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
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Monday July 03 2017, @06:47PM (4 children)
Again not a call for a gun ban. But for what it's worth I'd be okay with cars going away. Haven't driven for years because of a surgery that wrecked my range of motion on the pedals. Cars are a waste of efficiency and environment. They're also artificially imposed by real estate developers pulling out sidewalks in suburbs and other such crap. Also people can't carry cars in behind-belt holsters. Though cars are lethal weapons that's for sure. Was a passenger in an accident. Neck wrecked. Have almost gotten ran over on more than one occasion because people don't know how to handle a blind spot in a truck.
Good point though. My brother actually died (later in hospital) by flipping his truck. Killed his friend (instantly) too. Happened as quick as a gun would. I know your intent wasn't to express that they're equal to each other in lethality despite guns being 100x smaller. But that's what always happens when you bring out that argument. Also a box of rounds and a 45 are cheaper than a car.
Like I said, I don't particularly advocate gun bans. But I don't think people that are too dumb to do their homework should be anywhere near them. I have a serious dislike for my fellow murikans flipping the fuck out at gun rights. Nobody cares because the government will drone their asses the moment martial law is activated. As someone that's never had trouble getting access to guns - as a responsible human being - I can tell you right now no matter what legislation they do I'll always have access. I also won't do stupid shit like try to dodge a background check. Which is another thing I don't understand. You get checked for your goddamned apartment application.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @07:33PM (3 children)
You'd understand it if you were principled about the Constitution, which simply does not give the government the power to require background checks before you're allowed to purchase guns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 04 2017, @02:04AM (2 children)
Did the gun possibly effect interstate commerce, even if only because your choice of that particular gun would affect market prices? The commerce clause applies.
:-(
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 04 2017, @02:24AM (1 child)
As far as I can tell, from past judicial decisions, if anyone, anywhere, anytime, ever purchased anything, then the commerce clause applies to allow the government to do whatever they want.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday July 04 2017, @04:44AM
You need to dig deeper. It's well established that nothing needs to have even been purchased for the commerce clause to apply. See Wickard v. Filburn. Growing wheat that never leaves your own property is 'commerce' because if you had not grown it, you would have to buy some wheat, or some wheat substitute, from someone else; and it's 'interstate' even if you would have bought it from a neighbor in the same state, because he might have sold it to someone out of state if you hadn't bought it.
If they'd just go down and grab the Constitution out from behind the glass and defecate all over it at least we could say they were honest.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?