Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the random.choice() dept.

Jonathan Grant Thompson, the man behind the popular science-focused YouTube channel King of Random has been charged with two counts of second-degree felony possession of an explosive device.

Thompson, 37, runs the King of Random YouTube channel, boasting about 200 videos and 8.9 million subscribers. His videos are of science experiments and are in the vein of science-based shows on networks such as the Discovery Channel.

Thompson has been making videos and putting them on YouTube since 2010. His videos have garnered more than 1.6 billion combined views.

According to the article the first complaint "resulted from a citizen complaint via Facebook Messenger on June 15 about Thompson exploding a dry ice bomb", and for the second:

Thompson said a friend had left him a bag of powder, which he believed to be from a deconstructed firework.

After lighting a couple of small "control fires" Thompson and Timothy Burgess, 20, of Ontario, Canada, ignited a larger pile which exploded, the police report states. According to the report, firefighters heard the explosion from the nearby fire station.

Google Maps shows there is a South Jordan fire station 0.2 miles from Thompson's home.

The explosion left Burgess with small particles of burned material embedded in his arms, charges say.

Burgess was charged with one count of second-degree felony possession of an explosive device. Court records show prosecutors have asked a judge to issue a $15,000 warrant for his arrest

Originally spotted via AvE's channel.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:31PM (7 children)

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:31PM (#624469) Homepage

    While explosives obviously should be protected under the [2nd] Amendment, they aren't.

    "Obviously"?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 19 2018, @12:22AM (2 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday January 19 2018, @12:22AM (#624488) Homepage Journal

    The guys who wrote the amendment in question personally owned cannons.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @02:12AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @02:12AM (#624515)

      *Citation Needed*

      And, more details? Smoothbore, or rifled? Breechloading? Round ball, or canister, or chain? Marine, or terrestrial? Professional, or amateur? And who are you talking about? Hamilton? Was his cannon nothing but a large caliber piece?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:38AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:38AM (#624555)

        big ones... the kind with wheels on the side, pulled by horses

        Look, what does the exact type matter? That doesn't place a limit on the second amendment.

        Or, if you insist that it does: the type was "very latest modern military technology", and thus our second amendment gives us everything from stealth bombers to ICBMs.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by arcz on Friday January 19 2018, @12:43AM (3 children)

    by arcz (4501) on Friday January 19 2018, @12:43AM (#624497) Journal
    The whole point of the second amendment is to make rebellion against the government through armed conflict viable. If you think otherwise you are nuts.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by arcz on Friday January 19 2018, @12:53AM (1 child)

      by arcz (4501) on Friday January 19 2018, @12:53AM (#624499) Journal
      "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" -- Benjamin Franklin "Constitutional republic: Two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep electing two wolves and a sheep who vote on what to have for dinner, but are restricted by a Constitution that says they cannot eat sheep. The Supreme Court then votes 5 wolves to 4 sheep that mutton does not count as sheep." -- unknown
    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday January 19 2018, @08:09PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday January 19 2018, @08:09PM (#624866) Homepage

      It tends to mean whatever whoever is currently quoting it wants it to. It's not even 30 words. There's a lot of room for semantic manoeuvring. If it was that "obvious" there wouldn't be such a ruckus about it all the time.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk