Skip to main content

Deadly Information

Remember back to 2006 when a young girl killed herself [1], [4] after being tricked and harassed by a faux boy she found on the Web using MySpace. The trial against the faux boy, an adult woman (Lori Drew), did not result in prosecution for the death of Megan, much to the dismay of many. 

Yet, today we read about another trial where someone is being accused of second degree murder because they may have mentioned something slanderous about another person who was later killed by a hit man [2]. In this case, though, the person on trial is a former FBI agent who was working deep cover to infiltrate organized crime. In both cases, someone released information to third parties that resulted in the death of another person. 

Neither defendant in either of these cases actually committed the act of murder, though. In the case of the FBI agent, though, the murder charge is being taken seriously. Yet, in the MySpace slander case, the murder charge was not taken seriously. How are these two cases dissimilar? If this FBI agent is supposedly responsible for the death of John Callahan, then why isn't that woman responsible for the death of Megan Meier? 

Let's look at murder for what it is. According to wikipedia, murder is: "... the unlawful killing of another human person with intent or malice aforethought ..." [3] So what does it mean to "kill" someone. Well, that goes back to the malice aforethought of murder. One of the accepted criteria for malice aforethought is: "... (iii) Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart")" [3] So let's consider this for the woman who demonstrated reckless indifference to a sensitive, clinically depressed, teenage girl. By slandering Megan in a public forum, the woman clearly was indifferent to Megan's social well being. By pretending to be a boy who was socially and romantically interested in Megan, she clearly demonstrated a recklessness with Megan's mental state. Yet, a jury of supposedly informed adults decided that this was not murder [5]. 

In the case of the FBI agent, he clearly knew that Callahan was in dire threat of harm when he made statements that lead to Callahan's death. Yet, did he make the remarks recklessly? We don't know all of the details in that case, so it's hard to say whether or not Agent Connolly was negligent in his protection of Callahan's well being. That protection was something he swore to uphold as an Agent of US Federal Law.

Popular posts from this blog

Stock Option Debt Income

The 2024 Presidential election has brought out a topic of interest that seems to have been perverted. There is this "Taxing Unrealized Capital Gains" [1] movement that is being falsely attributed to Vice President Harris. Clearly, this is a change in the revenue code that was designed by someone in office long before VP Harris was in office. My money is on Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. What is this change in the revenue code though? For that you have to understand what Silicon Valley zillionaires are doing with their stock options. Many of these people in this special economic area have huge discounts on stock prices for companies that are not public yet, or are public and can not be sold [2]. To be fair to these holders of equity, banks allow them to finance debt using leverage against those options. If you hold an option that is worth $5M then a bank might lend you a share of that value, thus realizing a debt against the option [3]. This is a fair debt instrument and...
Read more

A Self Defeating Race False Narrative

2020 is the year of the pandemic. The SARS-Cov-2 (Covid19) virus has rampaged across the planet infecting 4,893,136 [1] people by May 20, 2020. At this time, of those 4.8M people, 323,256 people have perished from complications that arise from the infection. Arising out of this pandemic has been a narrative about non-white ethnic groups being disproportionately affected by the infection [6,7,8]. A narrative that conditions people to believe that they are perpetually victims only creates a "collective victimhood" [4,5] in that group. This "collective victimhood" costs its members millions in unrealized potential, sends them cowering from social interactions that would otherwise benefit them, and ultimately creates an environment that perpetuates itself. Let's try to dispel that false narrative and deal just with data. I pulled my data from the CDC [9] looking at mortality only. The mortality data from CDC contains per-state mortality rates on a per-infectio...
Read more

Number of Primes

Anderson's Theorem (a) The number of primes in [1,n] is no more than 2+floor(n/2). The probability of n being prime when n is not prime is 1/2 - see Dasgupta,Papadimitriou,Vazirani "Algorithms" page 26. Therefore, the E(pi(n)) is n/2. (b) There does not exist another set of adjacent primes other than {1,2,3} 5: 2 + floor(5/2) = 2 + 2 = 4:=> {1,2,3,5} : 4 <= 4 7: 2 + floor(7/2) = 2 + 3 = 5 => {1,2,3,5,7} : 5 <= 5 11: 2 + floor(11/2) = 2 + 5 = 7 => {1,2,3,5,7,11} 6 <= 7 26: 2 + floor(26/2) = 15 => {1,2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23} : 10 <= 15 Lagrange's Theorem is Inaccurate Lagrange's theorem about primes states that pi(x) is the number of primes <= x. The pi(x) is approximately x/ln(x). He postulated that the lim of pi(x)/(x/lnx) as x-> infinity was 1. This is incorrect. if the number of primes is bounded by n/2 then refactoring and reducing Lagrange's Theorem results in the lim of ln(x) as x approaches infinity. This is alwa...
Read more