the evidence is overbearing.
But my libertarian side says…wow, it agrees!
Drank a New Castle for you! :)
lsutiger on May 15, 2008 at 10:55 PM
P.S.
It could easily devolve into thought crimes and the like. Full of mines this one is.
- The Cat
MirCat on May 15, 2008 at 10:57 PM
To get over the rage, read the links for John Fitzgerald Page in the radar article. I laughed so hard it brought me to tears the first time around.
Poor bastard.
funky chicken on May 15, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Hmmm…why would it be different then any other crime?
The getaway driver is just as guilty as the trigger man.
The arsonist wanted to see fire, but didn’t intend to kill the fireman who was putting it out.
If the victim complains and an investigation finds the harrasing person prosecute for harrasment. If the victim commits suicide prosecute for murder.
Limerick on May 15, 2008 at 11:00 PM
I am not a lawyer, but I can answer the exit question from my heart.
I think that there should be a sliding scale of intent. Not only in this case, but in the entire judicial system.
Three strikes is good for hardcore criminals, but the legally stupid who have no victims wind up absorbing my tax money that should go to fighting jihadists.
This woman clearly rates (if we agree to try and convict her here) the max on the sliding scale.
Unadulterated hatred is one thing, acting out is another.
Now that I think about it, maybe we can prosecute the Congress of the United States for hate crimes against the military and the civilians of this great nation.
winemkr on May 15, 2008 at 11:05 PM
This was not merely cruelty, but also fraud and harassment. Both of those are pretty clearly defined in 1st amendment jurisprudence. While this type of prosecution does need scrutiny in general, I think this one is pretty safe from a civil rights standpoint.
vonspringer on May 15, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Evil act? Yep…
but, I’m afraid this is going to come down to a free speech arguement….
My question has always been, just where were the girls parents (or whatever adult was responsible for her)… why are they being given a pass. If she was so immature that she would let this affect her, and not go for help, then she should not have had free access to a computer.
Yes, the 49 year old lady was evil, and cruel, and this is a tragedy… but be VERY careful before you go down the road where a cruel remark or statement is now against the law…
Romeo13 on May 15, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Absolutely sick,and this is from a women!
Normally its the guy who does this kind of
crap!
canopfor on May 15, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Limerick on May 15, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Bullying goes on at schools all the time. Some kids commit suicide. Should the bullies be tried for murder?
It’s a very tricky issue, and as disgusting as this story and that woman are, we shouldn’t let emotion lead us to make very bad decisions about giving the government power to prosecute citizens over what amount to social setting interactions. The caveat here is that a 46 year old woman was manipulating a young girl. But do you really think a law, once written, won’t grow as soon as possible?
VolMagic on May 15, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Exit question: How do you criminalize cruelty?
Tough question. It’s easier to be cruel to her. She should be shunned for the rest of her life.
Entelechy on May 15, 2008 at 11:09 PM
The Scarlet Letter and shunning are great ideas. She’ll spend tens of thousands on defense counsel too.
Really, have a good, cleasning laugh now:
http://gawker.com/news/douchebags/nightmare-online-dater-john-fitzgerald-page-is-the-worst-person-in-the-world-309684.php
funky chicken on May 15, 2008 at 11:12 PM
I say we bring back the guillotine…
Isutiger on May 15,2008 at 10:55PM.
Isutiger: Sounds could,beats watching Idol!haha
canopfor on May 15, 2008 at 11:13 PM
I am of similar opinion. And I think there must be some recourse for justice within the legal system especially in cases where you have an adult doing that to a minor.
Spirit of 1776 on May 15, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Just an example. negligent homicide? I dunno. I agree with the slippery slope argument but why wouldn’t this woman’s actions already be a crime without coming up with something new? If I made a move to punch you in the face, and while flinching you fell off a bridge, I would be guilty of at least negligent homicide. Wouldn’t I? Why do we have to make a new law here?
Limerick on May 15, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Careful, O Thou Who Art Not Seen: you’re just making an invitation for Olaf & Co. to preach at you.
Tzetzes on May 15, 2008 at 11:15 PM
I hope her children have a better role model in their lives than this beast.
Aren’t we supposed to teach our children not to pick on those smaller and weaker than us? Looks like nobody ever taught this numbskull that.
EJDolbow on May 15, 2008 at 11:21 PM
I don’t care what she ends up getting time for, I just hope she gets a whole lot of it. Hard to believe she’s a mother.
4shoes on May 15, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Horrible woman but I doubt that she thought the girl would kill herself when the made-up boy broke up with her.
Some of you guys are acting like democrats. You cant make laws and make the world a wonderful place. The girl needed parents blocking the internet and being involved in her life. Not a nanny state. nuff said.
Roger Waters on May 15, 2008 at 11:25 PM
So when do we start prosecuting bad parents who verbally abuse and otherwise neglect their children just this side of the legal line, when their deeply depressed teen/grown children eventually commit suicide? Being in Law Enforcement in a large metropolitan city/county the last 20 years, I’ve seen it plenty.
In this case, I can understand the federal prosecution of the crimes related to the genre along the lines of ‘wire fraud’ and such, but really… you can’t force someone to commit suicide. The person who commits suicide obviously has much deeper issues than we who have not committed suicide can comprehend. It may have been the next bad hair day she had that drove her to suicide, or the next relationship failure, or maybe a future divorce or some such thing. Who knows.
Making laws that implicitly destroy our freedom of speech, however slight, is a slippery slope that has no bottom until the entire right to free speech is dead and buried. The poor girl who committed suicide was old enough to recognize the need for help and was old enough to seek help, and I’m quite sure someone close to her in her life saw that she needed help and didn’t intervene, whether it be acquaintance, friend, teacher, or parent(s). Who’s more guilty? The person sending little tiny 1’s and 0’s to a girl already carrying baggage and predisposed with suicidal tendencies, to whatever degree, or those who had to see and/or hear crys for help and did not act?
If the prosecution of persons exercising their right to freedom of speech results in people being punished by a court of law when someone attempts suicide, or completes suicide, what’s to stop any of the ten’s or hundred’s of thousands of deeply troubled youth, and adults for that matter, knowing of such a law, from attempting/completing suicide and making damn sure a specific person is blamed in such a way so as to lead to the prosecution of that person, strictly out of angsty teen spite, or simply just as a result of their psychosis? Everyone who commits suicide, and I mean everyone, who is not dying a slow and very horrible painful death from terminal illness, who commits suicide, ALWAYS blames a specific person in their life. If not themselves, they ALWAYS blame someone close to them.
SilverStar830 on May 15, 2008 at 11:27 PM
I have hitherto confined my investigations to this world, in a modest way I have combated evil, but to take on the Mother of Evil herself would, perhaps, be too ambitious a task.
Holmes on May 15, 2008 at 11:28 PM
SilverStar…great post, but I still don’t understand how this woman’s actions are any different then the actions of an arsonist who ends up killing a fireman. You obviously have the expertise to set me straight on that. Thanks.
Limerick on May 15, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Penalties for false representation are certinly in order, but the next time your child insults another on MySpace occurs, and you’ll be open to litigation at that point, you will most assuredly be changing your tune.
Death by internet peer pressure is not a crime, although tragic. The mother of the aggrieved girl, the “perpetrator”, catalyst of the suicide is indeed a “scumbag”, but not liable for manslaughter or murder, imho.
I dare anyone to challlenge me on this.
Double dog dare ya!
awake on May 15, 2008 at 11:35 PM
It is murder most foul Silver Star # 830, refined yes, but cold blooded, deliberate murder.
Holmes on May 15, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Die, Lori Drew!
BJ* on May 15, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Shhhhhhh smart one :)
If I believed in revenge I’d send the angels of wrath to her. She’s ugly, from the inside out.
Entelechy on May 15, 2008 at 11:59 PM
If the prosecutor in this case says to the jury “look it, we don’t have anything official in the books but this piece of evil should be locked up” and 12 people agree on it, then that’s cool with me.
Greenhorn on May 16, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Sorry, but I can’t swallow that one. I’m a hang-em-high type conservative, but if a prosecutor told me that then the lady would be home watching Oprah that very afternoon.
Limerick on May 16, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Not quite. Arguably free speech has been on an upward trajectory ever since WWI. In the times of the Founders, things like slander and libel were not kosher. Heck, neither was lots of criticism of the government for a while there.
Free speech deserves every defense. But then again, free speech is about free exchange of ideas. This is not that. It’s arguably closer to standing in a public street outside someone’s home and haranguing them with a loudspeaker. At some point it’s not speech - it’s sound used as a weapon.
And that’s not hyperbole. The girl is dead.
vonspringer on May 16, 2008 at 12:14 AM
This is a bit overblown. We all want revenge because the weird chick offed herself. Had she not killed herself, we would just be calling the woman an asshole.
If I kill myself because someone flames this post and hurts my feelings…what should your punishment be?
Buddahpundit on May 16, 2008 at 12:39 AM
I think the only issue is whether there should be criminal laws to protect the psychologically inferior (suicidal, retarded, etc…) against the psychologically superior regardless of the “means” (anonymous internet persona, voice on the phone, anonymous letters, a disguise, etc..). Don’t complicated the issue with internet law technicalities or it IS a simple matter of slippery slopes, massive chains of endless litigations, and probably a loss of everyone’s liberties, etc…
Would the discussion be this complicated if the victim wasn’t suicidal or young (PI)? Or the perpetrator was 16, 18, 20 yrs old and was perceived on the same psychological level?
Who is responsible for protecting the PI? The PI herself, parents, or the PS?
nottakingsides on May 16, 2008 at 12:39 AM
If it were merely Lori Drew’s daughter who had operated the MySpace page in question, this would be simply yet another case of middle-school girls being cruel. I have a girl named Julie Mayo back in my middle school to whom I owe a broken nose over a similar (though less technically-advanced) stunt.
The issue is, the mother got involved. The mother is presumably a grownup who was supposed to know better and supposed to know when to let up on a vulnerable juvenile.
Sekhmet on May 16, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Are you kidding? She was an “adult” who confessed to the police that she knew the girl had tried to commit suicide once before. This girl was freaking 13 yrs old! Lori Drew worked on this young girl’s mind for 6 weeks, she knew the victim quite well, you can’t tell me the possibility of Megan committing suicide never crossed her mind.
4shoes on May 16, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Did you read the details at all? This “weird chick” was a 13 yr old. Did she have issues? Yes, but that’s not the problem. The problem was this woman who tricked her, knew Megan quite well, their families were friends. The Drew woman also had other people help her. She worked on her head for 6 weeks, then made all the information Megan had given and written, public to Megan’s friends. I could see how devastating that would be to a well grounded 13 yr old. Much more to one with depression issues. For an adult to plot this out against a child is beyond sick, and yes if Megan hadn’t killed herself over it I’d still think the woman deserved all the punishment she could get.
You, I’m assuming are a fairly grounded adult and won’t go off and do something stupid because one person disagreed with you. Big difference there.
4shoes on May 16, 2008 at 1:04 AM
If that is true, then HER parents were reponsible for her well-being.
The scum-bag mother is not responsible for murder no matter how you try to slice it.
awake on May 16, 2008 at 1:14 AM
You see and you observe. Clear malice and forethought demonstrated and murder most foul indeed. Truly the case of “The Mother of Evil”.
Holmes on May 16, 2008 at 1:26 AM
By indirectly legislating the internet?
I’ll agree that some seriously F’d up things happened, and common humanity wants something to be done about this, but one wonders where this could lead in future..
Reaps on May 16, 2008 at 1:48 AM
Last week I was chatting online as I usually do before taking a shower.
I was only wearing an undershirt, nothing else.
So, while browsing looking for chat partners, I found that nickname, it says “Bitch-in-Training” so I said to myself, “what the hell, let me give her some private lessons.”
So I sent a message and we started a conversation which ran for about an hour. After two hours, I was drooling and I said to myself “I gotta meet that hottie” who described herself as “5′9″ sexy white blonde bitch with melon boobs.”
We agreed to meet, turned out she lived in my same town. So I went to the local bar at 5 p.m. waiting for her.
I began drinking, I was thirsty. After finished the third bottle of beer, it was 5:30. I started to worry. She didn’t show up yet. All of a sudden, I felt a tap on my right shoulder, I turned around and lo and behold, I blacked out.
When I woke up from the coma, the nurse told me that the doctors had to sever my head because the cut was wide and deep. I asked, whose head I’m having now and what happened to me? She said the surgical team had to reconstruct my head again from scratch and it might take up to 5 years until I grow ears and a nose.
The moral of this story:
If you want to cheat on your wife online, don’t forget to delete the ‘history’ of your messages.
Indy Conservative on May 16, 2008 at 2:04 AM
This woman is bad, very bad, exceedingly bad–for federalism. So are the grand jury. I’ll let Allahpundit decide for himself whether he’s helping the cause of good government tonight.
Kralizec on May 16, 2008 at 3:20 AM
Actually, being the “most hated woman on the internet” might just be punishment enough.
Before you say that it’s not, stop and think about the implications. How many people — speaking in raw numbers — have read about and are aware of this story, and through it, her identity? And what is the statistical likelihood that she will inadvertently interact with some of those people, in some form, manner or context, at some point in the future? I mean, bin Laden lives in a cave and even he has to interact with outsiders in order to carry on his affairs.
Scarlet letter, indeed.
Cylor on May 16, 2008 at 3:31 AM
Exactly!
That having been said, I’m quite shocked that the state of Missouri doesn’t have something they could charge her with. Child Abuse? Libel? Fraud? Manslaughter? There was obviously willful intent to cause harm, and in most states there are laws to prosecute those that cause harm even without intent.
Browncoatone on May 16, 2008 at 6:25 AM
new rumor:
AP totally stuff his training bra.
Shhhhh.
The Race Card on May 16, 2008 at 6:32 AM
I personally don’t like the idea of being charged in Los Angeles, when she and the victim were a block apart in Missouri. My Space wasn’t the victim of the crime, the crime occoured in Missouri. Claming that it happened on the server in Los Angeles is really weak. I honestly hope the Judge throws it out, because if it isn’t thrown out, we’re all going to be charged everywhere.
What’s next? Internet sales tax from every state your sale goes through as it’s routed through the internet? Will I be charged in Kansas for sending an ugly letter to someone in Washington because the truck drove across Kansas as it hauled my letter to Washington State?
No, this is a serious misuse of the prosecutors power, and it should be quashed by the courts. If it isn’t, we’re all going to suffer from it.
Snake307 on May 16, 2008 at 7:44 AM
Even if she is never convicted, she will be a marked woman in that town of hers for the rest of her life. Everywhere she goes, this horrific thing she did will be there with her.
This case is a prime example of how the internet can be a source of immense good or unimaginable evil, depending on which end of the spectrum you happen to be at.
pilamaye on May 16, 2008 at 7:49 AM
I see no crime here.
She did not kill.
She did not still.
She did not assault.
What she did was cruel but should we have subjective laws?
Maybe she should be shunned to the point of her own suicide?
People take the internets way too serious.
TheSitRep on May 16, 2008 at 8:01 AM
Maybe you’re right. But the parents of the girl definitely have a lawsuit. Intentional infliction of emotional distress, with aggravated damages.
fossten on May 16, 2008 at 8:03 AM
Yeah, while I agree she is complete scum I’m not keen on the Govt getting creative in finding ways to charge people.
Mr. Bingley on May 16, 2008 at 8:08 AM
Are you guys really trying to figure out how to make sock puppetry a criminal offense? Really?
James on May 16, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Kinda of like SC of California making up marriage laws?
Wade on May 16, 2008 at 8:34 AM
Exit question: How do you criminalize cruelty?
You don’t.
You give a few ‘experts’ 10 minutes alone w/her and then see if she learns her lesson.
Some kids deserve a good spanking. So do some adults. Do you honestly think Keith Olbermann wouldn’t change after someone opened up a can on his candy a$$? And I don’t mean some limp-wristed liberal’s version of a smack-across-the-face either, I mean a good beatdown. Yeah, I went there. Some people deserve to have an attitude adjustment.
rjwest21 on May 16, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Exactly.
I have real problems with the government getting involved here, for all the reasons already discussed. Barring proof of actual intent to cause this degree of harm, they’re hopping on a painfully slippery slope.
But setting aside the constitutional legalities or lack thereof … I actually think this has been taken care of pretty well.
This woman has been shamed and shunned to a degree that would have been impossible and unimaginable before the Internet age. No matter what, this will follow her forever; no matter what, for as long as she lives, she’ll inspire atheists to pine for the existence of a Hell.
That’s some pretty good punishment. Beats the hell out of probation and community service picking up garbage by the Interstate.
And the irony that the Internet, the very tool she used for her cruelty, has now been cruelly turned against her in a fit of unprecedented (and wholly warranted) cyber-rage makes the whole thing just delicious.
Frankly, I’ll bet at this point she’d do anything to trade a year or two in jail for the shambles her life has become.
Professor Blather on May 16, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Here’s an applicable passage from the terms of use, which the company claims is a legally binding contract, that you agree to when you make a Myspace profile: “By using the MySpace Services, you represent and warrant that (a) all registration information you submit is truthful and accurate; (b) you will maintain the accuracy of such information…”
Also, prohibited material includes that which:
“8.2 harasses or advocates harassment of another person;
8.3 exploits people in a sexual or violent manner;”
Does anyone know if breach of contract carries jail time? If not, then perhaps a solution more acceptable to both sides would be for Myspace to sue this woman for breach of contract in civil court.
Regardless, I’m not shedding any tears.
joewm315 on May 16, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Right.
So anytime anyone does something to someone - and the recipient of some behavior commits suicide - we prosecute for murder?
Yikes.
Think about that one long and hard. Ever said anything mean to anybody in your whole life? Ever made fun of anybody?
The difference between arson and this is simple: reasonable foreseeability. An arsonist can reasonably foresee potential injury or death, just as a robbery getaway driver can reasonably foresee violence.
Can every bully and coward reasonably foresee which actions done to which victims might lead to suicide?
Hardly.
Your idea would certainly make suicide more interesting, though: it’d become an easy way to get back at someone. Every suicide note would just spell out who it was that caused the depression - and then the government would step in.
Right?
I repeat: yikes.
Professor Blather on May 16, 2008 at 9:13 AM
whoa with the knee jerk reactions.
The woman needs therapy.
bridgetown on May 16, 2008 at 9:30 AM
I’m torn on this.
On one hand, I believe that this woman is a vile person for doing what she did, and on an emotional level, I’d like to see something very horrible happen to her.
On the other hand - the logical level - I see a slippery slope. Liberals will use this as a means to pass even more laws that make it illegal to hurt someone’s oh-so-pwecious widdle feewings.
Vic on May 16, 2008 at 9:32 AM
When Chat rooms were young, I used to frequent them. I’ve never met such a vast array of unstable people in my life. Even now that I restrict myself to political message boards, I have had the misfortune of talking to some real nut jobs.
It’s stupid for adults to make themselves known over the net much less letting your kids do it. Many people don’t have any friends except for the online version..barring the homebound.. there is a reason they have no real life friends.
Watch your kids closely and be very prudent of their online activities.
MSNBC is making a report on Lori Drew as I type.
GoodBoy on May 16, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Some of you are forgetting that the last message this vile woman left for Megan said “the world would be better off without you.” You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to know that means “please go kill yourself; I want you dead.” With an insecure 13-year-old, that’s as good as pulling the trigger yourself.
Many kids at 13-14 are VERY sensitive. They are just starting to have strong feelings of attraction and love but do not have the wisdom to modulate those feelings or understand them completely. Feelings of embarrassment and humiliation involving an actual or perceived love relationship can easily push a young teen into thinking of suicide, because they really believe their lives are ruined forever. I have some personal experience in this area as the mother of an extremely sensitive 14-year-old.
It is not possible for a mother of a 13-year-old not to know this about kids this age. This woman knew EXACTLY what she was doing and exactly what it would do to Megan. If she claims she did not think it would lead to Megan’s suicide, she is lying.
There HAS to be a crime here. This is beyond mere cruelty, it is pretty close to murder and needs to be defined as such in the law to deter such actions by others in the future.
rockmom on May 16, 2008 at 10:12 AM
I don’t see any ’slippery slope’ here in terms of the law.
This was clearly harassment with the intent to inflict distress. We need laws like this. I was the victim of a similar case in which the feds prosecuted the guy- who harassed and threatened me on the internet for a year and a half. He went to prison for 3 months.
Urban Infidel on May 16, 2008 at 10:17 AM
When somebody takes their life as a direct result of your cruel actions? Would that work?
This woman does not deserve 20 years in prison. If there’s anything worse, she deserves that.
abcurtis on May 16, 2008 at 10:32 AM
I’d also like to add to my above comment that in my case, the perpetrator was ultimately charged with lying to a federal agent because the internet harassment law hadn’t been signed until after he committed his crimes. If it had been, he’d have gone away for a much, much longer stretch.
Urban Infidel on May 16, 2008 at 10:34 AM
We can for animals, but we can’t for humans?
spmat on May 16, 2008 at 10:40 AM
The issue is in the gulf of competency between Meghan and Lori. If it were Lori’s daughter who had done all this, there would be little to no gulf between them.
What this boil on the butt of humanity did is like one of us forcing an excitable, inexperienced ten-year-old to tend to his own rattlesnake bite.
Sekhmet on May 16, 2008 at 10:41 AM
The things that constitute cruelty to animals are already illegal to do to a human. Except, I guess, owning a treadmill to condition them to fighting trim.
James on May 16, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Are you kiddin’ me Allah??
Easy dude- the same way you criminalize HATE!
Throw away the constitution and JUST DO IT>
Ex-tex on May 16, 2008 at 11:11 AM
How was the girl being “harassed”? I thought she believed the relationship to be an internet boyfriend. Are you saying that breaking up with someone is criminal “harassment”?
It is okay to be venting against evil and such, but the comments promoting criminality so far have very little logic or specifics.
nottakingsides on May 16, 2008 at 11:19 AM
It wasn’t just a break up. She told a pre-teen girl that the world would be a better place if she killed herself.
Tanya on May 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I’ve never understood why the girl’s family didn’t file a civil suit holding this woman responsible. Like Nicole Brown’s family successfully bankrupted OJ, and Robert Blake’s wife’s family filed a lawsuit against him. I agree that the state prosecuting this vile person is dicey, but it seems to me that the girl’s family has an excellent case in holding her responsible for the death, and bankruptcy for the woman’s family (including her equally-responsible daughter) is just as good as prison time.
NahnCee on May 16, 2008 at 12:18 PM
They showed her
Helloyawl on May 16, 2008 at 12:24 PM
So what is the exact criminal charge? Even if you made a law up from scratch, I would like to hear a charge that would be rational and could be applied to the gen population.
nottakingsides on May 16, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Now I have to ask why you’re pretending to care, when you didn’t even bother reading the original blog entry. The charges are listed.
Tanya on May 16, 2008 at 8:11 PM
“Lonergan said Drew was charged with accessing a protected computer to obtain information”
Yes, I got that part. What does that have to do with your beef?:
You were referring to that particular act as being criminal. What would be the specific charge? If you could make one up, what would it be?
nottakingsides on May 16, 2008 at 11:37 PM
I don’t think you can make someone responsible for someone else’s weak psychological condition.
Does the woman deserve a beating, oh yeah. However I Dont think there’s a statute in TX anyway, that I could charge her with if I wanted to.
tx2654 on May 17, 2008 at 6:42 AM
I tend to agree. The civil suit and a wrongful death liability case is in order however and I’m usually against most ‘get rich’ suits.
tx2654 on May 17, 2008 at 6:45 AM