They used a dummy too... (sorry, had to.)Canadamus Prime said:Apparently they never watched Mythbusters. Books don't stop bullets. Also this is why Mythbusters used dummies for this stuff.
and what a bonus that they live in a country that is willing to sell a weapon powerful enough to stop a charging bear to people that stupid.Someone wake up Darwin from his grave again. We need another one of his awards. Seriously, how stupid must you be to actually do something like that?
ToucheXprimentyl said:They used a dummy too... (sorry, had to.)Canadamus Prime said:Apparently they never watched Mythbusters. Books don't stop bullets. Also this is why Mythbusters used dummies for this stuff.
Maybe if the government and the gun industry treat them as such, it might get through to people. But that would cost both money from s donations or sales, so like hell they are.The Rogue Wolf said:Just so people are aware: A .50 Action Express round (what that model of Desert Eagle fires) carries about four times as much energy as a typical 9mm round, and is considered a suitable round for self-defense against bears. Mr. Ruiz would likely have had to be holding an encyclopedia thicker than the length of a loaf of bread to have had a hope of surviving.
I wish people would stop treating firearms like big, loud toys and respect them as the deadly tools they are.
The onlookers would probably have a good defense that they thought it was just a trick. Also you are not usually criminally negligent if you see someone doing something stupid and do not stop them before they hurt or kill themselves.Xprimentyl said: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.
Queen Michael said: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:From what is known so far, I dont think she should go to jail. I'd imagine all the other consequences of the failed stunt will be more than sufficient punishment. Loss of a partner, child likely messed up, etc.
Saelune said:Ultimately, I think any legal punishment should be on the basis of how it effected her kid(s). The guy essentially consented to his own death, so I think it is unfair to punish her for murder, even manslaughter. Manslaughter is for accidentally killing people who DONT ask to have a gun fired at them.
Yes, of course; I was being facetious.Nielas said:The onlookers would probably have a good defense that they thought it was just a trick. Also you are not usually criminally negligent if you see someone doing something stupid and do not stop them before they hurt or kill themselves.Xprimentyl said: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.
Yeah, the very first lesson in gun handling is that you don't point a weapon, regardless of it's state (loaded/not, safety on/off, hammer cocked/not), at any person (or critter) that you do not intend to kill.Neonsilver said:During my military service on the shooting range, I once held my loaded rifle on accident remotely in the direction of someone else. The safety was on and I wasn't even touching the trigger, but my superior was close to taking the rifle away from me and making me sit on the sidelines for the rest of the day. So I can't understand how someone can actually think it's a good idea to point a gun intentionally at someone, let alone shooting him.
I'd still say that she deserves to go to prison. Maybe not too long--just a week or so--but as long as it's just a few days, nobody can complain that it's too harsh. The guy asked him to do something super-dangerous, and she knew it was risky. She still chose to do it. Yeah, he asked for it, but anybody who asks for it is by definition not sane enough to be in charge of his own life.Saelune said:Queen Michael said: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:From what is known so far, I dont think she should go to jail. I'd imagine all the other consequences of the failed stunt will be more than sufficient punishment. Loss of a partner, child likely messed up, etc.Saelune said:Ultimately, I think any legal punishment should be on the basis of how it effected her kid(s). The guy essentially consented to his own death, so I think it is unfair to punish her for murder, even manslaughter. Manslaughter is for accidentally killing people who DONT ask to have a gun fired at them.
Queen Michael said:I'd still say that she deserves to go to prison. Maybe not too long--just a week or so--but as long as it's just a few days, nobody can complain that it's too harsh. The guy asked him to do something super-dangerous, and she knew it was risky. She still chose to do it. Yeah, he asked for it, but anybody who asks for it is by definition not sane enough to be in charge of his own life.Saelune said:Queen Michael said: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:From what is known so far, I dont think she should go to jail. I'd imagine all the other consequences of the failed stunt will be more than sufficient punishment. Loss of a partner, child likely messed up, etc.Saelune said:Ultimately, I think any legal punishment should be on the basis of how it effected her kid(s). The guy essentially consented to his own death, so I think it is unfair to punish her for murder, even manslaughter. Manslaughter is for accidentally killing people who DONT ask to have a gun fired at them.
It's like if a toddler asked her to do it.
Plus it wasnt a toddler. It was an adult man who she presumably trusted. Im sure many of us had times where someone asked us to do something to them and you thought "I probably shouldnt" and they say something like "Naaaah, it will be fine, trust me."Saelune said:I still dont think putting her in jail will serve any positive purpose.
Yeah, but she still chose to fire an extremely powerful handgun at a person without first reading up on if it was dangerous or not. She chose to take his word for it instead of actually doing some research.Saelune said:Queen Michael said:I'd still say that she deserves to go to prison. Maybe not too long--just a week or so--but as long as it's just a few days, nobody can complain that it's too harsh. The guy asked him to do something super-dangerous, and she knew it was risky. She still chose to do it. Yeah, he asked for it, but anybody who asks for it is by definition not sane enough to be in charge of his own life.Saelune said:Queen Michael said: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:From what is known so far, I dont think she should go to jail. I'd imagine all the other consequences of the failed stunt will be more than sufficient punishment. Loss of a partner, child likely messed up, etc.Saelune said:Ultimately, I think any legal punishment should be on the basis of how it effected her kid(s). The guy essentially consented to his own death, so I think it is unfair to punish her for murder, even manslaughter. Manslaughter is for accidentally killing people who DONT ask to have a gun fired at them.
It's like if a toddler asked her to do it.Plus it wasnt a toddler. It was an adult man who she presumably trusted. Im sure many of us had times where someone asked us to do something to them and you thought "I probably shouldnt" and they say something like "Naaaah, it will be fine, trust me." He asked her to, but doing it was still her choice and her choice only. She's the only one who pulled the trigger.Saelune said:I still dont think putting her in jail will serve any positive purpose.
It just doesnt usually end in death.