Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday July 03 2017, @01:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the here-is-your-5-minutes-of-fame dept.

A Minnesota woman has been charged with manslaughter after she shot and killed her boyfriend as part of the pair’s attempt to become YouTube celebrities.

According to court documents, Monalisa Perez called 911 on June 26 at around 6:30pm local time to say that she had shot Pedro Ruiz III. The two had set up two video cameras to capture Perez firing the gun at Ruiz while he held a book in front of his chest. Ruiz apparently convinced Perez that the book would stop the bullet from a foot away. The gun, a Desert Eagle .50 caliber pistol, was not hindered by the book.

[...] A video filmed the day before the shooting features Perez excitedly imagining what would happen when the couple reached 300,000 subscribers on their YouTube channel.

According to a Star Tribune report citing a nearby television station in North Dakota, the shooting took place near the couple's home as their three-year-old daughter was nearby. An aunt of Ruiz, who was not named by WDAY-TV, was quoted as saying that she knew what they planned to do and that she tried to talk them out of it.

The aunt said Ruiz replied, "'Because we want more viewers. We want to get famous.'"

Perez, 19, was released on bail on Wednesday. She is pregnant with the couple's second child.

Further details from The New York Times:

Ms. Perez told investigators that she had shot Mr. Ruiz from about a foot away while he held a 1.5-inch thick book to his chest, the authorities said. She described using a firearm that matched the pistol that was found at the scene.

Mr. Ruiz had been “trying to get her” to fire the gun “for a while,” Ms. Perez told investigators, according to court documents. They state that he had set up one camera on the back of a vehicle and another on a ladder to capture the stunt.

To help persuade her to pull the trigger, Mr. Ruiz had even shown Ms. Perez a book that he had previously shot himself, she told investigators. In that case, she said, the bullet had not gone all the way through the text.

See also: CNN.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @03:25PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @03:25PM (#534454)

    i would just like to commend the DA's office(i won't even call you pigs this time) for actually charging her with the appropriate charge. I didn't really expect that. most of the time these fucks (around the country) charge the defendant with the most serious charge they think they can get away with, as a bargaining chip, if nothing else. in this case the charge fits exactly. way to do your fucking job with a base level of common sense and self respect!

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @03:58PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @03:58PM (#534468)

    What good are you going to accomplish by putting this woman in jail?
    Prevent it from happening again? No. The instigator is dead. Restitution of some sort for the "victim"? Again, he was
    not a victim, but the planner of this entire scheme.

    All you will accomplish is to probably increase costs on society by removing the mother
    of 2 from her kids.

    I don't empathize with this need to kick other people when they are down. It's nothing but sadism.

    • (Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Monday July 03 2017, @04:17PM

      by nobu_the_bard (6373) on Monday July 03 2017, @04:17PM (#534471)

      According to https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.20 [state.mn.us]

      It could potentially result in a fine rather than jail time.

      In any case, the woman may have objected, but still went through with it. She may not be the instigator but she complied.

    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @04:25PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @04:25PM (#534478)

      Maybe next time she'll think twice the next time somebody tries to convince her to do something completely fucking braindead.

      Make sure she understands that it was her fault because she was the one who pulled the trigger.

      She could have outright refused to participate in such an idiotic stunt.

      (This will give the gun control crowd plenty of ammo, though. Makes me wonder if the boyfriend really was the person who put them up to this. Tinfoil's feeling a bit tight.)

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @06:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @06:00PM (#534517)

        Hey asshole, I think the fact that she killed her boyfriend and father of her children already has that "won't do that again" angle already covered FAR more than some dumb legal decision.
        Like I said, kicking people when they are down. Sadists.

    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Monday July 03 2017, @06:33PM

      by Arik (4543) on Monday July 03 2017, @06:33PM (#534530) Journal
      "What good are you going to accomplish by putting this woman in jail?"

      Getting her kids into the custody of someone else would be the obvious number one answer. I'm normally very strongly against removing children from their parents but a woman who just shot their father at point blank range with a .50 DE is not a woman that should be in custody of anyone's kids, not even her own.

      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?