board77

I just don't think that suicide is as vague a concept to a 13-year-old as it may be to an 8-year-old. They're not babies. Certainly not adults, but they'd have some understanding of what's going on.




*E*

What if a thirteen-year-old wanted just to use a site like this? I joined TORC when I was twelve, so I guess I'm biased...

*~Pips~*

*E*, I have a 12 year old boy, about to turn 13 years old. Do I think he's mature enough to make a life or death decision? No, I do not. Do I think he could be tortured and tormented into such a terrible state? I don't know and I wouldn't take the chance. He has plenty of social interaction with his friends at school, sports, and on weekends and quite honestly I see no need whatsoever for MSN or Facebook.

Pippin4242, this site isn't one of those "social" sites, is it? You aren't being "talked about" by your school friends/enemies, are you? Do people post crap about you here, saying awful things about you?

My boy is allowed to go to a couple of Paintball sites now and again, which is his present passion. But I'm always in the room with him when he goes on it.

For every you, there's a possible Megan, Pips. That's why almost every board started putting in age cutoffs a while back, even if they're obviously not well enforced. But there's also a huge difference, as you know, between a place like this and MySpace. There's actual recourse here for someone doing the sort of things the Drew mother did.

Is that normal behaviour for myspace? Was that the behaviour that the parents had previously observed from her peers on the site? They thought she was making connections and feeling more confident about herself.

I do object to blanket observations on youth. I'm sure TP has it ten times worse than me, but even I feel it sometimes, being the youngest of my friends wherever I go. I'm the one who can't get into the cinema, I'm the one who has to fork out for replacement ID even though I don't drive (stolen wallet with driver's license) I'm the one who's constantly assumed to be the least capable. I've always been the youngest regular at b77 too. Me, Sharky and Suga, I believe, were born within a couple of weeks of each other. It's moot, but it's also annoying. Can an ordinary thirteen-year old be trusted with life or death decisions? They aren't stupid! Just because you remember them back when they couldn't tie their shoelaces, doesn't mean they don't grow up fast.

Whilst Megan's case was horrible, let's not bring her age into this. Anybody can commit suicide, and people of all ages do. It wasn't a reasonable worry for her parents, despite the fact that she'd been seen as a bit unstable. It's just a bloody networking site. You write a little bit about your hobbies, and maybe post a few photos of you pissed (possibly an England-only activity). Then you just comment on each other's pages. It's ridiculously boring, but if it's caught on, it's caught on, and no kid, least not of all a self-concious one, wants to be badly out of the loop.

By the way, I happened to see a possible update in the news - internet bullying made illegal in her hometown? I didn't have time to read it, because I'm working on an essay right now, which I want to have done by the weekend so I can spend more time with my partner, so sorry for not retrieving it, but I thought you interested folk should know there's some further news out there.

*~Pips~*

Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about age appropriateness when it comes to being online or participating in certain websites, just that the decision to kill herself was that of the teenager's and no one else... to a degree, I guess, because as I said before I really don't know how much responsibility you can blame on the other person. In this case the prodding was a lot more obvious, but you can't charge someone for lacking compassion, decency, etc. I don't know how other school and/or bullying cases have panned out, I just think it's a slippery slope when you start taking people to court for being an asshole.

vison, I guess we were talking about separate things because whether or not that girl was old enough to make the decision never factored into my mind, so it was other things about the case I focused on. I don't really know what to say, anyway, because whether she was mature enough or not, she DID kill herself, and that's something that not a lot of people her age or younger do. She'd been suicidal long before dealing with cruel pranksters, and if she had killed herself then, folks could blame her parents or maybe a nasty teacher or a few bullies at school, but in the end, what she chose to do herself was still her decision. In my opinion, except for maybe grade school-aged children, people have to acknowledge their part in what they do because the blame game can get SO freaking out-of-hand it's just ridiculous. I don't want to go there, so yeah, to me, the Meiers girl knew what she was doing and that's why she did it.




*E*

Pips, as a rule, everyone your age (myself included back in the day) thinks that way too.

*E*--

13 year olds do not have fully developed brains. That sounds harsh, but it's the medical truth: the parts of the brain that stop people from doing something impulsive don't finally come fully online, as it were, until 20-23. So in point of fact, there IS a real difference between a suicidal 13 year old and suicidal and a suicidal adult. And the question is not one of how her death would have been parsed if the internet bullying hadn't happened, because that's a pure hypothetical. One might as well say that JFK would have likely died of something else anyway, so it's not really important who shot him and why.

In the not-so-hypothetical world, an adult decided to do something bad to a child, and the child did something worse to herself as a direct result.

I don't think it sounds harsh, but those brains are much further developed than they were at 12 or 11 or 10. I don't accept that a person isn't responsible for their actions until the age of 20-23, just because they haven't matured as much as they're going to yet.

Someone did shoot JFK, but nobody tied a belt around Megan Meier's neck.




*E*

Let's tighten the analogy some. What the woman did was the moral equivalent of feeding a kid with diabetes sugar-free chocolate bars and then slipping her a Hershey's or five. She knew the kid had been struggling with depression--a serious and potentially fatal disease, especially for teens--for years, and then did something that could not be more tailor-made to aggravate it. Then she got pissy and defensive when confronted with the results.

Is she 100% culpable for the death? No. Is she 0% culpable? No. But those are questions for determining awards in a civil case. For me, as a parent, the only question that matters is whether Megan would be alive today had that woman never come into her life. And the answer is "probably, yes." That's enough.

vison, I don't understand your anti-internet-for-youths position at all. In this particular case, saying that kids on myspace can get bullied so don't let 'em on myspace feels like saying (the much more true statement) that kids get bullied in playgrounds so don't let 'em on playgrounds.


As to the particulars of this case, it is absolutely awful and the Drews sound like despicable people. But you can't make being saying mean things (or lying) illegal. You just can't.

Oh, I wasn't arguing any of that, Ax. I might just push that neighbor's guilt-o-meter closer to the 0% than other folks might. Never directly on it, but I sure as hell won't put it at 100% either.




*E*

E* -

Lori Drew knew the Meiers family, Megan had accompanied their own daughter on a vacation and had spent time doing other activities with her. Lori Drew KNEW of Megan's emotional issues and low self-esteem, and of her issues relating to ADD and that Megan was on meds for either or both of these issues. Lori Drew knew that Megan's parents had pulled her from the public school and enrolled her in the local Catholic grade school because of the bullying issues Megan had faced while in seventh grade. Lori Drew found out that Megan's parents had relented and given Megan permission to start "socializing" on the internet again, albeit with supervision, and deliberately set out about to create a calculated plan to spy on and deceive Megan. This from a 48 year old woman, perpetrating this on a 13 year old. Lori invited her daughter, one of her own employees and at least one other 13 year old girl to "join in" on the fun, and then erased all evidence of her actions the night the ambulances showed up four houses away. She phoned the other 13 year old and cautioned her to keep quiet about what they had been doing. Are these the actions of someone NOT culpable?

Megan's mother blames herself everyday for what happened to her daughter. She blames herself for allowing Megan to have a MySpace account, she blames herself for scolding Megan for her vulgar language and emotional outbursts on the day of the suicide, she blames herself for not making Megan get off the computer when she had to take the younger daughter to the orthodontist, she will live with those memories forever. Now, imagine how Tina felt when she learned that the person who started this all was a neighbor, the mother of a classmate and friend, who had the gall to show up at the wake and funeral and invited the Meier parents to their OWN daughter's 14th birthday, the one Megan never got to celebrate? For six weeks, Lori Drew thought her guilty secret was safe, and then the other 13 year old girl, who felt INTENSE remorse and guilt, spilled the beans.

The Meiers kept quiet for a year at the police and FBI's requests while the case was investigated to determine if charges could be brought on the Drews. After that time, the FBI concluded there were no federal laws that had been specifically violated. The Meiers were tired of being quiet any longer. They spoke up. What was Lori Drew's reaction? Outrage that Tina was talking. Who had already filed charges on the Meiers for property damage? Who admitted her own actions as a result of that complaint to the police? Lori Drew, who told reporters when this story broke that the police report was "not accurate and that they had better not quote from it." Fer crying out loud, it is what SHE told the police.

Yes, Megan looped that belt around her neck and asphyxiated herself, but she did not do it out of a vacuum of despair of her own making. It would have been bad enough if it were teens and her peers who had tormented her enough to cause her to do this. The point is, it was a cruel calculated hoax committed by an adult who should have known better who to this day feels no remorse or guilt about it at all.

Here is the law that I think MIGHT be the closest thing for charges. Below that is the definition of REckless. It would work in some counties in Ohio but not in others.

2903.041 Reckless homicide.
(A) No person shall recklessly cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of reckless homicide, a felony of the third degree

(C) A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that such circumstances are likely to exist.





Freddy

Well, my point isn't whether she was responsible for her actions -- she's going to stay dead, after all, no one can take that back from her. Was she fit and capable of making such a dreadful decision? For Christ's sake, no she wasn't, she was a tormented child who wanted to escape being tormented. And a lot of people let her down.

I'm not for one second excusing what the neighbours did. I don't know what you can do to people like that, just hope that Karma gets them, I guess. And I don't believe in Karma.

Bullying is bullying. And her parents knew she was being bullied. So if I'd been her mum I wouldn't have allowed her to go to the websites where she was being bullied. As for the imaginary boyfriend, well, what can you say about people who would approve of a 13 year-old girl having such a relationship ONLY online, building her "self-esteem" and all that bullshit. Her own mother! Am I the only person here who thinks that's weird and awful? Encouraging your own daughter to build her self-esteem on some "hot" guy's approval? I just can't get it. What do these people think of? What are their values? I'm not saying it's "their fault" their daughter killed herself, but when the mother says she's oppressed by feelings of guilt, I gotta say she has something to feel guilty about.

Pippin4242, you're getting older every day.

yovargas, 13 year olds are not allowed to go to bars and drink. They can't drive. They are children. There are some things they aren't allowed to do, and in my house being on these internet sites is one of the things they're not allowed to do. I don't care if every other kid in the world except mine is doing it, that's not a good reason. It's my job to bring them up, it's not the job of "society" and "their peers". There are some decisions that 13 year-olds shouldn't be making, that's what parents are for.

If they were being bullied at a playground, I would take steps to see that the bullying was dealt with. If it wasn't? Then they wouldn't go there. It's my JOB to do these things.

Suicide is one of the most difficult things to understand, teenage suicide even more. It's painful and seems senseless. I have never been suicidal but have dealt with plenty that have been. I've had to make notification to a family when the 16 year old son did it. It has been probably the most difficult thing I've ever had to do in my entire life.

It always seem some sort of culpability with the parents for not seeing the signs. But as they say, hindsight is 20/20. In this case I think there might be some with the parents. Kids cannot handle unfettered access to the internet, period.

A detective at my department started a MySpace page to help search for missing juveniles. Within about an hour he had an adult male wanting to meet this "female" who was clearly a juvenile. It can be a great place, it can be very dangerous. A parent has to strike a balance and be that, a parent. You cannot be a friend and a parent at the same time. Friends don't discipline friends, parents discipline and love their children at the same time.

*stepping down from soapbox*

freddy

The Watcher wrote:

Are these the actions of someone NOT culpable?

Of course not, but some people are just morally bankrupt. If those kinds of people are under the age of 23, I don't agree that they can't be held responsible for their actions. I am greatly bothered by the suggestion that you can hurt someone else and get off scot free, but if you hurt yourself, it will be blamed on whichever adult was most involved. For someone like Lori Drew, I am actually comfortable with her getting street justice, as it were, because it is people like that who deserve to be social outcasts and not someone suffering from depression who is hidden from anything and everything that may hurt them.

I didn't argue that Lori Drew should win Community Member of the Year, but going after her could open the door to a lot of things I disagree with even more. The boss who fires an employee who's just divorced. The guy who breaks up with a depressed girlfriend. The merchant who steals hundreds of dollars from someone who couldn't afford it. Suicidals are already vulnerable, I know, but there has to be a limit when it comes to blaming someone else every time a life is taken. Lori Drew likely didn't mean for things to end the way they did, she is just a mean, stupid, immature old woman. But I guess if it was her daughter's message that sent Megan over the edge, it's okay because the daughter was only 13 too.




*E*

Feredir wrote:

. . . A parent has to strike a balance and be that, a parent. You cannot be a friend and a parent at the same time. Friends don't discipline friends, parents discipline and love their children at the same time.

*stepping down from soapbox*

freddy

Amen to that. Double Amen, actually.

*E*, I don't think you see my point: while it is perfectly true that Megan "chose" to kill herself, I am saying she was not "capable" of making such a decision. She acted out of pain, with a child's perception that the pain was unbearable and would never end. Most kids are like that, they live in the moment. Had she just gone to her room and cried herself to sleep, by morning things might have looked a little better.

As to the other 13-year-old, her erstwhile friend, she is not as culpable in my eyes as her vile mother. SHE, the other girl, is only a kid.

There is a dreadful difference between a kid killing herself and another kid doing "something mean". A kid might do something mean to another kid and never dream or imagine that it could make someone commit suicide. That is just my point: these are CHILDREN. They don't always see the consequences of their actions. That's why kids have parents, to protect them and guide them. Some parents do a better job than others.

And, sadly, sometimes shit happens anyway.

vison wrote:

And, sadly, sometimes shit happens anyway.

Amen to that.

I think Megan's mom did a decent job here, though I wouldn't let my 13 year-old have a MySpace page. (I'm leery of our youth group wanting to make their own, as a matter of fact, and will probably be quietly trying to steer them away from that idea. I can set them up on their own webpage off of our site, but that's a different story.) And I would have been very wary of a h0tt guy on the internet showing interest in my daughter as well. I'm sure, however, that her mom lives with this terrible guilt every single day of her life. That's just a terrible thought.

I think this other mom needs to be held accountable somehow if possible. If not criminally, then civily. If not civily, then socially. If not socially, well, then I know that God will ultimately hold her accountable.



Lali

I don't see the point of prosecuting this woman, to be honest. It would take a lot of time and money, to what end?

She is obviously a sociopathic personality. She will be more circumspect in future, I daresay. But imagine what it must be like to be her kid?

As for Megan's poor mother, she would feel guilt no matter what. It goes with the territory. The best thing that can happen is that maybe someone, somewhere, learns from this.

I confess that I am puzzled as to the actual purpose of kids "hanging out" online. If the kid lives out in the bush and never sees any real people I guess I could understand it, but these kids see each other all day at school, etc. I think the dangers of the "peer culture" are exacerbated by this, and god knows the peer culture is too strong already. Kids should NOT take their values and ideas from other kids. The more frantic they are to do so, the more dangerous it is.

vison wrote:

I don't see the point of prosecuting this woman, to be honest. It would take a lot of time and money, to what end?

She is obviously a sociopathic personality. She will be more circumspect in future, I daresay. But imagine what it must be like to be her kid?

As for Megan's poor mother, she would feel guilt no matter what. It goes with the territory. The best thing that can happen is that maybe someone, somewhere, learns from this.

I confess that I am puzzled as to the actual purpose of kids "hanging out" online. If the kid lives out in the bush and never sees any real people I guess I could understand it, but these kids see each other all day at school, etc. I think the dangers of the "peer culture" are exacerbated by this, and god knows the peer culture is too strong already. Kids should NOT take their values and ideas from other kids. The more frantic they are to do so, the more dangerous it is.

vison -

I agree with you, as I do with Freddy and Lali. Middle school aged kids (those from roughly aged 11 to 14) are at their MOST vulnerable ages, their minds are not mature, their bodies are changing rapidly, their emotions are unhinged even in the BEST of situations, and that whole need to belong and fit in is so pervasive. Parents need to be MOST vigilant at this stage, and I daresay being a parent is much more important than being a friend. As for adults involving themselves in their kid's social life, there is a line there as well. Stick up for your kid and confront blatant abuses being perpetrated, but also remember that it very rarely is an entirely one sided deal, and that the kids take it far more seriously than the matter itself would otherwise be taken. Thank goodness my two sons never had issues with the computer. Melanie DID, and for years, we simply did not have one at home, and when I did get one again, it was password protected and I only let her use it for homework. (Well, those of you who know my background will certainly understand WHY, and that is all I will offer on that subject.)

The internet itself is not the issue here, it is how it CAN be exploited. Kids simply do not understand that things are NOT always what they appear to be, and it is the jobs of parents to guide them on that type of dilemma. I guess in my opinion, kids should only be allowed to have social networking involvement with kids that you the parent KNOW yourself, and that is it. Kids should certainly not be allowed to be on such sites if they have had any issues or emotional problems that leave them vulnerable. And, when I caught Melanie being abusive and nasty on the computer, it was taken away from her. I never covered up for my kids when they had done seriously wrong things, in fact, I made them deal with it themselves along with me. That is also part of growing up, and in my mind, one that far too many parents never force their kids to do.