As PRO-prosecution and ANTI-societal sponge as I am if I was on this jury it would be really HARD to convict this woman of MURDER.

I agree. Granted nobody should be “using” or prepping it for others, but I don’t see where she would have intentionally caused harm to others. However there are always convictions for vehicular homicide when a person crashes & their passenger who was partying with them dies.  Sad.  Maybe it’ll give her a chance to “clean up”

Except that usually, in cases of vehicular homocide you can prove who was driving, who was the victim. In vehicular homocide cases somebody CHOSE to put their passenger in harms way.

Granted, I don’t know all the facts of this case, but this article says that all she did was fill the cyringes.  The both injected themselves.  It doesn’t say where she forced him to shoot up.  Sounds like he CHOSE to.

She wouldn’t have killed him, it sounds like he was a good customer.  It’s bad business to kill off the people who fund you.  I don’t LIKE what she did, but it wasn’t murder.  I mean, it’s not like the guy was an unwilling participant here.  It was an overdose.  They happen.  If we need to blame someone, how about the dude shooting up illegal substances?

The law is clear:

RCW 69.50.415
Controlled substances homicide Penalty.

(1) A person who unlawfully delivers a controlled substance in violation of RCW 69.50.401(2) (a), (b), or (c) which controlled substance is subsequently used by the person to whom it was delivered, resulting in the death of the user, is guilty of controlled substances homicide.

--

If you sell drugs to someone and they die when they use them, you’re guilty of homicide.

Sure, the law is very clear. It’s the thought process behind the law that’s so murky. The work of politicians should never be above thoughtful review, otherwise our country is likely to become the world’s largest jail. Oh wait, with 2.2 million people incarcerated, I guess we already are.

The law might state it clearly, but I still think it’s a very strange way to shift the blame.  Not that this woman is innocent, exactly.  She should absolutely be convicted of possession of controlled substances and such, but she didn’t kill the guy.  He did it himself.  I guess there’s nothing to be done about it, but I think the law on that one is a little misdirected.

OK...so...does that mean that the State of Washington is guilty of all of the drunk driving homocides that have happened due to liquor being sold by them?

Involuntary manslaughter at best.

Manerva, I think that scenario would only work if the liquor was sold unlawfully.  Still, it’s a good point.  Even though the woman in question is certainly guilty of SOMETHING, I wouldn’t call it manslaughter, involuntary or not.

what about using her as an example to all youth that this will be the result when you use hard drugs?  even a drug addict knows that death can occur by using.....

manerva it is not the state of washington is not guilty it is the person who give out durgs

Page 1 of 1