Woman charged with Manslaughter after stun went very wrong

[Pyrian]

He isnt going to jail and I think that is unfair to her.

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.

I kind of hate how people have a weird bias infavor of the dead even when the dead were the bigger idiots.

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.

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.

 

[Pseudonym]

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.

 

[Xprimentyl]

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.

 

[DoPo]

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.

Why is prison the only punishment? And if the desired effect is to educate, then why go for straight punishment?

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.

 

[SoliterDan]

...Well ok then?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

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.

Why is prison the only punishment? And if the desired effect is to educate, then why go for straight punishment?

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.

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.

That doesn't suggest a problem with the system, however. Because lo and behold we don't have anywhere near the per capita number of people sitting down for a rousing game of one player Russian Roulette.

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.

There is a difference between wanting a person to go to gaol, and recognizing merits of maintaining a cohesive system of checks and balances. Idon't want a poor person who robs a bank to go to gaol, butIrecognize the merit that poor people who rob a bank go to gaol. Better yet, I might even advocate a system of good social welfare to lower its potentiality by stopping people consider felonious acts of theft is a detriment to what services they have on offer lawfully.

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.

 

[gigastar]

...the weapon used was a .50-calibre Desert Eagle handgun.

Now thats what i call a Darwin award.

If youre committed to doing stupid things with guns at least use low caliber ones.

 

[Xprimentyl]

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.

Why is prison the only punishment? And if the desired effect is to educate, then why go for straight punishment?

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.

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.

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; she?s done nothing to merit the severest penalty at our legal disposal. She did something incredibly stupid, yes, but stupid isn?t a crime (though it should be.) And her boyfriend?s consent and pressure is considered as well; it doesn?t exonerate her of her wrong-doing, but it does put into evidence that this kind of stupid was a group effort though it was her finger alone that pulled the trigger.

 

[Pyrian]

...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.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

...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.

http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2000-04.html


They do, they just have to be particularly stupid. Incidentally, the winner of the 2000 DA was also a GRD.

Tied with the terrorist blowing himself up with his own letter bomb because it was marked 'return to sender' and he opened it, after failing to pay appropriate postage fees, is pretty glorious.

 

[Redryhno]

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'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.

Just because a cult drags someone in doesn't mean they're completely exempt from any of their actions while with said cult. And it doesn't mean any crimes or actions they commit are wiped clean when they come to their senses. Just because an addict single parent lost their spouse and is good when the kid is around doesn't mean they're a fit guardian, at some point something's going to give there. And just because her boyfriend talked her into it doesn't exempt her from any amount of punishment. Which, I'm sorry, but the kids' wellbeing are a bit more important than her feelings or what she's suffered.

She still CHOSE to pick up the gun. CHOSE to point it. CHOSE to shoot it. And because of those choices, more than a slap on the wrist is sorta required. The circumstances should not really be something that's actually seriously discussed, because there was no force or threats involved according to her.

 

[Saelune]

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.

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.

 

[Saelune]

Doesn't matter in the eye of the law...

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.

 

[Parasondox]

Im not a gun guy. Never held one in my hand and no I dont play FPS games but even I know the name "Desert Eagle" means YOU DO NOT FUCK WITH IT!!!

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Doesn't matter in the eye of the law...

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.

So then we base the judicial system off of "fairness". Whose idea of "fairness"? Yours? Mine?

 

[Wakey87]

She caused someones death due to negligence, Thats manslaughter in my book.

 

[Saelune]

Doesn't matter in the eye of the law...

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.

So then we base the judicial system off of "fairness". Whose idea of "fairness"? Yours? Mine?

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]

Doesn't matter in the eye of the law...

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.

So then we base the judicial system off of "fairness". Whose idea of "fairness"? Yours? Mine?

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.

Really? Either? Because I honestly think this woman should be lobotomized and put on display as an example of human idiocy.

 

[Saelune]

Doesn't matter in the eye of the law...

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.

So then we base the judicial system off of "fairness". Whose idea of "fairness"? Yours? Mine?

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.

Really? Either? Because I honestly think this woman should be lobotomized and put on display as an example of human idiocy.

So you are trying to "gotcha" me with your own cruelty?

Are we being specific to this instance or the legal system in general? Cause maybe you would be unfair in this instance, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you are more benevolent in other areas if you got to decide the law.

Humans are not robots, and robotically restrictive views of right and wrong, law and punishment is detrimental to humans who are not so easily definable or constrainable.

 

[Redryhno]

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.

And the bolded part is one of the most irrelevant things I've seen yet. Are you now demanding that we revamp our ENTIRE legal system every twenty years or so because many of the lawmakers died? Also who the fuck cares if they were racist? You think racists are inherently wrong in everything they do or create?

Not to mention, if you're complaining about the laws not taking humans into account while then complaining about humans writing them and taking humans into account(because why the fuck else would you bring "RACISTS" into this discussion?), what exactly do you fucking want?