what does this story have to do with firearms? :confused1:

 

what does this story have to do with firearms? :confused1:

+1.

At the very least, this belongs in the "non-firearms" related section of the forum.

 

I thought it was posted in general discussion. I'm sure a mod will correct my oversight shortly.
ETA: Firearm general discussion, my apologies.

 

He needs his ass kicked nothing more. Oh, and maybe no longer allowed to work in the healthcare industry. Other than that, what did he really do that was wrong?

 

Maybe someone will shoot the nurse. That will make it firearm related. :laugh:

 

nobody is responsible for their own actions any more. now, any time some mentally unstable person offs themselves, their family is going to look for a "bully" that they can sue.

 

Yes. It was in direct viloation of the Hippocratic Oath. "First, do no harm."

The nurse's mission statement dictates that potential suicides should be intervened with if possible...not encouraged. If nothing else, the act should be discouraged, and the subject advised to seek professional help.

Professionals are held to a higher standard, and they're expected to abide by it.

 

If someone reads a suggestion to commit suicide on the internet and then actually commits suicide, the gene pool just got a little cleaner. Hell, I have read where people have suggested for me to go out and buy an XD but I am smarter than that!

 

Hell, I have read where people have suggested for me to go out and buy an XD but I am smarter than that!

I take personal offense to this comment! I think you meant not smart enought to buy one :lol:
Im just messin. To each his own.
However on another note, America has become a nation of lawsuit filing pansies!

 

Yes, my remark was tongue in cheek. Don't want to get another Straw Purchase thread going.

 

This case will be overturned on appeal, the first amendment would protect his actions even as reprehensible as they are.

 

I wouldn't bet too heavily on it, mekender. The hippocratic oath is both ethically and legally binding.

Your 1st Amendment right doesn't include the right to shout "FIRE" in a theater unless there really is a fire. Neither does it cover the right to advise or otherwise encourage someone to go kill themselves if they indicate that they're suicidal.
If you hear of a plan to firebomb a church, and you encourage it...even though you don't participate in the act, you are guilty of abetting...if not actual conspiracy.

If you...as a health care professional...engage a person in a discussion concerning that person's health issues, and that person isn't already under the care of a doctor...that person is now your patient, and will be until the conversation ends. If, during the course of that conversation, you offer any advice other than "See your doctor" then he is your patient until he verbally ends the association...or you hand him off to another health care professional...like a doctor. If the advice that you offer is beyond your scope of practice, you stand to lose your license.

Moreover, you are bound by oath and by law not to divulge anything that you were told during the association...not even to your wife...except to a doctor who has accepted the patient-doctor relationship.

If, during the course of that conversation, you learn that your patient is suicidal, you are bound by law to intervene...if only by advising him to seek help. If you advise him to jump off a bridge, you have violated your hippocratic oath and your mission statement as a nurse.

 

The MN statute reads:

609.215 SUICIDE.

Subdivision 1.Aiding suicide.

Whoever intentionally advises, encourages, or assists another in taking the other's own life may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.215

There is no way that could be constitutional. Two guys arguing and one says "go jump off a bridge" and that law could be charged.

Now, there is an exception in the law where free speech does
not apply to most acts of encouraging the commission of a crime. Since Suicide
is a crime in some states, there could be an exception to free speech there.
But since it is not illegal in MN to kill yourself, there is no way that a free
speech exception can be used to make it illegal to advocate killing yourself.
Basically there is no way to make speech about a legal activity illegal, it would fail every 1st amendment test that the SCOTUS has ever applied.

If this is appealed, it will get overturned on first amendment grounds. I may not agree with the speech, but it is still free speech.

 

ethics 101.

legal and ethical are 2 different animals. Ethically, I should have helped dozens of people end their lives, but legally I could not.

This sociopath who just happened to be a nurse is NOT the right case for either a valid ethical or legal discourse. My opinion is that the individual who was...and its a tough way to say this..weak enough to be swayed to commit suicide, would have eventually found the solution on their own.

The 'easy' answer for any nurse in most situations..which is to say " you need to talk to your doctor/psychologist/mechanic because I am not legally allowed to wade in these waters" is often the weakest ethical argument for what may be 'right'.

Homeboy needs to lose his license but verbal judo on the interwebs encouraging suicide under the guise of his 'nursing authority' is not prison time. Chances are our nurse buddy will end up in some other form of trouble that will rid us of him anyway.

 

Better start rounding up every teenager with a PC, this happens daily in internet chats. Just because the person is in that bad of a way that they do it.. Does not mean the person who told them to go kill themselves should be punished.

That persons life was already that bad that they killed themselves, they would have done it at some point anyways.

No i didnt read the entire article, so far I get that a Nurse told a guy online to kill himself, he did it and now shes being thrown in jail along with sued.

 

He told her to hang herself live on webcam. She did not.

Several weeks after-the-fact, she drowned herself in a river.

How is that in any way related to what this nurse did? Incidentally, I thought only doctors swore the Hippocratic Oath.

(The above is in reference to the Canadian woman that the nurse told to kill herself. I don't know the details of the UK case. Either way: NO CHARGE)

 

The nurse is a 'he' and if the stories is correct he encouraged more than one, possibly 'dozens' of people to take their own lives.

If, as the police imply, he search for people who were vulnerable and knowingly manipulated them to take their own lives, then he is little better than any serial killer. You can argue on freedom of speech grounds, but it doesn't take into account the predatory nature of the acts. As others have said, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater just to see if a few people will be trampled.

 

The nurse is a 'he' and if the stories is correct he encouraged more than one, possibly 'dozens' of people to take their own lives.

If, as the police imply, he search for people who were vulnerable and knowingly manipulated them to take their own lives, then he is little better than any serial killer. You can argue on freedom of speech grounds, but it doesn't take into account the predatory nature of the acts. As others have said, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater just to see if a few people will be trampled.

Telling someone to do something does not ever equal forcing something upon someone no matter how much you try and twist logic.

Me telling you to kill yourself can never be the same as me stabbing you in the face.

 

Telling someone to do something does not ever equal forcing something upon someone no matter how much you try and twist logic.

Me telling you to kill yourself can never be the same as me stabbing you in the face.

First of all, read the big "IF" that I placed before my opinion.

You can twist this around any way you want, but it you aren't representing the scenario that we allegedly have. This is a predator searching for vulnerable people to manipulate. This isn't a one off for him, it is a pattern.

Your logic would allow that I could go into any large gathering of people yell 'fire' or 'free beer' and if someone died in the ensuring panic I would not be responsible for their deaths.

 

William Melchert-Dinkel,
Your talent has been wasted. Becoming an Islamic terrorist motivational speaker was your calling. You could have not only influenced the death of one, but could have taken out many more. You sir have wasted your god given talent.

 

First of all, read the big "IF" that I placed before my opinion.

You can twist this around any way you want, but it you aren't representing the scenario that we allegedly have. This is a predator searching for vulnerable people to manipulate. This isn't a one off for him, it is a pattern.

Your logic would allow that I could go into any large gathering of people yell 'fire' or 'free beer' and if someone died in the ensuring panic I would not be responsible for their deaths.

Your example of yelling "fire" only has merit if someone actually lights a fire two weeks after you yelled it and then YOU were charged with arson.

 

Your example of yelling "fire" only has merit if someone actually lights a fire two weeks after you yelled it and then YOU were charged with arson.

No...It has merit in this case because in this example my speech led to the injury/death of someone else. I don't have any contact with the injured party. The point is that your right to free speech is not unlimited.

I will say that I do believe the prosecutor will have a difficult case to work. I hope they spent his time wisely in preparation before filing charges

 

There is a big difference between inciting panic that causes someone to get trampled, even if that panic is over a good thing like free beer and what this guy did. He in no way forced anyone to do anything in this case and even though his actions were completely reprehensible, nothing he did forced anyone to do anything to themselves, they still could have just not done it.

As I said before, free speech exceptions typically border on the illegal. It is nearly impossible for talking about a legal act to be constitutionally legal. Since suicide is legal in MN, it is very unlikely that it could be constitutional to ban speaking or encouraging it.

 

There is a big difference between inciting panic that causes someone to get trampled, even if that panic is over a good thing like free beer and what this guy did. He in no way forced anyone to do anything in this case and even though his actions were completely reprehensible, nothing he did forced anyone to do anything to themselves, they still could have just not done it.

Nobody forces you to run when I scream fire either.

As I said before, free speech exceptions typically border on the illegal. It is nearly impossible for talking about a legal act to be constitutionally legal. Since suicide is legal in MN, it is very unlikely that it could be constitutional to ban speaking or encouraging it.

There is no such thing as absolute free speech, there are many restrictions on it and they seem to hold up all the time.

Since he is working across state line via the internet, it would be interesting to see if MN laws apply or not.

 

Nobody forces you to run when I scream fire either.

True, but if you are declaring an actual emergency, then you arent committing any crime whether you yell it at the top of your lungs, call it in to 911 or whisper it to your boss. If you are falsely reporting an emergency, most of the time that indeed is a crime. You can actually yell "fire" in a crowded theater and not break the law, but only if there is actually a fire.

There is no such thing as absolute free speech, there are many restrictions on it and they seem to hold up all the time.

Correct as well, one of those exceptions is for the encouragement of illegal activity. This is called the "imminent lawless action" exception. The exception is such that the speech in question must convey that the speaker intends to incite a breaking of the law that is BOTH imminent and likely. Since suicide is not illegal in MN, this wouldn't apply.

Obscenity is also excepted. As are "fighting words", slander, libel and commercial speech. Also excepted are statements made by government or public employees while representing their employer.

Those are about the limits of the exceptions of free speech. Anything else is constitutionally protected. I would bet good money that should this case get appealed upward, the conviction will be overturned on 1st amendment grounds and the law in question will be found to be an unconstitutional violation of the 1st amendments protection of freedom of speech.

Since he is working across state line via the internet, it would be interesting to see if MN laws apply or not.

Usually the law applies at the point of the violation. In this case, yes MN law would apply because the conversation was taking place with one party inside MN.

Again, the acts of this man are nothing less than sadistic and barbaric... But that does not mean that the First Amendment does not apply to them.