Woman charged with Manslaughter after stun went very wrong
- Thread starter MatParker116
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And that's why selling guns to people without making them go through some kind of training is fucking retarded. Though against something like this nothing would help, some people are beyond reason. How desperate for internet attention can you be.Basement Cat said:
God damn this. Why do people think guns are toys despite literally everything about them being pretty much over-the-top in how much it emphasises their danger?The Rogue Wolf said:
It's cute when my 8 year old cousins asks if he can play with my Mossberg, it's migraine inducing when my brother's friend who's an adult does it.
I recently read in the paper about a 16 year old guy who choked himself with a rope after being challenged to it online. This is another one of those stories.
I just don't see what can be done about stupidity like that. If you don't get that shooting a gun at somebody or choking yourself with a rope are really dumb ideas, I don't know what to say or do to help you.
I just don't see what can be done about stupidity like that. If you don't get that shooting a gun at somebody or choking yourself with a rope are really dumb ideas, I don't know what to say or do to help you.
I agree. It was stupid but she will likely carry this with her for the rest of her life.Saelune said:
There were 30 onlookers? None of them, plus the two people involved realised that this was an absurdly bad idea?
Guns are dangerous things, people.
Hell, even if you could somehow guarantee the book would stop the round, what if you miss? You're likely to sweep the muzzle across part of his body before pointing it at the book.
Now, you might think someone would have to be a bit rubbish to miss at that distance, but then they decided to shoot a book on someone's chest to begin with.
Guns are dangerous things, people.
Hell, even if you could somehow guarantee the book would stop the round, what if you miss? You're likely to sweep the muzzle across part of his body before pointing it at the book.
Now, you might think someone would have to be a bit rubbish to miss at that distance, but then they decided to shoot a book on someone's chest to begin with.
I'm in favor of an IQ test for gun ownership. Calm down gun freaks, everyone gets their 2nd amendment rights... 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.) You could kill 1 person or yourself by accident with those but it would be difficult to kill any more or spree kill. Passing but with a D or C (barely passing) gets you permission for a bolt action rifle or pump action shotgun, or anything breech loading. Any better score, just the laws we have now (basically a yee-haw free-for-all.)
At least mass shooters will have great plans and be able to execute dozens of people before getting taken down or turning the gun on themselves. That's a plus... right?
At least mass shooters will have great plans and be able to execute dozens of people before getting taken down or turning the gun on themselves. That's a plus... right?
a 50. cal? At 30cm away? Against a book?
Well that is just a dumb thing to do even in concept, let alone in practice.
Lets say that I would have been a lot more vigorous in my testing than doing it once, and then sticking my chest behind that book.
Well that is just a dumb thing to do even in concept, let alone in practice.
Lets say that I would have been a lot more vigorous in my testing than doing it once, and then sticking my chest behind that book.
I heard about this last night from a couple of friends. I assumed it had been at a fair distance away, but a fucking foot? Fucking hell.
Didn't watch that Mythbusters episode where even a .22 made decent headway through a book? And a .357 magnum obliterated it?
My best guess is they hit it at an odd angle, increasing the material and not delivering the full force of the bullet. Or even just a fluke that couldn't be repeated and wasn't.FalloutJack said:
The dude consented to it and there were 30 other people besides the two. I don't think she should be charged with manslaughter since so many were compliant and stupid beyond measure. For all we know, she was reluctant but the crowd and her boyfriend convinced her to participate.
I mean at least start with a really weak bullet BEFORE going to the strongest in your arsenal.
What license to shoot a gun? I've never heard of one in the US and don't believe it could exist.Happyninja42 said:
The reckless endangerment seems like a stretch to me, kids are able to shoot here as well.
I think we are all in agreement that GUNS ARE NOT TOYS and stupidity is thinning the herd. Idiots want internet fame and for what? To feel some importance to strangers they never see? Fools.
Ok, I think we?re all in consensus that both he AND she were idiots for cooking up this idea and trying to execute it (pun intended,) but what about the +30 onlookers? I see at least 30 counts of criminal negligence. There?s so much fucking dumb going on here, it?s nigh incomprehensible.
I?m sorry, I do sympathize with her and that she had no lethal intent, but the girlfriend should be charged. Drunk driving is a bad decision and a chargeable offence; only difference I see here is that she was not impaired. Her immediate and willful actions lead to a death; as far as I can tell, she was under no duress, so she consented to manslaughter (if that?s even a thing.) For those thinking of her kids, yes, it?s is sorrowful to think of the damage done there, but someone capable of such thoughtless actions needs to have their parental rights and capabilities called into question. To let her off and back to her life as if her actions had no consequences sets a dangerous precedent, especially as social media only seems to be drawing more and more of these ?hold my beer? superstars out of their hidey-holes.
I?m sorry, I do sympathize with her and that she had no lethal intent, but the girlfriend should be charged. Drunk driving is a bad decision and a chargeable offence; only difference I see here is that she was not impaired. Her immediate and willful actions lead to a death; as far as I can tell, she was under no duress, so she consented to manslaughter (if that?s even a thing.) For those thinking of her kids, yes, it?s is sorrowful to think of the damage done there, but someone capable of such thoughtless actions needs to have their parental rights and capabilities called into question. To let her off and back to her life as if her actions had no consequences sets a dangerous precedent, especially as social media only seems to be drawing more and more of these ?hold my beer? superstars out of their hidey-holes.
She used a frickin' Desert Eagle? That's just asking for trouble. I mean, obviously the entire thing is asking for trouble, but still.
"Shooting a book" boi you hella dumb "with a 50 caliber desert eagle" BOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Imma need a clarification. Do you mean she should face no legal punishment? Or just that going to jail is too extreme of one?Saelune said:
Apparently they never watched Mythbusters. Books don't stop bullets. Also this is why Mythbusters used dummies for this stuff.