• 3 Posts
  • 2.17K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2023

help-circle











  • Not every mental illness affects your grasp of logic or perspective on reality. Obsessive compulsive disorder can be absolutely debilitating even though the person might completely understand the reality of their situation, know that they don’t actually benefit from and in fact are harmed by, for example, checking the windows and doors every night in the exact same way many times, but still be unable to stop themselves. They aren’t delusional, just prisoner to compulsions they can’t resist. I’m not suggesting that OCD is always severe enough to make someone consider euthanasia or is always resistant to treatment, but it certainly could be.

    I could also see someone with substance abuse disorder that they’ve tried and failed to treat for decades making that decision (while sober after detoxing and withdrawal). I would want them to keep trying, because I know how great sobriety and how valuable a life built post addiction can be, but I wouldn’t consider them to be of unsound mind in that scenario.

    I’m just listing examples in my family, but I’m sure there are others.


  • Well yeah, but there are lots of situations where your intent with a threat matters. Saying “I’m gonna kill you!” to your brother when he throws a water balloon at you is rightfully not considered a legal threat. Saying “I finally bought a gun and I’m gonna kill you!” might fall into either category for me personally, depending on whether they had actually recently bought a gun.

    I’m really not trying to be difficult here and I do absolutely see how this could be ruled a legitimate threat, I just don’t think it’s 100%. I’m leaning towards 80% (assuming she didn’t actually recently get a gun), given that this is Florida.

    Regarding the diary, I was actually thinking of that exact scenario, with the stipulation that the diary is locked. I would be interested in whether that aspect of the law has been tested yet, but it’s probably not that common.



  • I don’t know if that was meant to reply to me, but I meant whether another human was involved in the training, not the threat. It’s definitely an imprudent thing to write, but I don’t know if a reasonable person would assume that another person would be able to read it. “Training” is a pretty nebulous concept, and the anthropic release doesn’t mention that humans are involved.

    I’m not trying to say that this lady is making good decisions, but I probably wouldn’t vote that this was written so that another human might read it, if I were on the jury. Maybe my gut feeling’s off and everyone knows that training involves people (which I’m sure would come up during the trial), in which case I’d probably consider it a clear threat.