|
first. is this true?
http://www.overheardinnewyork.com/
if true:
+ Show Spoiler +Mom Gets Her Inner Ho-Bag Out of the Garage
Man: It was nice to meet you. Now will you shake my hand?
Little boy: No.
Man: Why not?
Little boy: Because she gave you her number, but she already has a boyfriend! I don't like that.
Woman: Shut up. That's not true.
Little boy: If it isn't, then why did it say "Jason and Trish, together forever" on your phone, when I turned it on right now?
Woman: Together forever, my ass; now shut up!
therefore the attitude of those sick parents is not as surprising as it could have been.
|
On November 17 2007 03:36 XaI)CyRiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2007 03:10 Funchucks wrote:
I think people are missing the point that teenage drama with kids being mean to each other and responsible adults not quite living up to the standards you'd expect is normal. Committing suicide is not.
The social drama immediately preceding the suicide is not the cause, only the trigger.
If you can be driven over the edge by getting dumped by an internet boyfriend and having a MySpace flamewar, you've got to be dangling off it to begin with.
So really, if you want to blame the death of this girl on something, look at her life as a whole, not the little internet spat she had immediately before her suicide.
From hearing her parents' side of the story, we know almost nothing about her life. This was a girl who, when playfully summing herself up with an acronym of her name, included "Neglected." She hung herself when she was left alone while very upset and her mother was fully aware of it and fully aware of the reasons.
The fact that, under these circumstances, her parents are busying themselves pointing fingers in the media doesn't exactly argue in their favor. While it's true that we're only hearing one side of the story, and that it's likely her parents had issues as well, it doesn't change the fact that the parents of the "friend" behaved in an unforgivable manner. Parents, as adults, are held to a higher standard under the law for a reason. There's a reason that adults can be prosecuted for things where a minor would only be given a slap on the wrist. They're supposed to know better, whether they do or not. The fact that there are a lot a irresponsible parents doesn't suddenly make it okay for all parents to be irresponsible. Just because something is prevalent, and sadly no longer surprising, doesn't make it any less wrong. Also, let's not forget that what these parents did in this case was not ordinary parental negligence. These people created a rather elaborate ruse to conspire against a teenage girl simply because she didn't get along with their daughter. If you think that is anywhere close to "normal,", "typical," or "expected," then you must live in a very fucked up part of the world. This is not a couple of parents who were negligent and didn't properly supervise their kids. This is a couple that committed an overt act with the specific intent to deceive and mess with a girl they knew was unstable. That leads me to my next point in which it appears the "friend's" parents had some idea that the girl was mentally unstable. "According to Tina, Megan had gone on vacations with this family. They knew how she struggled with depression, that she took medication." If true, this makes the actions of the parents of the "friend" even more unforgivable. Not only were they conspiring against a teenage girl, but they were conspiring against a teenage girl they knew had a history of depression and took medication for. If they knew about her particular circumstances, then any argument that this was remotely close to "ordinary" behavior goes completely out the window.
thank you .
|
it's so fucked up to hear the PARENTS, the mature ADULTS were in on this... thats SO fucked up...
|
On November 17 2007 03:36 XaI)CyRiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2007 03:10 Funchucks wrote:
I think people are missing the point that teenage drama with kids being mean to each other and responsible adults not quite living up to the standards you'd expect is normal. Committing suicide is not.
The social drama immediately preceding the suicide is not the cause, only the trigger.
If you can be driven over the edge by getting dumped by an internet boyfriend and having a MySpace flamewar, you've got to be dangling off it to begin with.
So really, if you want to blame the death of this girl on something, look at her life as a whole, not the little internet spat she had immediately before her suicide.
From hearing her parents' side of the story, we know almost nothing about her life. This was a girl who, when playfully summing herself up with an acronym of her name, included "Neglected." She hung herself when she was left alone while very upset and her mother was fully aware of it and fully aware of the reasons.
The fact that, under these circumstances, her parents are busying themselves pointing fingers in the media doesn't exactly argue in their favor. While it's true that we're only hearing one side of the story, and that it's likely her parents had issues as well, it doesn't change the fact that the parents of the "friend" behaved in an unforgivable manner. Parents, as adults, are held to a higher standard under the law for a reason. There's a reason that adults can be prosecuted for things where a minor would only be given a slap on the wrist. They're supposed to know better, whether they do or not. The fact that there are a lot a irresponsible parents doesn't suddenly make it okay for all parents to be irresponsible. Just because something is prevalent, and sadly no longer surprising, doesn't make it any less wrong. Also, let's not forget that what these parents did in this case was not ordinary parental negligence. These people created a rather elaborate ruse to conspire against a teenage girl simply because she didn't get along with their daughter. That's just one interpretation. This is the whole point I'm arguing against.
When Megan's friend invented "Josh", they were getting along fine. "Josh" made Megan very happy, which was almost certainly the main point. Megan and the original "Josh" pretender only had a falling out two days before the suicide, long after the relationship with "Josh" was well established, and the "Josh" account only started to break character and be used in a hurtful way on the day before the suicide.
The police report, which Megan's friend's mother claims is all fucked up, says, "(She) explained the communication between the fake male profile and Megan was aimed at gaining Megan's confidence"
Is that the kind of language people use when describing their own conduct to the police? Would "gaining Megan's confidence" be a thing she'd say, or "building Megan's confidence"? A bit of biased and/or sloppy police work would explain a lot, including why the woman whose statement the report is based on says it's full of shit. Police bias would be completely understandable, when they have been approached by bereaved parents.
Rather than instantly outraged, you should be skeptical of such an outlandish story, of a cruel, petty conspiracy of adults against a child. It doesn't make sense. Another, more sensible scenario fits the reliable facts, and it's not outrageous, it's just sad.
|
United States4471 Posts
On November 17 2007 04:11 Funchucks wrote:That's just one interpretation. This is the whole point I'm arguing against.
When Megan's friend invented "Josh", they were getting along fine. "Josh" made Megan very happy, which was almost certainly the main point. Megan and the original "Josh" pretender only had a falling out two days before the suicide, long after the relationship with "Josh" was well established, and the "Josh" account only started to break character and be used in a hurtful way on the day before the suicide.
No, the main point was to gain Megan's confidence. It seems that you don't know what it means to gain a person's confidence, as indicated in the portion quoted below. It means to gain their trust, and that was the reason the "friend's" parents messaged Megan with a fake account, NOT to make her happy. Do you not realize that grown adults making a fake MySpace account to deceive and conspire against a teenage girl who was mentally unstable is a reprehensible thing in every way? It doesn't matter if Megan was temporarily made happier by the ruse if its entire purpose was to deceive and fool her. The fact that the trick started actually harming her in the last few days doesn't make the rest of it okay. If an adult takes a young girl on a date, pampers her, treats her well, praises her, and generally makes her very happy, but in the end rapes her, is all that good treatment still good? Making someone happy under false pretenses, particularly when the true purpose is against them, doesn't make the deception any less wrong.
The police report, which Megan's friend's mother claims is all fucked up, says, "(She) explained the communication between the fake male profile and Megan was aimed at gaining Megan's confidence"
Is that the kind of language people use when describing their own conduct to the police? Would "gaining Megan's confidence" be a thing she'd say, or "building Megan's confidence"? A bit of biased and/or sloppy police work would explain a lot, including why the woman whose statement the report is based on says it's full of shit. Police bias would be completely understandable, when they have been approached by bereaved parents.
Rather than instantly outraged, you should be skeptical of such an outlandish story, of a cruel, petty conspiracy of adults against a child. It doesn't make sense. Another, more sensible scenario fits the reliable facts, and it's not outrageous, it's just sad.
Again, you seem to have no idea what it means to gain a person's confidence. Why would the parent say they were building Megan's confidence after already admitting that the whole purpose of making the fake account was to fool Megan? There is nothing suspect about the police report, you just need to improve your understanding of the English language.
|
Those people should be in jail. Fucking pigs.
|
On November 17 2007 01:26 GenericTerranPlayer wrote:
are stories like this common in american society? this is incredibly depressing and i'm having trouble believing the adults would be so immature as to be an active party in this
no.
i don't think anyone who would commit suicide deserves to live any longer than they do. i do find this story to be tragic, though, and the parents should probably go to jail or something.
|
Like everyone said, this is fucked up. Even a 175 pound, 5'5.5 14 year old girl is a human being, not a toy to be played with. We sometimes overlook that in our superficial society. It's a shame the human race is capable of things such as this.
|
|
|
On November 17 2007 04:32 XaI)CyRiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2007 04:11 Funchucks wrote:That's just one interpretation. This is the whole point I'm arguing against.
When Megan's friend invented "Josh", they were getting along fine. "Josh" made Megan very happy, which was almost certainly the main point. Megan and the original "Josh" pretender only had a falling out two days before the suicide, long after the relationship with "Josh" was well established, and the "Josh" account only started to break character and be used in a hurtful way on the day before the suicide. No, the main point was to gain Megan's confidence. It seems that you don't know what it means to gain a person's confidence, as indicated in the portion quoted below. It means to gain their trust, and that was the reason the "friend's" parents messaged Megan with a fake account, NOT to make her happy. Do you not realize that grown adults making a fake MySpace account to deceive and conspire against a teenage girl who was mentally unstable is a reprehensible thing in every way? It doesn't matter if Megan was temporarily made happier by the ruse if its entire purpose was to deceive and fool her. The fact that the trick started actually harming her in the last few days doesn't make the rest of it okay. If an adult takes a young girl on a date, pampers her, treats her well, praises her, and generally makes her very happy, but in the end rapes her, is all that good treatment still good? Making someone happy under false pretenses, particularly when the true purpose is against them, doesn't make the deception any less wrong. Show nested quote +The police report, which Megan's friend's mother claims is all fucked up, says, "(She) explained the communication between the fake male profile and Megan was aimed at gaining Megan's confidence"
Is that the kind of language people use when describing their own conduct to the police? Would "gaining Megan's confidence" be a thing she'd say, or "building Megan's confidence"? A bit of biased and/or sloppy police work would explain a lot, including why the woman whose statement the report is based on says it's full of shit. Police bias would be completely understandable, when they have been approached by bereaved parents.
Rather than instantly outraged, you should be skeptical of such an outlandish story, of a cruel, petty conspiracy of adults against a child. It doesn't make sense. Another, more sensible scenario fits the reliable facts, and it's not outrageous, it's just sad. Again, you seem to have no idea what it means to gain a person's confidence. Why would the parent say they were building Megan's confidence after already admitting that the whole purpose of making the fake account was to fool Megan? There is nothing suspect about the police report, you just need to improve your understanding of the English language.
What do you mean "there is nothing suspect about the police report"?
The woman who was being interviewed for that report claims that the report is completely wrong, and that she's trying to get it corrected. That is "nothing suspect"?
Of course I know the difference between "gaining someone's confidence" (like a "confidence man" or "con man") and "building someone's confidence up." That's why I was saying I thought a police interviewer fucked up the difference.
Here is my scenario, more explicitly:
A dull-witted policeman was fed the paranoid theory of a vicious conspiracy by Megan's parents. He was moved by their grief and strongly believed their accusations against Megan's friend's parents. He went to interview this supposed conspirator with a report already written in his head, just looking for confirmation. He checks things off on his list.
"Megan was a very unhappy girl. My daughter just wanted her to get some confidence." (Hmm... okay, here is that concept of "gaining confidence". Close enough. check)
"She was so hurt when Megan didn't want to be any friend anymore. After going to all that effort with the Josh account to build her up, just to find out how little Megan thought of her in return. She just lashed out, and she used the Josh account." (Alright... the account's purpose was to gain information on how Megan felt about her peers and eventually hurt Megan. check)
You'll notice that the police report does not directly quote the interviewed person, but only purports to paraphrase her. And she disputes this paraphrasing as badly inaccurate. That makes the police report nothing more than hearsay. Other than that, her side of the story is not given.
If she was really this wicked, manipulative harpy she's made out to be, you'd expect her to at least spin the story in her favor a little, rather than plainly admit the worst of it directly to the police. It doesn't add up.
|
Yeah humans are capable of doing horrible and cruel cruel things. I guess most people lack that one special human emotion emphaty.
|
If the girl was depressed, and something like a guy who she has never met or spoke to rejecting her makes her kill herself, it means that she would of knocked herself off sooner or later. It's her mental state which is to blame. We only see it as bad because some adults did this, but what if it was somebody who was angry with megan at school, and just wanted to play a joke? There are far worse shit which happens in life; if she couldn't handle a virtual rejection from a boy, then she would be fucked anyways.
|
This is truly a sad story, but people who say the adults who created the fake myspace account should be sent to jail, or something similar, are not looking at the bigger picture. Yeah, they're fucking retarded for doing it, but Megan must have been really disturbed to begin with. Maybe she would've been fine if her parents were there to support her instead of having her mom yell at her?
Like I said, the parents who faked the account are fucking retards, but there is definitely more to Megan's story than is being told like the "N for Neglected" that Funchucks pointed out. I'm also seriously questioning the point that Megan's mother was actually monitoring her myspace use. How did she get into flamewars? Who let's their teenage daughter add some mysterious guy on myspace?
|
United States4471 Posts
On November 17 2007 05:07 Funchucks wrote:What do you mean "there is nothing suspect about the police report"?
The woman who was being interviewed for that report claims that the report is completely wrong, and that she's trying to get it corrected. That is "nothing suspect"?
Of course I know the difference between "gaining someone's confidence" (like a "confidence man" or "con man") and "building someone's confidence up." That's why I was saying I thought a police interviewer fucked up the difference.
Here is my scenario, more explicitly:
A dull-witted policeman was fed the paranoid theory of a vicious conspiracy by Megan's parents. He was moved by their grief and strongly believed their accusations against Megan's friend's parents. He went to interview this supposed conspirator with a report already written in his head, just looking for confirmation. He checks things off on his list.
"Megan was a very unhappy girl. My daughter just wanted her to get some confidence." (Hmm... okay, here is that concept of "gaining confidence". Close enough. check)
"She was so hurt when Megan didn't want to be any friend anymore. After going to all that effort with the Josh account to build her up, just to find out how little Megan thought of her in return. She just lashed out, and she used the Josh account." (Alright... the account's purpose was to gain information on how Megan felt about her peers and eventually hurt Megan. check)
You'll notice that the police report does not directly quote the interviewed person, but only purports to paraphrase her. And she disputes this paraphrasing as badly inaccurate. That makes the police report nothing more than hearsay. Other than that, her side of the story is not given.
If she was really this wicked, manipulative harpy she's made out to be, you'd expect her to at least spin the story in her favor a little, rather than plainly admit the worst of it directly to the police. It doesn't add up.
That's quite a story you have there. Here's one for you then. The "friend's" mom makes certain admissions to the police when interrogated, which the officer jots down accurately (since he is legally bound to do so). The mom later realizes just how bad her admissions sound on paper, and then issues a statement later that the report is wrong. The police publicly announce that they are assured of the accuracy of their statement, which opens them to all kinds of liability if they turn out to be lying or wrong. The parents of the "friend" continue to vaguely deny what happened, instead choosing to say that the police report is just inaccurate (without pointing out which specific parts or giving a "truthful" alternative), because they don't want to admit to doing something so reprehensible as conspiring against a teenage girl to the point where she killed herself.
Your story presumes that the cops are corrupt and lying for no reason. It presumes the police are willing to put their own asses on the line by disclosing the contents of the report publicly, and then subsequently standing by its accuracy later, also publicly, simply because they were biased by the victim's parents. This also presumes that this bias goes all the way to the people in charge of that police department, and not just that investigator. It presumes that it's more likely that a person who was involved in the death of a teenage girl, at minimum as a participant, who instead of saying what actually did happen and insteads just generally denies a police report, is more likely to be telling the truth than the police, the witness and her family who brought the case to the victim's parents attention in the first place, and the victim's parents. Your story presumes that it's more likely that someone who we know was involved in the victim's death is more reliable than the police and the witness (both of whom are neutral). I think mine is a bit more plausible since it only presumes that a person who we know did SOMEthing wrong is trying to cover their ass.
I'm also not sure if you realize that the creation of the fake account took place AFTER Megan and this "friend" has ended their friendship. Your story seems to suggest that the "friend" who had, for some reason, just broken a friendship with Megan, would feel compelled to go to all the trouble of making a fake account to make Megan feel better. Let me get this straight. They had enough problems with each other that they ceased being friends, but not enough that the "friend" wouldn't still want Megan to feel good about herself. Does that really seem plausible? "I dislike a girl enough to end our friendship, but I still want to do good things for her. I think I'll take the time to make up a fake MySpace account to woo her and make her feel better about herself. That's what ex-friends do for each other."
I'm still unsure as to whether you know what gaining someone's confidence means, as I'm not sure how "confidence man" or "con man" relate, but I guess it doesn't really matter. I may have exaggerated when I said there was nothing suspect about the police report, but it's definitely not as suspect as you're making it out to be with your elaborate conspiracy theory. I may end up being completely wrong and the whole story having been told incorrectly by the victim's family, the witness, the police, and the newsreport, and you may end up being right and the "friend's" family was being conspired against by all those people for doing something they didn't do. It's certainly possible. However, just realize that your story requires a lot more of a stretch of the imagination than mine does, thus being less plausible and reasonable, and it also has less basis in the actual facts that we have. You may end up being right, but it would be contrary to everything we know about the case.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On November 17 2007 05:13 himurakenshin wrote:
If the girl was depressed, and something like a guy who she has never met or spoke to rejecting her makes her kill herself, it means that she would of knocked herself off sooner or later. It's her mental state which is to blame. We only see it as bad because some adults did this, but what if it was somebody who was angry with megan at school, and just wanted to play a joke? There are far worse shit which happens in life; if she couldn't handle a virtual rejection from a boy, then she would be fucked anyways.
Don't care, doesn't matter - fact is, fully mature and grownup people decided to mindfuck a 13 year old girl. Regardless of how you twist it, they are fucking psychopaths and if there is a hell I hope they burn in it (ok fine, maybe that's a bit excessive, but they are still fucking sick).
|
United States4471 Posts
On November 17 2007 05:13 himurakenshin wrote:
If the girl was depressed, and something like a guy who she has never met or spoke to rejecting her makes her kill herself, it means that she would of knocked herself off sooner or later. It's her mental state which is to blame. We only see it as bad because some adults did this, but what if it was somebody who was angry with megan at school, and just wanted to play a joke? There are far worse shit which happens in life; if she couldn't handle a virtual rejection from a boy, then she would be fucked anyways.
You're right. We should just give up on people with sensitivities because they'll get mistreated by someone eventually. Making fun of and taking advantage of the mentally ill? That's fine, it'll happen sooner or later. Beat up a bum on the street? No big deal, some asshole out there will do so someday. Arabic boy getting picked on and called a "terrorist" by classmates and getting treated unfairly by teachers and parents? It's understandable since most people are too ignorant to know the difference between an Arab terrorist and an Arab who is simply an American citizen.
Person who has an eating disorder? Person who has learning disability? Person who is short? Person who is fat? Person who is ugly? All fair game for ridicule and abuse, because, hey, lots of ignorant people do it. Don't fight it, that's life.
|
On November 17 2007 05:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2007 05:13 himurakenshin wrote:
If the girl was depressed, and something like a guy who she has never met or spoke to rejecting her makes her kill herself, it means that she would of knocked herself off sooner or later. It's her mental state which is to blame. We only see it as bad because some adults did this, but what if it was somebody who was angry with megan at school, and just wanted to play a joke? There are far worse shit which happens in life; if she couldn't handle a virtual rejection from a boy, then she would be fucked anyways.
Don't care, doesn't matter - fact is, fully mature and grownup people decided to mindfuck a 13 year old girl. Regardless of how you twist it, they are fucking psychopaths and if there is a hell I hope they burn in it (ok fine, maybe that's a bit excessive, but they are still fucking sick).
Thats not really that excessive, any fully grown person who completely mind fucks a 13 year old girl, especially when they are suffering from depression is just as bad as a pedophile, possibly worse because this is a crime they apparently can get away with.
|
United States4471 Posts
On November 17 2007 05:31 mahnini wrote:
This is truly a sad story, but people who say the adults who created the fake myspace account should be sent to jail, or something similar, are not looking at the bigger picture. Yeah, they're fucking retarded for doing it, but Megan must have been really disturbed to begin with. Maybe she would've been fine if her parents were there to support her instead of having her mom yell at her?
Like I said, the parents who faked the account are fucking retards, but there is definitely more to Megan's story than is being told like the "N for Neglected" that Funchucks pointed out. I'm also seriously questioning the point that Megan's mother was actually monitoring her myspace use. How did she get into flamewars? Who let's their teenage daughter add some mysterious guy on myspace?
Victim's parents: Possibly negligent and could have been more attentive and supportive of their own child.
"Friend's" parents: Concocted an elaborate ruse to conspire against a teenage girl, not their own child, with the intent of fucking with her. This while knowing that the teenage girl has self-esteem issues (making her more likely to respond to a fake "hot boy"), and is taking meds for depression.
One is careless, one is deliberate. One is an understandable mistake (trying to get her to sign off to protect her, letting her add a random guy on MySpace after assuring they'd closely monitor the MySpace account), the other is an intentional attempt to mess with her (went through all the trouble of making fake account, making multiple messages, etc.). Is it any wonder everyone's focusing on the "friend's" parents instead of the victim's?
Let's put it this way:
Parent A: Takes their clumsy kid who loves candy to a park and warns the kid to be cafeful and stay away from the pond. In a moment of carelessness by Parent A, the kid wander off near the pond.
Parent B: Sees Parent A's kid, knows that the kid is young, foolish, particularly clumsy, and attracted to candy decides to place candy on a rock in the middle of the pond, and encourages the kid to skip across a few other rocks in the pond to get to it.
If the kid slips on one of those rocks because he's particularly clumsy and ends up cracking his head open and dying, which parent are you going to put most of the blame on? Which parent's actions are going to be discussed as reprehensible more?
If the kid is killed by Parent B's baseball, who are you putting most of the blame on?
|
On November 17 2007 05:35 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
I'm also not sure if you realize that the creation of the fake account took place AFTER Megan and this "friend" has ended their friendship.
"Amid all these positives, Tina says, her daughter decided to end a friendship with a girlfriend who lived down the street from them. ... Part of the reason for Megan's rosy outlook was Josh"
Every indication in the article is that it was the other way around. The events seem mostly to be in chronological order in the article: Megan meets "Josh", Megan ends her relationship with her friend, "Josh" says "I don't know if I want to be friends with you anymore because I've heard that you are not very nice to your friends." on Oct. 15 in response to ending this relationship, then the flamewar and suicide the very next day on Oct. 16.
It is not perfectly clear. I'll look for other sources.
|
On November 17 2007 01:38 Chill wrote:
As sad as this is, I'm unfortuantely numb to it by now.
Ya same, I've said it before but it's just another day in the US of A. Is there anyway the decision can be appealed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
