Judge Not Ready To Dismiss Lori Drew Case
from the needs-more-time-to-think-about-it dept
We’ve made it clear that we feel the criminal charges filed against Lori Drew for her participation in creating a fake persona on MySpace, which eventually resulted in the suicide of Megan Meier, a teenaged ex-friend of Drew’s daughter is highly questionable. It is not against the law to be a jerk online — and many people seem to be reacting emotionally rather than rationally to the facts of this case. Drew wasn’t trying to make anyone commit suicide, and no one has explained how the lawsuit would be different if the fake “boy” had been a real boy. Since there was no real law broken, prosecutors twisted a computer fraud law in a way that would basically make most internet users felons.
However, while the judge in the case is examining various briefs pointing this out, as well as ones taking the other side, he’s not yet ready to dismiss the case, as he rejected two motions to dismiss the case. However, that may change, as he says he wants more time to consider a third motion to dismiss the case, concerning whether or not the case actually states the offense. Assuming he agrees not to dismiss the case, the actual lawsuit will begin early next month.
Filed Under: computer fraud, lori drew, megan meier
Comments on “Judge Not Ready To Dismiss Lori Drew Case”
Lori Drew is a disgusting excuse . . .
for a human being, but I dont think she actually commited a crime. At least not in this case anyway. Also most of what makes me believe she is such a dispicable persion is simply the way she manipulated a young girl. The fact that she used “technology” to do so, is neither here nor there to me.
agreed
I belive we can all agree that what she did was despicable. Even if there was no crime commited people are sued every day. OJ who was found not guilty had a worngful death suit agenst him for 35.5 million. Just becuse it dose not break the law dose not mean a jury can’t still award money it just gets more difficultto prove the case.
Re: agreed
I belive we can all agree that what she did was despicable. Even if there was no crime commited people are sued every day. OJ who was found not guilty had a worngful death suit agenst him for 35.5 million. Just becuse it dose not break the law dose not mean a jury can’t still award money it just gets more difficult to prove the case.
actually, the opposite is true. It’s easier to “prove” liability in a civil case that guilt in a criminal case.
I really don’t see what she did as despicable. She was a concerned parent who actually monitored what her kids did online, unlike the parents of the child who killed herself.
It all comes down to some parents wanting the government to raise their kids. Why is a parent who did her job being tarred and feathered when the parents who obviously didn’t are beign painted as victims?
Re: Re:
“I really don’t see what she did as despicable. She was a concerned parent who actually monitored what her kids did online, unlike the parents of the child who killed herself.”
She harrassed and manipulated a young girl (to death)? At one point she might have been concerned about her own daughter (still as an adult she have known better then to handle it as she did), but at some point I think this became “revenge” for the way the “popular girls” treated her high school . . . she took it too far and a young girl sadly took her own life because of it.
I find it hard to believe you see nothing “despicable” about an adult harrassing a child to the point the child kills themselves?
Re: Re: Re:
“She harrassed and manipulated a young girl (to death)?”
lol. she did WHAT? is this a script for a new scary movie? she manipulated a girl into killing herself over myspace? come on now, it’s obvious which child had bad parents.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“lol. she did WHAT? is this a script for a new scary movie? she manipulated a girl into killing herself over myspace? come on now, it’s obvious which child had bad parents.’
If you don’t think it’s possible for an adult to drastically manipulate a teenager, than explain statutory rape charges? The fact that children can be manipulated by adults into doing all kinds of things is a long ago accepted tenant of Western law. As is the idea that adults should be held responsible when they do so.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“If you don’t think it’s possible for an adult to drastically manipulate a teenager, than explain statutory rape charges?”
you’re comparing statuatory rape to myspace assisted suicide? that’s almost as big a stretch as the trumped up charges!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“you’re comparing statuatory rape to myspace assisted suicide? that’s almost as big a stretch as the trumped up charges!”
It’s not a stretch at all, statutory rape is a crime because of the MANIPULATION, not because of the sexual act (which is consensual, otherwise it’s just plain rape). I am starting to think you are just playing devil’s advocate and that’s fine, but you need to craft some kind of argument soon to keep it interesting.
I would state again, I don’t think she is guilty of a crime here, but she is unquestionably guilty of despicable and unconscionable behavior.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Don’t waste our time commenting on things you know nothing about. The girl was emotionally unbalanced to begin with and taking medication. She had social difficulties and her friend got mad when she spent less time with her. Lori Drew knew full well that the girl had problems and went ahead to pose as a boy that the girl became very emotionally attached to. Then Lori started leaking personal and private information about her and spread baseless rumors about her virtues. The “boy” broke her heart, so to speak, and she became so emotionally distraught that her depressive illness caused her to end her own life.
Re: Re: Re:
Okay, but prove that SHE is the one that has the problems and don’t manipulate the law to make it seem as if the internet, being a way to communicate, somehow needs regulation to keep stupid, heartless people at bay. We don’t sew people’s mouths shut when they call other people bad names just because the person insulted didn’t care for the comment. It needs to remain the same for the internet: just another form of free (speech) communication.
Re: Re:
Monitored what her kids were doing on line?
I think she stepped over monitoring and went right to manipulating and harassing.
Re: Re:
“It all comes down to some parents wanting the government to raise their kids. Why is a parent who did her job being tarred and feathered when the parents who obviously didn’t are beign painted as victims?”
I disagree completely. This is a perfect example of the kind of lesson that teaches kids to have someone else solve thier problems. Some girl (the childs peer by the way) picked on me at school, I will have my mom take care of it FOR ME. Someone on TV said something that offended me, I will have the government take of that for ME. See the lesson here?
This was a perfect situation to teach her child a valuable lesson about standing up for herself, solving her own problems and how to get along in a world where not everyone is always going to like you or be nice to you. One of those moderately painful, “life aint fair” lessons we all learn at some point. Instead this mother tought her child to go to an authority figure who will solve everything for her and force the world to be “fair”. This would have been a very bad example of parenting, even if it had not resulted in the suicide of a child.
Re: Re: Re:
Amen to that!
Re: PLEASE
tell me you have not and do plan to spawn!
Re: PLEASE
tell me you have not and DO NOT plan to spawn! We don’t need anymore people thinking that way that. It is what has caused so many heartless attacks.
Re: Re:
Re “…unlike the parents of the child who killed herself.”
Get your facts right somedude; Megan’s parents took all the recommended steps to regulate and monitor their daughters inet activity. Unless, of course you thing parents should deny their children any privacy and read, in real time, every exchange.
Re: Re:
Actually, somedude, Megan’s parents DID monitor her internet usage. They had her MySpace password/sign-on info and regularly checked in on what she was doing. They were aware she was talking to “Josh”, and had already contacted the authorities asking if there was a way to determine if a profile was real or who/where a person was (they were told it was not). They had a gut feeling, but to say they were not monitoring Megan’s computer usage is outright false.
If what has been reported is true, and that she did engage in sexual discussions with Megan then she should be charged with child-sex offences.
Re: Re:
if what has been reported was true, then surely they would have charged her with that, seeing as they’re trying to charge her with everything else, regardless of if it actually applies!
“which eventually resulted in the suicide of Megan Meier”
Tragic story. But if this young woman was ready to kill herself over a boy she NEVER MET, there has to be way more to the story. She was on the edge emotionally, psychologically, and I don’t see how they can point to one single event or person to blame.
Lori Drew = Witch, but != criminal
Re: Re:
That should be
Lori Drew == Witch, but != criminal
Re: Re: Re:
It should be:
Lori Drew == witch != criminal
The “, but” doesn’t make any syntactical sense.
And this is why people don’t feel bad about speeding or jaywalking. Laws are not legislated morality. You *can’t* legislate morality without destroying every founding principal of this country.
Lori Drew is a horrible person, and if she was my mother I would be ashamed to be related to her. But she didn’t break any laws.
The most they could do is a civil suit for damages, except the person damaged is dead and most people seem to agree there was something else going on with the girl in the first place.
Re: Re:
“The most they could do is a civil suit for damages, except the person damaged is dead and most people seem to agree there was something else going on with the girl in the first place.”
Also sadly she was a child with no income, so there arent really alotta “damages” to be had.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t believe a wrongful death suit depends entirely on current income for damages. Or at least I hope it does not.
If you harrass a person into committing suicide that is called depraved indifference, and it is a crime. If every morning you go into a coworker’s office and say “I’m going to kill you!” and one morning that coworker jumps out a window and commits suicide because they beleived you would kill them you are as liable as if you’d thrown them out the window yourself.
“If you harrass a person into committing suicide that is called depraved indifference, and it is a crime. If every morning you go into a coworker’s office and say “I’m going to kill you!” and one morning that coworker jumps out a window and commits suicide because they beleived you would kill them you are as liable as if you’d thrown them out the window yourself.”
It would only be depraved indifference if you KNEW that the person was unstable and possibly suicidal. Being verbaly nasty to an indivdual can not be reasonably assumed to be a direct cause of suicide (unless the victim is known to be otherwise predicated). In other words while there may be depraved indifference in firing a gun into a house (a reasonble person should know that could easily result in injuring someone), I dont think the same “reasonable assumption of danger” could be made here. Even though, teenage girls are certainly well known to be moody drama queens.
Re: #13
ms. drew knew the girl was sucidial and on medications before she started harrasing her. I vote for depraved indifference myself.
If you harrass a person into committing suicide that is called depraved indifference, and it is a crime. If every morning you go into a coworker’s office and say “I’m going to kill you!” and one morning that coworker jumps out a window and commits suicide because they beleived you would kill them you are as liable as if you’d thrown them out the window yourself.
If I jump out a window after reading your post – is it also Depraved Indifference?
I mean – how many times would one have to ‘harass’ another? 1, 5, 10, 50?
Re: Re:
I mean – how many times would one have to ‘harass’ another? 1, 5, 10, 50?
There is no formula. One very traumatic event vs. hundreds of minor bullying events might lead to a Depraved Indifference conviction. This is why we have judges and juries.
Re: Re: Re:
“There is no formula. One very traumatic event vs. hundreds of minor bullying events might lead to a Depraved Indifference conviction. This is why we have judges and juries.”
Can you site a case where “bullying” was used as depraved indifference in a murder two conviction? It would be a hard case to make in my opinion, becuase in order for the indifference to be “depraved” it would have to be “far removed” from what a “reasonable” person would expect. I just dont believe “bullying” will lead to suicide is something a reasonable person would be expected to assume.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I cannot quote any case in particular, but I certainly do know of a couple of attempted suicides because of continual bullying harassment.
When someone is continually and consistently maligned and physically interfered with, it can lead to a deep depression.
Whether that could lead to a deprived indifference conviction would be up to the prosecutor, the judge and/or jury.
Re: Re: Re:
There is no formula. One very traumatic event vs. hundreds of minor bullying events might lead to a Depraved Indifference conviction. This is why we have judges and juries.
No, this is why we have judges, to throw out emotionally charged cases like this. If your kid walks up to another kid and says I wish you’d die, and the other kid shoots himself, that’s a traumatic experience. Who’s fault is it that the 1st kid didn’t know that the 2nd kid was already over the edge in a downward spiral.
Just because the outcome is better or worse does NOT change the law.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It isn’t about the outcome, it is about the intention of the 1st kid. If the 1st kid truly wanted harm/death to come to the 2nd, then it is deprived indifference.
It is up to the judge to decide if the balance of evidence provided by the two sides shows that the 1st kid’s harassment was illegal. There is no formula for how many times such harassment occurs, only a JUDGEment call as to the severity of the act(s).
Lori Drew crime(s)
Lori Drew participation was malicious and she knew the girl was subject to depression. Knowing this it does make her responsible for the outcome of what her actions and participation caused.
If a person schase someone with a knife in hand — a person known to have heart problems than that person would be responsible for causing a heart attack. While one is off line and one is online I do not see a different in who caused the damage.
Re: Lori Drew crime(s)
If a person schase someone with a knife in hand — a person known to have heart problems than that person would be responsible for causing a heart attack. While one is off line and one is online I do not see a different in who caused the damage.
Chasing someone with a knife is a crime. Harassing someone online was not. That’s all that matters.
If I jumped out of the bushes and scared the old guy with the heart problem, that’s NOT a crime unless you can somehow prove I did it with the intent to cause him to have a heart attack.
So if you want your argument to hold water, compare apples to apples. At the time this happened, there was no law being broken. So don’t use a “chasing someone with a knife” analogy because that adds a criminal element that didn’t actually exist.
This is so weird. I am from the Caribbean. I look at US television sometimes and have to shake my head. It’s ridiculous. US youth culture is ridiculous. You seem to give YOUNG people the false sense that they are adults. I was never mentally ill, but nevertheless I doubt I could have a complete relationship online without my parents knowing. When I was 13 they always had a VERY active part to play in my life. That was called parenting. I could only imagine how intense that “active” participation in my life at that age would have been if I was mentally ill.
I am not excusing the actions of the “criminal” adult here, but please! you want to tell me that a parent let her “mentally” unstable daughter have free access to a world of pedophiles and other unsavory individuals and didn’t have a clue as to what was going on? Then failing at their responsibilities, want to throw all blame at the other parties involved? Come on man!
The only people that should be prosecuted in this case with a REAL law are the dead girl’s parents, for criminal neglect. Because I am pretty certain that this girl would have reacted the same way to any sort of emotional challenges that young people confront as a part of growing up.
Hmmmmm, I think Depraved Indifference is demonstrated by the lack of care regarding human life, not the intent.
“To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant’s conduct must be ‘so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.”
Drew may not have known that Megan was going to kill herself but she was aware of her problems with depression and that she was on medication for it.
Don’t boil this down to schoolyard name calling. This was a woman in her 40s cleverly deceiving a 13 year old girl over a long period of time. Granted we don’t sew people’s mouths shut for anything but harassment should NEVER be defended with Free Speech.
Megan’s parents did know about “Josh” and did have an active role in their daughter’s life.
Re: Megan's parents knew about Josh
They knew she violated the same TOS that Drew is charged with. They knew she was “talking” with an unknown party (Josh) who was supposed to be 16. They did not know or apparently care that Josh could have been a 35 yr. old predator because they did nothing to find out who “he” was. They knew she (Megan) lied to Myspace (she was only 13)to get her profile. They knew she was on meds and at risk. Charge Drew? Fine. Charge Megan’s parents as well.
My comment on the orignal artical was.
“I’m afraid I have to disagree with Chris. Where I do feel it was irrespirable for Megan’s parents that allowed the relationship in the first place, I feel the actions taken by Lori Drew nothing less than conspiracy to commit manslaughter. Using the internet as the weapon should be no less a crime as using any other tool. Example; if a car swerves in order to scare someone and the victim gets killed when they jump in front of another vehicle in order to escape being hit by the first car, is the first driver guilty or not? Lori Drew used my space to pray on a child who she knew was emotionally sensitive, the outcome is a dead child. As an adult she is the responsible for her conduct and the conduct of those around her. As an adult, and a mother, she is responsible for protecting children, not just her own but all children. As a law abiding citizen, she is responsible for “doing no harm” to others around her. As far as I can see she is as guilty as hell!”
My bet is the judge thinks so as well.
Re: Re:
“Example; if a car swerves in order to scare someone and the victim gets killed when they jump in front of another vehicle in order to escape being hit by the first car, is the first driver guilty or not? “
Thats reckless endangerment. Any reasonable person should know that aiming your car at someone (even just to scare them) envolves an unreasonable risk of harm (so even though there was NO INTENT to harm, the risk of harm was so great that lack of specific intent is no longer relevent). I am not sure the same could be said about “bullying” in general. If this lady knew that this child was already under emotional distress and at risk for suicide, then you might have a better chance at “reckless endangerment”.
Gullible Americans are they
Oh, come on now. It’s almost obvious that it was Lori’s daughter who did most of this. Common school bullying and harassment alleviated by technology. Lori, probably didn’t know what MySpace is before her daughter show it to her. Lori is taking this crap to protect her own child – who is just another cruel teenager. Can’t you blame her? What would you do if your child caused somebody suicide? She raised a mean child, she is responsible for that. It wasn’t online game alone – part of message exchange were known in the school. Does anyone hold responsible that nice and clean school for it ?
Re: Gullible Americans are they
“Oh, come on now. It’s almost obvious that it was Lori’s daughter who did most of this.”
The fact that you find it so hard to believe that an adult could have done this to a child, proves that your not American. Some of the stuff that goes on here . . . would blow your mind LOL.
Frankly, I thank Drew for thinning the herd...
Frankly, I thank Ms. Drew for thinning the herd. Even tho that wasn’t her intention.
Re: Frankly, I thank Drew for thinning the herd...
“Frankly, I thank Ms. Drew for thinning the herd. Even tho that wasn’t her intention.”
Wow you must really love Bush, hes thinned our herd by 4,ooo+ American Soldiers . . . kinda makes Drew look pretty lame.
could the judge just be running up her tab with lawyer? Its probably the worst punishment she is capable of getting is a expensive lawyer bill.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:
1) Even if we assume (that Lori isn’t just protecting her daughter by taking the heat and that) it was all Lori’s idea, she was not the one who participated in the bulk of the conversations between “Josh” & Megan and definitely not the one who made the comment about the world being better off without Megan.
What I am saying is, while we can debate philosophically about the issue of guilt (or lack), at least point fingers (if you have to) at the right person, based on facts that nobody is disputing (like for example, Lori Drew was not the one who made that comment that supposedly triggered the suicide).
I’m really sorry, but I am not going to listen to what (else) you have to say because, when you lack the skill to absorb and process facts correctly, how can you have any skills worth a damn when it comes to (decent) debating?
2) I also get sick of putting all blame on someone who, through inaction would not have caused these particular circumstances, when it is far from certain Megan would not have killed herself a month later over something else. Clearly, whatever blame/responsibility lies with Lori, it pales in comparison to the blame/responsibility Megan’s parents refuse to accept.
Regardless of how much privacy etc… you would give a regular 13 yo, those rules do not apply to when said 13 yo has a history of depression, etc… and is even labeled as suicidal.
In fact, how can you not blame Megan’s parents??? They clearly were not aware (enough) of the situation.
For months Megan had this fixation on a fictional (term used not because Josh turned out to be not real, but because she never met him or had any communication with him that would have proven in any way, shape or form that he was a real boy and not, oh say, a 53 yo pedophile).
They were oblivious to all of this, including the impact this “Josh” (mentally) had on their daughter, especially the part where somebody she had never met, held, kisses,… in person and only knew through text, had such an impact on her that saying something like the world would be better off without you would result in her committing suicide.
Whatever you “Lori bashers” say about she should have known better cuz she knew the mental (in)stability of Megan, etc…
That goes not double, but tenfold for Megan’s parents!
disclaimer: I would not have resorted to that kind of deception (although I do understand her motivation of being worried about the effect Megan’s behavior would have on her own daughter) and think it’s morally not up to par, HOWEVER, I’m not defending her, I’m defending the practice of putting blame where it belongs, which, in this case, belongs way more on Megan’s parents
Lori Drew Case
I have been waiting to hear how this case turns out. Does anyone know where it stands right now? I want this precedent set in motion so families can legally charge the group known as “perverted justice” with whatever they decide to charge this woman with. Perverted justice has lied and deceived citizens on the internet and has caused quite a few suicides. So maybe there will be help for these families, as well!
Megan made a free will choice
Fact is we all are fallible. No one is perfect and we all have done things of which we are not proud to admit. While Mrs. Drew’s actions were inappropriate, she did not kill Megan. Megan made the choice to end her own life. That is called personal responsibility. It’s just like someone blaming McDonalds for their overindulgence leading to obesity.
At some time in our lives, we all have had friends or family put us down or speak to us in a demeaning. We learn to shake it off and move on. Those that kill themselves clearly have preexisting conditions of depression and lowered self esteem. While certain people can exacerbate our conditions, they are not to blame if we decide to end our own lives. It’s our job as parents to instill in our children the self-confidence needed to overcome in this world.
Our courts suck
Okay, yes, this Drew woman did troll Megan Meier, and she’s clearly a weirdo, but she didn’t break the law. Megan’s shitty parents are just trying to find a scapegoat for their shitty parenting. Maybe if Megan’s airhead mom (she wears a freakin’ nose stud FTLOG)hadn’t treated Megan like shit for being overweight she wouldn’t have killed herself. Maybe if her parents had paid more attention to her she would still be alive. Again, her parents are the ones to blame, and I hope they see this comment.
The courts shouldn’t have even accepted this indictment. They’re trying to prosecute her for using a fake name on MySpace. If she is convicted, that means the feds can come for YOU if you ever use a fake name on the internet. Personally, I don’t like giving out my real name to every website that asks for it. If Lori Drew is convicted, it’ll just give the government another precedent to prosecute internet users for BS.