SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(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] 🗿