NationStates Jolt Archive

No charges over Megan Meier suicide
Parents angry over legal black hole
Iain Thomson, vnunet.com 04 Dec 2007

The parents of teenager Megan Meier have expressed anger at the news that the adult whom they claim bullied their daughter into suicide will not be prosecuted.

Meier, who was 13, struck up an online relationship with a 'teenager' known as 'Josh' via MySpace, but 'Josh' was in fact the mother of a former friend of Meier's.

'Josh' broke off the online relationship after six weeks and began abusing Meier and posting unpleasant messages. Meier, who suffered from depression, hanged herself the next day.

Her parents went public with the case after local law enforcers told them that there was nothing they could do.

Meier's home town of Dardenne Prairie has since passed a law making online harassment a misdemeanour with a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and/or a $500 fine.

"Our daughter committed suicide," Meier's mother said. "I still feel what [the adult] did is absolutely criminal."

Jack Banas, prosecuting attorney for St. Charles County, said that there was nothing he could do.

He explained that there was no way of making a positive identification of who had sent the messages, and that the majority of the content was inoffensive.

"People are upset that a parent got involved in something so childish, and that a young girl committed suicide," he said.

"There are a few statements at the end that are a heated argument. That is why you have a hard time making a harassment case."

Banas added that current statutes allow action only when an individual sought to frighten, disturb or harass.
Link (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2204930/charges-internet-suicide)

So apparently if you want someone killed, all you have to do is destory their self esteem, and harass them into committing suicide and you can get off scott free. Absolutely disgusting.

What I want to know is why they don't consider what the Drew's were doing to Megan wasn't considered harassment, or that they didn't 'sought out' to frighten or disturb Megan, because it sure as Hell seems like they were doing that to me.

While I do not support the parents who did this, they only provided the final straw.

There is much more behind a suicide than just being harassed.

Never trust a person going by the name of Josh. Or Willy, for that matter. Unless he's a killer whale. Literally.

On a more serious, depressing, and angering note: W T F

That manipulative bitch should rot in jail...end of story.

I wonder what the odds are for a successful legal suit.

We need a lawyer...

...Art, I summon thee!

Meier's home town of Dardenne Prairie has since passed a law making online harassment a misdemeanour with a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and/or a $500 fine.

So they didn't break any laws.

Link (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2204930/charges-internet-suicide)

So apparently if you want someone killed, all you have to do is destory their self esteem, and harass them into committing suicide and you can get off scott free. Absolutely disgusting.

What I want to know is why they don't consider what the Drew's were doing to Megan wasn't considered harassment, or that they didn't 'sought out' to frighten or disturb Megan, because it sure as Hell seems like they were doing that to me.

While what that woman did was screwed up, it's too bad Megan's family/friends missed the signs that she may be suicidal. If even one of her family/friends caught them, they might have been able to get her help. As Sarkhaan said, there was more to Megan's suicide than just this harassment.

So they didn't break any laws.

Banas added that current statutes allow action only when an individual sought to frighten, disturb or harass.
However, as Wilgrove mentioned, they most definitely sought to, at the very least, harass the 'victim'.

However, as Wilgrove mentioned, they most definitely sought to, at the very least, harass the 'victim'.

They can't be tried for a law created after the incident. Or so cable TV tells me.

They can't be tried for a law created after the incident. Or so cable TV tells me.

I thought by current they meant during the time the case was going on. Ahh...maybe I am wrong? Probably.

They can't be tried for a law created after the incident. Or so cable TV tells me.

It says Current Status. So I assumed it means the laws in placed before the new one that they passed.

I thought by current they meant during the time the case was going on. Ahh...maybe I am wrong? Probably.

It says Current Status. So I assumed it means the laws in placed before the new one that they passed.

*didn't really read the whole article*
*blames Wilgrove for bolding*

Well, I'll read the whole thing in a minute.

*didn't really read the whole article*
*blames Wilgrove for bolding*

Well, I'll read the whole thing in a minute.

Hey! Not my fault you're too lazy to read! :p

All right, I totally missed the last bolded line. *takes blame* >.<

As stated in the article, she was suffering from depression, so unless she wrote a suicide note that clearly labeled the mother as the reason for her taking her own life, you (they) can't actually prove that she was the main reason. Perhaps there was a bully in school she never talked about with her parents? And that legal guy thingy said "that the majority of the content was inoffensive."

We can't look at this from the girl's point of view, we can only make assumptions and form our own opinions.

And for the use of the word "current," I don't really know. Currently, she's dead. Previously, she was just suicidal. Previously, the law was different (perhaps). "Has since" was used before "currently" so I assume he is referring to the changed law.

I do it for the lulz.

She broke no law in place at the time. Every time a mentaly unstable person kills themself, and people wonder why they did it, they demand that what ever set them down that path should be punished. She was battling with depression, depressed people kill themslves. This should be a sentence or two at the bottom of a ticker, not taking up hours of time, just like the stacy peterson case.

I wonder what the odds are for a successful legal suit.

We need a lawyer...

...Art, I summon thee!

huh wha what where how? I'm wake.....

Anyway, if we're talking a civil suit, we're pretty much talking wrongful death claims (as well as potential suits by the estate of the individual, loss of consortium etc. however the main claim will be wrongful death.)

Now, a wrongful death claim (unless the defendant was engaged in an activity for which there is a strict liability standard, which the internet...is not) is a simple negligence claim. A negligence claim requires proof of four elements: did the defendant (1) have a duty which (2) was breached (3) causing (4) an injury to the plaintiff.

Now the actions obviously caused injury to the plaintiffs (which, in a wrongful death suit, would be the parents). Duty is simple, duty basically means to exercise a reasonable standard of care. Duty is almost always established easily enough, as a generla principle of law we all have a duty to exercise a reasonable standard of care to everybody (there is some old case law that says otherwise, such as Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. but that's mostly confusing the issue...).

So as a general rule, yes the parties involved did have a duty (basically EVERYBODY has a duty to EVERYBODY they interact with). And their actions did cause injury, so the final question is, did they breach their duty to exercise reasonable standard of care.

now, keep in mind, reasonable standard of care doesn't mean "be a nice person". It doesn't mean "don't do anything mean". The reasonable standard of care basically means, would a reasonable person have forseen the risk in these actions, without the benefit of hindsight.

Basically, would a reasonable person, similarly situated, with similar knowledge, forseen that this girl would kill herself as a result of these actions? And for that I"m not so sure. Suicide is a pretty extreme response, due quite possibly in part to her pre-existing mental illness which they may not have known about.

The main question would thus be: was her suicide reasonably forseeable? If not..then they didn't breach a reasonable duty of care, because the injury caused by their actions was not reasonably forseeable, and thus, no negligence.

She broke no law in place at the time. Every time a mentaly unstable person kills themself, and people wonder why they did it, they demand that what ever set them down that path should be punished. She was battling with depression, depressed people kill themslves. This should be a sentence or two at the bottom of a ticker, not taking up hours of time, just like the stacy peterson case.

Criminal negligence is a crime - which is arguably within reason of what these people did. If I were the parents of the girl that died, I would sue their asses off.

If this happened to my daughter, i'd post flyers of *Josh* all over the state, and then quite happily tribute my 90 days in jail to my daughter.

I think it's still too early to figure out who was responsible, but I'm inclined to lean away from the parents initially. Having just lost a loved one, their grief is understandable and human, and I'd be disturbed if they were not experiencing it.

That said, that grief may quite possibly be clouding their judgment and causing them to lash out at something in an attempt to make sense of what happened.

"Why would this happen? It can't have been her decision. We couldn't have missed the signs, someone else must have driven her to it." And so forth. It's an emotional response, and deserving of sympathy. But that does not mean that it should be treated as completely rational.

Having said that, they could in fact be completely right. Nevertheless, until I'm convinced of guilt, I'll take the other side.

I think it's still too early to figure out who was responsible, but I'm inclined to lean away from the parents initially. Having just lost a loved one, their grief is understandable and human, and I'd be disturbed if they were not experiencing it.

That said, that grief may quite possibly be clouding their judgment and causing them to lash out at something in an attempt to make sense of what happened.

"Why would this happen? It can't have been her decision. We couldn't have missed the signs, someone else must have driven her to it." And so forth. It's an emotional response, and deserving of sympathy. But that does not mean that it should be treated as completely rational.

Having said that, they could in fact be completely right. Nevertheless, until I'm convinced of guilt, I'll take the other side.

First of all, :fluffle:
My sympathies.

Second of all, you are precisely correct. Yes, the parents of the other girl acted immaturely and sadistically. No, this was likely not the only reason she killed herself. It was, at best, the final straw.

The girls parents are, of course, picking the final straw to place full blame. It is, as you say, natural. No, it couldn't be something WE did...it was THEM. She would have told us if something was wrong before. She never said anything. After all, we know our daughter! Sure, she had depression, but she was being treated!

It is natural to pass the blame and explain something away. We do it all the time. I've just never seen a suicide in which a single event caused it...sure, a single event may have triggered it, but in my experience, it was always a long time coming.

Following this story, I can't say I'm surprised- saddened, yes, but not surprised. During the FBI investigation, the FBI couldn't recover the final message Josh Evans sent to Megan Meier, the message that Ron Meier said killed her. Thus the case would follow a "he-said-she-said" format where nothing could actually be proved and thus nothing, sadly, could be done.

Now, I don't blame Megan for not keeping those messages- *I* probably would have deleted them myself- but the lesson in this case, it seems, is to "keep" everything- otherwise, the law has nothing to go on but your word that something happened, and "your word" isn't enough.

Following this story, I can't say I'm surprised- saddened, yes, but not surprised. During the FBI investigation, the FBI couldn't recover the final message Josh Evans sent to Megan Meier, the message that Ron Meier said killed her. Thus the case would follow a "he-said-she-said" format where nothing could actually be proved and thus nothing, sadly, could be done.

Now, I don't blame Megan for not keeping those messages- *I* probably would have deleted them myself- but the lesson in this case, it seems, is to "keep" everything- otherwise, the law has nothing to go on but your word that something happened, and "your word" isn't enough.

There is a point to this, without strong evidence as to the exact nature of the conversations, especially at the end, there really isn't enough to prove something.

http://meganhaditcoming.blogspot.com/

This has something written by Lori Drew... scary stuff, kind of really scary. This is the blog.

http://meganhaditcoming.blogspot.com/

This has something written by Lori Drew... scary stuff, kind of really scary. This is the blog.

Is this for real?

We knew that she suffered from depression

Stupid! stupid stupid stupid stupid

Is this for real?

Well, they already killed a Teenage girl with low self esteem, why not gloat about it?

Stupid! stupid stupid stupid stupid

Oh please tell me she just sealed her own casket with that comment, please say yes.

If what this person did was really wrong, and really amounts to some kind of murder, then one of the parents of the dead girl should cause a few untimely deaths of their own and go to jail as a result, believing that he or she has done the right thing.

If not, then its just a tragic, screwed up kid's short life story and thats the end of it.

Is this for real?
I wondered the same thing. I had found the blog from p2pNet. Some people were sceptic, but it may indeed be the real thing. There are many intimate details that only people on the inside may have known. Of course, it could be fake...

I guess I'll be checking Snopes now.

EDIT - nothing on it yet.

About that website, no one deserves to die like that but suicide... that is sad to gloat about it

http://www.megansvigilantes.blogspot.com/

Another blog of the same tone.

At this point, I feel the parents on both sides were the irresponsible ones. Children fight all the time and say stupid, insulting shit to each other, it's part of growing up. The adults should have known better and diffused the situation by making the girls sit down and talk about the problem, or just let them act in their own way.

There will always be children who bully other children. But there should not be a case of adults bullying a child. This went too far on Lori's part. She should led by example and not stooped the the level of the bully.

EDIT - more stuff: http://bluemerle.blogspot.com/2007/11/lori-drew-cnn-capture-police-report.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1120072megan1.html
http://bloggintheburbs.blogspot.com/2007/11/justice-for-megan-meier.html
http://bluemerle.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-you-said-to-megan-meier.html
http://www.michaelcrook.org/blog/2007/11/17/no-need-to-kill-yourself-its-just-teh-internets/

Angry mob justice... take a look at some of the comments, it really is angry mob justice.

2nd EDIT - I tried to find different links to represent different sides. There doesn't seem to be an impartial middle ground.

While I do not support the parents who did this, they only provided the final straw.

There is much more behind a suicide than just being harassed.

That's true, but there's something to be said about those who'd walk you the last mile.

If the justice system must be impotent on this, karma won't be.

Oh please tell me she just sealed her own casket with that comment, please say yes.

as I said before, the standard for negligence is "would a reasonable person, similarly situated, have forseen the risk". You could argue that if they did not know she was very depressed, no reasonable person could have forseen it.

If, however, you DID know she was depressed.....

as I said before, the standard for negligence is "would a reasonable person, similarly situated, have forseen the risk". You could argue that if they did not know she was very depressed, no reasonable person could have forseen it.

If, however, you DID know she was depressed.....

In the blog I linked that is supposedly written by Lori Drew, she does state that the family KNEW that the Meirs' girl did suffer from depression.

as I said before, the standard for negligence is "would a reasonable person, similarly situated, have forseen the risk". You could argue that if they did not know she was very depressed, no reasonable person could have forseen it.

If, however, you DID know she was depressed.....

Whats the Max you can get if you're convicted with "wrongful death"?

In the blog I linked that is supposedly written by Lori Drew, she does state that the family KNEW that the Meirs' girl did suffer from depression.

then she is at fault correct me if I'm wrong i live in the UK so am not good with the laws in the USA

I may be wrong about this, but I've been told that medically speaking, depression doesn't necessarily ≠ suicidal.

She was really such an hero, to take it all away.

You know what they say...
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2153/bullingrabbitat9.jpg

I may be wrong about this, but I've been told that medically speaking, depression doesn't necessarily ≠ suicidal.

Of course it doesn't. But it does = immensely increased likelihood of being suicidal. Similarly, someone who smoked six packs a day for forty years doesn't necessarily have lung problems - but you'd have a hard time convincing a judge that it never occurred to you that they might.

Whats the Max you can get if you're convicted with "wrongful death"?

wrongful death is a civil claim, there is no "conviction". The criminal equivalent would be something like criminally negligent homicide, typically manslaughter 2 or the like. But that's not likely here.

I may be wrong about this, but I've been told that medically speaking, depression doesn't necessarily ≠ suicidal.

No, but certain anti-depressants in teenagers can increased the risk.

wrongful death is a civil claim, there is no "conviction". The criminal equivalent would be something like criminally negligent homicide, typically manslaughter 2 or the like. But that's not likely here.

Ahh, well that sucks. If that Blog "Megan Had It Coming" really is Lori Drew's blog, then at least we now know she's a cold heartless bitch. I've read over the comments and her blog, never once did she take responsibility or apologized.

That's assuming that this is Lori's Blog and not someone posing as her.

I thought by current they meant during the time the case was going on. Ahh...maybe I am wrong? Probably.

We have somewhere in the Constitution a clause against retroactive laws (at least, I'm pretty sure we do). If the parents committed the crime before the law was passed, there is nothing legally that can be done.

We have somewhere in the Constitution a clause against retroactive laws (at least, I'm pretty sure we do). If the parents committed the crime before the law was passed, there is nothing legally that can be done.

It's a prohibition against ex post facto laws. So yes, they couldn't be prosecuted under it if they'd committed the act before the law was passed.

You can't criminalize things that occur on the internet that would be a crime in real life, such as harassment. The internet is another dimension and you cannot criminalize activities on it. If you use the internet to carry out a crime in real life, then it can follow normal laws.

She deserved to die for having a weak will.

You can't criminalize things that occur on the internet that would be a crime in real life, such as harassment. The internet is another dimension and you cannot criminalize activities on it. If you use the internet to carry out a crime in real life, then it can follow normal laws.

She deserved to die for having a weak will.

Sieg heil, mein Führer! (Nazi salute)

Sieg heil, mein Führer! (Nazi salute)

Godwin, but the irony of the situation makes it amusing.

so just what should the punishment be for "being mean to people on the internet"?

and wouldnt we ALL be guilty of it to some extent?

and wouldnt we ALL be guilty of it to some extent?

Guilty? Hell, that doesn't even begin to cover it. Those poor kids on Habbo...although I have to admit, I hope at least a few of them went to 2girls1cup hoping to get free Habbo coins.

You can't criminalize things that occur on the internet that would be a crime in real life, such as harassment. The internet is another dimension and you cannot criminalize activities on it. If you use the internet to carry out a crime in real life, then it can follow normal laws.

She deserved to die for having a weak will.

So tell me what's the difference between receiving twenty phone calls saying, "you're evil and I wish you were dead" and receiving twenty MySpace messages saying the exact same thing? The Internet very much *is* reality.

as I said before, the standard for negligence is "would a reasonable person, similarly situated, have forseen the risk". You could argue that if they did not know she was very depressed, no reasonable person could have forseen it.

If, however, you DID know she was depressed.....

Regardless of whether or not "Megan Had It Coming" is Lori Drew's blog, it's doubtful that Drew didn't know- I mean, Megan and her daughter were best friends for quite a while, plus it's not like Lori wouldn't know how unstable a teenager can get.

Godwin, but the irony of the situation makes it amusing.

Oh, Godwin. Godwin's a stupid law anyway.

Oh, Godwin. Godwin's a stupid law anyway.

It only applies if the comparison is unjustified...and quite frankly, it applied quite well.

It only applies if the comparison is unjustified...and quite frankly, it applied quite well.

A common misconception. If you were to actually look at Godwin's Law, no mention is made of the validity of a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis. Therefore it is a Godwin, no matter how apt a comparison it was.

A common misconception. If you were to actually look at Godwin's Law, no mention is made of the validity of a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis. Therefore it is a Godwin, no matter how apt a comparison it was.

But then the law is completely pointless...not that I ever gave it any validity to begin with, but eh.

The Drews were dicks. No two ways about that. But, i hate to break it to you, being mean is not against the law. Or else everyone who's going to flame me for this post is going to jail. The girl was not old enough to be on Myspace in the first place, and the fact that her parents not only allowed this but supported it is disgusting. They allowed their thirteen year old daughter to have an online relationship with a 16 year old, despite the fact that he provided no phone number after 6 weeks (It doesn't take that long to get a number) and they had never actually met in person. When people started saying mean things about her, they actually left the house knowing perfectly well they had a depressed child who was frantic over this. I don't know about you, but they sound like terrible parents. When people get bullied in real life and kill them selves, no one cares, but when its on the EBIL INTERNETS the whole country is up and arms and there are calls to basically blacklist the Drews. They didn't kill her, she killed herself, this is a fact. Being mean is not a crime, so they deserve no punishment. It is up to the girl and her parents to protect her, both of whom failed miserably.
On a side note, anyone else find it interesting that the police conveniently can't find the message that told her to killed herself, only the dad said it was there? Btw, i think i used some stuff from other articles in here, so if anyone wants sources im happy to give them.

I'd like to point out again that I think what the Drews did is disgusting, but this is obvious. So don't say im defending their actions, im merely saying they should not go to jail for a crime thats not crime.

The Drews were dicks. No two ways about that. But, i hate to break it to you, being mean is not against the law. Or else everyone who's going to flame me for this post is going to jail. The girl was not old enough to be on Myspace in the first place, and the fact that her parents not only allowed this but supported it is disgusting. They allowed their thirteen year old daughter to have an online relationship with a 16 year old, despite the fact that he provided no phone number after 6 weeks (It doesn't take that long to get a number) and they had never actually met in person. When people started saying mean things about her, they actually left the house knowing perfectly well they had a depressed child who was frantic over this. I don't know about you, but they sound like terrible parents. When people get bullied in real life and kill them selves, no one cares, but when its on the EBIL INTERNETS the whole country is up and arms and there are calls to basically blacklist the Drews. They didn't kill her, she killed herself, this is a fact. Being mean is not a crime, so they deserve no punishment. It is up to the girl and her parents to protect her, both of whom failed miserably.
On a side note, anyone else find it interesting that the police conveniently can't find the message that told her to killed herself, only the dad said it was there? Btw, i think i used some stuff from other articles in here, so if anyone wants sources im happy to give them.

I'd like to point out again that I think what the Drews did is disgusting, but this is obvious. So don't say im defending their actions, im merely saying they should not go to jail for a crime thats not crime.


id have to agree with you.

not only that but whats so freaking special about the internet that it should be a crime to be mean to people online when its perfectly fine to be mean to people in person? isnt it worse to have everyone in your school laughing at you than to have people write mean things to you on your myspace page?

Indri,

Over the past few days and weeks we've noticed that you have a history of trolling, ranging from simply tasteless commentary to gloating over suicides and telling other posters to kill themselves. Apparently you think that this is funny. It is not funny. It is trolling for reactions, and it is not acceptable. Further instances shall result in you being banned.

~ Tsar the Mod.

The police report has this interesting tidbit (from The Smoking Gun):

According to (Lori) Drew "somehow" other "my space" (sic) users were able to acces the fake male profile and Megan found out she had been duped. Drew stated she knew arguments had broken out between Megan and others on "my space" (sic). Drew felt this incident contributed to Megan's suicide, but she did not feel "as guilty" because at the funeral she found out "Megan had tried to commit suicide before".

So who knows if it really was Drew that wrote those final messages or the people that hacked into the Josh Evans account. Mind you, all we have is Drew's word that the account got hacked, but then again, all we have is Ron Meier's word that there was a message that said "this world would be better off without you."

<snip><snip>

You're both missing the point- the issue is not "Megan Meier committed suicide because of bullying". The issue is "Lori Drew- an adult and mother of Meier's former friend- created a fake MySpace profile in order to exact revenge on Meier." This isn't a normal bullying case by any means.

Regardless, "bullying" is by no means legal- it qualifies as harrassment. The only reason why the Drews got off was because no one could find the hurtful messages (at least not the last one that Megan's father Ron said that killed her). I'm pretty sure if the messages could have been retrieved we'd have a different story here.

The police report has this interesting tidbit (from The Smoking Gun):



So who knows if it really was Drew that wrote those final messages or the people that hacked into the Josh Evans account. Mind you, all we have is Drew's word that the account got hacked, but then again, all we have is Ron Meier's word that there was a message that said "this world would be better off without you."



You're both missing the point- the issue is not "Megan Meier committed suicide because of bullying". The issue is "Lori Drew- an adult and mother of Meier's former friend- created a fake MySpace profile in order to exact revenge on Meier." This isn't a normal bullying case by any means.

Regardless, "bullying" is by no means legal- it qualifies as harrassment. The only reason why the Drews got off was because no one could find the hurtful messages (at least not the last one that Megan's father Ron said that killed her). I'm pretty sure if the messages could have been retrieved we'd have a different story here.

i dont think i am missing the point

ms drew pulled a dirty trick on megan meier. other people perhaps including ms drew and her daughter wrote mean things on the girl's myspace page.

i see no harrassment by this family. bad immature cruel behavior but not harrassment.

i dont think i am missing the point

ms drew pulled a dirty trick on megan meier. other people perhaps including ms drew and her daughter wrote mean things on the girl's myspace page.

i see no harrassment by this family. bad immature cruel behavior but not harrassment.

Harrassment can be something as simple as consistently and regularly receiving harmful messages- which is exactly what Josh Evans is (purported) to have done. Not only that, but the Drews' intentions are clearly malicious.

Now, I don't know if there was enough evidence to obtain any kind of criminal conviction (considering that we don't actually *have* the messages, there's no evidence with which to prosecute), but I think the pieces would have been there if the evidence was stronger.

I have mixed feelings and mixed thoughts about this case.

I start with the presumption of innocence for the Drews.

I don't know specific facts, merely those that are banding about the internet.

I don't know what laws exist in Missouri that could be relevant.

Without matching facts to elements of crimes, it is difficult to say the Drews should have been charged with any crime.

This article seems to have a more intelligent discussion of the investigation: No Charges Filed in MySpace suicide case (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nationworld/stories/120307dnnatmyspace.1845e4e.html)
Apparently there was insufficient evidence to charge the Drews with harassment, stalking, or endangerment of a child.
Both the FBI and St. Charles County Sheriff's Department investigated the Meier case over the past year and could find no appropriate criminal charge. Prosecutors didn't see a crime either, and high-profile law firms did not pursue a civil suit.


I'm still gathering my thoughts together so this post may not make sense.

The problem, it seems to me TCT, and again, I'm no expert on state law, is not that if the allegations if true constituted no crime, but rather that there was insufficient proof to substantiate the allegations.

I find it hard to believe that if they knew she was depressed and did this anyway, and there was sufficient evidence for it, that somebody wouldn't pursue a wrongful death claim.

It seems to me that if the allegations were proveable, there would be some crime there, but that they can not be proven.

Stalking

§ 565.225. Crime of Stalking; Definitions; Penalties. 1993. Amended 2002.

1. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:

(1) "Course of conduct", a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts which may include electronic or other communications, over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct". Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests;

(2) "Credible threat", a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause physical injury to, a person and may include a threat communicated to the target person in writing, including electronic communications, by telephone, or by the posting of a site or message that is accessible via computer;

(3)"Harasses", to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and that actually causes substantial emotional distress to that person.
2. Any person who purposely and repeatedly harasses or follows with the intent of harassing another person commits the crime of stalking

3. Any person who purposely and repeatedly harasses or follows with the intent of harassing or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious physical injury, commits the crime of aggravated stalking.

4. The crime of stalking shall be a class A misdemeanor for the first offense. A second or subsequent offense within five years of a previous finding or plea of guilt against any victim shall be a class D felony.

5. The crime of aggravated stalking shall be a class D felony for the first offense. A second or subsequent offense within five years of a previous finding or plea of guilt against any victim shall be a class C felony.

6. Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, Missouri's harassment law does not follow the Model Penal Code, § 250.4. Instead it has the statute below.

Harassment
§ 565.090 Harassment. 1977.

1. A person commits the crime of harassment if for the purpose of frightening or disturbing another person, he

(1) Communicates in writing or by telephone a threat to commit any felony; or

(2) Makes a telephone call or communicates in writing and uses coarse language offensive to one of average sensibility; or

(3) Makes a telephone call anonymously; or

(4) Makes repeated telephone calls.

Harassment is a class A misdemeanor

I can see how it is difficult to peg this case down under the law. But I think I bolded provisions under stalking that would apply to this case. (If the facts are there.)

The problem, it seems to me TCT, and again, I'm no expert on state law, is not that if the allegations if true constituted no crime, but rather that there was insufficient proof to substantiate the allegations.

I find it hard to believe that if they knew she was depressed and did this anyway, and there was sufficient evidence for it, that somebody wouldn't pursue a wrongful death claim.

It seems to me that if the allegations were proveable, there would be some crime there, but that they can not be proven.

I think you've hit on the nub of the problem, which is lack of evidence. We don't know what evidence the government has, but we do know they don't believe is enough to charge any crime.

I am rather shocked there isn't a wrongful death suit pending --even given the paucity of evidence.

I'm just trying to evaluate opinions that say "she should get X or be charged with Y" with some framework of what X and Y actually require.

Missouri's harrassment law doesn't really apply as it relies on telephone calls and/or direct threats. The stalking statute best fits what little knowledge I have of the "facts" of the case.

BTW, my analysis is affected by the influence of prescription medications including Ambien which I am currently enjoying.

I think you've hit on the nub of the problem, which is lack of evidence. We don't know what evidence the government has, but we do know they don't believe is enough to charge any crime.

I am rather shocked there isn't a wrongful death suit pending --even given the paucity of evidence.

Agreed, especially since it seems she fucking admitted it

I'm just trying to evaluate opinions that say "she should get X or be charged with Y" with some framework of what X and Y actually require.

Missouri's harrassment law doesn't really apply as it relies on telephone calls and/or direct threats. The stalking statute best fits what little knowledge I have of the "facts" of the case.

Perhaps it is a case of laws not keeping pace with technology. If that were the case it would mean there was a gap in which, under Missouri law, internet harassment was essentially unregulated. How...behind the times...

Well, it is Missouri

BTW, my analysis is affected by the influence of prescription medications including Ambien which I am currently enjoying.

Some wierd shit ambien. Took some once. Apparently, according to my girlfriend, I ended up babbling about how I was made of legos. On tylenol PM here. I find it funny that the two of us drugged up still have a better conversation on legal theory than I usually see here.

I thought part of the problem was the initial intent. The woman who started this admitted (and her reason accepted by the DA or whoever it was that investigated this case) that she started the whole fictional Josh character in order to find out what the dead teen had been saying about her and her own daughter.
Which, while not being a particularly pleasant thing to do, can hardly be considered stalking. Especially the bolded part in Cat-tribe's post:
(3)"Harasses", to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose
I guess it was decided that it could be argued the harassment started with a 'legitimate purpose' - or at least argued sufficiently well enough to create doubt and thus be found not guilty. Hence the decision not to prosecute.

http://meganhaditcoming.blogspot.com/

This has something written by Lori Drew... scary stuff, kind of really scary. This is the blog.

well, ok, apparently...it's not her (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/08/internet.suicide.ap/index.html)

well, ok, apparently...it's not her (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/08/internet.suicide.ap/index.html)

Dammit.... I knew it was too good to be true.

Hmm, maybe 'certain people' can just make their internet life hell. It would be fitting and lulz worthy.

I withdraw my statements on vigilante justice. If someone killed the Drew's daughter, I wouldn't cry at all.

I withdraw my statements on vigilante justice. If someone killed the Drew's daughter, I wouldn't cry at all.

rather harsh "justice" for a person who was mean to someone on the internet isnt it?

do you often find it just to kill an innocent person for the indiscretion of her parent?

I withdraw my statements on vigilante justice. If someone killed the Drew's daughter, I wouldn't cry at all.

:rolleyes:

You're going to advocate the murder of an innocent person because someone they used to be friends with decided to end their own life? I pity you.

http://www.megansvigilantes.blogspot.com/

Another blog of the same tone.

At this point, I feel the parents on both sides were the irresponsible ones. Children fight all the time and say stupid, insulting shit to each other, it's part of growing up. The adults should have known better and diffused the situation by making the girls sit down and talk about the problem, or just let them act in their own way.

There will always be children who bully other children. But there should not be a case of adults bullying a child. This went too far on Lori's part. She should led by example and not stooped the the level of the bully.

EDIT - more stuff: http://bluemerle.blogspot.com/2007/11/lori-drew-cnn-capture-police-report.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1120072megan1.html
http://bloggintheburbs.blogspot.com/2007/11/justice-for-megan-meier.html
http://bluemerle.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-you-said-to-megan-meier.html
http://www.michaelcrook.org/blog/2007/11/17/no-need-to-kill-yourself-its-just-teh-internets/

Angry mob justice... take a look at some of the comments, it really is angry mob justice.

2nd EDIT - I tried to find different links to represent different sides. There doesn't seem to be an impartial middle ground.
Really, really sickening, both sides. But I can't imagine losing my daughter to suicide and having people gloat about it online and talk about what a loser she was and how she basically deserved to die. Christ. People fucking suck.

:rolleyes:

You're going to advocate the murder of an innocent person because someone they used to be friends with decided to end their own life? I pity you.

It's more complicated than that. Megan ended her own life because Lori Drew couldn't bothered to be an adult (she's a mom, must be in her 30's or 40's) and decided to harass a 13 year old girl online under the alias "Josh" and apparently said some mean thing to her that drove her to suicide. Megan was clinically depressed so Lori put pressured on a person that wasn't able to handle much pressure to begin with.

Now there are rumors that other joined in on picking on and harassing Megan but so far I don't know if that's true or not.

*sigh* Unfortunately, in this case America isn't Mesopotamia, where she'd be goaded into committing suicide herself. This story is heartbreaking, considering the victim had already suffered from suicide. I think the stupid cow mother should be charged with at least manslaughter in this case.

It's more complicated than that. Megan ended her own life because Lori Drew couldn't bothered to be an adult (she's a mom, must be in her 30's or 40's) and decided to harass a 13 year old girl online under the alias "Josh" and apparently said some mean thing to her that drove her to suicide. Megan was clinically depressed so Lori put pressured on a person that wasn't able to handle much pressure to begin with.

Now there are rumors that other joined in on picking on and harassing Megan but so far I don't know if that's true or not.

its not complicated enough to advocate another child's death.

It's more complicated than that. Megan ended her own life because Lori Drew couldn't bothered to be an adult (she's a mom, must be in her 30's or 40's) and decided to harass a 13 year old girl online under the alias "Josh" and apparently said some mean thing to her that drove her to suicide. Megan was clinically depressed so Lori put pressured on a person that wasn't able to handle much pressure to begin with.

Now there are rumors that other joined in on picking on and harassing Megan but so far I don't know if that's true or not.

It's like you're ignoring all the facts.

It's more complicated than that. Megan ended her own life because Lori Drew couldn't bothered to be an adult (she's a mom, must be in her 30's or 40's) and decided to harass a 13 year old girl online under the alias "Josh" and apparently said some mean thing to her that drove her to suicide. Megan was clinically depressed so Lori put pressured on a person that wasn't able to handle much pressure to begin with.

Now there are rumors that other joined in on picking on and harassing Megan but so far I don't know if that's true or not.

That's still not anywhere near enough reason to advocate the murder of an innocent person. And Megan ended her own life because she was called names, and because family and friends missed the signs that she may be depressed enough to commit suicide. And is there any proof that Lori Drew knew about Megan's condition?

*sigh* Unfortunately, in this case America isn't Mesopotamia, where she'd be goaded into committing suicide herself. This story is heartbreaking, considering the victim had already suffered from suicide. I think the stupid cow mother should be charged with at least manslaughter in this case.

Why? The mother had no physical hand in Megan's death. Megan committed suicide.

:rolleyes:

You're going to advocate the murder of an innocent person because someone they used to be friends with decided to end their own life? I pity you.

How else will Lori know the pain of losing a daughter? I see no punishment more fitting.

It's like you're ignoring all the facts.

What facts are there?

That's still not anywhere near enough reason to advocate the murder of an innocent person. And Megan ended her own life because she was called names, and because family and friends missed the signs that she may be depressed enough to commit suicide. And is there any proof that Lori Drew knew about Megan's condition?

If her daughter and Megan been friends, then I would say the chance of her knowing would be pretty good. Although a responsible parent would try to get to know their child's friend, and Lori Drew doesn't sound like a responsible parent.

its not complicated enough to advocate another child's death.

No, but I could see Child Service taking away Lori's daughter.

No, but I could see Child Service taking away Lori's daughter.

for what reason? In order ot justify taking a child away from his/her parents, there must be a showing that the child is at risk. I have yet to see anything to suggest that she is at risk. If anything her mother seemed to be overly concerned for the daughter, and manifested this in a very bad way, but that does not in any way show a risk to the daughter.

for what reason? In order ot justify taking a child away from his/her parents, there must be a showing that the child is at risk. I have yet to see anything to suggest that she is at risk. If anything her mother seemed to be overly concerned for the daughter, and manifested this in a very bad way, but that does not in any way show a risk to the daughter.

Maybe, but I would still keep a close eye on Lori, I mean a grown woman resorting to a tactic of a 13 year old just because Megan didn't want to be her daughter's friend anymore?

Somethings not right in her head IMHO.

The was something recently on the new york times' website about how this woman and her family are being harassed and ostracized by their community.

The was something recently on the new york times' website about how this woman and her family are being harassed and ostracized by their community.Good riddance.

Oh, Godwin. Godwin's a stupid law anyway.
Only a Nazi would say that.

How else will Lori know the pain of losing a daughter? I see no punishment more fitting.

wow thats creepy

so you find it right to kill a child because her mother is a bitch.

most modern societies dont punish children for the sins/crimes of the parents.

Maybe, but I would still keep a close eye on Lori, I mean a grown woman resorting to a tactic of a 13 year old just because Megan didn't want to be her daughter's friend anymore?

Somethings not right in her head IMHO.

they need to keep a close eye on the daughter because the general public is being encouraged to think like mirkai and her life may be in danger from some weak minded person taking the idea that she should be killed for her mothers transgression too seriously.

How else will Lori know the pain of losing a daughter? I see no punishment more fitting.

So the murder of an innocent person is now a good punishment for a party that hasn't broken the law?

The Drews got off scot free

The Drews are the ones who will not be blamed for nothing!

If her daughter and Megan been friends, then I would say the chance of her knowing would be pretty good. Although a responsible parent would try to get to know their child's friend, and Lori Drew doesn't sound like a responsible parent.

My high school friend (who was very outgoing, and had a lot of friends) had a bad case of depression, and I had no idea about it. He ended up killing himself over a girl.

So just because the girls were friends, doesn't mean the mother knew about the depression. Hell, Lori Drew's daughter may not even have known.

Only a Nazi would say that.

You are not fit to be part of the master race. :p

I read on Digg that their neighbours are giving them a dose of...Amish justice. They're being shunned, told to move away, nobody's stepping up to defend them when vandals stop by the house. They had to get a video monitoring device to counteract that.

Yeah, it's kind of creepy, and of course it's vigilantism. But Justice isn't always sweet, kind or pretty. Something has to be done so as to avoid sending the message that pushing a kid to suicide deliberately is perfectly legal.

I'm not saying they should have their house burnt down around their ears. But if one of my neighbours did something like that, and I knew about it, you bet I'd support a shunning campaign against them.

I read on Digg that their neighbours are giving them a dose of...Amish justice. They're being shunned, told to move away, nobody's stepping up to defend them when vandals stop by the house. They had to get a video monitoring device to counteract that.

Yeah, it's kind of creepy, and of course it's vigilantism. But Justice isn't always sweet, kind or pretty. Something has to be done so as to avoid sending the message that pushing a kid to suicide deliberately is perfectly legal.

I'm not saying they should have their house burnt down around their ears. But if one of my neighbours did something like that, and I knew about it, you bet I'd support a shunning campaign against them.

Vigilantism isn't justice, EVER. And how do you know that they knew about Megan's depression, or that they deliberately pushed her to commit suicide?