Woman charged with Manslaughter after stun went very wrong
- Thread starter MatParker116
- Start date
That doesn't really change anything. I'm sorry, if someone consents for me to run them over in a car, I've still committed manslaughter if I do it. I'm not saying she should go to jail for the rest of her life, but she still did wrong.Saelune said:
First impression: "A big encyclopedia could stop certain - DESERT EAGLE WTF YOU %#^&@$$!"
And no, of course it won't help her, but as a deterrent? We need to make it clear that screwing around with firearms isn't acceptable behavior. Follow the safety rules or be held responsible for what happens when you don't. Period.
The Darwin Awards don't actually accept gun deaths, no matter how stupid. It's just too common.Renegrade said:
That gets her off of a murder charge. It doesn't mean that it was legally acceptable behavior on her part. I'm a proponent of the "There are no accidents with firearms" approach. You take a loaded firearm and point it at someone you're not trying to kill, you have already f'd up so badly that you should not be exonerated from the consequences of your actions, regardless of whether you claim it's unintentional. She intentionally fired a gun at someone, and as a direct consequence of that act, they died. Criminal gross negligence - e.g. manslaughter - is very much in order.Saelune said:
And no, of course it won't help her, but as a deterrent? We need to make it clear that screwing around with firearms isn't acceptable behavior. Follow the safety rules or be held responsible for what happens when you don't. Period.
Actually, the point of imprisonment is supposed to be rehabilitation in order for the person to return to society and contribute in whatever way they can. In this case, I doubt the woman would even be willing to touch a gun again. There's nothing to rehabilitate here. Prison would be pointless. If punishment is required (and it is), community service of some sort would be preferable in my mind for this particular case.munx13 said:
Prison is typically described as being for four things: rehabilitation (although frankly that's more than a little neglected in the U.S.), incapacitation, retribution (not so much a goal in itself but as a sublimation to keep vigilantes from feeling the need to take matters into their own hands), and deterrence.
IMO deterrence alone is worthwhile in this case. Allowing firearm "accidents" to go unpunished is a terrible precedent that we need to avoid.
IMO deterrence alone is worthwhile in this case. Allowing firearm "accidents" to go unpunished is a terrible precedent that we need to avoid.
Granted the bullet caliber is the same, but the actual grain count is much higher equating to more power behind it. It really isn't always the size of the round, but rather the kinetic energy behind it/composition of said round. However, even a .50 handgun round such as the type for a DEagle is overpowered for use against humans. There's such a thing as too much stopping power, and in terms of military, according to certain treaties on the rules of war, .50 cal rounds are actually not supposed to be used on people but rather vehicles/equipment. Then again, there are ways around that too...lacktheknack said:
Eh, while jail is a bit of a stretch in some ways, we're talking about people that have proven to be too stupid to raise their kids safely. If nothing else, the kids need to be taken for a few months pending some manner of extensive gun safety course.Saelune said:
I mean, this isn't a paint bucket left on the ladder that caused the guy to trip on the way down and smash his head open, this is a gun. Whether it was on purpose or not, it's a weapon purposefully being aimed at someone and fired. That demands more than a slap on the wrist and "oh, you've suffered enough already you poor dear".
That's it; this contest is over! You've won the thread!anthony87 said:They forgot the words of Heavy Weapons Guy.
Nothing else needs to be said; they were too dumb to live.
As stupid as it is, in most states, suicide (or the attempt at least) is a crime, as is an attempt to assist, which is generally attributed as a manslaughter charge. The charge is generally a "you killed someone but you didn't intend to or didn't do so with malice" charge. As such, it's actually refreshing that they aren't jumping to murder or some other charge first.Saelune said:
All that said, while I partially agree with your earlier sentiment that this really isn't something to send someone to jail over, I wonder at what point is that line, where stupid actions leading to unintentional death get a pass?
"Crash Test" stunt, where the participants get into a car, buckle up, and drive at high speed into a concrete barricade. Both agree beforehand, but are certain the seat belts and air bags will save them. Passenger dies, does the driver get a pass?
My main thing is, really, this isn't some horrible accident. She pointed a weapon known for its power at a person and pulled the trigger, without any attempt to look into the safety of the situation. They obviously did no research, consulted with no one as to the safety; simply had an idea and did it. While I don't think she necessarily needs to spend years in prison, I don't know how comfortable I am with the precedent set by saying "you feel bad and made a mistake, so you're free to go" when someone dies.
The point of Prison -should be- to rehabilitate those who can, and keep away those who cant, ie mob bosses and mass murderers. Putting her in jail would serve no positive. It would just ruin even more people. She isnt some mass shooter, nor was she even the instigator.munx13 said:
He isnt going to jail and I think that is unfair to her. He is dead, but he is the one most guilty from what is known. I kind of hate how people have a weird bias infavor of the dead even when the dead were the bigger idiots.Queen Michael said:
Suicide should not be a crime though. And I operate of what is right, not what is law, since Justice and Law arent synonyms.kitsunefather said:
As I said above, I think it is unfair that the guy gets out of the more severe punishment by being dead. (Presuming there is no hell for idiots).
@erttheking: I think if someone consents to you running them over with a car, you should not be punished.
@Redrhyno: I am saying that Jail as a punishment serves no positive in this case. If there is a proper punishment for it beyond the repercussions of losing her partner etc, that jail is not it.
@Redrhyno: I am saying that Jail as a punishment serves no positive in this case. If there is a proper punishment for it beyond the repercussions of losing her partner etc, that jail is not it.
Whatever you think of it, it's illegal.Saelune said:
Regardless of intent, she could've chosen not to shoot her bae point blank with a hand cannon. Her negligence resulted in his death and she must be tried for it. Court will probably be lenient on her because she's preggers and a few other mitigating factors, but she deserves whatever the court comes up with.
In a lot of ways it's not simply about rehabilitation but harm prevention. May sound draconian, but sometimes you need to throw the book at people. For example, Australia isn't as gaol happy as the U.S., but I would be surprised if she wouldn't have received a longer term of imprisonment simply because we are talking about multiple gun related felonies.Saelune said:
She broke the law pointing a loaded gun at people, and while one might claim mens rea is lacking ... at the same time she should definitely not be in civil society if that were the case. So involuntary detention on possible medical grounds, or involuntary detention based on felonious action. Pick your poison.
You can't just let people go whenever someonesays; "They asked me to do it." You are still treated as an agent of your own destiny.
I'm not a fan of mandatory minimums, but I draw the line at grievous bodily harm/death resulting from gross negligence. Sometimes you just gotta gaol someone as an example relative to the cost in human life and dignity.
Of course I would make the argument that people should seriously look into gun control, and just make it a flat out felony to begin with necessitating involuntary detention. You know ...makes life easy, and stops people being natural contenders for the Darwin Award to begin with.
Please quote me properly.Saelune said:
That wouldn't fly in a court of law, as someone giving you permission to do that isn't legal permission to kill someone. The person in question clearly had impaired judgement, and if I were to go along with it, my own judgement would be equally impaired.