Pushed Over the Edge
We hear about bullying and think of mean children and vicious teens. We hear horror stories of young people who end their lives rather than face another day of ridicule, and we think “if only they understood it wouldn’t last forever.” Because mature adults do not engage in taunting or psychological warfare, and even if they do, adult targets are strong enough to withstand it and brush it off. Only, sometimes they don’t.
Denise was a small, pretty blonde lady, quiet with sparkling eyes. She was a small town girl all her life, working in the probation office at the county court house for nearly two decades. She raised two sons from her first marriage, which ended in divorce, then finally found happiness with her new husband. The two of them enjoyed the outdoors and were part of a local motorcycle club. Denise especially loved the New River Gorge, a resplendent river valley in Fayette County, West Virginia near where Denise made her home. The area is known for the New River Gorge Bridge, one of the highest and longest bridges in the country.
On August 5, 2017, Denise parked her car on the bridge, climbed the railing and jumped to her death at the age of 46.
In the front seat of her car, they found a letter from her boss, a circuit court judge, informing her she had been fired, and a note saying goodbye to her loved ones.
Her family believes that, though Denise took her own life, she was driven to do so by members of her community. Her ordeal began, unsurprisingly in this day and age, on social media when Denise made a Facebook post urging people to talk to their children about drugs. When one of her friends responded flippantly with “puff puff pass”, Denise scolded him for his post. Soon after, she found herself the target of much anger and harassment by several in her community, particularly members of the motorcycle club to which she and her husband belonged.
The hostility took its toll on Denise, who had battled with depression and had previously attempted suicide. Then one Sunday morning, as she was leaving to go to church where she taught Sunday school, she found taped to her front gate a photograph of herself in lingerie, one she’d sent to her husband and a friend several years prior. As she drove, she saw another copy on a stop sign.
She couldn’t make herself go to church after that, too afraid others may have seen the photos. Her worries were not unfounded; some 30 copies of the photo were posted around the tiny town of Glasgow, population 905.
A few days later, the photo landed on the desk of her boss, the judge. Suffice to say he is not known as a kind or sympathetic judge, and his treatment of Denise was no departure from his normal demeanor. He shoved the picture in her face and called her a disgrace. She was fired, and died the next day.
Her family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the motorcycle club and others in the town. It may be tempting to shrug it off as grieving loved ones looking for someone to blame, but the investigation into her death reveals that this may have been exactly their intention. Text messages between several women associated with the motorcycle club appear to discuss Denise:
“[I] will make the silly blonde with a head injury want to kill her self because u fuck with me my family or my friends it’s over”
“I got something up my sleeve”
“I’ll gather up tape and tacks”
And after the photographs were posted:
“its done lets see what happens”
What happened was two young men lost their mother. A man lost his wife. A baby lost her grandmother. And Denise lost her life, as her tormentors intended. It is difficult to imagine the mindset of a person who would set out to cause an unassuming woman in a small town to be so distraught she no longer wants to live. It is even more difficult to fathom that such a person could find others to join in with their depravity.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a difficult cause of action to prove. But if any fact pattern seems custom designed to fit the definition, it is this one. Her perpetrators knew of her emotional issues, and one explicitly stated her intent to drive Denise to kill herself. It will be difficult to defend this suit, given their stated intent and admitted knowledge of Denise’s fragility.
There was an investigation by law enforcement into Denise’s death, but prosecutors concluded there was no crime under which these individuals could be charged. It was more of a civil matter, they said. And so a civil matter it will be, helmed by a local attorney who never saw a fight he was afraid to start. Meanwhile, Denise’s family and friends are working with a state legislator to enact an “adult bullying” statute to criminalize conduct like that which caused Denise to do the unthinkable.
No doubt such a law invites skepticism; after all, shouldn’t adults have learned by now about sticks and stones? What sort of conduct would cross a threshold into criminality? When and if that bill is drafted and presented, it will be interesting to see how it is crafted to protect the vulnerable while preserving first amendment rights. But it certainly seems that a person who sets out to drive a person to their death and succeeds should face some sort of punishment.
It’s not altogether unheard of; there was the well-publicized case of Michelle Carter, who goaded her boyfriend, via text message, to follow through with his suicide plan and was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. A petition challenging Carter’s conviction is pending at the Supreme Court, on free speech grounds among others.
Denise’s family will not see justice from the criminal court, but a civil case has a much lower standard of proof. Let’s hope her loved ones can find the peace Denise had stripped away.
My wife and I have both witnessed people being threatened with doxing and worse in the comment sections of Facebook over local political and non-political issues lately, with alarming frequency. Page owners are usually good about deleting problem comments, but the damage is done. The newest place where we have seen the type of bullying described in the OP is on the Nextdoor app. The comments on a proposed Section 8 development in an affluent area of town created multiple threats and reports of abuse to Nextdoor.
All of this is to say that the problem continues to be one of the old ways of social interaction breaking down. Digital communication is a lousy way of talking to someone in general. My brother and I have had dozens of ugly exchanges via email in the last 10 years but not one argument face-to-face.
I don’t see how this gets better until we start figuring out how to reconnect people in the real world. I think the woman’s death is so much more tragic than a lone gunman because it was a group effort. I also hope our courts can figure out a way to deal with the people that behave this way, because IMO the people that harassed her are just as guilty as if they had pushed her off that bridge.Report
I think intentional infliction and various invasion of privacy laws are sufficient for this. It’s always terrible when someone takes their own life but I don’t think prosecution is the right way to handle it, especially when the reasons someone does it can be pretty nebulous to everyone but the one who did it.
This seems like a pretty weird scenario with the woman’s own biker gang turning on her. I’m fine with them being accountable for what they did with the pictures. Maybe WVa has some false light defamation tort or something similar that might be applicable. But they didn’t kill her. She did that.Report
I agree, the people who did this can be awful people, at the same time the victim did an awful thing. It’s probably not a good idea to give someone with suicidal thoughts the incentive of believing their tormentors will go to prison if they kill themselves.
This scenario comes close to falling under my state’s crime of stalking, which has expanded to include electronic communications as a potential means of meeting the criteria. But I’m not sure, scanning the definitions, that a physical presence component is still required; it can’t simply be harassment through the internet. I suspect that this might be because the real goal (lowest level felony) is to make it easier to get a restraining order of some sort.Report
Agreed. Other than the 1st Amendment issues part of me worries that there could be some serious hazard in seeming to vindicate suicide. We certainly don’t want to incentivize it.
We have a misdemeanor in Maryland for harassment that some of this conduct might fall under.Report
Sounds like this guy bears significant moral responsibility for her death, legalities aside.
Why would you fire someone over a photo she sent privately to her husband, which other people made public? It’s just stupid even if you’re a prudish asshole.Report
Em writes that she sent the photo to her husband and a friend. The link seems to be unclear how the photo got out.Report
Hmm. Still seems like a deranged thing to fire someone over.
As well as being the proverbial straw that broke this particular metaphorical camel’s back.Report
That a friend had the pictures seemed to be important for a few reasons, so I thought it worth pointing out. On the one hand, that’s how the pictures got public, but more importantly, it points to the underlying emotional trauma being inflicted by people who once were her friends, or at least fellow club members. Also, how “suggestive” were the photographs? A little less if they’re shared with a friend?Report
He may bear moral responsibility, but given no mortal power will sanction him, and it’s unlikely his own conscious will, that responsibility will never be answered.Report
What an absolutely horrible thing for the judge to do – to fire her because she’s the victim of a campaign of harassment.
If a case of harassment came before his court, would he send the victim to jail? What an awful man.Report
““[I] will make the silly blonde with a head injury want to kill her self because u fuck with me my family or my friends it’s over””
That seems to offer some insight into this:
“It is difficult to imagine the mindset of a person who would set out to cause an unassuming woman in a small town to be so distraught she no longer wants to live.”
It seems clear that those who targeted Denise did not see her as an unassuming women. At least one of them feels she “fuck[ed] with” her, her family, or her friends. That in no way justifies the action these women took and the intentions behind it. But it does point towards there being more to the story as these situations are almost always more complicated than they first seem. What transpired between Denise and these other women? I’d want to know more about all the folks involved and the various dynamics at play before saying we need new laws to stop evil people from being evil.Report
I don’t know the other women, but I did know Denise. She was very timid and quiet, and I got the impression some of those people thought she was uppity or snobbish, which is why they took such offense at her reprimand to the person on FB about the drug reference. In certain circles, people interpret that kind of thing as “you think you’re better than me?”
Obviously there could be more to it. I can’t say I knew her well, but I just can’t imagine her hurting a fly.Report
I am familiar with people thinking someone is snobbish when they are, in fact, just really shy.
It’s at times like these when I remember how terrible human beings are. I find it easy to love individuals, even flawed ones, but I kind of hate humanity in general.Report
There is a lot of the “you think you’re better than me” sentiment in small towns, too. It doesn’t take much to get that resentment to boil up.Report
Women can be merciless in dealing with other women like this….they don’t have the capabilities to be physical (generally) so they backstab and snipe.Report
I have been river rafting down the New River. The trip ended under the New River Bridge. People were jumping off it that day – while wearing parachutes. Perhaps also with bungees.
The story is upsetting. If we can’t prosecute these people, can we at least name and shame them? Make them pay, in cold, hard cash?Report
In my line of work we have a saying, “None of us are as dumb as all of us.” I think that could easily be adapted to, “None of us are as terrible as all of us.”Report
Little more detail about the lawsuit here:
https://wvrecord.com/stories/512875642-man-says-his-wife-was-bullied-until-she-killed-herselfReport
No, i don’t think you want that Doc. the court of public opinion is pretty bad with gossip, let alone with something like this.Report
And a word of gratitude to our Ordinary Times hosts and participants, who generally keep this site a place for civil discussion of heated issues. We’ve all seen it go bad elsewhere.Report
The notion that small towns are idyllic communities worth striving for is entirely undermined by the realities of those communities for those who aren’t members of the in-group.Report
At least for a small town in/near Fayette County, West Virginia.
Geography…Report
What is implied here?Report
Why do you consider a implication where this is the actual location you wrote about? Sam is the one making the blanket statement about small towns.
My implications is that all small towns aren’t like this one, for whatever measure of likeness is, and the premise that in-grouping and out-grouping does happen just as much if not more within high population centers.Report
I was wondering what you meant by “geography”, which seemed like you think this town, or WV in particular, are especially prone to this type of behavior. Just asking.Report
A different town/city in WV may be completely different.Report
I’m sure it does happen in big cities as well. It’s just easier there to ignore it and find new peers.Report
It’s not like people would in-group out-group to the point of forming Chinatowns or little Italy or something along those lines.Report
Those exist; membership is not mandatory.Report
Those typically don’t exist in towns with populations of 200, or 2000.
Geography….Report
Those typically don’t exist in towns with populations of 200, or 2000.
This is the point Sam was making above.Report
Nope. Sam was talking small towns, unless you want to make the case he was referring to small towns in the context of population centers large enough to self segregate into sub cultures with populations of 40,000 or more.Report
I grew up in a small town. It is certainly different than urban living. One of the big differences is that nobody knows who you are, so if compromising pictures of you get posted around town, nobody cares, and they just get pulled down because they aren’t that interesting.
One of the things I’ve discovered about my small town is that you always remain whomever you were when you graduated high school. I personally find this stultifying, but I can imagine others would find it comforting. And there is an upside to being known, which comes when they know you and care about you. Of course, this makes social maneuvers like the freeze-out much more powerful.
They aren’t the same.Report
^^^^ThisReport
“I’m sure it does happen in big cities as well. It’s just easier there to ignore it and find new peers.”
You’re right, and that’s an advantage to living in a bigger city. But it doesn’t make bigger cities morally better.
You weren’t saying they were morally better. But I make the point because the subtext of this conversation is that we’re judging cities and small towns in moral and moralistic terms. A terrible thing that happens somewhere becomes justification for our priors and a proxy for other arguments about how horrible “those people” are.
By “we” and “our,” I include myself, by the way. Perhaps that’s not true for you and I’m misrepresenting your vision of this conversation’s subtext. But I do believe the subtext is there.Report
Yep.Report
Was this story actually a symptom of small towns? I live in a pretty good-sized city and the same kinds of things happen here. Seems like the size of the town is irrelevant.Report
Most cultures like to depict the village or small town as the repository of all virtues and humanities where people love and support each other in a miniature commonwealth. The city is filled with vanity and mean people who only use you for their purposes. However, small towns can also be ostracizing places where the entire community gangs up against the town weirdo or outsiders.Report
This sounds a bit like a persecution complex for city-dwellers. I mean, sure, there are terrible people everywhere. The fetishization of small towns is not because they are places of virtue, it’s a recognition that humans do better in smaller groups. I find that it’s easy enough to find smaller communities within a city (neighborhoods, congregations, sports fans, etc) but some people also like the idea that their town IS the smaller community. I don’t think one is better than the other and at the end of the day I think Sam’s observation was entirely irrelevant to what happened to the woman in the OP.Report
I find that it’s easy enough to find smaller communities within a city (neighborhoods, congregations, sports fans, etc) but some people also like the idea that their town IS the smaller community.
That’s just fine, as long as the smaller community doesn’t turn against you. If the town is the community, moving on with your life when they’ve shunned you requires major life upheaval.
In a bigger city, you can keep your same home and probably stay at the same job and keep your kids at the same school, and just turn your back on the community that’s turned its back on you – there will be another community for you.
Whether this was relevant to the woman in this incident is – well, we’ll never know will we? In a city with multiple motorcycle clubs accepting new members, would she have just switched clubs? We’ll never know.Report
“The notion that small towns are idyllic communities worth striving for is entirely undermined by the realities of those communities for those who aren’t members of the in-group.”
I readily admit there are people who portray small towns as “idyllic communities.” Even so, I disagree with other parts of this comment.
This situation is obviously a piece of evidence that undermines that portrayal, but I don’t believe it “entirely” undermines that portrayal. Second, it’s possible to strive for an idyll while realizing that that idyll doesn’t work in practice. Liberals of a certain stripe strive for something like that all the time, a country or a world where all take care of each other and no one is left behind. When that vision is sometimes put into practice, there are often false steps or unintended/unwanted consequences, but those don’t “entirely” undermine that vision/idyll.
I’d much, much prefer to live in a medium to large city than a small town. One reason is the inter-peer mobility that Mike Schilling describes elsewhere in this thread. Even so, I don’t believe I’ve found the true and only heaven in such localities.Report
I’m going to join InMD and argue no. We have a problem with mass incarceration because we want to treat every social ill as a criminal problem. You can’t prosecute the entire world even for despicable conduct. Most social ills should not be treated as crimes even when the results are horrific like in this case. Plus the numbers can be staggering? Should dozens or hundreds get prosecuted?Report
So you’re saying that just because a few incidents end in terrible tragedy, we shouldn’t create elaborate laws to address the problem due to the logistics of implementing said law…?Report
I think Em was talking about using existing criminal law rather than writing new law.Report
I did mention that the family is working with a state legislator to craft a new law, but intended to express my skepticism that such could be done in a way that fairly protects free speech.Report
Personally, I’m with Lee in that I don’t want even more criminal statutes on the books.
But that doesn’t mean the laws can’t be modified to better allow for civil action.Report
Old law or new law, I took your point to mean that laws are not always the best way to address every human misdeed, especially when thousands engage in the same behavior and it doesn’t end in a death. Is that correct?
I do think social media greatly amplifies the ability of bullies to harm people. It seems like we could eliminate certain features. Un-moderated comment sections seems like a good place to start.Report
Facebook, Twitter, et c. are all at least nominally moderated, but the actual degree of moderation you’d need to bring this kind of behavior under control is much more expensive than the owners are willing to pay (and probably more than they could afford even if they wanted to).
And I’m always open to the possibility that it’s not the bullying that’s new, but our awareness of it. Prior to the social media-oriented Internet, how many people would have ever heard of a campaign of bullying that resulted in death in a small town far from any major media?Report
I understand that the owners wouldn’t want to pay for this, but why give them an option if it’s in the interest of public safety?
Sure, bullying has existed since the first cave men gave someone hell for their crappy hunting skills. But when I was a kid in the 80s most bullying took place at school and you went home and at least it turned off for a while. Nowadays it follows kids everywhere. It’s 24/7. And they are also much more adept at using social media to subtlety attack one another.Report
Sure. Guns being the obvious exception.Report
I don’t agree they are the exception. They are really part of the same conversation.Report
I think most cities have “small towns” within them- just because it’s hard for humans to feel connection with large demographics. For instance, music scenes tend to function a lot like small towns with the same sort of gossip networks. A year after listening to it, I find myself still thinking about this NPR podcast about a young woman who was drummed out of the Richmond, Virginia punk scene over “hypocrisy”- she was an outspoken feminist singer who had been a somewhat sexist bully back in high school- something like a decade before! But that sort of “shaming” is frequent in all sorts of “tribes”.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/601971617/the-calloutReport
In any group, whether it is a music scene, book club, high school, or whatever, there is going to be a pecking order. Sometimes that is OK, but other times its not.
Right now I live in a smallish town, but when I lived in cities, there were definite neighborhoods or close-in suburbs that lived and died by this. The less transitory, the less likely to happen, but it is still there.Report
The thing that sticks with me about this particular story is it wasn’t enough to have become a better and more enlightened person; the expectation was she should have already been a better and more enlightened person in high school, ten years prior. That seems like an impossible standard to me.Report
Or, at least, a very counterproductive one.Report
Yeah, I know what you are saying. But I think this gets more at the attacker/queen bee being on shaky ground there. No room for generosity.Report
I live in a medium sized town in WV. There are a few notorious families with names that get the eye roll when they come up in conversation. Some of it is deserved, some not. EVERY small/medium sized town has this. I remember a son from one of those families trying to get on with my previous employer. I was talking to him one day and he came out and told me that he wished he had a different name. He couldn’t catch a break and he blamed his name. I tried to tell him to let his work ethic speak for him, not the name. He ended up not making the cut. I wondered if it was because of the stigma of having a certain last name in my hometown or if it just didn’t work out for some other reason. He would’ve blended in if he lived in a larger community, I’m sure of it.
It’s a damn dirty shame what happened to that poor woman and her family. I hope they can find closure soon.
Good piece EM..Report
Like others here, I don’t know what the right policy solution is, but I share the skepticism about whether we can use criminal laws.
This horrible situation, though, gives me pause about my own actions. I’ve never cyber-bullied anyone, but I have been much more confrontational and aggressive on line with some people than I would ever be in person. That aggression doesn’t amount to bullying, but it takes me closer to whatever threshold there is. The same is probably true of my fellow commenters here, if they’re hones.Report
Agreed.Report
When something horrible like what the OP describes happens, the victim becomes a symbol.
Someone to whom some commenters wouldn’t have given the time of day, or who some commenters would assume to be one of “those people” who are not to be trusted, etc. (because they’re all like that), is now an object of concern and someone to care about because caring about that person makes a larger point that the commenters wanted to make all along.
We all do that, depending on the tragedy and depending on our priors. Or if not all, then I do that (example: some of my comments above in this thread). But when I do that, I lose sight of the individual involved.Report
Excellent comments. I do admit I have become considerably callous of victim stories over the last 20 years. They are typically a lead in to some justification of ‘what is to be done?’.
It worries me that somewhere along the way the old gods were replaced with government. When we used to shout at the sky with our ‘whys?’ and ‘how could this have been allowed to happened’, that there was a unknown ‘gods will’ that we could never know, but would allow us to continue on with the uncertainty of life.
Without the old gods, the people are shouting at government, all the ‘whys?’ and ‘how could this be allowed to happen’, and what we get is millions of laws, attempting to prevent bad events from happening. The demand that government be on over watch every where all the time. Attempting to make a omniscient construct to replace what we used to assume god was. The constant banning of the uncomfortable realities.
All the cameras, the slow infiltrating into every corner of peoples lives, this isn’t a accident, or just random increase of what the government does. The prisons filled to the max, attempting to punish imperfect people into being a little more closer to what god should have made them to be in the first place.
I guess in this way I will never be a atheist. I will always believe god made us this way, enough free will that we can choose to be good or bad. Our destiny within our own chosen paths, may the skies fall or shine accordingly.Report
I think what’s really lacking is humility and perspective about the capabilities of the state. This isn’t to say we don’t need laws and regulations and the fact that some such laws will have adverse consequences of their own is not in itself an argument against them, provided that the adverse consequence is clearly outweighed by the addressing of the ill, and doesn’t infringe on something more important. We also need a basic framework of rules and consistency for modern society and economies to function.
The challenge I think is the lack of dispassionate, critical thought going into policy making. Instead there’s a naive faith in the efficacy of well intended legislation. Of course that’s one of the biggest flaws in our mass media drunk democracy. The emotional appeal carries the day, and sad anecdotes and histrionics are deemed more persuasive that sober-minded reason.Report
While I agree with much of this comment, I would say the path that led this lady to her death was not the difficulty in navigating what policies were or were not in place, the difficulty was in navigating the terrain of real humans.
The veneer that there is a omniscient construct that will shield against reality should be avoided IMO, and replaced with a healthy capacity for peer level conflict. Even in the awareness of knowing how uncomfortable that proposal may be, I think it is a hard truth that must be mentioned, constantly.Report
Thanks, JoeSal.
I’m probably more willing to endorse and sign on to “social constructs” than you are, but I can certainly see where you’re coming from.Report
It’s all about whether people have other choices. When we think about bullying and harassment, whether or not someone can leave and go elsewhere is a _huge_ distinction.
Like…this place is voluntary. If someone harasses someone here, (and the admin didn’t do anything about), we’d think it was absurd to try to sue the harrasser or the site or even have them charged criminally. No one _has_ to be here. If it’s not comfortable for them, they can leave. Same with, for example, reddit….you’re being harassed? Create a new user account, go find a better subreddit to talk. Or go somewhere else entirely.
Note this assumption assumes that people can actually make new social groups, which means it ignores harms to people who…can’t. People have a different amount of social skills, and it might have taken _years_ for people to get comfortable with a certain environment, it could be a huge investment. OTOH…nothing is actually requiring those spaces to continue to exist at all, so there’s sorta a problem there to start with.
This is why bullying is such a large problem with kids: Kids almost never allowed to just leave their environment, or not come back.
They can’t leave school situations, and even if in a technically ‘voluntary’ social activity, their parents are generally in control of that, which means even if their parents will let them leave, they have to at minimum explain why they no longer want to be there, which they often are unwilling to do. (Often because harassment is about embarrassing things…which they don’t particularly want to tell their parents.)
Meanwhile, where we tend to care about harassment with adults is situations where they ‘can’t’ leave, like work, or situations where they simply can’t ‘not be somewhere’, like walking down the street. Or the example here, where someone can’t actually leave their entire town.
And we’re really lagging behind in online. We still tend to assume _all_ of online is ‘leavable’. But…that’s not really true for Facebook. Or other social media stuff…I mean, I’m an old guy, I don’t know what kids are using these days, but I’m fairly sure having a social existence _requires_ those things for kids.Report
Something that occurs to me is that places that offer online discussion forums really trade a lot on the whole CDA Section 230. And people are fighting like hell to keep it. I did see someone say that the modern web depended entirely on CDA S230 protections, and I’m all “yes, this modern web that we love so much, that we all agree is functioning well, that is definitely improved by the providers-have-absolutely-no-responsibility paradigm it works under.”Report
Running on a, “Let’s get rid of CDA S320 protections to destroy social media as we know it!” might be a winning argument because so many people hate it (even and maybe especially people who use it all the time) but it’s also an argument that I’ve rarely if ever heard.Report
Just remember things can always get worse.Report