Jump to content
Paulding.com

Body found at Burnt Hickory Park


Recommended Posts

Does anyone know anything about this? Has the person's name been released?

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least have the decency to do it in your own house.

 

That's a pretty callous comment even coming from you.

 

But not totally unexpected coming from your average compassionless black hearted Right-Wing Tea Bagging cronie .

Edited by CitizenCain
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a pretty callous comment even coming from you.

 

But not totally unexpected coming from your average compassionless black hearted Right-Wing Tea Bagging cronie .

 

Callous? Seems like the decent thing to do. Why a public place with a bunch of kids around?

 

Do you know what foff means?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The press as a general rule doesn't cover suicides usually. There are exceptions - usually they will cover a jail suicide and of course, they cover suicide by cop largely because they present themselves as standoff or hostage situations.

 

As far as the location, I don't think there is any particular etiquette in this regard. Doing it at home may raise questions of murder and the mess also becomes another thing that the family has to deal with, typically with little help. Doing it at a public park does add a public dimension to the crime but takes the burden off the family.

 

But I think the real issue here is that folks who commit suicide are by definition depressed to the point of being mentally ill. I think it is absurd to expect a logical choice from someone committing such an illogical action.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

The press as a general rule doesn't cover suicides usually. There are exceptions - usually they will cover a jail suicide and of course, they cover suicide by cop largely because they present themselves as standoff or hostage situations.

 

As far as the location, I don't think there is any particular etiquette in this regard. Doing it at home may raise questions of murder and the mess also becomes another thing that the family has to deal with, typically with little help. Doing it at a public park does add a public dimension to the crime but takes the burden off the family.

 

But I think the real issue here is that folks who commit suicide are by definition depressed to the point of being mentally ill. I think it is absurd to expect a logical choice from someone committing such an illogical action.

 

pubby

 

Agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The press as a general rule doesn't cover suicides usually. There are exceptions - usually they will cover a jail suicide and of course, they cover suicide by cop largely because they present themselves as standoff or hostage situations.

 

As far as the location, I don't think there is any particular etiquette in this regard. Doing it at home may raise questions of murder and the mess also becomes another thing that the family has to deal with, typically with little help. Doing it at a public park does add a public dimension to the crime but takes the burden off the family.

 

But I think the real issue here is that folks who commit suicide are by definition depressed to the point of being mentally ill. I think it is absurd to expect a logical choice from someone committing such an illogical action.

 

pubby

 

FYI... Suicide is not a crime.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

FYI... Suicide is not a crime.

 

First, I may be showing my age. Suicide has been decriminalized by more and more states since the 1960s. Even today, two states apparently retain their formal laws criminalizing the act and, of course, all but two states make assisting suicide a crime. That means its status as a crime actually depends on jurisdiction these days. Depending on the vagaries of the case involving suicide coming before the bench, it may still considered a crime under English Common Law even in the absence of a formal statute; particularly if the party that may have to pay damages for negligence is powerful (like the state.)

 

 

Historically, various states listed the act of suicide as a felony, but these policies were sparsely enforced. In the late 1960s, eighteen U.S. states had no laws against suicide.[22] By the late 1980s, thirty of the fifty states had no laws against suicide or suicide attempts but every state had laws declaring it to be a felony to aid, advise or encourage another person to commit suicide.[23] By the early 1990s only two states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification.[citation needed]

 

In some U.S. states, suicide is still considered an unwritten "common law crime," as stated in Blackstone's Commentaries. (So held the Virginia Supreme Court in 1992. Wackwitz v. Roy, 418 S.E.2d 861 (Va. 1992)). As a common law crime, suicide can bar recovery for the late suicidal person's family in a lawsuit unless the suicidal person can be proven to have been "of unsound mind." That is, the suicide must be proven to have been an involuntary act of the victim in order for the family to be awarded monetary damages by the court. This can occur when the family of the deceased sues the caregiver (perhaps a jail or hospital) for negligence in failing to provide appropriate care.[24] Some American legal scholars look at the issue as one of personal liberty. According to Nadine Strossen, former President of the ACLU, "The idea of government making determinations about how you end your life, forcing you...could be considered cruel and unusual punishment in certain circumstances, and Justice Stevens in a very interesting opinion in a right-to-die [case] raised the analogy."[25] Physician-assisted suicide is legal in some states.[26] For the terminally ill, it is legal in the state of Oregon under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. In Washington state, it became legal in 2009, when a law modeled after the Oregon act, the Washington Death with Dignity Act was passed. A patient must be diagnosed as having less than six months to live, be of sound mind, make a request orally and in writing, have it approved by two different doctors, then wait 15 days and make the request again. A doctor may prescribe a lethal dose of a medication but may not administer it.[27]

 

In California, medical facilities are empowered or required to commit anyone whom they believe to be suicidal for evaluation and treatment
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First, I may be showing my age. Suicide has been decriminalized by more and more states since the 1960s. Even today, two states apparently retain their formal laws criminalizing the act and, of course, all but two states make assisting suicide a crime. That means its status as a crime actually depends on jurisdiction these days. Depending on the vagaries of the case involving suicide coming before the bench, it may still considered a crime under English Common Law even in the absence of a formal statute; particularly if the party that may have to pay damages for negligence is powerful (like the state.)

 

 

#1. Can you ever just say, "Yep, I made a mistake... my bad?"

 

#2. The topic at hand is the body found at Burnt Hickory park. It has nothing to do with the two states

that currently have suicide on the books as a crime. Burnt Hickory park is in Georgia, where it is not a crime.

#3. Georgia doesn't recognize 'English common law" So again, that is irrelevant.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

#1. Can you ever just say, "Yep, I made a mistake... my bad?"

 

#2. The topic at hand is the body found at Burnt Hickory park. It has nothing to do with the two states

that currently have suicide on the books as a crime. Burnt Hickory park is in Georgia, where it is not a crime.

#3. Georgia doesn't recognize 'English common law" So again, that is irrelevant.

 

Well, Nitro, you might be surprised that Virginia also has statutes that remove the criminality regarding suicide but somehow, the Virginia Supreme Court, in finding no liability for a jail in which an inmate committed suicide, found enough criminal culpability in the crime to mitigate damages to the county housing the unfortunate inmate whose family was suing them for negligence in not properly supervising the inmate.

 

The concept involved the derogation of the statutory law and involves the strict interpretation of the statute as it differs.

 

This mechanism in the law is also in existent in Georgia, which as a British colony originally, developed its judicial traditions from English Common Law.

 

Here is a link to a Mercer Law School document that establishes this entitled "Statutes in Derogation of the Common Law: in the Goergia Supreme Court."

 

 

Statutes in Derogation of the Common Law: In the Georgia Supreme Court by R. Perry Sentell, Jr.*

1. INTRODUCTION

 

The fabled canons of statutory interpretation! traditionally advance the overarching imperative that courts selectively afford some statutes a stricter than ordinary construction.2 Statutes "in derogation of the common law" claim predominating prominence among enactments deserving of the counseled judicial disposition." The precept is one of perplexing proportions:

 

It is generally understood to commend judicial restrictiveness in treating legislative enactments that change an existing body of' law," That understanding, however, immediately confronts an obvious conundrum: By their nature and purpose, most statutes effect some changes in the existing legal order. This truism, in turn, reveals the potential expanse of the canon's operative range:

 

In brief, it is limited only by the doctrinal persuasions of the construing tribunal. 5 Those persuasions, as evidenced by the jurisprudence of each state's highest appellate court, dramatically and decisively shape the jurisdiction's ultimate statutory foundations." The canon itself reflects an ancient origin, reportedly rooted in the English judiciary's abiding jealousy toward Parliament. 7

 

The precept is as controversial as it is historical. It receives praise as revealing innate respect for the wisdom of the common law, an inherent regard for tradition, and a deep devotion to popular derivations." "Laws thus established by the people would certainly seem entitled to the status which will be accorded them by the rule which requires statutes in derogation of the common law to be construed strictly.'"

 

Contrarily, the canon bears the brunt of harsh criticism: it suffers dismissive condemnation as "archaic," "obsolete," an "ancient shibboleth," and a "historical hangover.t"" "There is little reason in today's interpretation of statutes for a general rule or presumption that statutes in derogation of the common law should be 'strictly' interpreted."!' The criticism, emanating primarily from the academic quarter, has taken its toll as legislatures in a number of states have explicitly abolished the canon.l" State courts, however, reflect a different persuasion:

 

"[T'[he rule has remarkable staying power in the judicial process."!" Indeed, "there has been scant suggestion of judicial dissatisfaction with it" and "seldom has a court attacked it as illconceived or undesirable.t''" In light of this decisional loyalty, perhaps, commentators grudgingly concede the canon to manifest an "essential soundness.":"

 

To the extent that it is a true and valid insight about human nature that people do not ordinarily change the existing order of things with broad and sweeping strokes, there is justification for assuming, or even presuming, that legislatures would not ordinarily intend their enactments to make changes beyond their clear purport. 16 Georgia's legislature has effected no reversal ofthe derogation precept, and the Georgia Supreme Court pays legendary reverence to the doctrine.

 

Only a specific examination of the court's jurisprudence will yield an accurate appraisal of the canon's analytical essence in shaping Georgia's statutory foundations.

 

Basically, what this is saying is that history of precedents that came from common law are changed by statute.

 

Now I actually admitted that I was wrong but only mitigated my error by pointing out the last time I happened to visit the issue - in the 1960s - it was indeed a crime - which it was. Obviously what ever suicidal thoughts I may or may not have had over the intervening 50 years I did not feel compelled, nor was I concerned about whether such an act was legal or illegal. I mean it is not going to inform mine or anyone's decision on this kind of act and that is why the law has been changed.

 

Indeed its irrelevance in practice made it a silly sanction and I'm glad it is changed.

 

pubby

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid or not, attempting suicide was, at one time, against the law

Like pubby, I was under the impression it still was.

Also like pubby, I am glad to hear that has changed.

 

Back in the early 80's I spent several hours on the phone with my buddy's drunk ex-wife, she was very depressed and kept threatening to do herself harm.

She hung up and I called a suicide help line and discussed the conversation with the person there.

Long story short, they advised that I could call the police, but there was a chance they would arrest her for attempted suicide.

Whether that was true or not at that time, I have no idea.

But that (and other factors) lead me to not call the police.

Luckily my gut was right and it was just the drunken ramblings of a lady who was regretting the mistakes she had made.

For those who may judge my actions harshly, around that time I had several people I knew that when in their cups and the weather was right, talked of ending all. They just needed someone to listen to them till they were through or passed out.

But I had never had a conversation like that with this particular lady before, so it shook me up a little more than usual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's the Paulding.com I know and love.(Not!!) Once again no compassion for the human race. If this was an animal(aand yes I know an animal can't commit suicide) all this hostility wouldn't be going on. Prayers for peace and comfort for those left behind.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid or not, attempting suicide was, at one time, against the law

Like pubby, I was under the impression it still was.

Also like pubby, I am glad to hear that has changed.

 

Back in the early 80's I spent several hours on the phone with my buddy's drunk ex-wife, she was very depressed and kept threatening to do herself harm.

She hung up and I called a suicide help line and discussed the conversation with the person there.

Long story short, they advised that I could call the police, but there was a chance they would arrest her for attempted suicide.

Whether that was true or not at that time, I have no idea.

But that (and other factors) lead me to not call the police.

Luckily my gut was right and it was just the drunken ramblings of a lady who was regretting the mistakes she had made.

For those who may judge my actions harshly, around that time I had several people I knew that when in their cups and the weather was right, talked of ending all. They just needed someone to listen to them till they were through or passed out.

But I had never had a conversation like that with this particular lady before, so it shook me up a little more than usual.

 

You can still call the police for someone who is threatening suicide.

And unless they do something to threaten the police or others, the police won't arrest the person.

They can and will likely take that person in to "protective custody" and try to get that person some help,

either via the a court order or just take them to a local counseling group.

If the person is truly looking for help, the police will help them get that help.

If the person is hell bent on killing them-self, the police will likely ask the court to evaluate

and recommend protective custody counseling.

In either case, if the person doesn't harm another, there won't be a criminal charge.

As far as judging your decision... That's a call only you can make at the time.

Many people have said something to the effect of, "Damn, this is just too much... I'm just tired of life..."

It's a depressive expression that a lot of people use and have no intention or real thoughts of acting on.

That is something that has to be evaluated on a case by case basis and observing the actions and mood

of the person who uses it.

Edited by NITR0
Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's the Paulding.com I know and love.(Not!!) Once again no compassion for the human race. If this was an animal(aand yes I know an animal can't commit suicide) all this hostility wouldn't be going on. Prayers for peace and comfort for those left behind.

 

 

Maybe they can......and do..... :(

 

 

 

This is the moment a young swan apparently drowned itself in distress after the death of its mother.
Hiker Yan Yan Hsiao captured the moment the swan appeared to commit suicide. She said she only noticed the young bird because it was making a commotion and flapping its wings in the water. Apparently traumatized by the death of another bird, the swan stuck its head in the water, and minutes later, was also dead.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905658/Is-proof-animals-commit-suicide-Young-swan-captured-apparently-drowning-distress-death-mother.html

Edited by Blondiega1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

#1. Can you ever just say, "Yep, I made a mistake... my bad?"

 

#2. The topic at hand is the body found at Burnt Hickory park. It has nothing to do with the two states

that currently have suicide on the books as a crime. Burnt Hickory park is in Georgia, where it is not a crime.

#3. Georgia doesn't recognize 'English common law" So again, that is irrelevant.

What's the big deal of chalking something up to a misstatement and letting it pass rather than calling someone out on it and then turning it into an argument? Is it that important to always be right or have the last word?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Years ago I had an unusual interaction with a squirrel! While driving down our road, I saw a live squirrel standing and sniffing a dead squirrel in the road. As I got closer, the live guy turned, bared its teeth, and charged straight into the left front tire of the truck, where upon the truck said "Thump, Thump".

I never knew if he/she was distraught over the loss of a friend/relative, or if they just had a hatred for truck tires,,,, but it certainly exhibited some sort of emotion!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago I had an unusual interaction with a squirrel! While driving down our road, I saw a live squirrel standing and sniffing a dead squirrel in the road. As I got closer, the live guy turned, bared its teeth, and charged straight into the left front tire of the truck, where upon the truck said "Thump, Thump".

I never knew if he/she was distraught over the loss of a friend/relative, or if they just had a hatred for truck tires,,,, but it certainly exhibited some sort of emotion!

 

 

Maybe, it was personal.

Had you ever met that particular squirrel before?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the big deal of chalking something up to a misstatement and letting it pass rather than calling someone out on it and then turning it into an argument? Is it that important to always be right or have the last word?

 

Good question. Why don't you ask Pubby that instead of me?

Since, my initial comment to him was simply, "FYI.... suicide is not a crime."

That's the only thing I said.

 

He's the one who had to put up some irrelevant diatribe to try to cover what he said that was wrong.

Why don't you ask Pubby why it's SO important to be right since he's the one trying to justify himself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...