SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:24PM (53 children)
> second-degree felony possession of an explosive device
How is that constitutional ? A bullet is an explosive device. Is one legal? How about 500 bullets? How about the powder to refill 500 cartridges ?
My tactical nuke shell is definitely covered by the 2nd amendment!
(Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:31PM (18 children)
While explosives obviously should be protected under the 11th Amendment, they aren't.
That being said, this charge is ridiculous and the prosecutor ought to be shot. Good thing I don't live nearby.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Snow on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:35PM (6 children)
He from Ontario. Your amendments are meaningless here.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @01:00AM (3 children)
Our amendments do not grant rights to the people. Our government does not grant rights to the people. As understood by the framers of our constitution, the rights are granted by God.
We added the amendments as extra assurance. The amendments place redundant restrictions on government. This is not quite the same as granting rights to the people.
So a person in Ontario does have these rights. They are however being violated by his government.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:13AM (1 child)
Then your rights are fairy tale. Just like the fairy tale that they think granted them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @04:05PM
So I guess that means you don't want yours, right?
(Score: 2) by arcz on Friday January 19 2018, @09:12PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by http on Friday January 19 2018, @02:51AM
From Canada, but in Utah. The accused doesn't have that much venue choice.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @03:04AM
This happened in Utah. Grant is from there and lives there. I have been watching his vids for a long time. He usually has his ducks all lined up before anything goes wrong. He has done this many times before. He even said in the interview that people from the local police and fire department watch his video and he has a relationship with them.
My *guess* someone new moved into the neighborhood. Got all pissy and went all HOA on them. The HoA was like go away so the guy got police involved. Grant strikes me as 'the nice guy' in the neighborhood. That will not end will for 'the new guy'.
(Score: 1, Troll) by arcz on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:35PM (1 child)
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @02:09AM
You were right the first time, you ammosexual wanker!
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:31PM (7 children)
"Obviously"?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday January 19 2018, @12:22AM (2 children)
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)
*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
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)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by arcz on Friday January 19 2018, @12:53AM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday January 19 2018, @10:45AM
Democracy is 17 million turkeys voting for Christmas whether the others want it or not.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday January 19 2018, @08:09PM
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
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @04:42PM
Pretty sure the 11th isn't relevant to the case. He isn't suing another state.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:32PM (11 children)
No its not.
Its a projectile and a case full of a progressive burning solid. Not an explosive.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Funny) by bzipitidoo on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:38PM (1 child)
Seems every owner of a combustion powered vehicle should be charged with possessing explosives.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:44PM
Following that logic, if you wait long enough, and most people Transport Explosives Across State Lines.
To the Fed Pen, evil people!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:38PM
Much safer, less likely to cause accidental death or permanent maiming, I'm sure. Also, when combined with a gun, can cause accidental death or permanent maiming at a much greater distance...
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:15PM (2 children)
Its a projectile and a case full of a progressive burning solid. Not an explosive.
Actually, that's not true.
A "bullet" in the modern sense of a "cartridge" is 4 components:
- a casing, usually brass
- a projectile, usually lead, frequently with a copper jacket
- a powder that fills much of the space inside the casing not filled by the projectile; this powder as you say burns progressively, creating expanding gas which pushes the projectile
- something called a "primer", which is a device containing a high explosive that is ignited when the primer is compressed by the firing pin.
So yes, actually, a bullet is an explosive device, it contains HE (high explosive). There's not very much of it in there though, only enough to ignite the main powder charge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @10:58AM (1 child)
Yes the primer of a cartridge contains a small amount of explosive material needed to set off the primary charge of deflagrating powder. A bullet is NOT an explosive device. To be an explosive, as opposite to say a deflagrant, the detonation velocity (that is the speed of the wave of detonation) through the solid material has to exceed the speed of sound in that material. That is the defining feature of an explosive. Gunpowder is a deflagrant. It can burn rapidly, sometimes so rapidly that it appears to explode, but it is not an explosive.
In addition, They aren't putting TATB or RDX in those primers, they are using comparatively (to other explosives) low power explosives. Something like the tried and true RDX has nearly double the explosion velocity and is 40% more dense (meaning you need less to get the same amount of bang). When it comes to the total amount of energy contained within that primer, Most guns wouldn't even be able to completely cycle their action.
On the topic of these idiots and their powder, Im wondering if it truly was an explosive. I've messed with smokeless gunpowder and black powder many times and if you have the right stuff it can deflagrate fast enough to produce a very loud report even when the explosion isn't contained. I can't think of any common explosives that actually explode when you light them either. Every modern explosive, whether its military use or industrial, is quite insensitive to heat and shock and requires the use of a detonator to actually get the reaction started. Im by no means a expert in pyrotechnics but im skeptical this was a true explosive. Are all forms of deflagrating powders illegal? Can you be charged with possession of an explosive device even if its just gunpowder? As I wrote that I realized that the law isn't as pedantic as I am and doesn't consider the explosion wavefront velocity. As I recall you can be charged with possessing a weapon of mass destruction if you have a pipebomb with enough black powder in it.
Either way those two morons should know better than to set off stuff like that without being in a more controlled environment than his goddamn backyard.
(Score: 2) by arcz on Friday January 19 2018, @09:18PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday January 19 2018, @01:57AM (4 children)
As usual, frojack is right, about the details, partially. A "bullet" is a projectile. What projects it is either a low explosive, like black powder, or a propellent, like "smokeless powder." The combination of a bullet, propellant, case and primer is called a "cartridge" or a "round". Now the difference between propellents and explosives is sort of like this. Uncontained ignition of a propellant results in a "whoosh", as oft happens here on SoylentNews. High explosives will produce an explosion, even if unconstrained, as seems to have been the case here.
So for all the semi-educated ammosexuals, it is kind of like propellants are "semi-explosives", but regular explosives are "full-auto". But if you put the wrong stuff in your chamber or bore-hole, you may experience catastrophic pressures, and possibly a "banana-peel" failure, rather like trying to be a heroin addict, and you accidently do some fentaynal.
Oh, I see that arcz is marching to the Plains of Abraham. Not a good idea, son.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Friday January 19 2018, @03:30AM (3 children)
The difference between regular "explosives" like gunpower and high explosives is that the rate of expansion of high explosives is greater than the speed of sound: the air surrounding the explosive mass provides the constraint necessary for a high explosive to explode and not merely burn.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 19 2018, @08:02AM (1 child)
Curious. So are you saying that C4, in the vacuum of space, would only go "whoosh"? Because in Space, no one can hear you explode. Interesting. ISS experiment in order, by our bad boy, King of Random?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @09:22AM
If you have C4, then you no longer have empty space. There is thus a speed of sound.
It is speed of sound IN THE EXPLOSIVE that matters, not the speed in any surrounding medium.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @11:52AM
Just a small nitpick, its actually about the speed of sound in the material (explosive) as opposed to the air surrounding the material. Its all about the speed of the reaction moving through the material, is that wavefront moving through the explosive material faster than sound would move through that material. Deflagrants (like rocket propellants and gunpowder) burn at a rate slower than the speed of sound of their material so aren't said to "detonate" but rather "deflagrate". I'm not sure the air surrounding an explosive provides any "constraint" and it certainly doesn't change whether an explosive deflagrates or detonates. C4 will detonate in space, underwater, in your mum's undies, wherever. Its got all the ingredients it needs contained within to detonate and expand outward a large amount of gas at high speed. Even a deflagrant like gunpowder will burn in the vacuum of space, deflagrants just burn so slowly that their energy is dissipated over a long period of time. Containing a deflagration inside a container allows pressure to build and then releases it all instantaneously when the container ruptures, resulting in a bigger boom (same amount of energy just concentrated into a smaller pulse).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:35PM (10 children)
But, he blew it up like a bomb, and a fireman heard, and saw that he hurt himself... think of the children! We have laws to protect people from themselves, if only somebody speaks up to encourage enforcement...
I just cringe at the sloped playing field: how much permitting and safety officer fees did the major TV series have to pay for before they bounced a cannonball through somebody's car? Now, we can't make a YouTube production of some gunpowder going poof without having a legal book thrown at the producer? Cm'on folks, plenty of New Year's celebrators did stupider things with explosives and shared their exploits via Facebook - why do we single out this guy? Just because he's easy to catch, I expect.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:40PM
> popular science-focused YouTube channel
Science-men are dangerous to The Agenda.
(Score: 2) by arcz on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:44PM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MostCynical on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:47PM (4 children)
Careful, they might learn something!
Can't have teenagers thinking science can be fun! (Suspect Mythbusters would have trouble getting made, if they were starting today.)
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:11PM
They started it up again, it's just that the new guys are not as entertaining as Adam and Jamie. They seem to be doing the same type things. Taking silly things from movies and blowing shit up.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:17PM
Can't have teenagers thinking science can be fun!
Exactly right. We don't need people getting interested in science. This can hurt the profits of various incumbent industries, especially in the energy sector, and besides, we need more people employed in the finance industry. You can never have too many people in banking and finance. We also need more managers; you can never have enough of those either.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday January 19 2018, @03:46PM
Please note that Mythbusters was created by 2 professionals who knew what they were doing. You'd have something, if they'd made it big on YouTube with little to no training. Whenever Mythbusters does anything with explosives, they have a permit, and / or a real professional helping them. Explosives aren't something you should be toying around with. That given, the whole thing reeks of government overreach. Yes, it's stupid for them to do some of that. $15k warrant / felony charges for injuring themselves and disturbing the peace seems way out of line. Maybe, something needs to happen, so they don't escalate to something stupidly dangerous. I just think charging them with a felony or two and putting a $15k warrant out on them is a bit much. Please leave felonies for real criminals.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Friday January 19 2018, @05:33PM
The Mythbusters were more responsible. They often notified police or did their experiments in areas specifically to reduce the potential for damage. This was infrequently shown on screen because it's not as interesting but they have discussed it in other channels. Occasionally they had law enforcement experts or medical personnel on screen for this or that reason (typically when they had an interesting angle - at least one experiment I seem to recall the FBI was genuinely curious about the result). They wore protection and did not run their more experiments in suburbs... at least not without taking precautions.
Accidents still happened of course, because it's still work that entails some danger, but they were generally good about at least trying to be responsible. It helps that they've been in the business of doing such things a very long time though.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by PlasticCogLiquid on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:39PM (2 children)
We need laws to protect people from prison or jail.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:43PM (1 child)
Robocop!
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 19 2018, @12:23AM
Hello there. Remember we follow directives, all fou... three of them.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @12:55AM (10 children)
It is, but it is also covered by:
a. the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
b. national security requirements (many supreme court rulings overriding many constitutional rights)
A much more reasonable argument can be had for possession of machine guns and artillery. Gatling guns and cannons, which are obsolete versions of those, were personally owned by the people who put together our constitution. Those are absolutely intended to be allowable.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday January 19 2018, @01:08AM (7 children)
It's not a good argument.
Had they been available, the founders would undoubtedly have had access to Tanks, Bombers, and Tactical Nukes.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday January 19 2018, @04:21PM (6 children)
I'm not sure I understand your argument.
The AC asserted that, since the founding fathers owned the contemporary equivalent of modern weapons, they did not intend our modern weapons to be forbidden by the constitution. The logic there depends on the assumptions that our founding fathers retained ownership of their weapons after ratification, and were not considered criminals for doing so.
Your rebuttal then lists three more modern military weapons that the FFs presumably would have owned [1], and claim it as evidence that the ACs logic is unsound. This does not follow. If anything, you are simply providing evidence that tanks, bomber, and nukes should be legal under the constitution; you have proposed no other logical argument.
Did you mean to imply that since private ownership of nukes is an undesirable outcome that the logic leading to it is unsound? If so, your fallacy is Appeal to Emotion. [yourlogicalfallacyis.com] More specifically, it's an Appeal to Consequence, and there are plenty of people willing to explain to you [duckduckgo.com] why that is not an effective rebuttal.
[1] It is useful here to note that many private citizens at the time owned armed ships, which were the equivalent of modern Naval combat vessels, putting them in the same category as tanks and bombers at the time. It is absolutely arguable that the Founding Fathers would have owned mechanized infantry/cavalry/artillery platforms and/or flying gunships if automobiles or airplanes had been invented already.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 19 2018, @05:22PM (5 children)
AC made an exception for specific weapons covered by other rules (treaties and rulings), just before pointing out that stuff that the Framers owned would be considered reasonable.
I am pointing out his/her logical failure: That the Framers would have owned those things covered in his/her exception, which means that they would have intended to keep them (because the redcoats would have them too), and therefore they should naturally be protected by the highest law of the land, regardless of how absurd the idea seems.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday January 19 2018, @07:23PM (4 children)
I'm confused again; the words you're using sound like you agree with the AC, except for the words "logical failure". You appear to be attempting to disprove the AC's point via reductio ad absurdum, [logicallyfallacious.com] and doing it wrong.
To be absurd, the conclusion would need to be contradictory; for example, if the same premise would result in simultaneous conclusions that the Founders' personal arms were protected by the constitution via one argument and not protected via another argument. For example, it is absurd to claim that the founders would believe themselves to have the natural right to keep and bear arms, and also intend that the text of the Constitution they wrote be interpreted to prohibit their own behavior.
The conclusion that the founders would have considered private ownership of tanks and nuclear weapons is not absurd, it is a logical (if surprising) conclusion based on their writings, their actions, and the text of the constitution. The fact that subsequent exceptions were carved out via treaties and S.C. rulings has no effect on the A.C.'s line of logic regarding the Founders and the Constitution's original text (as amended, of course).
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) is open to debate, and makes for lively conversations in Constitutional Law classes.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 19 2018, @07:42PM (3 children)
> 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?
It's Reductio Ad Absurdum, but not about AC.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday January 19 2018, @08:27PM (2 children)
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)
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday January 19 2018, @10:15PM
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]
(Score: 4, Informative) by tangomargarine on Friday January 19 2018, @03:57PM (1 child)
Nope.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @11:11PM
Maybe a puckle gun?
It was some sort of multi-shot thing.