Woman charged with Manslaughter after stun went very wrong

[Poetic Nova]

How horrible I may sound right now (which i don't give much about):
Any one with half a brain should know this wouldnt work, I hold no sympathy for the remaining parent.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

It's fucking retarded they are even charging her with a crime at all. So what, the other idiot's co-operation means he did nothing to deserve the outcome?

Ya know you don't fucking... get to sue the bike manufacturer when you try to jump over the grand canyon and fail.

 

[Saelune]

@erttheking: Lots of things wont fly in a court of law. We both know that doesnt mean its a fair judgement of well, fairness. And impaired? Well, if thats the case then neither should be faulted. Or he wasnt impaired and thus he gave consent, even if it was for something stupid and bad.

Again, still holding that there is no positive to putting this woman in jail.

 

[The Raw Shark]

I had to do a doubletake on this.

This is just depressing, and I mean REALLY depressing. A traumatized little girl, 30+ worthless shitstains who never thought for even one god forsaken second to get of their useless asses and call off this shit show and a man dead for the sake of petty fame.

That's about it for today folks, see you next time.

 

[Basement Cat]

Clarification here: He didn't "consent": He insisted. His aunt is on the record that he was pushing for this stunt very hard and that both the girl (19) and his aunt were against it.

If they send her to jail I expect that she shall get a slap on the wrist and be out in as little as 1 year or even 6 months. There isn't the slightest hint of malice, etc, which is why she's been charged with 2nd Degree Manslaughter.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

There was no "intentional" bit involved with this death and she and her aunt were clearly concerned for his life.

So while she might get jail time I wouldn't be at all surprised if she merely gets community service and parole.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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...

That argument is used for anti-material sniper rifles, not just anything in .50, otherwise shotgun slugs, say, couldn't be used. And it's a myth anyway.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

It's fucking retarded they are even charging her with a crime at all. So what, the other idiot's co-operation means he did nothing to deserve the outcome?

Ya know you don't fucking... get to sue the bike manufacturer when you try to jump over the grand canyon and fail.

What's that analogy dude. They're not suing Desert Eagle, just the person that fired the gun.

 

[Redryhno]

@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.

Depends on what you consider a positive. We're talking about someone that was talked into shooting at someone instead of even thinking of "hey, let's do a test here with this gun that people routinely tout as the most dangerous handgun in the world". I don't think that kind of person needs to be in charge of kids at this point in their lives. And imprisonment sorta does that. I'd consider that a positive. Morons are gonna be morons, doesn't mean that everyone else needs to get roped into their moron world.

Also the way you keep talking makes it seem as though she's already suffered enough, so that really doesn't help get the idea across.

 

[Basement Cat]

@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.

Depends on what you consider a positive. We're talking about someone that was talked into shooting at someone instead of even thinking of "hey, let's do a test here with this gun that people routinely tout as the most dangerous handgun in the world". I don't think that kind of person needs to be in charge of kids at this point in their lives. And imprisonment sorta does that. I'd consider that a positive. Morons are gonna be morons, doesn't mean that everyone else needs to get roped into their moron world.

Also the way you keep talking makes it seem as though she's already suffered enough, so that really doesn't help get the idea across.

She does basically figure the girl's suffered enough. It's a very compassionate perspective.

It turns out the guy did test it first and that was how he managed to get his girlfriend to (reluctantly) go through with it.

 

[RobertEHouse]

Clarification here: He didn't "consent": He insisted. His aunt is on the record that he was pushing for this stunt very hard and that both the girl (19) and his aunt were against it.

If they send her to jail I expect that she shall get a slap on the wrist and be out in as little as 1 year or even 6 months. There isn't the slightest hint of malice, etc, which is why she's been charged with 2nd Degree Manslaughter.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

There was no "intentional" bit involved with this death and she and her aunt were clearly concerned for his life.

So while she might get jail time I wouldn't be at all surprised if she merely gets community service and parole.

She will lose custody of the baby she is caring with her once it is born. That is certain, no matter her sentencing as her actions in court would show a possible endangerment to the baby. Her family may be also exempt from taking care of it because she lives with them. So no matter what they plan to do during sentencing her baby is gone from her care.

 

[Cold Shiny]

Maybe uh... test it with just the book first?

I'm a big skeptic when it comes to natural selection, but stories like these always give it a little more credibility.

 

[RobertEHouse]

@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.

Depends on what you consider a positive. We're talking about someone that was talked into shooting at someone instead of even thinking of "hey, let's do a test here with this gun that people routinely tout as the most dangerous handgun in the world". I don't think that kind of person needs to be in charge of kids at this point in their lives. And imprisonment sorta does that. I'd consider that a positive. Morons are gonna be morons, doesn't mean that everyone else needs to get roped into their moron world.

Also the way you keep talking makes it seem as though she's already suffered enough, so that really doesn't help get the idea across.

She does basically figure the girl's suffered enough. It's a very compassionate perspective.

It turns out the guy did test it first and that was how he managed to get his girlfriend to (reluctantly) go through with it.

Doesn't matter in the eye of the law, her boyfriend could have done it a thousand times. The court would find it endangerment to her unborn child because she participated. They will look at her judgment also being pregnant and no matter her sentence; she has officially lost custody of it. Her close relatives may also be considered an endangerment and the child may be forced into the system, so compassion is not needed in this case for Mona as to what she has possibly done to her own baby's future.

 

[Karathos]

This is why I'm glad Finland has mandatory military service. Gives even the simplest guy at least SOME inkling of respect and knowledge regarding firearms and especially firearms safety. How can 30+ people just stand there like nothing is going to go wrong when someone's about to put a .50 cal into another person's chest AS A JOKE?!

The only winner this day is Darwin.

 

[The Lunatic]

She willingly went through with an act that she knew in good sense would cause harm or death to a person.

Whilst, it is mostly the man's fault for being an idiot. You can't honestly tell me she did it seriously thinking a phonebook would stop a fucking bullet?

 

[Combustion Kevin]

You know, not every legal punishment has to be a jail sentence, take away her weapon license or make her do community service instead, prison tends to fuck people up already.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

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...

That argument is used for anti-material sniper rifles, not just anything in .50, otherwise shotgun slugs, say, couldn't be used. And it's a myth anyway.

As explained to me by my sergeants in the Army, not a myth at all. =P But then we were talking .50 cal top guns on a tank. My point still stands though about .50 cal being overkill on a human as it is, and most gun enthusiasts I know hold the DEagle in contempt as nothing more than a piece for folks who don't know shit about guns to feel like bigger assholes.

 

[DoPo]

Maybe uh... test it with just the book first?

He did, and it worked. Granted, he probably tried once and not in the correct circumstances (angle, distance) but he did it.

 

[Valok]

A father convinces a mother to take a gun and shoot him on the chest with a damn book as protection for basically just the lolz.. Now, that's beyond stup-WHAT? They decided to use a .50 Desert MF Eagle? WOW! I guess he was feeling lucky.

And to think that all that pain, all that suffering and all the future damage that is bound to happen to the children which of course will probably last for THEIR ENTIRE FUCKING LIVES.. all of it was done for the "pleasure" of 30 viewers.

I known she is suffering, probably a lot, but such sheer amount of potencial damage caused simply cannot go unpunished (not to mention the dangerous precedent this could set). Lock her up for some time (fine go light here), maybe add some community service in the mix to reduce jail time, and of course take away her children - she clearly doesn't have the basic brainpower and now the emotional capacity to raise them.

Horrible fate? Absolutely. And so is the damage these two dumbasses have done to other people's entire lives.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

As explained to me by my sergeants in the Army, not a myth at all. =P But then we were talking .50 cal top guns on a tank. My point still stands though about .50 cal being overkill on a human as it is, and most gun enthusiasts I know hold the DEagle in contempt as nothing more than a piece for folks who don't know shit about guns to feel like bigger assholes.

Pretty much, but you have to take into consideration that a vehicle will rarely have nothing in between them and their target. You want something that can tear through a double brick house. Especially when you consider the construction techniques of modern urban environs. As for pistols, it's beyond stupid. Though there isaworld of difference between something like a 750-grain count .50 BMG and a Desert Eagle.

Though where one can appreciate the military applications of the former, the latter is just dumb.

 

[Erttheking]

@erttheking: Lots of things wont fly in a court of law. We both know that doesnt mean its a fair judgement of well, fairness. And impaired? Well, if thats the case then neither should be faulted. Or he wasnt impaired and thus he gave consent, even if it was for something stupid and bad.

Again, still holding that there is no positive to putting this woman in jail.

Please quote me properly.

I'm pretty sure this is a case of fairness, seeing as she killed a man by shooting him with a stupidly high powered gun. How long until she does something else with different tools that lead to someone else dying, seeing as she clearly doesn't have the common sense to figure out that this exact outcome would happen?

If I had advocated for jail time, that would've been a valid argument to make.