No criminal charges will be filed against people who sent cruel Internet messages to a 13-year-old girl before she committed suicide, the St. Charles County prosecutor said Monday.
The woman knew the kid had issues. I think reckless endangerment charges are warranted.
Here’s the Missouri Supreme Court overturning a charge of involuntary manslaughter in favor of child endangerment in a case in which parents weren’t being vigilant and their child drowned in a pond:
This is not to say, for example, that had the pond been closer, the time of the mother’s torpor been longer, such facts may have been such to have constituted an “utter indifference” to the life of her child, State v. Melton, supra 33 S.W.2d at 895, that an action for involuntary manslaughter may have then been warranted. What this court is saying is the defendant by being inert, inactive and languishing in front of a movie, created the situation for a potential of, but not necessarily the prelude to, a certain disaster, but her inactivity did not manifest a conscious disregard of a risk of death to her child. Hence, she was properly charged and convicted of child endangerment, her conduct and her remorse just do not fit within the overt and active type of conduct which is elevated into the punishment meted out for an involuntary homicide.
The judgment is affirmed as to the conviction for child endangerment. The judgment for involuntary manslaughter is reversed and the defendant is discharged on that conviction.
The parents in this case certainly did not actively seek to inflict harm upon their child, but were charged and convicted nevertheless for their neglect. In the case regarding Megan Meier, the Drew woman intentionally went out of her way to inflict emotional distress upon the girl. I would say her culpability is greater.
Reading posts about suicidal teens sends me spiralling into depression. I’ll be sending you the bill for my Paxil refill.
The only place I’ve ever seen mental cruelty be actionable is as grounds for divorce.
I think if I lived in that ‘hood, I’d leave a steady stream of pictures on that lady’s car, lampost, etc … until she moved.
It does take a village.
Carin:
That is the best non-lethal suggestion of justice I have heard in this case. Every. Day. A poster on the lawn and a 3X5 on the car windows.
ha! Carin!
I wish I could think her guilty conscience will haunt her for the rest of her life, but I don’t think that’s so.
Sometimes, it’s good to have the Court of Public Opinion.
Does JG still post on his blog? Nothing against the guest posters, but I come here to read Jeff. What’s the deal?
When my wife told me about this case, my reaction was exactly the same as Carin’s. Time to go Amish on the bitch.
Ray, thanks. Jeff still blogs here, but he’s got puter problems at the moment.
Sanity, most lawyers have never seen a good case for intentional infliction of emotional distress. But this would be it, I think.
Since I woke up my hibernating-fjord pining blog for this mess a couple weeks ago, I did throw up a post in reaction to the news. I think I might write some more there or in the pub later.
I’ve taken pains from the beginning to look at Drew’s involvement and to try to illuminate it in the light most favorable to her. What she admits, is bad enough. And the prosecutor’s acceptance of the motives of the account, in light of contradictory statements that Drew openly boasted of “messing” with Megan, and encouraged and directed and monitored the participiation of other young people, including at least and possibly several other minors and at least one barely-adult employee (Ashley Grills), and was at minimum complicit in covering up the harrassment by Ashley Grills, and had enough concern about her own involvment to take down the Josh Evans account, and called a participating child and tell her to keep her mouth shut…. that even in the light most favorable to Drew, she was guilty of deliberately toying with a vulnerable child’s emotions.
There are statements by participants in the scheme that , Drew expressed a sick pleasure in these activities, and enjoyed laughing about the deception and involving others in it. At minimum, she allowed foolish children, including her own child and one other, and gave her own employee the keys to the account. With her blessing and encouragement to these children to “mess” with Megan. I can’t imagine a more reckless way to handle a “benign” punk. And really, it wasn’t benign at all, but malicious, and done for the most petty ridiculous reason imaginable – the natural upheavals in 13 yo friendships.
I sure don’t want any prosecutors going all Mike Nifong on her in reaction to public outcry, and he must consider the state of the evidence and what he feels he can prove beyond reasonable doubt. But to be candid, I feel he gave up to easily, and feel local politics and concerns have played a role in that.
I am not in favor generally of new laws to regulate internet content or communications which might have the effect of chilling the killer bees in the inforamation swarm. Or first amendment free speech rights.
However, I do not comprehend why there is no statute to control adults who would authorize an account and a fictional persona, set up for the sole purpose of luring and duping a child into thinking she is talking with a peer of similar age, unless the “fooler” is the childs guardian, the fooler has the permission of the guardian(s), or in furtherance of some legitimate law enforcement purpose.
Adults should not be pretending to be children when talking to minors, even the nice one’s who just want to boost Jan Brady’s confidence with a mystery pen pal. Since, if you think about it, is not likely to be the case when an adult fakes an identity to have access to a child.
There’s that lolcat again. In the ceiling, messing up my typing.
Between “mouth shut…. that even ” should read: “seems too generous to me, and”
You’ll have to just imagine the spell-check.
Thanks for the heads up Dan.
If the law’s not there, it’s not there. Drew may be a slimebag but unfortunately, that’s not illegal.
I think I fault the prosecutor for accepting Drew’s self-serving descriptions of the benignity of purpose of the myspace scheme. There are other accounts of her words and actions before and after Megan’s suicide that indicate real malice. And she could not but intend to harm, because she was aware of the pride and pleasure Megan took in her imaginary attachment, and knew that loss and disappointment would be the inevitable end, even if the grand finale of the relationship had not ended in the terrible way it did.
To allow and encourage minors to “mess” with Megan, an employee of hers, no less, is really despicable, and even in the light most favorable to Drew, completely reckless, even if you take her word that she only wanted to make Megan describe her feelings about her daughter. Which I don’t, by the way. But if you do, what would be the purpose of getting such information? She knew her daughter was hurt and angry, to be sure. To give that daughter the keys to a tool to spy on and manipulate Megan Meiers , and to joke about it with others, was to sponser all the harm that occurred.
The last persons I would preen and moralize over are Megan’s grieving parents, and I think it presumptious and cruel to “order” them to sue the Drew’s. God knows what a horror show that would be. But I wish, I wish they would, just to have someone bring the law down on what Drew did, even just what she admits to doing.
I feel bad for the little girl but if someone kills themself over internet comments or insults, they had enough problems to begin with that the cause was incidental. Having dealt with suicidal people before, I can assure you that if they make that choice, your comments one way or the other are irrelevant, they were going that way to begin with. Sometimes people are just unreachable.
It’ll probably be an unpopular position, but I don’t think what these people did should be considered criminal. I also think that, presented with a wrongful death lawsuit in their position, I’d much rather settle than explain my actions on the record.
except, she was farking 13. And the “punking” did precipitate her suicide. Eggshell skull, take your victim as you find them, etc. It aggravates, in my view, Drew’s culpability is that she knew how highly reactive her victim was to slights, and her past of really stuggling with low self-esteem and poor judgment…even knew the medication Megan took.
Rob, I don’t think that’s so outlandish. It’s sure not my call, but I think this is a case for which a civil remedy is really appropriate. If I’m Lori Drew, and it means having my business or home insurance policy settle at limits, I’d do things the way you suggest. Using an employee to carry out the scheme was a bad, bad, bad thing to permit, let alone encourgage or request. It there was a corporate veil in place, it is way pierced, from what I can tell.
I’m real uncomfortable with making it illegal to be a jerk. I’m uncomfortable, but less so, with it being actionable to be a jerk.
This isn’t just being a jerk. This is psychological torture of a person you know to havea history of unstable behavior.
Being a jerk is never tipping or yelling at people in traffic or leaving your shopping cart in people’s way.
This wasn’t being a jerk, this was a long-term, thought-out and considered malicious action taken against someone who was not only a minor and had a history of mental health issues INCLUDING talk of suicide, and the tormentor was AWARE of those facts.
The authorities in this case either know something we don’t know or are just squeamish or lazy. How is this not at the very least harassment, contributing to the delinquency and/or stalking? Negligent homicide (usually has minor penalties, often with no jail time, don’t know Illinois’ statutes well enough)?
What would you charge someone with if they visited someone they hated at the mental hospital, who was severely depressed, and slipped them a bottle of sleeping pills?
Did the Bitch _know_ that Megan was going to commit suicide? No, that’s why it’s not murder. Was it a foreseeable consequence, and more importantly WAS IT a consequence of the Bitch’s actions? Well, yes.
If you carelessly zip across three lanes of traffic, strike the fender of a vehicle, and drive it off the road into a tree, does everyone just shrug and say “well, it was bad but no crime happened?” No.
Either we’re being lied to, big time, about this series of events, or something stinks about this lack of prosecution.
That seems going a bit over the edge in description. Nobody has to read the comments on their site, they can delete them. Just because something is said doesn’t mean they compel you to take action or take it poorly. Harassment I can buy but the other stuff? Psychological torture?
Christopher Taylor,
Except that without reading them, how is she supposed to know whether she should delete them?
If the parents wanted to blow this woman’s head off, I’d never vote to convict. She was counting on exactly maroons like you to let her get away with it. The reason that crap like this happens is that people think they can get away with it.
INJUSTICE PREVAILS
Suicide and criminal prosecution, it may be a long dark hard legal road for this D.A,.
the D.A. should turn on the lights maybe he could see an incident to this suicide has
standing and most of all lawful merit for trial– roll with me for a minute
As provided under the uniform penal code,
in other words each states statutory lauguge is basically the same as follows
2).The uniform legislature finds and declares that it is the right
of every person regardless of actual or perceived disability, gender,
nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or
association with a person or group of these actual or perceived
characteristics, to be secure and protected from fear, intimidation,
and physical harm caused by the activities of violent individuals
or violent groups of individuals
You see– an incident ripe for
criminal prosecution of
prohibited behavior
“Either we’re being lied to, big time, about this series of events, or something stinks about this lack of prosecution.”
Ayup. If the media representation of this case is wrong (perish the thought), then someone is calling in chits big time. There’s your story.
I frankly can’t see how in a world where harrassment is illegal, this is not criminal.
Christopher Taylor: I can understand your misgivings.
Let’s put it this way: as a Libertarian, _I_ can live with the idea of a world where it’s illegal to deliberately and with malice aforethought try to create an emotional crisis in the mind of a child with a history of emotional instability and who was on medication to control dangerous impulses.
I don’t see how opposing evil (sorry, there’s that harsh language again) makes me any less committed to Liberty.
According to her lawyer on tv, poor Lori Drew has had to close her business and her own daughter has had to leave school because of harassment.
Imagine that, actions have consequences.