On that I am in agreement.Imperioratorex Caprae said: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.
There are a lot of people we cannot punish who deserve punishment. This guy effectively got the death penalty. I don't really think he even counts.Saelune said:He isnt going to jail and I think that is unfair to her.
Look, if you want to throw his corpse in jail for some inane purpose, I won't try to stop you. I don't know how to explain to you that dead people are dead. I can tell you, however, that his degree of guilt in the matter is irrelevant to hers. There's this weird notion flying around where guilt has to add up to 100%, so that if you one person has X amount of guilt, than another person can only have up to 100%-X. There's no truth to that. If one person commits a crime, they're 100% guilty, and if two people commit the same crime together, they're each 100% guilty. The fact that he insisted she shoot at him does not absolve her guilt in shooting at him.Saelune said:I kind of hate how people have a weird bias infavor of the dead even when the dead were the bigger idiots.
I don't know about that last bit. Are people going to be more willing to shoot others or be reckless because of this one case where a stupid accident killed somebody, ruined the lives of all involved, but the shooter didn't get sentenced too harshly? Seems like a big stretch to me.Pyrian said:If you voluntarily point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger, you are responsible for what happens. That is the principle that needs to be upheld, that is why she needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Failing to do so means more people screwing around and more deaths.
He?s saying that the precedent needs to be set that in no case is it ever permissible or legal to point and fire a weapon at another human being save for immediate self-defense. I don?t care how much he pressured her, the moral obligation to decide right and wrong fell squarely on her shoulders. She took account of her life (her boyfriend?s safety, her child, her unborn child, etc.) and decided her and her idiot boyfriend?s YouTube stardom was worth the risk; she rolled the dice in the form of a .50cal Desert Eagle and killed a man. She needs to be punished. I?m not saying the death penalty or life in prison, but she needs a couple years in a cell to grow some common fucking sense and appreciate the worth of the lives she helped destroy.Pseudonym said:I don't know about that last bit. Are people going to be more willing to shoot others or be reckless because of this one case where a stupid accident killed somebody, ruined the lives of all involved, but the shooter didn't get sentenced too harshly? Seems like a big stretch to me.Pyrian said:If you voluntarily point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger, you are responsible for what happens. That is the principle that needs to be upheld, that is why she needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Failing to do so means more people screwing around and more deaths.
Why is prison the only punishment? And if the desired effect is to educate, then why go for straight punishment?Xprimentyl said:She needs to be punished. I?m not saying the death penalty or life in prison, but she needs a couple years in a cell to grow some common fucking sense and appreciate the worth of the lives she helped destroy.
Because no legal system can survive if it balances ideas of a codex of laws and punishments when it can no longer define and even judicate over serious offences and the necessary costs one must pay through negligence or active criminality? What is the alternative, here? Letting anyone go if they say; "They asked me to do it..."? As I wrote to another poster, Australia isn't as gaol happy as much as the U.S. ... but she'd probably get a longer sentence here due to how seriously courts take gun related felonies.DoPo said:Why is prison the only punishment? And if the desired effect is to educate, then why go for straight punishment?Xprimentyl said:She needs to be punished. I?m not saying the death penalty or life in prison, but she needs a couple years in a cell to grow some common fucking sense and appreciate the worth of the lives she helped destroy.
In fact, can you rationalise why she shouldn't be killed outright? Ignore the "there is no death penalty" (if applicable) - you're saying she shouldn't. Why? That would be punishment. If your expectation is for her to still be a productive member of society, then how is prison the correct answer, instead of an alternative. I'm really curious about this "SHE NEEDS TO GO TO JAIL" that is being thrown around.
Now thats what i call a Darwin award.MatParker116 said:...the weapon used was a .50-calibre Desert Eagle handgun.
Because generally, when you kill someone intentionally or otherwise, that?s what happens. If you read my first post, I used the analogy of drunk driving. If you drink too much and make the shitty decision to get behind the wheel and end up hitting and killing someone, you go to jail. She made the shitty decision to point the business end of a .50cal pistol at the father of her children without the excuse of being impaired, and pulled the trigger; she should go to jail. Of sound mind, she made a decision to participate in a ridiculous dangerous stunt strictly because it was ridiculously dangerous, and she killed a man. Jails are full of people who made bad decisions; how is hers any more pitiable? Because she has a kid and is pregnant? Because he asked her to do it? I?m sorry, no; that?s no excuse; they both knew and ignored the risk for YouTube views now they both pay the price: he?s dead and she should go where murderers go: JAIL.DoPo said:Why is prison the only punishment? And if the desired effect is to educate, then why go for straight punishment?Xprimentyl said:She needs to be punished. I?m not saying the death penalty or life in prison, but she needs a couple years in a cell to grow some common fucking sense and appreciate the worth of the lives she helped destroy.
In fact, can you rationalise why she shouldn't be killed outright? Ignore the "there is no death penalty" (if applicable) - you're saying she shouldn't. Why? That would be punishment. If your expectation is for her to still be a productive member of society, then how is prison the correct answer, instead of an alternative. I'm really curious about this "SHE NEEDS TO GO TO JAIL" that is being thrown around.
Pseudonym said:...this one case...
Do you know why the Darwin Awards don't even accept stupid gun deaths? Because they're just too common. This case would barely be newsworthy if it didn't happen live on YouTube. Guy near me told his girlfriend "Look, it's not even loaded" and shot himself in the head, victim of "one in the chamber syndrome", and he was a friggen marine FFS. Barely even makes the local news. The problem being addressed isn't "this one case", it's a culture that doesn't sufficiently respect gun safety practices.gigastar said:Now thats what i call a Darwin award.
http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2000-04.htmlPyrian said:Pseudonym said:...this one case...Do you know why the Darwin Awards don't even accept stupid gun deaths? Because they're just too common. This case would barely be newsworthy if it didn't happen live on YouTube. Guy near me told his girlfriend "Look, it's not even loaded" and shot himself in the head, victim of "one in the chamber syndrome", and he was a friggen marine FFS. Barely even makes the local news. The problem being addressed isn't "this one case", it's a culture that doesn't sufficiently respect gun safety practices.gigastar said:Now thats what i call a Darwin award.
That's the thing though, it's not about whether someone's suffered enough or not in these kinds of things. I don't give a shit if it's a compassionate response or not, what she did was NOT compassionate, it came from both of their greed, ignorance, and talking themselves up.Basement Cat said: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.
That is factually not true, or that cop would not have been acquitted recently. I dont want to go off-topic about racist cops getting away with it, but that clearly shows that in the eyes of the uncompassionate law, aiming a gun and firing it at someone and killing them, doesnt automatically make you guilty of murder.Pyrian said:If you voluntarily point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger, you are responsible for what happens. That is the principle that needs to be upheld, that is why she needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Failing to do so means more people screwing around and more deaths.
Fuck the eyes of the law. The eyes of the law are biased and unfair and inhuman. The eyes of the law do not see humans and is regularly wrong. What is right and fair, and what is law are not synonyms, and I will not condone unfair and cruel punishments that neglect the humanity that those laws are -supposed- to protect.RobertEHouse said:Doesn't matter in the eye of the law...
So then we base the judicial system off of "fairness". Whose idea of "fairness"? Yours? Mine?Saelune said:Fuck the eyes of the law. The eyes of the law are biased and unfair and inhuman. The eyes of the law do not see humans and is regularly wrong. What is right and fair, and what is law are not synonyms, and I will not condone unfair and cruel punishments that neglect the humanity that those laws are -supposed- to protect.RobertEHouse said:Doesn't matter in the eye of the law...
Either would be better than whoever's "fairness" we are currently using. You do know all laws are made by people right? Most of them old and dead and probably racist.The Rogue Wolf said:So then we base the judicial system off of "fairness". Whose idea of "fairness"? Yours? Mine?Saelune said:Fuck the eyes of the law. The eyes of the law are biased and unfair and inhuman. The eyes of the law do not see humans and is regularly wrong. What is right and fair, and what is law are not synonyms, and I will not condone unfair and cruel punishments that neglect the humanity that those laws are -supposed- to protect.RobertEHouse said:Doesn't matter in the eye of the law...
Really? Either? Because I honestly think this woman should be lobotomized and put on display as an example of human idiocy.Saelune said:Either would be better than whoever's "fairness" we are currently using. You do know all laws are made by people right? Most of them old and dead and probably racist.The Rogue Wolf said:So then we base the judicial system off of "fairness". Whose idea of "fairness"? Yours? Mine?Saelune said:Fuck the eyes of the law. The eyes of the law are biased and unfair and inhuman. The eyes of the law do not see humans and is regularly wrong. What is right and fair, and what is law are not synonyms, and I will not condone unfair and cruel punishments that neglect the humanity that those laws are -supposed- to protect.RobertEHouse said:Doesn't matter in the eye of the law...