Update on the Megan Meier case

[Izulde]

The mother who posed as Josh Evans was officially indicted Thursday according to CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/15/internet.suicide/index.html

Sorry, I couldn't find the thread about it to bump it.

[fantom1979]

just for reference

Scumbaggery of the highest order - Front Office Football Central (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=62140)

[RainMaker]

I think the mother is a sick person who deserves whatever bad karma she has brought on herself. But I think indicting her for this is a dangerous path to head down. Does this mean that if someone kills themself, anyone who was mean to that person online can go to jail?

[RainMaker]

And why didn't they go after the Ashley Grills girl? She was 17 at the time (surely could be charged as an adult) and has admitted much more involvement in the case. She was the one that told her to kill herself. I understand the fact the mother being involved is more shocking, but it seems like selective prosecution.

If I was the father of the girl, I'd probably just kill both of them.

[Sweed]

I think the mother is a sick person who deserves whatever bad karma she has brought on herself. But I think indicting her for this is a dangerous path to head down. Does this mean that if someone kills themself, anyone who was mean to that person online can go to jail?

The thing to me is that they targeted this girl, it wasn't someone they didn't know. I don't know you from Adam in the real world so if my comments online cause you to kill yourself then I think the "dangerous path" applies.

If you're my neighbor and I target you specifically, even if only to harass, and something goes wrong then maybe I am liable for my actions? I don't know enough about the law to know if prosecutors can make any charges in this case stick. I do like the fact that they are at least willing to try.

If I was the father of the girl, I'd probably just kill both of them.

As a father this thought would be on my mind especially if I was hearing from prosecutors and police "I'm sorry there's just nothing we can do". Knowing the authorities were at least trying to pursue some sort of justice might be the thing that would stop me from carrying through.

[Anthony]

i don't buy this. telling someone they should go kill themselves and they actually do it - that's not even manslaughter. free speech is covered here. i can't be held responsible if someone is not well-adjusted and is emotionally unstable. if that's the case then we can never say anything bad to anyone, online or not. what was she doing being allowed to go online then? her internet usage should've been monitored more closely. her parents mentioned how depressed she was, they should've had tighter control over her exposure to potentially harmful interaction.

if i'm at a bar and swaggs is a recovering alcholic (and i'm not aware of it) and i pressure him into having a shot with me, and then he has another, and another, and then he gets in his car and drives and kills himself in an accident - how is that my fault? you can't create an environment where any little minor thing you do/say that results in some way the death of another person is now a crime. i think clearly there was no malice or intent to physically harm the girl.

[JonInMiddleGA]

One of the most f'ed up prosecutions I can recall hearing about in a long time.
Just an absurd situation, and the person who needs to be knocked upside the head more than anyone is the mother of the suicide girl, if she does her job & doesn't let her 13 year old get cyber-involved with a (presumably) 16 y/o guy online, none of this happens.

I sincerely hope some of the analysts are correct and a judge will toss out this creative misapplication of a law that was never intended for this purpose.

[st.cronin]

Kind of agree with Sweed, my bet is the prosecutors don't actually think they have a case, but they evaluate the cost of doing nothing as higher than the cost of pressing forward with a losing case.

[Anthony]

i didn't want to say it - but i, too, believe megan's mother is the one to blame. if i'm that girl's mom, my 1st words are "first of all - what are you doing having an online romance??? how do you know that's even a boy you were talking to and not some sick pedophile?".

see, this is the fucking reason why girls get raped/killed by online predators. i mean, this is 2008 - is it not common sense that you can't trust strangers online. hasn't the "To Catch A Predator" series taught teens anything? if i ever have a teen girl, i'm going to show her clips of that show to let her know that these online romances are a recipe for disaster.

and what's a mother doing not consoling a girl who the mom herself said is not emotionally stable and is (to use the mother's own word) "depressed". sorry guys, this is all Megan's mom's fault. telling someone to go kill themselves is not a threat and could be argued is a figure of speech. while it was childish for the other girl's mom to go onto myspace to pose as a boy, it could be argued that this was an extreme case of excessively monitoring one's own child.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Kind of agree with Sweed, my bet is the prosecutors don't actually think they have a case, but they evaluate the cost of doing nothing as higher than the cost of pressing forward with a losing case.

But in this instance, there was really no cost of doing nothing. The prosecutors in the local jurisidiction already declined to prosecute. This was venue shopped until they found someone stupid enough to try to conjure up something they could apply. In this case it looks to be more like some low rung prosecutor halfway across the country trying to get themselves a little notoriety.

[st.cronin]

But in this instance, there was really no cost of doing nothing. The prosecutors in the local jurisidiction already declined to prosecute. This was venue shopped until they found someone stupid enough to try to conjure up something they could apply. In this case it looks to be more like some low rung prosecutor halfway across the country trying to get themselves a little notoriety.

You may be right, and I wasn't suggesting that "the cost of doing nothing" was something other than missing out on some potential political benefits, or in any way noble. I just find it impossible to believe that anybody could look at this objectively and think this indictment is appropriate.

[SteveMax58]

Yeah...I have to say I agree with some of the comments made about the girl's mom being the one to look at more closely.

The other girl's mom(the antagonizer) is a horrible person. She probably deserves some sort of punishment(stalking, fraud, corruption of a minor, reckless endangerment, IDK...I'll leave it to those more legal savvy than I).

I hope this lady pays a serious price, whether that be karma, afterlife, whatever...but I dont think you can go down the manslaughter path(or more serious) and start putting people behind bars for the after effects of being a completely heartless ass to somebody...even if it is a minor.

[chesapeake]

The content of these chats is not clear from the article. If all Drew did was call the girl a stinkyhead, then, sure that would be a silly prosecution. But if the content of these chats, and testimony about whatever discussions she had with her accomplices to manipulate the other child, shows that there was malicious intent to manipulate her, I can see how prosecution would be completely justified.

"I just meant to scare her a little with the knife, your honor. How was I to know she would run right at me an impale herself on it?"

[JonInMiddleGA]

But if the content of these chats, and testimony about whatever discussions she had with her accomplices to manipulate the other child, shows that there was malicious intent to manipulate her, I can see how prosecution would be completely justified.

It seems logical to believe that there was intent to manipulate her emotions in some fashion but I've seen nothing that points to an intent to cause physical harm.

From a different article (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080516/D90MKBTO0.html), here's a blip from un-charged 19 year old participant (an employee of the indicted woman)

Last month, an employee of Drew, 19-year-old Ashley Grills, told ABC's "Good Morning America" she created the false MySpace profile but Drew wrote some of the messages to Megan.

Grills said Drew suggested talking to Megan via the Internet to find out what Megan was saying about Drew's daughter, who was a former friend.

Grills also said she wrote the message to Megan about the world being a better place without her. The message was supposed to end the online relationship with "Josh" because Grills felt the joke had gone too far.

"I was trying to get her angry so she would leave him alone and I could get rid of the whole MySpace," Grills told the morning show.

[chesapeake]

It wouldn't need to be just physical harm to be actionable. If physical harm were the legal benchmark, than there would be no justification for arresting someone for making a child watch a sexual act. So causing psychological trauma to a minor is a legitimate cause for action.

But to win a conviction, I think the prosecutor will have to prove either malicious intent or that a reasonable person should have known that the actions taken or directed by Drew would cause serious psychological harm in a child. And if the prosecutor can prove that, I think jail time would be well deserved.

Based on what little information I have, I couldn't say whether it will be proven in this case. But I don't dismiss the possibility that it could be.

[chesapeake]

I should add for clarity, we are probably looking at reaching the legal benchmarks where a charge of psychological child abuse would kick in.

[Shkspr]

Just keep in mind that the specific charges filed against Drew have nothing to do with the level of maliciousness contained in her messages. They'll play into sentencing, but it is the specific act of creating the page with fake information that is being charged. If Drew merely called the girl a stinkyhead, that has no legal bearing on exactly what the indictment would look like.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I should add for clarity, we are probably looking at reaching the legal benchmarks where a charge of psychological child abuse would kick in.

Except that prosecutors with jurisdiction over those level of charges have already examined the case & found no grounds for criminal charges. That aspect appears to have already been settled.

What's left now is California prosecutor (acting on the basis that servers involved are based in Cali instead of Missouri) trying to find something to trump up.

[RainMaker]

The only thing I thought they might have gotten the mother for was some kind of online solicitation. If the conversations were sexual in any nature, I figured they could hit her with that. Isn't it illegal for an adult to have conversations with anything sexual in nature with a minor online? Either way, the indictment is bullshit. That lady is the lowest scum on this planet, but doesn't break any real laws. If being mean and coniving is against the law online, then half the internet will be arrested tomorrow.

[chesapeake]

"Drew faces up to 20 years in prison on charges of conspiracy and accessing protected computers to obtain information to inflict emotional distress."

Assuming this is reported accurately, I believe that the intent to cause harm to a minor is part of the charge, and thus would have to be proven.

As to Jon's point, I would agree that the charges coming from CA and not MO is odd and may not be a good sign. But, again, if this prosecutor can prove to the jury that Drew acted with intent to harm a child, I'm not going to cry about the venue.

[RainMaker]

i didn't want to say it - but i, too, believe megan's mother is the one to blame. if i'm that girl's mom, my 1st words are "first of all - what are you doing having an online romance??? how do you know that's even a boy you were talking to and not some sick pedophile?".

see, this is the fucking reason why girls get raped/killed by online predators. i mean, this is 2008 - is it not common sense that you can't trust strangers online. hasn't the "To Catch A Predator" series taught teens anything? if i ever have a teen girl, i'm going to show her clips of that show to let her know that these online romances are a recipe for disaster.

and what's a mother doing not consoling a girl who the mom herself said is not emotionally stable and is (to use the mother's own word) "depressed". sorry guys, this is all Megan's mom's fault. telling someone to go kill themselves is not a threat and could be argued is a figure of speech. while it was childish for the other girl's mom to go onto myspace to pose as a boy, it could be argued that this was an extreme case of excessively monitoring one's own child.

I agreed with your thoughts on the mother, but have changed it recently. The girl had serious self-esteem issues from what we've gathered, and it seems like the Mother felt this was something making her happy. She seemed to have been monitoring their online relationship better than most parents do. Yes she probably should have done better, but she was the mother of a fragile teenager. We just don't know what anyone would do in that situation. Hindisight is 20/20.

I don't know if anyone is to blame for this. I think it was just an unfortunate event. The mother may have made mistakes, but how could she know a failed internet relationship would end in her daughter killing herself? Was she supposed to shelter her child from every potential life issue? I'm sure she beats herself up daily for this, but I don't know if I would have handled the situation any better. There is no handbook to raising teenagers.

The one thing that really bothers me about this story is the sheer cruelty in this world. Obviously the Grills girl who made the account was battling self-esteem issues herself (as seen by her being 100 pounds overweight) and is not as innocent as she tries to make herself out to be. But has society always been this motivated to hurt other people psychologically for their own benefit? Is fucking with a 13 year old's mind what we do for fun today? I just can't fathom doing this to another human being.

The best punishment would be to neuter everyone involved. Just stop these people from reproducing.

[RainMaker]

"Drew faces up to 20 years in prison on charges of conspiracy and accessing protected computers to obtain information to inflict emotional distress."

Assuming this is reported accurately, I believe that the intent to cause harm to a minor is part of the charge, and thus would have to be proven.

As to Jon's point, I would agree that the charges coming from CA and not MO is odd and may not be a good sign. But, again, if this prosecutor can prove to the jury that Drew acted with intent to harm a child, I'm not going to cry about the venue.
I'm not familiar with the law, but is "intent to harm a child" strictly physical or does it include psychological?

[Shkspr]

"Drew faces up to 20 years in prison on charges of conspiracy and accessing protected computers to obtain information to inflict emotional distress."

Assuming this is reported accurately, I believe that the intent to cause harm to a minor is part of the charge, and thus would have to be proven.

As to Jon's point, I would agree that the charges coming from CA and not MO is odd and may not be a good sign. But, again, if this prosecutor can prove to the jury that Drew acted with intent to harm a child, I'm not going to cry about the venue.

As I linked in the earlier thread, here's the blog post (http://www.popehat.com/2008/05/15/there-ought-to-be-a-law-federal-criminal-power-and-the-missouri-myspace-suicide-case/)
from a former federal prosecutor in the Los Angeles office about the indictment that clarifies the actual statutes involved. While I don't know (and doubt he would disclose) if he has any personal connection to the people prosecuting the case, I suspect he is spot-on with his analysis.

[chesapeake]

That is an interesting post, Shkspr, and I will have to defer to his analysis of the legal particulars without any personal knowledge of the case other than the CNN story. I'd probably agree with this point he makes:

"Let me be clear — if Drew did what she’s accused of, she’s a vile human being and deserves punishment. But I, for one, am not entirely comfortable with a scheme of federal law flexible enough to address any wrong we might want to punish."

Admittedly making the assumption that Drew had malicious intent or acted with severe negligence, I would turn it around a little bit and say that it would be a shame if an adult conspired with two minors to inflict psychological abuse on a 13-year-old (which contributed directly to her death) and avoided all punishment because she found a way to do it that was outside of existing law.

[st.cronin]

"Let me be clear — if Drew did what she’s accused of, she’s a vile human being and deserves punishment. But I, for one, am not entirely comfortable with a scheme of federal law flexible enough to address any wrong we might want to punish."

I don't agree with this. I think ideally the law should be able to address any wrong committed by anybody. What makes this case untenable, in my view, is the fact that the actions and the outcome seem disconnected. Its hard to imagine any sort of texting or online communications, or really any kind of communication, that would put the recipient at risk of suicide. Nobody forced the girl to log on and read the messages.

[chesapeake]

Its hard to imagine any sort of texting or online communications, or really any kind of communication, that would put the recipient at risk of suicide. Nobody forced the girl to log on and read the messages.

I disagree entirely. With respect, of course :)

Online communications were used last week to convince a professor at Seattle University to fly to Denver to have sex with a teenage boy. Fortunately, the particular teenage boy was a state policemen.

Different case and motivations, of course. Perhaps a better one would be the stack of cases of online predators convincing children to have sex with them solely through internet conversations. Maybe the kid was predisposed to do this act before ever logging onto the internet; but the adult that lured him/her into having sex is a criminal, and we'd all agree that every book in the library should be thrown at him.

I guess I have no difficulty in seeing how internet chats and emails could be used to hurt a girl enough to lead her to kill herself, seeing how they are used to convince kids to have sex with some very undesireable lowlifes.

[stevew]

I think they won't be able to make this case stick.

And if the father were to take her out, I think it would be pretty hard to convict him as well. But at least he'd have commited an actionable(and justifiable) crime.

This is mainly the mother's fault, IMO. It's not that hard to block myspace.

[Huckleberry]

Online communications were used last week to convince a professor at Seattle University to fly to Denver to have sex with a teenage boy. Fortunately, the particular teenage boy was a state policemen.

Actually, the man thought he was flying to Denver to have sex with a 13-year-old girl.

[BrianD]

This is mainly the mother's fault, IMO. It's not that hard to block myspace.

The mother was monitoring and approving friend additions. The mother wasn't trying to keep her kid off of Myspace, she just wanted to make sure the friend additions were reasonable. That doesn't seem to bad to me.

[st.cronin]

I'm actually not sure why it has to be anybody's fault. A troubled teenager committed suicide - I'm sure every time that happens, you could, if you wanted, find somebody to blame. But I'm not sure that's the right way to look at it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The mother wasn't trying to keep her kid off of Myspace, she just wanted to make sure the friend additions were reasonable.

And there's absolutely no "reasonable" excuse I can find for a parent to approve a 13 y/o girl to engage in even quasi-"romantic" conversations with a 16 y/o boy online. None. Nada. Zip.

(If you go back to the original thread, there was a quote to the effect that the "hotness" of the guy had something to do with the 13 y/o's interest in him)

[chesapeake]

Actually, the man thought he was flying to Denver to have sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Thanks for the correction. Awful story.

[Anthony]

I'm actually not sure why it has to be anybody's fault. A troubled teenager committed suicide - I'm sure every time that happens, you could, if you wanted, find somebody to blame. But I'm not sure that's the right way to look at it.

correct. however, my point is out of all the people to be indicted - the mother of Megan is the most responsible. not that she should, but if someone must be found responsible then it shouldn't be the person who is currently being indicted.

[BrianD]

And there's absolutely no "reasonable" excuse I can find for a parent to approve a 13 y/o girl to engage in even quasi-"romantic" conversations with a 16 y/o boy online. None. Nada. Zip.

(If you go back to the original thread, there was a quote to the effect that the "hotness" of the guy had something to do with the 13 y/o's interest in him)

And there was also a quote to the effect that the mother was uncomfortable with that, but the daughter wasn't connecting to people locally and the mother was relaxing her standards to try to let her daughter make a personal connection. If I remember properly, the mother was also monitoring the conversations. It may have worked out to be a bad decision, but it wasn't like the mother just didn't care and let her daughter do anything.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I would turn it around a little bit and say that it would be a shame if an adult conspired with two minors to inflict psychological abuse on a 13-year-old (which contributed directly to her death) and avoided all punishment because she found a way to do it that was outside of existing law.

If, as you seem to contend here, that inflicting "psychological abuse" on a teenager should be considered criminal conduct and that what is ultimately nothing more than an updated take on the fake-secret- admirer-note-in-the-locker prank that's been around for decades clears the threshold for "psychological abuse" (and if the legal system ultimately agrees with you) then I'd have to say that anyone who communicates with a teenager online would have to be a complete moron to take such a risk.
And any site that would allow teens to participate in any interactive communication would have to be pretty damned stupid as well.

If, God forbid, any civil or criminal legal consequences do ultimately come from this case it seems foolish to think that lawsuits against every website owner involved in anything remotely similar will follow in rapid succession.

Let's put it in another light for a second, what if jbmagic had been a teenager? I can't imagine there wasn't something that could be considered "psychological abuse" typed in his direction at some point. And I'd be surprised if there weren't at least one or two times where one FOFC'er said to another in a PM "watch this, I'm gonna really take a poke at jbmagic", so there's your conspiracy. Are there really people who believe that anything posted here toward him should have been considered criminal?

[Maple Leafs]

And there's absolutely no "reasonable" excuse I can find for a parent to approve a 13 y/o girl to engage in even quasi-"romantic" conversations with a 16 y/o boy online. None. Nada. Zip.
What possible conversation could two teenagers of the opposite sex have that wasn't "quasi-romantic"?

And do you feel the same way about phone conversations?

[Axxon]

It seems logical to believe that there was intent to manipulate her emotions in some fashion but I've seen nothing that points to an intent to cause physical harm.

From a different article (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080516/D90MKBTO0.html), here's a blip from un-charged 19 year old participant (an employee of the indicted woman)

Last month, an employee of Drew, 19-year-old Ashley Grills, told ABC's "Good Morning America" she created the false MySpace profile but Drew wrote some of the messages to Megan.

Grills said Drew suggested talking to Megan via the Internet to find out what Megan was saying about Drew's daughter, who was a former friend.

Grills also said she wrote the message to Megan about the world being a better place without her. The message was supposed to end the online relationship with "Josh" because Grills felt the joke had gone too far.

"I was trying to get her angry so she would leave him alone and I could get rid of the whole MySpace," Grills told the morning show.

No, I don't believe the woman intentionally wanted to kill the girl but she sure as hell knew the girl was messed up and in fact had been in charge of the girls medications in the past during vacations. She had to know the potential was there and she didn't care.

I saw the interview with Grills and it really looks to me like that kid is paying the price for what she did. I believe she sincerely knows she screwed up but Ms Drew is trying to exonerate herself by blaming it all on Grills and trying to screw up someone else's life.

She's never once expressed any remorse and in fact continued to pretend to be a family friend after the fact. She's a heartless and evil woman who unfortunately has already spawned a little satan jr.

I don't think there's any way in hell this case plays all the way through and I agree that it shouldn't but this evil will have to face up to what she did for a while longer and spend more money on lawyers and not be able to forget what a worthless human being she is.

Since she has shown no remorse at all I'm all for doing this to her and forcing her to lose something. Now, if by some miracle she loses the case then people can hate her even more for being the stupid cow who messed it up for all assholes who want the right to be assholes. Again, not that bad a thing.

I mean, I feel for all the socially challenged individuals who can communicate no other ways but being an asshole but frankly, most of them aren't ever going to rise to this level of assholishness so I think they'll be just fine.

This isn't about just being an asshole. It's about taking information you took from a child and attempt to ruin the life of said child. Lets be clear here. If Megan was an adult that lived in another state, we'd never be talking about this case like this.

As for Megan's mom, the only criticism I have of her, and trust me, it's a biggie, is letting her 13 year old lie to get an account. That's irresponsible, dishonest and a slew of things a parent shouldn't be with any kids, much less a depressed one.

Aside from that though, she seemed to be fairly observant about her daughters activities and who she was talking to and no cybersex occurred. She thought she was helping her daughter relate to other people.

As for the last night and not being sure she had logged off myspace then all I can say is hindsight is 20/20 vision. Between someone doing her best and making a bad judgment call and someone who has spent months systematically creating an alter ego to push every button you can on a disturbed child, I'm going to lay blame on the latter hands down. I take it we disagree on this.

Also, no idea if it's true but I read that Grills was given immunity to testify against Drew and that's why she can talk and she's not getting prosecuted. I'm not sure I agree with that choice if it's true either but the only reason I am even on the fence is because it really looks like she's paying for her sins already.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It may have worked out to be a bad decision, but it wasn't like the mother just didn't care and let her daughter do anything.

But there's the problem ... she let her daughter do it anyway, in spite of the fact that I can't imagine how anyone but a complete idiot would have approved of the situation. If anyone should be facing charges it's her, for parental neglect or something along the lines depraved indifference leading to the death of a minor (or a more correct way of phrasing negligent homicide when you negligently contribute to a suicide)

[st.cronin]

what if jbmagic had been a teenager?

must... resist... easy... joke...

[JonInMiddleGA]

What possible conversation could two teenagers of the opposite sex have that wasn't "quasi-romantic"?

Fair point.

And do you feel the same way about phone conversations?
In the most general sense, yeah, I can't imagine I'd approve of my (hypothetical) 13 y/o daughter being on the phone with a 16 y/o guy, for the precise reason you so eloquently stated above. I have to say "generally" because it seems as though words spoken aloud are easier to monitor than something silently typed, and erasable at the click of a shutdown box.

edit to add:

And the lesson we can draw here, I believe, is that if you're a teenage girl then you should be extremely thankful that I'm not your father.

[Passacaglia]

must... resist... easy... joke...

i heard the only age when jbmagic was a teenager was 16. His other ages were 1, 2, 4, 8, 32, and 64.

[JonInMiddleGA]

must... resist... easy... joke...

Yeah, yeah, I know. I thought about that too ;)
But I couldn't come up with a better local example to use.

i heard the only age when jbmagic was a teenager was 16. His other ages were 1, 2, 4, 8, 32, and 64.

And 2/3rds, never forget 2/3rds.

[CU Tiger]

telling someone to go kill themselves is not a threat and could be argued is a figure of speech.

"Go kill yourself" is a figure of speech.
The world would be much better off if you were dead, that one I am not familiar with.


if i'm at a bar and swaggs is a recovering alcholic (and i'm not aware of it) and i pressure him into having a shot with me, and then he has another, and another, and then he gets in his car and drives and kills himself in an accident - how is that my fault?

Lets make it more relevent.
If you are at a bar and swaggs is 19, but looks much older and you buy him drinks. Now you have contributed to the delinquency of a minor. I think the fact that an adult harassess a minor should be a crime in and of itself, I do not however believe it is manslaughter.


This is really tough for me to have an opinion on. The other mother is clearly a douche, Megan's mom probably made some decisions that in hindsight were not perfect, and the girl had other issues as well. I wont really mind if they all drop dead, I will be a little disturbed if they are convicted in a state (ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE's REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA) that no one lived in...

[JeffNights]

Kind of agree with Sweed, my bet is the prosecutors don't actually think they have a case, but they evaluate the cost of doing nothing as higher than the cost of pressing forward with a losing case.


I believe this has been covered on this board before, The Feds dont go after cases they cant win, that is a proven fact. The numbers speak for themselves.

[chesapeake]

If, as you seem to contend here, that inflicting "psychological abuse" on a teenager should be considered criminal conduct

Child abuse is a crime in every state in the US, and it includes psychological abuse. And you and I would both agree that it is a good thing that it is. I chose the word "abuse" for that specific reason.

As I stated earlier, the prosecutor probably has to reach a high threshold in this case -- likely something that the jury would find akin to psychological abuse. I stick by that.

You have assumed that because the MO legal folks didn't charge Drew, there isn't anything like that there. I have already conceded you may be right, but I don't rule out the possibility that you may be wrong, since none of us on the board have had access to the chat transcripts and email traffic.

Maybe it is an overzealous CA prosecutor; maybe it is an incompetent MO prosecutor. Maybe both prosecutors want to pursue the case, but a difference in the laws in the states enables one prosecution and prohibits another. Any way you slice it, we are speculating based on the content of evidence we don't have access to.

I probably have more faith in the jury process and the appeals courts to sort this out than you do, but that is fodder for another thread :)

[BrianD]

But there's the problem ... she let her daughter do it anyway, in spite of the fact that I can't imagine how anyone but a complete idiot would have approved of the situation. If anyone should be facing charges it's her, for parental neglect or something along the lines depraved indifference leading to the death of a minor (or a more correct way of phrasing negligent homicide when you negligently contribute to a suicide)

The girl created a fake Myspace account and the mom made her close it when she found out. Some time later (I don't think the article specified) she let her daughter create a new account with the understanding that she was going to monitor all of the communication...which she did. It isn't neglect to allow closely monitored communication. The tragedy is that mom couldn't talk to her daughter once crap started happening.

I wouldn't consider it to terrible to allow an anonymous internet friendship if you are going to monitor those communications and make sure they stay within acceptable boundaries.

[judicial clerk]

This seems like just another type of bullying, and the people responsible need their asses kicked. This adult woman and the others were being complete jerks to a 13 year old little kid. I am sure the result was beyond what they intended, but they shouldn't be messing with kids like this.

I don't buy blaming the mother. Imagine how hard it is to help a child with depression when plenty of adults have a hard time managing their depression. The depresion and volatility are probably multiplied ten-fold by the fact that this is a 13 year old girl having to deal with all the pressures of being in middle school or high school. And then these people go out of their way to fuck with this poor dumb kid. WTF.

From the legal point of view, there is nothing wrong with this indictment. People are saying that this shouldn't be responsible for the girls death or this cant be even manslaughter. The story doesn't read that they defendants are be charge with any sort of homicide, but instead with violating some technical federal computer statutes. Also, the fact that this is brought in california is not a big deal. This is an example of the difference between the federal and state criminal justice system. Federal law and state law are not the same. Different actions that are not illegal under state law my be illegal under federal law and vice versa. In this case, these losers actions did not violate any Missouri laws, but they arguably violated some federal laws.

[chesapeake]

[quote=CU Tiger;1729493If you are at a bar and swaggs is 19, but looks much older and you buy him drinks. Now you have contributed to the delinquency of a minor. I think the fact that an adult harassess a minor should be a crime in and of itself, I do not however believe it is manslaughter.[/quote]

It might be if, after downing the six shots you bought him, Swaggs got into his car and drove it into a tree and bled out. Depending on the state, there is probably a lesser felony you could plead to, though.

[RainMaker]

I saw the interview with Grills and it really looks to me like that kid is paying the price for what she did. I believe she sincerely knows she screwed up but Ms Drew is trying to exonerate herself by blaming it all on Grills and trying to screw up someone else's life.

Grills has come out and said she created the account and sent the majority of the messages. She also said she was the one that sent the last message.

I understand people want to all assume this was some coniving plan by the other Mother, but I have to feel that an obese 17-year old girl was also doing this as a form of building their own self-esteem. I think the Grills girl gets off too easy as everyone has focused on the Mother because of the audacity of them being involved. She is just as responsible in my eyes and deserves a lot of blame.

This isn't to say the Drew lady is in the clear, just saying if they targeted the Mother, they should also have targeted those involved.

[RainMaker]

In the most general sense, yeah, I can't imagine I'd approve of my (hypothetical) 13 y/o daughter being on the phone with a 16 y/o guy, for the precise reason you so eloquently stated above. I have to say "generally" because it seems as though words spoken aloud are easier to monitor than something silently typed, and erasable at the click of a shutdown box.

You're dealing with a hypothetical daughter though. Someone you have no attachment to, no emotions toward. The Mother probably just wanted her daughter to fit in, feel a bond to someone. Dealing with a child who has depression is so tough on a parent. In hindsight she may have made bad decisions, and I guarantee she beats herself up for it. But I think a lot of parents would have done the same thing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I wouldn't consider it to terrible to allow an anonymous internet friendship if you are going to monitor those communications and make sure they stay within acceptable boundaries.

But when the "anonymous internet friendship" is based around a troubled 13 y/o's criteria of "he's hot", you're outside acceptable boundaries of any competent parenting AFAIC.

The mother (and her obvious effort to look like Heather Locklear circa Melrose Place) wasn't worth a damn in this case & is a really miserable p.o.s. in my eyes for trying to put the blame anywhere other than where it belongs: her own parenting failure.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But I think a lot of parents would have done the same thing.

I won't disagree with you on that. There's no shortage of really crappy parents in the world.

[BrianD]

But when the "anonymous internet friendship" is based around a troubled 13 y/o's criteria of "he's hot", you're outside acceptable boundaries of any competent parenting AFAIC.

If it was unsupervised, then I would agree with you. In a supervised setting though...not a problem. At that age, that is pretty much the only reason you would be interested in talking to a new person.

[JonInMiddleGA]

At that age, that is pretty much the only reason you would be interested in talking to a new person.

And why the teen pregnancy rate is once again on the rise
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120501208.html

And why over 4% percent of girls under the age of 19 get pregnant each year
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/includes/teen_births_2006.pdf

[Anthony]

The Mother probably just wanted her daughter to fit in, feel a bond to someone. Dealing with a child who has depression is so tough on a parent. In hindsight she may have made bad decisions, and I guarantee she beats herself up for it. But I think a lot of parents would have done the same thing.

i can assure you my future children will not be allowed to have any communication via the web with people who are not on a "pre-approved" list. kids/teens will do what they want if the means allow them (i can't pretend there won't be some new internet shit out there 10-15 years from now that make it harder to track what people do on the internet and i can't guarantee i'll always be hip to all the latest things that teens do to evade their parents online), but in my realm of control there will be no contact with strangers, no chat rooms, no social networking sites *at all*. my kids/teens will have school and sports for all of their social networking needs. my grip and control over my kids' access to internet strangers will border on totalitarianism. parents have little control what happens to their kids once they get dropped off at school, but at home - you bet the hair on your scrotum the access to anything not pre-approved will be nipped at the bud.

[Axxon]

Grills has come out and said she created the account and sent the majority of the messages. She also said she was the one that sent the last message.

I understand people want to all assume this was some coniving plan by the other Mother, but I have to feel that an obese 17-year old girl was also doing this as a form of building their own self-esteem. I think the Grills girl gets off too easy as everyone has focused on the Mother because of the audacity of them being involved. She is just as responsible in my eyes and deserves a lot of blame.

This isn't to say the Drew lady is in the clear, just saying if they targeted the Mother, they should also have targeted those involved.

Again, from here.

hxxp://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/teen-fingers-lo.html

According to ABC News, a U.S. attorney has granted Grills immunity in exchange for testimony against Drew.

I think the reasoning is that this girl, an employee of Ms Drew, would have never done anything like this on her own. She and her bosses daughter, both minors, came up with a horrible idea and the only adult figure, in a double whammy since she also held influence as employer and adult, encouraged it and took part.

You may not agree that this makes Lori Drew responsible but as the only adult figure there, I sure do. Everyone can second guess everyone's responsibilities and parenting skills but the only absolute answer I would be able to give is that in Ms Drew's case, if I was asked if this was something we should do my answer every time would be NO. Then no one would be having this discussion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Then no one would be having this discussion.

I'm not at all sure I believe that can be safely assumed. Actually, as I typed that, I realized that I'm quite confident that it cannot be assumed.

[Axxon]

I'm not at all sure I believe that can be safely assumed. Actually, as I typed that, I realized that I'm quite confident that it cannot be assumed.

It's equally as safe as assuming that somehow Megan's mother can watch her 24/7 and insure she never gets on myspace. The girl had already had an account that her mother didn't know about remember.

I'd say you're really reaching if you think this random employee would have decided to do this against the wishes of the woman who signs her check against a girl she couldn't possibly know that well. Uh huh, she's just an evil 17 year old rogue who was the mastermind of the whole evil plan.

Lori was an angel who couldn't control the computer her underage daughter was on and is guilt free where of course, Megan's mom is some bad parent when her child the same age uses the computer with her mother's permission.

Any way you cut this thing you have two parents. One who is trying to do the right thing and one that clearly isn't. Neither can control their kids but of course, the one to blame is the victim's mother. Makes perfect sense to me.

[BrianD]

And why the teen pregnancy rate is once again on the rise
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120501208.html

And why over 4% percent of girls under the age of 19 get pregnant each year
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/includes/teen_births_2006.pdf

If only we could find a way to get those darn teens to wear a condom when they talk to a new person...

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'd say you're really reaching if you think this random employee would have decided to do this against the wishes of the woman who signs her check against a girl she couldn't possibly know that well. Uh huh, she's just an evil 17 year old rogue who was the mastermind of the whole evil plan.

Actually, I was thinking that the same scenario could have easily unfolded without the mother's participation. Remember, this all started with a falling out between two teenage girls. If anybody thinks a teenager couldn't have conjured this plan all by herself (not that she did, but that she could have) simply doesn't know enough teenagers. I don't know that the 19 y/o was really necessary either, depending upon the MySpace savvy of the other half of the original squabble.

One who is trying to do the right thing

And having your 13 y/o try to, umm, develop an online relationship with a 16 y/o online is "the right thing"? I'd laugh if that weren't such a pathetic statement. Good God, this country is so fucked up.

[Maple Leafs]

...no social networking sites *at all*. my kids/teens will have school and sports for all of their social networking needs.
Good luck with that.

That ship has already sailed today (let along a generation from now). Kids today don't distinguish between social networking sites and any other form of communication, like the telephone. Like all teenagers (and especially girls), they have an instinctive need to keep in touch with their social circle at all costs. Online sites that make this easy are already as much a part of their lives as television and music. If you're answer is going to be to ban them completely, then like I said... best of luck.

That said, obviously there have to be controls and a "no strangers" policy is a good place to start. My wife and I have already agreed that our kids won't have computers in their rooms either (although by the time they're teenagers the idea of needing a computer to access the web will be long gone).

Maybe we'll just go Amish...

[Maple Leafs]

And having your 13 y/o try to, umm, develop an online relationship with a 16 y/o online is "the right thing"? I'd laugh if that weren't such a pathetic statement. Good God, this country is so fucked up.
You do not know that sometimes people communicate online for purposes other than cybersex, right?

[Anthony]

My wife and I have already agreed that our kids won't have computers in their rooms either (although by the time they're teenagers the idea of needing a computer to access the web will be long gone).


my children will not have PCs in their rooms. i have 2 PCs in my home office, one will be for my wife and i only (work and porn), the other will be turned into a "family PC", for school purposes and for a small allotment of internet usage, with all of these social networking sites being blocked and heavily monitored IM chat sessions. my children will also have to turn in their cell phones once they come home from school. one of my neices is one of those "talk/text on the cell phone while at the dinner table" types of teens, and i won't allow that.

this all may be for naught, as we plan on being very liberal with them being able to hang out with friends and you can't control/monitor what goes on in other people's houses, but what i can control will be controlled.

[Axxon]

You do not know that sometimes people communicate online for purposes other than cybersex, right?

Dude, read what he's already written. He believes that the only reason any teenagers talk to teenagers of the opposite sex at all is for sex.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Dude, read what he's already written. He believes that the only reason any teenagers talk to teenagers of the opposite sex at all is for sex.

Prone to try to stir shit up much? Geez Ax, you're starting to sound like some of the other nutjobs around here.

That said however, how many other reasons to you know for a 16 y/o boy to be carrying on a lengthy conversation with a 13 y/o girl? Or vice versa? And most importantly, are any of them worth the risk that it isn't the obvious?

I'd say the answer is greatly weighted toward no. And if I didn't have such a low opinion of people in general, I'd be disappointed and/or shocked that there seem to be so many who are either in denial about that fact or simply think it's okay to encourage sexual byplay between young teens.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm surprised by people who think that teenagers can't have friends of the opposite sex and that it is always about sex.

[Axxon]

I'm surprised by people who think that teenagers can't have friends of the opposite sex and that it is always about sex.


Jeez, what would you know? It's not like you're some kind of expert on juvenile psychology or som

Oh wait...

[Neon_Chaos]

There is one absolute with teenage girls:

If they don't want to let you know... you will never know.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm surprised by people who think that teenagers can't have friends of the opposite sex and that it is always about sex.

"Can't" is a pretty tough standard to meet. I mean, Tampa leads the AL East, so almost anything is possible.

But does the benefit outweigh the risk? That's the question parents have to ask themselves, and the answer to that is usually pretty obvious.

[Axxon]

"Can't" is a pretty tough standard to meet. I mean, Tampa leads the AL East, so almost anything is possible.

But does the benefit outweigh the risk? That's the question parents have to ask themselves, and the answer to that is usually pretty obvious.

Another question parents have to ask themselves and the answer to that too is usually pretty obvious.

Should we fuck with the disturbed childs head for no good reason?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Should we fuck with the disturbed childs head for no good reason?

Yeah, since the path Mom took worked out so well this time :rolleyes:

[Axxon]

Yeah, since the path Mom took worked out so well this time :rolleyes:

Yes, because everyone should consider their neighbors who they share vacations and stuff insane psychopaths because there's so much of that going around these days. :rolleyes:

What I think you're getting caught up in is the fact that it's a boy they used as bait but that's a red herring. Had he been a real boy and not a cruel joke none of this would have happened either. He wasn't cybersexing her or doing anything that an adult who was monitoring the conversations would throw up a red flag at.

Oh wait, he was a male and that's enough wrong with him to lock her in a dungeon because, yah know, it just had to be sexual.

[Eaglesfan27]

"Can't" is a pretty tough standard to meet. I mean, Tampa leads the AL East, so almost anything is possible.

But does the benefit outweigh the risk? That's the question parents have to ask themselves, and the answer to that is usually pretty obvious.

One of the major goals of adolescence is learning how to navigate the social world of adulthood. Parents definitely should be closely supervising and I agree with your point that I would NOT be allowing my 13 year old daughter to talk to a 16 year old stranger via the internet without extremely close supervision and likely not at all. However, the idea that teenage boys and girls can't be friends is what I was calling you on. Not all relationships are quasi-romantic, some are genuine friendships, just as in adulthood. Part of the teen years is learning to navigate those boundaries, hopefully with good parental supervision in which parents give space yet keep a watchful eye which of course can be difficult to balance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What I think you're getting caught up in is the fact that it's a boy they used as bait but that's a red herring. Had he been a real boy and not a cruel joke none of this would have happened either.

How do you figure that? To the 13 y/o, he was "a real boy". And you don't think a real 16 y/o could have gone down the same ending path that the fake took? If not, you're underestimating them (although the specific language chosen does seem to be something more likely to have come from a teen female, a guy could easily have delivered the same basic message).

He wasn't cybersexing her or doing anything that an adult who was monitoring the conversations would throw up a red flag at.

Other than being a random 16 y/o boy who showed an interest in a random 13 y/o girl. If that doesn't qualify as a red flag (not a guarante of predatory behavior, but a cause for concern) I'm not sure what would.

C'mon Axxon, think back to being 16 for a minute ... how many 13 y/o's did you give the time of day unless there was some specific connection to them (i.e. annoying little sister of a friend, neighbor, someone you knew in some standard context)?

[chesapeake]

Teenagers are bundles of hormones still learning how to manage them. So whether it is a 16 y/o communicating with a 13 y/o or they are the same age or the ages are reversed, ultimately the urge to procreate underlies just about all intergender relationships among teenagers. So I agree fully with EF27, that part of adolescence is learning to deal with that.

So although I respect and fully empathize with JimGA's desire to throw up the full firewall, ultimately I think it will be counterproductive and very possibly a failure. Kids are clever.

And, although I agree with HA not allowing his kids to have PCs connected to the internet in their rooms -- I intend to do the same with my daughter -- again, I think playing too much hardball with the kids is only asking for trouble.

Look, if my daughter isn't smart and clever enough to hoodwink the old man from time to time, I've screwed up somewhere :)

[Axxon]

How do you figure that? To the 13 y/o, he was "a real boy". And you don't think a real 16 y/o could have gone down the same ending path that the fake took? If not, you're underestimating them (although the specific language chosen does seem to be something more likely to have come from a teen female, a guy could easily have delivered the same basic message).

Of course it could but that would be a different issue since it would not have been an adult planning to torment a child. In life, shit happens.

The problem with focusing on this one fact is that the cause could have been anything that set her off; it didn't have to be a boy and setting her off the way the adult did was wrong. Are you honestly saying you see nothing wrong in doing this to a 13 year old? If you see something wrong with it then I just can't get how you of all people excuse it ( remember here, we're not talking the legal case since we agree that's not called for. )

If the asshole adult had used some other ploy, other than a boy and turned the same screw, told her the world was better off without her and she killed herself. Would you then maybe think the adult was at fault or would the mother somehow had to be omniscient about every little incidental minutia in her child's life or she was a horrible parent?

I would ask if you're one of the people who blames Carrie's mother when she wigged out because they dropped pigs blood on her at the prom but actually, the answer to that is yes but anyway, assuming a normal family, was it the mothers fault because she didn't somehow anticipate what they did to her and prevent her from going to the prom or would you say the kids were assholes and responsible for the carnage? The situation isn't different.

Lets say a teacher told an impressionable and troubled kid that he could fly and the kid jumps off a roof. Parent's fault or asshole adult? Honestly, just how aware does a parent have to be to pass your test?

This is why I say you can't look at the device and say that the parent should have stopped it. When predators strike they don't necessarily go for the easy setup but you seem to be shifting the blame to someone else.


Other than being a random 16 y/o boy who showed an interest in a random 13 y/o girl. If that doesn't qualify as a red flag (not a guarante of predatory behavior, but a cause for concern) I'm not sure what would.

A boy who basically doesn't exist in the real world? He exists in the cyber world and the parent was monitoring all communications between the two. They hadn't even exchanged phone numbers.

Now, between you and me Jon, I'd prefer my daughter have a relationship like this that I can closely monitor and lend support to her emotionally and logically than to have her mixing it up with the boys in the hood after school but YMMV as they say.


C'mon Axxon, think back to being 16 for a minute ... how many 13 y/o's did you give the time of day unless there was some specific connection to them (i.e. annoying little sister of a friend, neighbor, someone you knew in some standard context)?

Well, Jon, now that you mention it I can't think of any but know what also Jon, I can't think of a 13yr old that at 16 I wanted to fuck either. Again, YMMV.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't think of a 13yr old that at 16 I wanted to fuck either. Again, YMMV.

Your school obviously didn't have one particular 13 y/o that immediately came to my mind when I read that sentence. What prevented issues with her to some extent was having a sister our age, meaning that at least most of us kind of put her in the "kid sister" file & left well enough alone.

(she went on to be an at least semi-successful actress so at least we had an eye for talent ;) )

[Axxon]

Your school obviously didn't have one particular 13 y/o that immediately came to my mind when I read that sentence. What prevented issues with her to some extent was having a sister our age, meaning that at least most of us kind of put her in the "kid sister" file & left well enough alone.

(she went on to be an at least semi-successful actress so at least we had an eye for talent ;) )

Well, by 16 I was already well versed in anatomy and the 13 year old form wasn't what I wanted to look at. I had a very good friend though who was also 16 and she was already modelling.

We had a great friendship and I even saw her a few times after high school and we were still friendly. Can't say I didn't want to get in her pants but that was discussed and ruled out early so I'd honestly say that I wasn't talking to her or pursuing her for sex. I liked her company and she was a smart, funny girl.

We had a friendship. One thing she liked to do was hook me up with her friends though and yeah, I'm pretty happy with that since she was a real good judge of character so these hookups usually were fun and well, her friends were hot too.

Oddly, I never knew her to have a boyfriend at all so either she played for the other team so to speak or she was doing older guys on the side.

[Maple Leafs]

So Jon, am I reading you right that your stance is basically that you wouldn't allow a teeenage daughter to talk to teenage boys you didn't know personally?

[gstelmack]

Guilty verdicts in case of MySpace user's suicide - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/26/internet.suicide/index.html)

A Missouri woman was convicted of three misdemeanor counts in the case of a 13-year-old girl who committed suicide after she was criticized on the Web site MySpace.com.

But a jury declined to convict Lori Drew of the more serious conspiracy charge in a landmark case testing the limits of cyberbullying.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll be damned, a judge somewhere actually makes a ruling I agree with.

Judge reversing MySpace suicide conviction - Crime & courts- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31708526/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)

LOS ANGELES - Federal judge tentatively acquitted a Missouri mother for her role in a MySpace hoax directed at a 13-year-old neighbor girl who later killed herself.

In his ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge George Wu acquitted Lori Drew of misdemeanor counts of accessing computers without authorization. Wu said his ruling will become final when he issues it in writing.

Drew was convicted in a trial, but the judge said that if she is to be found guilty of illegally accessing computers, anyone who has ever violated the social networking site's terms of service would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
...
Judge Wu acknowledged in May he was concerned that sending Drew to prison for violating a Web site's service terms might set a dangerous precedent. Wu noted that millions of people either don't read service terms, as happened in Drew's case.

[Axxon]

I'll be damned, a judge somewhere actually makes a ruling I agree with.

Judge reversing MySpace suicide conviction - Crime & courts- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31708526/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/)

LOS ANGELES - Federal judge tentatively acquitted a Missouri mother for her role in a MySpace hoax directed at a 13-year-old neighbor girl who later killed herself.

In his ruling Thursday, U.S. District Judge George Wu acquitted Lori Drew of misdemeanor counts of accessing computers without authorization. Wu said his ruling will become final when he issues it in writing.

Drew was convicted in a trial, but the judge said that if she is to be found guilty of illegally accessing computers, anyone who has ever violated the social networking site's terms of service would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
...
Judge Wu acknowledged in May he was concerned that sending Drew to prison for violating a Web site's service terms might set a dangerous precedent. Wu noted that millions of people either don't read service terms, as happened in Drew's case.

So you agree that if you don't read a law then it doesn't apply to you? I wouldn't think you'd take that position frankly.

[miked]

So if I break Facebook's service terms I'm breaking the law?

[BrianD]

Since when do websites get to create law with their terms of service? Oh that's right, they don't. Sounds like strictly a civil matter if you break their terms.

[Draft Dodger]

So if I break Facebook's service terms I'm breaking the law?

not according to this judge

[mckerney]

So you agree that if you don't read a law then it doesn't apply to you? I wouldn't think you'd take that position frankly.

I think what he means is that if he breaks the terms of service that he didn't read for a website that he's just broken the sites TOS, not the law.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think what he means is that if he breaks the terms of service that he didn't read for a website that he's just broken the sites TOS, not the law.

Got it in one.

And more to the point, I believe that prosecuting the woman was asinine on it's face, that any grand jury that would indict was composed of people of questionable intelligence, and that any jury that would convict constituted the deprivation of 12 villages of the full services of their idiots for the duration of the trial.

This was a pure & simple nod to some vague notion of political correctness and an attempt to somehow excuse piss poor parenting on the other side.

[RainMaker]

The whole story sucks and is just sad all around. The lady probably didn't do anything illegal and this probably is the right decision. But I'm hoping Karma plays its course and that bitch gets hit with a truck.

[Axxon]

I think what he means is that if he breaks the terms of service that he didn't read for a website that he's just broken the sites TOS, not the law.
I know but the judge doesn't actually rule on whether the law was valid but whether not reading the TOS rose to the level of violation which isn't what I'd think Jon was happy about.

[Axxon]

Got it in one.

And more to the point, I believe that prosecuting the woman was asinine on it's face, that any grand jury that would indict was composed of people of questionable intelligence, and that any jury that would convict constituted the deprivation of 12 villages of the full services of their idiots for the duration of the trial.

This was a pure & simple nod to some vague notion of political correctness and an attempt to somehow excuse piss poor parenting on the other side.

Which is what I'm saying. They didn't rule that prosecuting her was asinine in and of itself. It uses the fact that she didn't read the TOS as the reason not to prosecute not that the prosecution shouldn't have happened.

I guess i got it in one too but didn't think that this would satisfy you since it wasn't judged for the reason you wanted it to be.

[JeffNights]

The whole story sucks and is just sad all around. The lady probably didn't do anything illegal and this probably is the right decision. But I'm hoping Karma plays its course and that bitch gets hit with a truck.

This is the best post in this entire fucking thread.