Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday February 13 2018, @07:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the celebrity-has-its-shortcomings dept.

Late last month, a YouTube celebrity couple hid in their closet and called police while an armed, deranged fan ransacked their home.

Christopher Giles, who police described as "single, lonely and disturbed," had made the 11-hour drive from Albuquerque, according to documents filed in the 2nd Judicial District Court. And his phone was full of notes suggesting he had "developed a fondness" for the woman, Megan Turney, and a dislike of her boyfriend, Gavin Free.

Turney, 30, was made famous through her video blogs on anime, relationship advice and her life. Free, 29, is the co-host of a YouTube video series of slow-motion videos.

[...] According to that search warrant affidavit, around 3:40 a.m. on Jan. 26, Turney and Free awoke to the sound of breaking glass and a gunshot. They hid in their bedroom closet and called 911 while Giles searched their home for them.

When he couldn't find the couple, Giles left, encountering Austin Police Department officers on his way out.

The officers found Giles backing out of the driveway in his Lincoln sedan with a New Mexico license plate and ordered him to stop.

Instead, they heard a single gunshot coming from the car. An officer returned fire.

Giles was pronounced dead on the scene, a .45 caliber handgun near his hand, according to the affidavit. Turney and Free were not harmed.

[...] "Based on the footage seen it was apparent that Giles' sole intent was to cause harm to someone who resides there," the detective wrote in the complaint.

[...] Albuquerque Police Department detectives who executed a search warrant on his home in Albuquerque said Giles lived alone and was "an avid player of video games and was known for watching YouTube videos that were centered on his hobby."


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This discussion has been archived.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 MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:13PM (1 child)

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:13PM (#637884) Homepage Journal

    -ion.

    Suppose you were unconscious due to a life-threatening concussion.

    You have no way to give informed consent. Aren't the doctors who save your life committing a serious crime?

    No, because all the lawyers assert that were you conscious you would grant that informed consent.

    It's like that with suicidal minds. The law doesn't regard them as able to think objectively.

    I attempted to do myself in in quite a spectacular way back in 2011. I spent some time in a mental hospital, then quite a long time at home when I wasn't able to do anything more ambitious than to lie on the couch.

    Despite all that I have come to regard life as worth living, and the complete destruction of a perfectly good automobile as the price I paid to be taught this lesson.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:59PM

    by Arik (4543) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:59PM (#637904) Journal
    "Suppose you were unconscious due to a life-threatening concussion.

    You have no way to give informed consent. Aren't the doctors who save your life committing a serious crime?"

    Not necessarily, no. There's a reasonable expectation in that case, barring evidence to the contrary, that the patient wants to live.

    However, if they DO see such evidence and proceed anyway, then yes, that would be wrong. See http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1713344

    "No, because all the lawyers assert that were you conscious you would grant that informed consent."

    No, that's not correct at all. No decent lawyer would make such an easily impeached claim. The claim instead is simply that the doctors are acting reasonably to infer that patients want to be treated since most people do, and there are adequate ways for someone that does not to make that desire known.

    "Despite all that I have come to regard life as worth living, and the complete destruction of a perfectly good automobile as the price I paid to be taught this lesson."

    That's your experience, and perfectly valid. But it's not everyone's experience. Assuming that everyone is going to have the same experience you did is... naïve? at best.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?