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This discussion has been archived.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 bob_super on Friday January 19 2018, @07:42PM (3 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday January 19 2018, @07:42PM (#624853)

    > The takeaway from this for me is to recognize that the Supreme Court decisions would make the Founders criminals,
    > and are therefore in contradiction to the Founders' intent when writing the Constitution.
    > Whether this is appropriate or not ("living document" vs "originalism" theory for interpretation of the Constitution) ...

    You're catching up !

    How did we get this started?

    Title: Call the NRA! (bob_super, Score: 1, Troll)
    My tactical nuke shell is definitely covered by the 2nd amendment!

    It's Reductio Ad Absurdum, but not about AC.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday January 19 2018, @08:27PM (2 children)

    by Spook brat (775) on Friday January 19 2018, @08:27PM (#624881) Journal

    How did we get this started?

    Title: Call the NRA! (bob_super, Score: 1, Troll)
            My tactical nuke shell is definitely covered by the 2nd amendment!

    OK, I see where my confusion was coming from; I'd lost track of the original post for the thread, and without that context, the rest of the conversation seemed weird.

    Let me see if I've got this straight:
    * you hold that all arms up to and including nukes are protected by the Constitution
    * AC doesn't agree re: nukes (citing treaties, S.C. rulings), but DOES agree re: automatic weapons and artillery, using a sound argument to explain their agreement
    * You attack the A.C.'s argument as being logically unsound (??? I guess because they didn't take it far enough to include nukes?), and point out that if nukes were available to the Founder then the Founders would have them, too
    * I come to the A.C.'s defense, saying that by the A.C.'s argument A.W.s and arty. should be constitutional, and so should nukes by the same logic
    * you reply to me saying that the A.C. fails at logic, and that the Framers would have owned nukes if they were available
    * lather/rinse/repeat

    I hope you can see how those last three points could be confusing for me. I agree with you. The A.C. agrees with you, while also subscribing to a theory of constitutional interpretation slightly different from yours. I honestly thought from reading what you wrote that you were saying the A.C. was wrong to believe automatic weapons and artillery should be constitutional, since the A.C.'s argument only covered those platforms. Your method of violently agreeing with the both of us doesn't help your position; please stop alienating your allies.

    --
    Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
    • (Score: 2) by arcz on Friday January 19 2018, @09:30PM (1 child)

      by arcz (4501) on Friday January 19 2018, @09:30PM (#624919) Journal
      I would say nukes should not be constitutionally protected for the simple reason that they aren't useful in civil warfare, which to me is the intent of the constitution's second amendment (to arm the people to overthrow a corrupt government)
      • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday January 19 2018, @10:15PM

        by Spook brat (775) on Friday January 19 2018, @10:15PM (#624955) Journal

        That is an interesting proposition, and one I can potentially get behind: restrict the legality of various arms based on the outcome of using them in a civil war. Long-lasting chemical agents and land mines would fall into the same category. It would be interesting to see a government willingly add that restriction to their own warfighting arsenal, using the logic that if the government has it then it could be used in a civil war.

        Thanks, I'll be thinking about that for a while :)

        --
        Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]