Woman charged with Manslaughter after stun went very wrong

[DoPo]

What is the alternative, here? Letting anyone go if they say; "They asked me to do it..."?

Or, how about community service and probation and some sort of rehabilitation program? Maybe other sanctions, as well. My question was why is jail the only thing that comes up. It sounds to me that people can only think of "jail" and "you go free" as possible outcomes. Your own words attest to that.

Also it's quite easy to argue why someone should be gaoled for a crime, but not killed by the state. Australia has no death penalty because the right to life is guaranteed from trespass by the state. Ergo, no death penalty. Problem solved.

You ignored when I said that "no death penalty" should not be used as a justification. If it's a matter of punishing the person, why not just kill them? That's punishment. Also saves up on money, as they don't need to be put in jail and cared for. If you think they shouldn't be killed, then what are you basing this on? Aside from "life for life's sake", what is the actual reason to want a guilty person not dead?

In this instance, dare I say gun control? The problem is that gun control would, by its ownsome, necessitate some form of punishment for being stupid with firearms.

You know when your teacher asked you; "If your friend jumped off a cliff, would you do it also?" The smartarse response is; "I'd wait to see how much funb it was...." but we still need courts to assume people should say no.

So, "some form of punishment" can only take the form of custody? Or can we recognise that there are forms of punishment other than that that can still disincentivise followups?

And yes, I can rationalize why no death penalty: because by design of our legal system, the punishment should fit the crime. She did not do this with malice or forethought; she didn?t plan to kill; she certainly didn?t kill SEVERAL people; I highly doubt she plans on killing again, so she?s not a danger to anyone else;

Right, so with this in mind, how does jail actually help? You originally said that she essentially needs to be put in the grown up corner and think of what she did. Yet here you are admitting that she probably realises what she did and wouldn't want to repeat it. So...why put her in jail, then? Sure - people who kill other people go there[footnote]maybe? I am not following the US legal system - I don't know if that's always the case.[/footnote] but what does this accomplish?

Or you suggesting we do stuff without ever thinking of why just because we've always done it this way?

 

[Saelune]

@Redrhyno: I want a legal system that actually tries to account for humanity, one that tries to help as many people as possible. That unmakes criminals, not makes them. That serves a positive purpose in society. That makes Law and Justice synonymous with eachother.

Honestly, yes, I think we should revamp our legal system severely every so often. While the US Founding Fathers acknowledged and did their best to make a government that accounted that what is right then wont be right in the future, they did not fully succeed.

I think racists make laws biased towards racists. Certainly are more likely to than non-racists.

Times change, why shouldnt our legal system and government?

 

[Redryhno]

@Redrhyno: I want a legal system that actually tries to account for humanity, one that tries to help as many people as possible. That unmakes criminals, not makes them. That serves a positive purpose in society. That makes Law and Justice synonymous with eachother.

Honestly, yes, I think we should revamp our legal system severely every so often. While the US Founding Fathers acknowledged and did their best to make a government that accounted that what is right then wont be right in the future, they did not fully succeed.

I think racists make laws biased towards racists. Certainly are more likely to than non-racists.

Times change, why shouldnt our legal system and government?

Which ours attempts to do when it could actually work. And serves a positive purpose and unmakes criminals? How can someone that keeps talking about the law not taking humans into account not take humans into account when it involves the law? There's alot of programs that attempt to help, but felons aren't wanted by most businesses(and they have solid reasoning for that) and most criminals have to basically leave their support systems behind because people associate with similar people as well. Not to mention there's more than enough felons that just don't have the will to change, whether it be them or just not being interested. It's somewhat similar to mat/pat leave(which I want to clarify, is something good), you want a company to pay you while not contributing to their well-being or being unreliable since, let's be real, you're a felon, you either got mopped up with the 90's drug possession charges, or you fucked up somewhere already. It's a risk that I don't particularly agree with, but I fully understand the reasoning behind it.

So, since you think we should revamp it, can you then tell me how it needs to be severely changed?

And that's the thing, they can. That's the key thing about most of what I have a problem with in your arguments here. It's not about action->reaction, choice->consequence, you keep going back to some kind of all-encompassing uncaring system, but you're not allowing the negative choices of Man to factor in unless you don't agree with them.

And times do change, as well as our legal system. It's constantly evolving as it is. Child abuse used to be prosecuted through animal abuse laws, which themselves stemmed from property damage laws. There's a legal definition between cake and pie in the U.K. because tax law evolved. Germany allows you to have deadly projectiles classified as toys because they don't have something being accelerated through a barrel. And it used to ban toy bows and arrows with the stickers as the arrowhead.

 

[Leg End]

Dude in his infinite stupidity pressured his wife into violating almost every law of firearm safety using .50 AE against a book? Give him the Darwin, charge her at best with negligent discharge of some sort and call it a day.

I'm also taking a nap before I am compelled to start screaming SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED at the top of my lungs in text form over and over until I pass out.

 

[Death Carr]

I can't help but think that the best possible outcome here is being forced to do some sort of community service and attending a firearms safety course. I'm not sure if she deserves to lose her children because her partner made her shoot him though.

 

[Pyrian]

...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...

Can you legally bear a nuke? A stinger? A cannon? Any sort of anti-tank, anti-ship, or anti-aircraft weapon? Is that legal? Was it ever legal? ...Nope. The right to bear arms is infringed, has always been infringed, and nobody anywhere is seriously arguing that it shouldn't be. One can simply discuss where the line should be drawn. That the line is drawn is not up for reasonable debate.

 

[DoPo]

The right to bear arms is infringed, has always been infringed, and nobody anywhere is seriously arguing that it shouldn't be.

I do. I wholeheartedly support the right to bear arms and I will not hear anybody say otherwise

Look at this - how can you outlaw it?

 

[Thaluikhain]

...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...

Can you legally bear a nuke? A stinger? A cannon? Any sort of anti-tank, anti-ship, or anti-aircraft weapon? Is that legal? Was it ever legal? ...Nope.

Actually, canon, and certain weapons that were originally designed/used as anti-tank (but won't work against modern MBTs) are civilian legal in the US. As I understand it, canon aren't generally even restricted.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Or, how about community service and probation and some sort of rehabilitation program? Maybe other sanctions, as well. My question was why is jail the only thing that comes up. It sounds to me that people can only think of "jail" and "you go free" as possible outcomes. Your own words attest to that.

She's being charged with a felony level offence. Community service is entirely inappropriate. Unless you wishtoargue how felonies shouldn't be treated as felonies. Someone was slain through purposeful negligence and criminal recklessness that resulted in death. If found guilty of a low level felony, she should go to gaol.

The fact that she didn't want to, but was talked into it ... that does her no real credible grounds fora misdemeanor. It shows that what she was doing was wrong and she knew that.

You ignored when I said that "no death penalty" should not be used as a justification. If it's a matter of punishing the person, why not just kill them? That's punishment. Also saves up on money, as they don't need to be put in jail and cared for. If you think they shouldn't be killed, then what are you basing this on? Aside from "life for life's sake", what is the actual reason to want a guilty person not dead?

Because that would undermine basic ideals of justice in Western society?

No one with an opinion worth their salt thinks the death penalty is okay for felony manslaughter.

So, "some form of punishment" can only take the form of custody? Or can we recognise that there are forms of punishment other than that that can still disincentivise followups?

Once again, she was charged with a felony. If found guilty of a low level felony -- she is a felon. Felons go to places where felons go if convicted.

 

[DoPo]

Once again, she was charged with a felony, if foundguilty of a low level felony -- sheisa felon. Felons go to places where felons go if convicted.

OK, so you don't have an actual answer to why, then. I guess, there is no point continuing this discussion.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

OK, so you don't have an actual answer to why, then. I guess, there is no point continuing this discussion.

Do you have an answer to why manslaughter shouldn't be considered a felony? For starters, she displayed full knowledge that what she was doing was criminally reckless. One might argue misdemeanor if she showed no real foreknowledge that what she was doing was dangerous. CCompare it toJackass ... let's say if some jerk-off died for being terminally retarded ....but there is no real concrete evidence that the people doing that stunt had an understanding of the consequences and its likeliness in resulting in the slaying of a person .... I might agree.

But the police andcourts should try damn hard to investigate it and explore such criminal stupidity, or push for other charges that result in heavy consequences, because someone died.

The defence she uses is no different from every teary-eyed DUI perp that ends up killing someone.

 

[DoPo]

OK, so you don't have an actual answer to why, then. I guess, there is no point continuing this discussion.

Do you have an answer to why manslaughter shouldn't be considered a felony?

I don't because I've never even suggested that.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I don't because I've never even suggested that.

And that's what she's charged with. If found guilty of felony manslaughter, she goes to gaol. Why is this so difficult or unreasonable?

Just because gaol isn't nice doesn't magically exclude people displaying criminal recklessness from going there. In fact IthinkU.S. gaols are a fucking joke and the worst in the Western world, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't ever be sent to one when numerous have for displaying the same level of criminal recklessness that results in the slaying of a person.

If the U.S. cleaned up their prison system, abolished private corporate detention facilities, and actually brought it to par with other Western nations, would that assuage your qualms that she deserves to spend time in one?

 

[DoPo]

I don't because I've never even suggested that.

And that's what she's charged with. If found guilty of felony manslaughter, she goes to gaol. Why is this so difficult or unreasonable?

You keep trying to misinterpret what I am saying - that's what makes it "difficult" and "unreasonable".

I've repeatedly asked: why? You keep offering me "uh, because that's what we always do" and you missed this:

So...why put her in jail, then? Sure - people who kill other people go there[footnote]maybe? I am not following the US legal system - I don't know if that's always the case.[/footnote] but what does this accomplish?

Or you suggesting we do stuff without ever thinking of why just because we've always done it this way?

If your entire answer to "why does she need to go to jail" is "because she needs to go to jail", then this discussion is going nowhere. Not that it's really progressed over the last few posts, but still.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

You keep trying to misinterpret what I am saying - that's what makes it "difficult" and "unreasonable".

I've repeatedly asked: why? You keep offering me "uh, because that's what we always do" and you missed this:

Because people need to face the consequences of what they've done. Serious offences may even require the loss of liberty. More over, it stands to reason criminal recklessness should result in the loss of liberty when it is particularly grievous. You don'tget to kill someone and walk.

Seems as if a perfectly valid response to a felony. Like if some fuckwit punches a guy and the victim ends up brain dead .... you don't get to walk.

 

[Leg End]

Can you legally bear a nuke?

To the text of the 2nd, yes. In practice, our elected officials believe they are made of finer clay.

A stinger? A cannon? Any sort of anti-tank, anti-ship, or anti-aircraft weapon? Is that legal? Was it ever legal? ...Nope.

Wrong.

The right to bear arms is infringed, has always been infringed, and nobody anywhere is seriously arguing that it shouldn't be.

Yes there are.

One can simply discuss where the line should be drawn. That the line is drawn is not up for reasonable debate.

Yes it is and at no point should it be off the table.

 

[demoman_chaos]

... but if you fail the test you can have a flintlock pistol and a musket (what the Constitution's 2nd amendment was actually written to give citizens access to.)

I guess that means free speech is cancelled on the internet then right? I mean it wasn't around in 1789 so the Bill of Rights doesn't apply.

Also, do some research on weapons of the era. The Giradoni Air Rifle used air pressure to fire off its rounds and could fire semi-auto (though at a loss in power after each shot) was invented in 1779 (10 years before the US Constitution was signed). One of these rifles were taken on the Lewis & Clark expedition. We also have volley guns which had multiple barrels (meaning multiple shots). Also notice there is nothing that says "Only muskets are allowed" which means all types of arms (including pikes, halberds, swords, knives, axes, spears, cannons, etc as well).

 

[Pseudonym]

...this one case...

Now thats what i call a Darwin award.

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.

You know I replied to you claiming that punishing her will prevent more deaths somehow? You have failed to back that up, instead you quoted three words out of context (how did the fact you preferred to quote 3 words not ring an alarm bell in your own mind, indicating that you might be missing some point somewhere?) and made it out as if I was saying this was the only case of stupid gun deaths (which I wasn't). Given that most of these cases go unreported according to you the exact way to deal with them won't matter much. You seem to want to educate the general public on gun safety by being harsh on generally unreported cases of recklessness. I'd be extremely surprised if that worked and you have provided no reason whatsoever to believe it will work.

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.

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.

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.

So she needs to be punished to set a precedent, because what she did was morally wrong and to help her grow common sense and appriciation of lost lives? Those are a lot of different reasons to punish somebody that you seem to switch between from sentence to sentence. The idea of setting a precedent I have already adressed. Restating it won't convince me. The idea that prison time will help anyone grow common sense seems or an appreciation of life is absurd to me. Prison is a cruel place where you are, by design, deprived of a lot of social contact, freedom, hapiness and generally everything to grow you as a person. It is not a place where somebody will grow as a person, morally, let alone in terms of 'common sense'. I assume she is already quite aware of the value of life since she actually lost somebody close to her.

Now the point that she just needs to be punished because she did something bad sounds at least somewhat compelling intuitively. It is in some sense somwhat shallow, but I think it is much closer to the actual reasons we punish than the post hoc utilitarian justifications typically offered for punishment. In any case, if you want to make a purely moral argument than the details of the case do matter. Intent matters and there is a difference between recklessness and deliberately killing somebody. Then there is the fact that the victim consented to this recklessness and even pressured the shooter into it. Then there is the damage already done to the shooter. All these things tell me that we have reasons to be rather lenient on the shooter in this specific case.

 

[TechNoFear]

I'm also taking a nap before I am compelled to start screaming SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED at the top of my lungs in text form over and over until I pass out.

Will you also be yelling WELL REGULATED or will you be ignoring that part?

 

[Leg End]

Will you also be yelling WELL REGULATED or will you be ignoring that part?

Read the following image. Not the point you're attempting to argue, but still provides an understanding of what Well Regulated means and kills the State Militia argument as well.