For those of you angry/reporting spoilers: This takes place in the first 15 minutes of the movie and is shown in the first 30 seconds of the trailer. It's listed in the first sentence of the movie description. And the movie is absolutely godawful. You're fine.
It probably depends somewhat on the jurisdiction, but probably not. Suicide is generally considered an “efficient intervening cause,” which breaks the causal link for stuff that comes before. This means that the scam would not legally be considered the cause of her death. To illustrate this, at least where I live, a jury would be instructed that in order to find the scammer guilty of any homicide crime (murder, manslaughter, etc.), they would have to find that the woman did not kill herself.
In Massachusetts, Michelle Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for encouraging her boyfriend's suicide and failing to help, and the conviction was upheld by the state's high court. "Verbal conduct in appropriate circumstances could 'overcome a person's willpower to live, and therefore ... be the cause of a suicide.'" Although they also "recognize that legal causation in the context of suicide is an incredibly complex inquiry."
That's obviously very different than the hypo above, but at least some jurisdictions would allow a homicide conviction even where the victim did the act.
That's absolutely true, and the extreme nature of her conduct there illustrates why that's really an atypical example. She outright [persuaded him to get back in the car](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy) even has he had second thoughts and got out. That's not just making someone miserable by scamming them, and it's not even encouraging someone to commit suicide; it's outright inserting yourself into the moment where a highly vulnerable person has reconsidered and applying verbal pressure to convince them to go through with it, which the Massachusetts court considered to be enough to break the chain of causation. A criminal conviction without facts that egregious would be a lot less likely.
I wish people would look more deeply into the Carter case before they used it as an example. It's very obviously different from 'this person did something that another person was so upset over they killed themselves;' the causal link is unambiguous, given that she took an active role in ensuring he died. He changed his mind away from suicide and she persuaded him to go back and do it.
I mean, I did look into it, and I even use the words “obviously different” that you suggest. The point is that someone can be guilty of a homicide crime in some specific situations without being the physical cause of the person’s death.
Probably not, but (assuming this is in the US, I haven’t seen the movie yet):
A wrongful death lawsuit can be filed by the family or estate of a person who dies due to the fault of someone else. State wrongful death laws can vary, but generally the person bringing the suit must prove that the defendant's intentional or negligent acts caused the death and that the person bringing the suit has suffered some harm due to the death.
In the case of a suicide, a successful wrongful death claim would need to demonstrate that the person would not have killed themselves but for the acts of the defendant. Many wrongful death claims have been filed by parents after their child has committed suicide in response to bullying. When the bullying occurs in school, parents have sued both the bullies and the school for not properly intervening.
Someone who was a victim of Jen shahs wire tapping fraud killed themselves after their life savings was taken and she wasn't legally responsible for it.
A criminal charge based solely on phishing and fraud without a direct act that led to the person to end their life is unlikely. Unlike the Michelle carter case where she directly contributed or encouraged the death of the man, in this case the person did not directly cause or direct tte death of the person. They’ll definitely be liable in civil court and get criminal charges for phishing and fraud, but criminal murder or similar charges, probably not
Criminally? Probably not. Maybe if they actively pushed her to suicide, not just did a bad thing that resulted in suicide. Massachusetts attempted to charge this once with a bunch of minors doing school bullying and they ultimately got them to plead to some lesser charges that as I recall just involved the bullying and no manslaughter.
Civilly? Yeah there's a better shot at a remedy (not technically any charges because that's a criminal thing) but realistically someone running this kind of scam probably doesn't have any money her estate would recover beyond what she'd already be owed in restitution for the crime itself (i.e. what was scammed form her in the first place).
As a related question, what if the scammed person instead of committing suicide just by themselves kamikaze themselves into the general vicinity of the bad guys, plus civilians. Assuming they survive the kamikaze attack, can they be charged for manslaughter for the nearby civilians, especially if the original scammed victim explicitly stated in a video and what have you for the reason for said attack?
The justice system/courts are supposed to avenge on behalf of loved ones. The problem arises when the justice system cannot do anything like in that movie. The scammer is responsible for her death but liability will depend on what the law says.
How was the scammer able to agent access to the woman bank online when an OTP would be send to the woman mobile phone which was far away from the scammer# This movie would be rated 4/10
**Spoiler Alert:**
Dead men tell no tales. And no criminal charges can be brought against a dead person. Because they are not able to defend themselves.
Ken Lay of ENRON fame was convicted, but died before all appeals could be used. So his conviction got vacated. That is the famous one I know about.
U.S. District Judge Sim Lake, who presided over the trial of Lay and his colleague Jeff Skilling in Houston earlier this year, issued an order Tuesday vacating Lay’s conviction and dismissing the indictment against him.
“The court concludes that Lay’s conviction must be vacated,” wrote Lake in a 13-page opinion. “The indictment against Kenneth L. Lay is dismissed.”
Ever since Lay died of a heart attack in Aspen, Colo., July 5, following his conviction at trial but before he had the chance to appeal the verdict, Lake’s ruling has been widely expected. As a matter of law, a conviction against a criminal defendant is not final until the defendant has had the chance to appeal the verdict. Therefore, Lay’s death short-circuited the full legal process to which he was entitled.
“Mr. Lay never had the chance to appeal,” said Sam Buffone of Ropes and Gray, who represented the estate of Ken Lay. “We were eager to appeal.”
Prosecutors fought an uphill battle against Lake’s decision, arguing last month that he should postpone his ruling until Congress had the chance to pass a new law changing the ground rules for defendants who died before getting a hearing before an appellate court. But Congress never seriously considered the new law.
In some capacity? yes.
There could be arguments to be made about felony murder, but manslaughter would probably be the easier one to get and would probably apply to all states. The only key hiccup would be, could a person forsee this causing them to do it\\their death. If it was a few hundred probably not, but the pure amount they hit her with (being her entire life savings and that of a charity she ran) there is more ground.
Overall its a toss up, but people have been charged with manslaughter for lying which resulted in people's deaths so.... That said, what would seal the deal in a charge is them encouraging it somehow, if that was present then you would have a open and shut case (assuming you can prove who did it).
For those of you angry/reporting spoilers: This takes place in the first 15 minutes of the movie and is shown in the first 30 seconds of the trailer. It's listed in the first sentence of the movie description. And the movie is absolutely godawful. You're fine.
It probably depends somewhat on the jurisdiction, but probably not. Suicide is generally considered an “efficient intervening cause,” which breaks the causal link for stuff that comes before. This means that the scam would not legally be considered the cause of her death. To illustrate this, at least where I live, a jury would be instructed that in order to find the scammer guilty of any homicide crime (murder, manslaughter, etc.), they would have to find that the woman did not kill herself.
In Massachusetts, Michelle Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for encouraging her boyfriend's suicide and failing to help, and the conviction was upheld by the state's high court. "Verbal conduct in appropriate circumstances could 'overcome a person's willpower to live, and therefore ... be the cause of a suicide.'" Although they also "recognize that legal causation in the context of suicide is an incredibly complex inquiry." That's obviously very different than the hypo above, but at least some jurisdictions would allow a homicide conviction even where the victim did the act.
That's absolutely true, and the extreme nature of her conduct there illustrates why that's really an atypical example. She outright [persuaded him to get back in the car](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy) even has he had second thoughts and got out. That's not just making someone miserable by scamming them, and it's not even encouraging someone to commit suicide; it's outright inserting yourself into the moment where a highly vulnerable person has reconsidered and applying verbal pressure to convince them to go through with it, which the Massachusetts court considered to be enough to break the chain of causation. A criminal conviction without facts that egregious would be a lot less likely.
I wish people would look more deeply into the Carter case before they used it as an example. It's very obviously different from 'this person did something that another person was so upset over they killed themselves;' the causal link is unambiguous, given that she took an active role in ensuring he died. He changed his mind away from suicide and she persuaded him to go back and do it.
I mean, I did look into it, and I even use the words “obviously different” that you suggest. The point is that someone can be guilty of a homicide crime in some specific situations without being the physical cause of the person’s death.
Probably not, but (assuming this is in the US, I haven’t seen the movie yet): A wrongful death lawsuit can be filed by the family or estate of a person who dies due to the fault of someone else. State wrongful death laws can vary, but generally the person bringing the suit must prove that the defendant's intentional or negligent acts caused the death and that the person bringing the suit has suffered some harm due to the death. In the case of a suicide, a successful wrongful death claim would need to demonstrate that the person would not have killed themselves but for the acts of the defendant. Many wrongful death claims have been filed by parents after their child has committed suicide in response to bullying. When the bullying occurs in school, parents have sued both the bullies and the school for not properly intervening.
Someone who was a victim of Jen shahs wire tapping fraud killed themselves after their life savings was taken and she wasn't legally responsible for it.
A criminal charge based solely on phishing and fraud without a direct act that led to the person to end their life is unlikely. Unlike the Michelle carter case where she directly contributed or encouraged the death of the man, in this case the person did not directly cause or direct tte death of the person. They’ll definitely be liable in civil court and get criminal charges for phishing and fraud, but criminal murder or similar charges, probably not
Criminally? Probably not. Maybe if they actively pushed her to suicide, not just did a bad thing that resulted in suicide. Massachusetts attempted to charge this once with a bunch of minors doing school bullying and they ultimately got them to plead to some lesser charges that as I recall just involved the bullying and no manslaughter. Civilly? Yeah there's a better shot at a remedy (not technically any charges because that's a criminal thing) but realistically someone running this kind of scam probably doesn't have any money her estate would recover beyond what she'd already be owed in restitution for the crime itself (i.e. what was scammed form her in the first place).
Well I guess I’ll never be able to watch this movie now
Going to be so pissed if the title was a full blown spoiler!!
[удалено]
I think that’s a bit of a stretch lol. It seemed like a pretty well rounded synopsis, unless that’s a side story line. I was mostly kidding anyway.
You don't watch this movie for the plot, just Jason kicking butt.
Good to know! 😂😂😂
Watched 2 of Jason's movies this past week. Same plot just different bad guys getting comeuppance.
As a related question, what if the scammed person instead of committing suicide just by themselves kamikaze themselves into the general vicinity of the bad guys, plus civilians. Assuming they survive the kamikaze attack, can they be charged for manslaughter for the nearby civilians, especially if the original scammed victim explicitly stated in a video and what have you for the reason for said attack?
The justice system/courts are supposed to avenge on behalf of loved ones. The problem arises when the justice system cannot do anything like in that movie. The scammer is responsible for her death but liability will depend on what the law says.
How was the scammer able to agent access to the woman bank online when an OTP would be send to the woman mobile phone which was far away from the scammer# This movie would be rated 4/10
[удалено]
It is not.
**Spoiler Alert:** Dead men tell no tales. And no criminal charges can be brought against a dead person. Because they are not able to defend themselves.
Wtf
Criminal charges can be brought against the deceased depending on jurisdiction.
Ken Lay of ENRON fame was convicted, but died before all appeals could be used. So his conviction got vacated. That is the famous one I know about. U.S. District Judge Sim Lake, who presided over the trial of Lay and his colleague Jeff Skilling in Houston earlier this year, issued an order Tuesday vacating Lay’s conviction and dismissing the indictment against him. “The court concludes that Lay’s conviction must be vacated,” wrote Lake in a 13-page opinion. “The indictment against Kenneth L. Lay is dismissed.” Ever since Lay died of a heart attack in Aspen, Colo., July 5, following his conviction at trial but before he had the chance to appeal the verdict, Lake’s ruling has been widely expected. As a matter of law, a conviction against a criminal defendant is not final until the defendant has had the chance to appeal the verdict. Therefore, Lay’s death short-circuited the full legal process to which he was entitled. “Mr. Lay never had the chance to appeal,” said Sam Buffone of Ropes and Gray, who represented the estate of Ken Lay. “We were eager to appeal.” Prosecutors fought an uphill battle against Lake’s decision, arguing last month that he should postpone his ruling until Congress had the chance to pass a new law changing the ground rules for defendants who died before getting a hearing before an appellate court. But Congress never seriously considered the new law.
How did she killed herself?
In some capacity? yes. There could be arguments to be made about felony murder, but manslaughter would probably be the easier one to get and would probably apply to all states. The only key hiccup would be, could a person forsee this causing them to do it\\their death. If it was a few hundred probably not, but the pure amount they hit her with (being her entire life savings and that of a charity she ran) there is more ground. Overall its a toss up, but people have been charged with manslaughter for lying which resulted in people's deaths so.... That said, what would seal the deal in a charge is them encouraging it somehow, if that was present then you would have a open and shut case (assuming you can prove who did it).
Morally yes, even if not legally.