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
Related Stories
YouTube is shaving off more of the smaller channels from its monetization program:
YouTube is tightening the rules around its partner program and raising the requirements that a channel/creator must meet in order to monetize videos. Effective immediately, to apply for monetization (and have ads attached to videos), creators must have tallied 4,000 hours of overall watch time on their channel within the past 12 months and have at least 1,000 subscribers. YouTube will enforce the new eligibility policy for all existing channels as of February 20th, meaning that channels that fail to meet the threshold will no longer be able to make income from ads.
Previously, the standard for joining YouTube's Partner Program was 10,000 public views — without any specific requirement for annual viewing hours. This change will no doubt make it harder for new, smaller channels to reach monetization, but YouTube says it's an important way of buying itself more time to see who's following the company's guidelines and disqualify "bad actors."
[...] The new, stricter policy comes after Logan Paul, one of YouTube's star creators and influencers, published a video that showed a dead body in Japan's Aokigahara forest. Last week, YouTube kicked Paul off its Google Preferred ad program and placed his YouTube Red original programming efforts on hold.
Anyone under 1,000 subscribers and 4,000 total hours watched annually would probably be making a pittance anyway. This change could allow YouTube to put more human eyes on the unruly but popular channels, so it can censor suicide forest vlogs (NSFW) in record time.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @02:10PM (1 child)
.. is harsh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @03:53PM
There are two certainties: death and taxes.
Woman caused a death, now your taxes will be used to punish her.
Now she can laugh all the way to prison and you still pay the price. She really fucked you over.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @02:22PM (2 children)
It worked for me, further testing not needed, close the ticket.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by inertnet on Monday July 03 2017, @03:20PM (1 child)
It worked for them too, they got 15 minutes of fame.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Monday July 03 2017, @05:44PM
More like 5 days, and counting .......
(Score: 3, Funny) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday July 03 2017, @02:23PM (15 children)
They should be nominated for a Darwin Award -- unfortunately, it seems they not only have a kid, but another is on the way.
(Score: 2) by fraxinus-tree on Monday July 03 2017, @02:35PM
C. Darwin called. Said everything is OK and nothing to worry about.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday July 03 2017, @04:07PM (6 children)
Hoping evolution will throw the good wrench at the kids, and they will be smarter than their 5th grade parents.
Poor kids. Down one parent: or is that a good thing... one less bad example to follow?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @04:36PM (1 child)
With one parent dead and the other in jail, those kids will be raised by wealthy foster parents who will teach them to obey the rules and accumulate money and exploit the poor for profit. The American Dream is being lucky enough to escape a poor upbringing and be adopted into privilege.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @05:57PM
The American dream is to take up permanent residence in an All-You-Can-Eat joint.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Monday July 03 2017, @06:03PM (3 children)
...and they will be smarter than their 5th grade parents.
Education <> intelligence. I went to college, and all but two PhDs I knew (Half the people I worked with had doctorates) were highly intelligent--but there were two who were total morons. Surely knowledgable in their fields, but not showing any problem solving ability at all. OTOH I know some high school graduates, and one dropout, who are very good at problem solving.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Informative) by KGIII on Monday July 03 2017, @11:15PM (2 children)
This is true. I have a Ph.D. In Applied Mathematics, and I do some stupid shit. Seriously, I'm a fucking moron, at least half the time.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Tuesday July 04 2017, @06:07AM
I guess it's a good thing your degree is in *Applied* Mathematics, or we wouldn't even be able to trust that estimate.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday July 04 2017, @05:03PM
I'm pretty sure even Einstein had bouts of stupidity.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mcgrew on Monday July 03 2017, @05:58PM (6 children)
The reason I think the "Darwin Award" is so funny is because of something you pointed out--the dead guy had already procreated, and procreation is far more important for evolution than intelligence. In fact, most stupid people live ling enough to have dozens of grandkids.
Now, someone with a high-functioning Asperger's and an IQ to match Einstein's has a hell of a time getting laid. And yes, I'm a father. My youngest is 30 and Phi Bata Capa (which I probably misspelled) at Cincinnati State, while working full-time. But she's having a hard time getting pregnant despite having a healthy boyfriend.
Intelligence has very little to do with evolution.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday July 03 2017, @07:45PM (3 children)
While I have no idea what it refers to, it sounds like Greek letters, in which case the correct spelling would be "Phi Beta Kappa".
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Monday July 03 2017, @07:48PM
Addendum: With "correct spelling" I of course mean the correct spelling of the English names for the Greek letters. The actual Greek letters would be "ΦΒΚ". Or if lowercase letters are meant, "φβκ".
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @09:01PM
Yeah well fuck beta.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @09:05PM
it's a university thing, and i think it's short for "fucking before klasses" (in the sense of more important).
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday July 03 2017, @08:44PM (1 child)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday July 04 2017, @05:12PM
Most stupidity and mental retardation isn't hereditary. Fetal alcohol syndrome, lead poisoning... a raft of other non-genetic causes.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Monday July 03 2017, @02:29PM (18 children)
that little woman firing a .50 Desert Eagle. I'm a big guy and a .357 magnum is as large a round as I care to handle.
Not to mention, if it was gonna be pointed at my chest I'd be running tests on 5, 10, hell 100 books first.
Clearly neither of these idiots knew anything about guns nor ballistics.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @03:15PM (4 children)
Precisely. It's an incredibly foolish thing to do, but it's pretty clear they didn't do even rudimentary testing. At an absolute bare minimum they should have shot a similar book from a similar distance and seen what happened. It's not like the bullet ricocheted off the book and struck somebody else.
Obviously, that's really not enough testing, but in this case that would have shown that the book wasn't anywhere near thick enough to stop the bullet.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday July 03 2017, @04:44PM
Man, it's gonna be awkward explaining to those kids why daddy ain't around no more -- and it's not like it would be easy to get another boyfriend with a rep like that. They may also have a hard time watching those awesome episodes of Simpsons and Family Guy where Homer and Peter both get guns.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Monday July 03 2017, @05:48PM (1 child)
I've heard a suggestion that they were so dumb that they only had one book in the house.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:19PM
They obviously didn't want to use The Good Book.
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Monday July 03 2017, @11:18PM
You don't even have to test it. I can save you some time.
It will go through any book you own.
There, you're welcome.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday July 03 2017, @03:23PM (5 children)
Less kick from a Desert Eagle than from a .357 I'm lead to believe, due to the design, weight, and recoil management. Not first-hand mind you, but a friend who was with a group that had the opportunity to fire both said "The Desert Eagle was pretty cool, but it was the .357 that made everybody giggle after they fired it".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @04:27PM (4 children)
Not from my experience, a Desert Eagle in .50 AE still kicks more than my .44 Magnum Revolver and the revolver is probably a bit heavier.
Anyhow as said on Slashdot already, why is this old story from last week even on here to begin with? Just because YouTube was mentioned doesn't mean that it's worthy of a tech news site.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @06:24PM (2 children)
Ammosexual clickbait perfection! Large caliber pistols, with a cool name like "Grim Reaper" or "Desert Eagle" or "MILF of Death!" Youtube, young people successfully having sex and procreating, and having firearm sex right there on the internets! What is not to love, if you are a Second Amendment enthusiast?
(P.S.: What is "Slashdot"?)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @06:42PM (1 child)
We say "Here comes a shitstorm from some moron making us all look bad." and move on to more important things.
You're not fooling anyone. I'm done with this ghost town now as Slashdot has gotten much better in the past year and rarely does this site get stories that aren't already covered there.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday July 04 2017, @06:17PM
¡Adiós! Self-deportation is a beautiful thing. 🇺🇸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @11:53PM
Depends a lot on the .357, though. People persist in buying itty bitty aluminum/titanium/what-not framed revolvers in .357 magnum, and those little numbers make quite an impression with full-power loads.
Off-topic, but since I probably sounded way too negative there, I'll be clear: I really don't class such guns as "no practical use", like derringers in .45-70 or 5.56 NATO; with enough training, many if not most people could shoot them well, and they're undeniably nice to carry. I'm just annoyed at how many people buy a tiny magnum they simply aren't ready for, instead of starting with a bigger, easier gun (or even a .327 snubbie, where you can start out with .32 S&W to learn how to shoot, then work your way right up through longs, .32 H&R, to .327 when you can handle it), and "graduating" to the featherweight snubbie once they're in a position to handle it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aclarke on Monday July 03 2017, @03:38PM (1 child)
Why not just not do it? I'd never point a gun at something I wasn't planning to kill. Then again, I don't want to be famous on YouTube.
There's no amount of testing that makes this a good idea. Especially not when you put it on YouTube for even dumber people to try at home. It's just reckless, selfish and foolish in so many different directions.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Monday July 03 2017, @05:46PM
They were planning to kill the book.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Monday July 03 2017, @03:52PM (2 children)
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems. Who don't know how to use guns safely. I love the poorly educated, but everyone needs to know about gun safety. Very important. When you don't know, it's a problem. And YouTube has big problems too. They're demonetizing -- that's what they call it -- taking away the ads from conservative videos. The Young Turks, plenty of ads, great, I mean, it's not great, it's great for them. But go to a conservative channel? No ads. Where are the ads? YouTube took them away. And took away the money. No money for conservative vloggers, folks. Very unfair! Trust me, I don't need the money, I'm making plenty because I'm the President. But it's unfair to my conservative vloggers. And the babies are another problem. What happens is they're in Mexico, they're going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby. I don't think they have American citizenship and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers -- and I know some will disagree, but many of them agree with me -- and you're going to find they do not have American citizenship. We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell. 🇺🇸
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @04:22PM
That's funny because in the past six months I haven't seen unemployment decline at all. The jobless who were unemployed a year ago are still unemployed now. I see even more homeless beggars on the streets. I still see shuttered businesses everywhere. Retail spaces that were available last year are now abandoned as owners give up hope of ever renting. I see houses for sale that remain vacant while no one can afford to buy. The one thing I don't see is job creation happening.
I just searched for border wall jobs and I found nothing. Where are the jobs?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday July 03 2017, @04:24PM
Yes, that's right. When people see the submission they may think that it's White American rednecks being White American rednecks.
Well, it was a couple Mexicans -- and as we all know, they are "quick and dirty" people. They can fix your car faster and cheaper if you don't mind it falling to pieces in a couple months. Even White American rednecks know how to safely handle guns, and when they don't then it's deliberate, like that time when Gregg Allman had a foot-shootin' party to get out of the draft.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday July 03 2017, @06:49PM
> Not to mention, if it was gonna be pointed at my chest I'd be running tests on 5, 10, hell 100 books first.
Yes, because the angle of impact counts too.
And, once you found the perfect books you'd have the pistol firing at your chest at the wrong instant and the blow causing you a nice heart attack [wikipedia.org]...
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:45AM
There's no need to even test it. Just search on youtube: shooting book desert eagle
And one of the first search results I got: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFKotz4ur50 [youtube.com]
Perhaps the idiots didn't know how to use youtube either... :).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Lagg on Monday July 03 2017, @02:29PM (3 children)
I typed up a long post about guns and social media and stupid people taking advantage of both to direct other people to make guns extremely unfun for me and the rest of the responsible people. But meh.
Anyway, someone named Markiplier committed a potential felony (if it was connected to an alarm, and at best a bannable offense from the business) by doing some kind of retard-pose in an elevator a while back and "accidentally" (purposefully) hit his head on the button that pulls the alarm. The responses thought this was adorable and completely okay/normal. This wasn't on YT even though he's a letsplayer. It was twitter because he's a self-serving cunt that felt like building his base (familiar).
I can't imagine someone doing this under normal circumstances if the incentive wasn't there. Or they're downright insane (also familiar). No one criticized him, tweet got pushed down and forgotten, he probably gained a few thousand followers. And this is just some stupid letsplayer that records video games. People like schadenfreude and all that. I honestly don't know which party is the one at blame here now. Between enabling viewers, youtube or these two themselves. I mean it's a two way street. People on social media feed on each other parasitically.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @04:45PM (2 children)
The alarm button in an elevator is pretty much always connected to something because the last thing we want is for people trapped in an elevator to think they're forgotten. That's when they try to pry the doors open and potentially fall down the shaft. There may be a small number left from the olden days, but as a general rule, if you're in an elevator, there is some sort of intercom installed.
It's not criminal to push it, it's just bad manners. You push the button and either building security or the elevator company responds. I'm not aware of them ever calling 911 directly as the fire department isn't trained to deal with the problems causing an elevator to get stuck.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Monday July 03 2017, @05:12PM
Only experience I have with the e button in an elevator is hearing the loud ring. Since I'm not an idiot and don't go around pressing them. But good to know I won't have to deal with explaining to the fire dept. what happened if I ever get stuck in an elevator. Especially if it's a really silly reason.
I didn't consider the staff though for some reason. I bet they were real happy about having to reset the thing (or whatever they do) for the benefit of a staged photo.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:54AM
I don't think it's rude. I press those buttons once in a while to test that someone is actually paying attention. I don't hold it down for very long. If someone responds I tell that person that I'm just testing. About half the time someone responds.
What's bad manners is nobody responded to this guy for 41 hours: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/man-trapped-elevator-41-hours/story?id=4693690 [go.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @02:30PM (6 children)
They didn't even do their research.
They could have gone to the Box o Truth website and discovered for themselves that a Desert Eagle .50 was not going to stop for an inch and a half of paper.
Of course, they could have been even smarter and not done all this stupid shit in the first place... nah, who'm I kidding?
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday July 03 2017, @03:42PM (1 child)
Yes they were a pair of morons, and they reproduced... luckily the next generation will be smarter, which can happen (thank you genetic lottery).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday July 03 2017, @04:54PM
The offspring should be euthanized to prevent the further pollution of the gene pool. What will instead likely happen is that more tax dollars are spent on welfare babies who will grow up to be fatherless and turn to crime to support themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @04:22PM (3 children)
Well, she says they did (kinda) do the research:
But I really don't see any way that a .50 AE round could have actually failed to penetrate a book of any reasonable thickness.
It makes me wonder if this was an elaborate suicide-on-camera scheme by Mr. Ruiz? e.g. stacked up a dozen books, shot at them, then picked the one the bullet stopped in to show Ms. Perez to prove it was safe?
Or maybe Ms. Perez is just making shit up now?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Monday July 03 2017, @06:03PM (2 children)
The book could have been free standing? Some of the kinetic energy would have pushed the book instead of penetrating it. Seems like a better follow up test is holding the book and wearing a steel plate or level 3+ vest. Which is still crazy, imo.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Monday July 03 2017, @11:27PM
It strikes me as dishonesty. I'm fairly familiar with firearms. A .50 is gonna rip through a book, even if it is backed by nothing. It will go through thousands of pieces of paper. This was a dumb idea. Even a .22LR may go through a book. Do not try this sort if stuff at home. You will probably die, if you try to use a book as armor vs. bullets.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday July 04 2017, @02:16AM
Or maybe the test book was flat against something hard enough to stop the slug and the last few bits of paper just compressed against it instead of bursting open like unsupported paper would do.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 5, Funny) by c0lo on Monday July 03 2017, @02:31PM (1 child)
I guess the second book was boring, the bullet decided to skip reading entire chapters.
Or maybe the second bullet was a speed reader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Funny) by Bot on Monday July 03 2017, @06:57PM
> I guess the second book was boring
BF was indeed bored to death.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Monday July 03 2017, @02:41PM (7 children)
Alright, the stunt was stupid.
Playing around with guns is INCREDIBLY stupid. That people think it would have been an acceptable stunt if he hadn't been injured does kind of grate with me too.
But you know what really gets me? If you truly wanted to do this, wouldn't you fire the bullet through the book you intend to use, with nothing behind it, as a test first? And if it even LOOKS like it could go most of the way through it, change your plan?
I don't condone any part of this, but to me the sheer lack of testing is the really serious sign of stupidity. And if she was in such doubt, such a stunt would have proven to her that it was potentially more dangerous than he was asserting (the fact that it's "dangerous" goes without saying, obviously).
(Score: 3, Touché) by takyon on Monday July 03 2017, @02:49PM (1 child)
They were too cheap to get a second copy of the same book.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday July 03 2017, @04:50PM
They could have duct-taped a few Harry Potter or Twilight books together instead. Either way, nothing of value would have been lost.
Actually it would be pretty interesting to know exactly which book was shot.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @03:46PM (3 children)
This is what happens when the only exposure to guns given kids is hollywood tv shows.
All those "gun battle" scenes where the doors of the police cars stop all those rounds from the bad guy's machine guns and the good guys are safe lead to the wrong conclusion about how much damage (and how much material) a bullet will penetrate.
Fifty plus years ago, every kid had a gun (at least in rural areas) although it was often a rifle instead of a handgun. But they also very quickly learned just how much tree, book, etc. the round would pass through, and as a result they would never have considered a one and a half inch thick book as sufficient to stop a 50cal round.
Hell, a 22cal rifle will put a 22cal projectile through a one and a half inch think book at the range they would have been using to record this stunt, no problem at all. And that is a tiny round, and smaller powder fill in the cartridge, than a 50cal round, handgun or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @05:03PM (1 child)
Police cars often have armored doors, with an insert specifically designed to stop bullets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @05:25PM
Which is fair, but how many 16 year old's, watching all those police car doors (appear to) stop all those AK-47 or Uzi rounds, actually understand that police car door just might be different from the doors on their family Camry?
Or do they simply think: "car doors stop bullets" in the general sense?
Leading to: "one and a half inch book should stop a 50cal round fired at close range"...
(Score: 1) by tftp on Monday July 03 2017, @09:34PM
A 9mm round will go all the way through a thick phone book. There are many YouTube videos [youtube.com] to that effect, as that is one of the easiest ways to compare penetration of different bullets and propellant loads. In the linked example the 9 mm bullet went through 10 thin (about 1" each) Yellow Pages books. That's what one would expect. Using a single 1.5" thick book against .50cal does not appear very smart :-)
TFA says that the shootee tried the trick on another book first, but my guess is that he, not being a rocket scientist, made an error. For example, he may have left the book standing, and it fell from the impact, the bullet flew to the side... Once the book is rigidly anchored, the bullet has nowhere else to go and has to dissipate all the energy in this material.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Monday July 03 2017, @06:37PM
They were youtube creators. There's probably several thousand videos on youtube of people shooting books specifically, mostly with less powerful weapons, and I'm guessing hundreds of thousands of videos of people shooting other things. They didn't take 5 minutes to skim through some of those? Couldn't be bothered to watch DE .50 vs Watermelon? Come on.
Supposedly he showed her a bullet he'd stopped with a book earlier to prove it worked. Did he fake it, to convince her to put him out of his misery? Did she make it up, to shift blame?
Kind of hoping this goes to trial, it could get very interesting.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @03:03PM (2 children)
How much does a Desert Eagle bullet cost, not to mention the gun to fire it from? They would have done better investing in a few brain cells.
(Score: 3, Informative) by looorg on Monday July 03 2017, @03:43PM
As I recall the gun is about $1500 -- it's pretty much a handcannon, the rounds are about a buck or two each. The not so bulletproof-book cost more then the rounds for sure.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday July 03 2017, @06:10PM
You can buy brain cells now? Where? My pet zombie is starving!
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @03:25PM (5 children)
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)
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
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)
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
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
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?
(Score: 4, Touché) by EvilSS on Monday July 03 2017, @03:31PM
(Score: 2) by UncleSlacky on Monday July 03 2017, @03:32PM (21 children)
...Responsible Gun Owners(tm) we hear so much about.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday July 03 2017, @03:46PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @04:27PM (16 children)
Huh?
I'm wooshing. There are plenty of responsible gun owners right here on this site.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lagg on Monday July 03 2017, @05:23PM (14 children)
Yeah. That's the issue. On sites where there are thinking people there are going to be thoughtful gun owners. Nerd hangouts aren't the rest of the US. I owned one for a while, might be again. Know for a fact I'm responsible because I RTFM and observe safety. Everyone I know is responsible.
Meanwhile, these people think a round won't go through paper. Also, don't immediately interpret this as a call for a gun ban. People are talking like this because the cults have exhausted them. Read it in the spirit it's meant to be.
Also, like most things it's the idiots running rampant that ruin it for the thinking people. It only takes one dumb gun owner as this proved. I know (or shall I say knew, for good reason) two people that were dumb. They knew how to strip and clean, they knew how to stance, knew the safety rule. Yet they failed to check the chamber and keep it pointed down range before waving it across my fucking torso and that's all it takes for me to not want to be near them with a gun anymore.
This is a less extreme example than the people that can't seem to figure out that you don't put your fucking finger on the trigger until you're ready to kill what you're pointing at. See what the post means now? It's a level of irresponsible a level or two above failing to observe trigger discipline. That's pretty shitty.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday July 03 2017, @06:27PM (8 children)
Lots of stupid people kill themselves and others with cars. We should ban cars.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 04 2017, @01:23AM (2 children)
Difference: the only purpose of a gun is to kill. But I target shoot only, you say. OK, let me amend my statement: you can also *practice* at killing.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday July 04 2017, @03:58AM (1 child)
Yes, the purpose is to kill. A free person has the right to keep and bear weapons designed for killing. If you don't have that right you're not free.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @12:52AM
Free people have the right to murder me with their freedom (penis-substitute) gun when I am busy going about my daily activities, maybe taking my kid to the store, maybe with my back turned. That's not freedom. That's giving the crazies access to convenient deadly weapons. Gun nuts do nothing for my freedom.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday July 03 2017, @07:23PM (4 children)
What do you mean by "the cults"?
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Monday July 03 2017, @07:42PM (3 children)
I mean literally what I'm saying. They're cultists exhibiting cult mentality instead of objective critical thinking. Look at the responses (that aren't obvious scripts I mean, be fair about it) to any given post by this guy on Twitter. That's just the start of the rabbit hole too. Try gab.ai or any number of frankly disgusting sites that they get their "news" from. The comments are absurd.
Like this guy's base are just about as close as it gets to the current consensus of "cult". Up to and including forceful persuasion, chanting and repetition until a "truth" is formed, viciously reactionary to any and all criticism about the cult and its leader, incredibly isolationist, shut down when confronted with facts and cited sources (going back to step 1, persuasion and repetition). Some people - though I currently believe it's satire - are even calling the guy familial affectionate names like "dad". Also the nature of his supporters is evident on video. Namely the cringeworthy fucker that claimed to have a cardboard cutout that he saluted every day.
And no, these are not things that I've seen from past presidents. This is another thing they're trying. Revisionist history. Which pisses me off in particular. I loathe Obama and Clinton, but I will not call "obamacare" "hillarycare" in desperation. I also won't claim the democratic party is the one asking for voter data - which I have also seen. Also, it's impossible for me to accept asking for voter data and people's utter willingness to discard their privacy all of the sudden as anything but cultists feeding off their leader and vice-versa. Because that's what they do.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 04 2017, @02:37AM (2 children)
Three paragraphs and you didn't answer butthurts question. 'What do you mean by "the cults"'?
"They're cultists, this guy, they, their, this guy, the cult, some people, the guy, his supporters, cringeworthy fucker, he."
That's a whole lot of unreferenced pronouns and generic labels without once specifying who the fuck you are talking about. What's the matter, if you say his name does he appear and steal your soul or something?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday July 04 2017, @05:03AM
The comparison to past presidents was enough for me to catch the meaning.
The fellow with the cardboard figure is named Gene Huber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-3IdNPr1Sg [youtube.com]
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/18/donald-trump-supporter-gene-huber-intv-nr.cnn [cnn.com]
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Tuesday July 04 2017, @07:24AM
I'm cognizant of the fact that using this his name too much results in arguments falling on deaf ears before they even start because of what the usual expectation for discourse is now. Which I don't help by repeatedly calling him an insane idiot, but if it looks like a donald duck. Also I vent frequently because trying to get into this guy's mind is in itself an insane endeavor and it confuses me to the point of frustration so it leaks through when I try to discuss the topic.
You won't see me naming gun models much either, because even if I had the knowledge to know I was correct in what I remembered. Certain gun names are going to insta-wreck your argument even if they're completely irrelevant. e.g. "How bout them AR-15s?"
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @06:31PM
Well, what are we waiting for? Let's get some books for these folks! STAT!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @04:57PM
Once upon a time I crashed while driving the car. Therefore you should hand over your driving license to authorities so they can properly dispose of it.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday July 03 2017, @06:20PM (1 child)
The great thing here is one idiot that should have never owned a firearm never will again (because he dead,) and the second idiot that should never own a gun can probably get a felony strike here so she won't be allowed to own one again either. No one else was struck, so this is looking like a win-win-win. Might worry about the children, and yet as callous as it sounds if their parents are that freaking stupid they're better off with someone else.
So what's not to love here? You'd rather they couldn't get a firearm and wound up chopping off his legs so he could live out his natural life courtesy of taxpayer assistance instead?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 04 2017, @02:27AM
I like TT formatting, too! I find it helps to stand out when the content itself normally does not!
I love how this feelswow! more fun! Everybody cmon and read me! READ *ME*!
good old trix
bye bye! bye bye!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @06:20PM (1 child)
I think the parents are idiots and I feel sorry for them.
But I am very worried about the three year old who witnessed this.
At three, she can already process enough of this to really be messed up for life.
I'm confident even trained professionals (like the police, not assassins) would be traumatized to have witnessed this in person, I have no idea if the kid can get over it.
it reminds me of that thing a few years ago, when a two year old killed his mother with her gun.
at least at two, you can hope that the mind simply won't form proper memories about it, i.e. won't attach the proper meaning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @12:55AM
The overwhelming odds are that the child will not remember this. Too young.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Monday July 03 2017, @08:23PM (1 child)
So, anyone got the Youtube video link? :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @09:05PM
Sadly, it was not a YouTube Live stunt.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday July 04 2017, @01:23PM
http://shanghaiist.com/2017/06/30/aloe-vera-eater.php [shanghaiist.com]
http://bgr.com/2017/07/03/health-vlogger-china-aloe-vera-oops/ [bgr.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]