Bluemerle

I think the reaction of the Meiers (the yard job & game table) are to be expected. Most folks respond to the willful destruction and or death of a relative in much more negative ways. A yard can & will always grow to its previous form. A game table can easily be replaced. Megan will not.It's stunning that the corrupted family felt so obliged to file charges against the Meiers. I guess it comes down to what one considers most valuable. A life or material things. The Meiers are seemingly good people. I can understand their not wanting to sue. The idea of spending or acquiring cash-- cash garnered from a tragedy-- just doesn't and wouldn't be acceptable. In my opinion (just by the corrupted families action(s), leading up to and after this tragedy) I'm sure if Lori & Co. were in the same situation,they wouldn't hesitate to earn some blood money. In fact,their filing charges against the Meiers has proven themselves to be nothing more than hateful,self absorbed opportunists. Of course,that's just my opinion.
 

I appreciate your comments, which were most civil.
To me, however, they do illustrate the present-day distorted view of the merits and purpose of common-law or civil litigation.

While, I share your willingness to forgive the destruction of the table, it may have been difficult to determine where the smashing would end... more on that later.

I think its worth writing about .Unfortunately I'm suffering from the glottal wodge that's going around, and need something hot to drink, and a blanky, if I am going to attempt it.
 

IMHo they should certainly file a civil suit, since the criminal charges doesn't seem to be happening, and SOMETHING has to bring the Responsibility pidgeons home to roost... otherwise, what's to keep people from taking this example and using it on others?

I CAN see my DD's XBF, seeing this story and thinking "Hey, if I do something like this, maybe even though I can't get her to come back to me... she'll kill herself and it'll never come back to haunt me."

This sort of thing has been going on a long long time. My Space doesn't only give the kids access to each other, but to all their friends, their friends friends etc.

And the harassers in this case INVOLVED other people in doing their dirty work. They involved kids who without persuading (from the parents) wouldn't have been harassing anyone.
 

If the law fails us as a society, we have every right to act. There was a time when tar-and-feather and running-out-of-town-on-a-rail were not just figures of speech. I hope they feel so alienated that they just move away and never come back. We do not want them here.
 

Being mean to someone isn't harassment. At some point every person has to come in contact with the reality that there are BULLIES in the world, and hateful people. Most people encounter this truth hardened and the stronger for it; a few will self-destruct. That's life, and you shouldn't try to legislate it away. In short, you can't save em all.

Otoh, I agree the woman Lori Drew should be ostracized and exiled from her community, but not through some official legal means. That world would be more disturbing to me than the death of one girl.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

You are correct, Intentional infliction of emotional distress is one of the hardest to prove and claims of it are not looked at it with a great deal of favor. It has to rise above merely being "mean".

This is one case where every test is met.

I think the Wiki page is the easiest to digest, so I'll post the link here.

It's worth a discussion, at least.
 

Wikipedia entry:

Intentional infliction of emotional distress
 

You might get IIED, but I think you'd have a hard time proving causation. Just look at what the Mom said, from CNN:

"The girl's mother, Tina Meier, said she doesn't think anyone involved intended for her daughter to kill herself."

Intention and causation aren't the same, but you'll be opening a pandora's box here for innumerable eggshell plaintiffs. So, if I know someone is depressed, I can no longer play a prank on them? Seriously? Depression==I will die if I'm teased?

Not every wrong should be legally redressable, or you will slowly but surely get insane results with thinner and thinner skinned plaintiffs.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

So, if I know someone is depressed, I can no longer play a prank on them? Seriously? Depression==I will die if I'm teased?

If IIED claims were stuffed in Pandora's box, it was loosed on the world of men some time ago. I really agree with you that not every wrong should or could be redressed by the law. And who could disagree that there would have to be a little more to the story than pranking to make an IIED tort claim succeed.

In this case there are many aggravating factors. Without intending an exhaustive list here, I would have to include the relative ages of prankster and victim, the purpose of the "trojan boy" account, the pre-existing relationship, forseability of harm, the degree of emotional anguish/harm that resulted, the active encouragement of minors to participate, the attempt to put pressure on a child to hide the actions, the deception of Megan's parents... you see where I am trending. IIED can only succeed where the case stands out as well, a real outrage that resulted in severe foreseable harm.

"Depression==I will die if I'm teased"
I think there, is a flaw in your argument.

Forseeing death isn't the standard. Forseeing the likelyhood of serious harm from emotional anguish, resulting from a deliberate, malicious act, is.

I would argue emotional anguish was the inevitable result of the fake account ( at some point the falsity of the Josh puppet would be revealed), and Megan was particularly vulnerable to the sudden rejection that occurred.

An adult 35 years Megan's senior, informed of not only the tender age of her "prank" victim but her mood instability requiring drugs to treat it, also her attention deficit causing impulsive action and impaired judgment, and other vulnerabitlies, could and should forsee that the emotional anguish caused by her "prank". ( I would argue it was Drew's intention to cause emotional anguish...to "teach Megan a lesson".)

Other aggravating factors apply here as well, of course.

It's a rare suit for IIED that can or should succeed, and this is one of them.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.