That’s what those of us who don’t think incarceration is the way to go are thinking. Well, that’s what I’m thinking anyway.
No, I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure the whole neighbourhood came out to watch. From another article:
Sure there’s advantage: it may not work exactly the same way it works on a dummy, or even an animal. Can you be 100% sure that there isn’t some side effect that a human could feel, but can’t be detected on a dummy? Wouldn’t you want to find that out under controlled conditions (medical help standing by, etc) before you start production?
I don’t know. Was, say, the Interceptor tested on living humans before it was issued to the troops?
If you can rationalize shooting a desert eagle at your boyfriend then I’m sure you will be able to rationalize the next stunt regardless of how much community service you might have to do.
Well, maybe, if the guy hadn’t died. I don’t know her, but I’d bet that her stunts are a thing of the past.
I think I worded that poorly. What I meant was that if a stranger could look at Monalisa’s stunt and still want to emulate it, then any punishment doled out to her would likely not deter them at all
That sounds more reasonable. Although it would take a remarkable degree of self-delusion to do it… “ok, so that guy died, but it totes won’t happen to me because REASONS.” And adding “… and his girlfriend went to jail” really does add nothing to the equation.
We’ve already covered Richard Davis shooting himself to promote Second Chance body armor, right? Contra Alessan’s point, I wouldn’t find Davis’s conduct unnecessary or criminal at the time. Davis was shooting himself in order to make a memorable point: that soft body armor works, and would save officers’ lives. I don’t think a dry presentation of graphs, and even shooting mannequins, would have the same effect. And the longer departments took to purchase this equipment, more police officers might have died.
FWIW, similar stunts are still done today, in the automobile armoring business. (Go to 1:04 for the good stuff.) Certainly memorable, in a “we stand behind our work” way.
I’m gobsmacked that 30+ people were standing around and no one brought up to the shooter that this was a stupid idea. I’m also somewhat surprised that either of these idiots had the 1,000 dollars plus that a Desert Eagle in .50AE goes for.
Finally, one reason I don’t think has been mentioned yet in the thread, is that you charge this woman with a felony to ensure that someone like her who obviously lacks the judgment and common sense to own or possess a firearm, never again has the opportunity to legally do so. You want to give her probation after conviction, and no jail time, fine, but she needs more than a “Oh, that’s so sad,” from the criminal justice system. IMHO, of course.
Someday, someone is going to tell those children what happened to their father. 
This is a good observation and I’m hoping that that situation will be addressed at trial. There seems to be a vortex of deadly stupidity in this case.
Has the ownership of the gun even been established yet?
I wrote my opinion about this on my FB yesterday, so I’ll just repost it here.
TL;DR version: I don’t believe she deserves any jail time. If I were the judge, I would not sentence her with any. I believe she deserves compassion/sympathy/forgiveness.
Long version:
Okay…wildly unpopular opinion time (right before I go to bed too). Buckle up.
First of all, it’s a huge tragedy, that’s for sure.
I feel sorry for her somewhat. I’m sure she feels horrible and she’ll have to live with that the rest of her life now. Being a single mom now…and having to raise two kids alone…it’s gonna be pretty hard, even if you didn’t have jail or charges against you. I’m ALMOST of the mind that it’s all punishment enough…
…but man, they just really weren’t thinking at all. So stupid. Just shouldn’t have been done. It was gross negligence, that’s for certain…
Still, it seems it was just extreme undersight by her. She certainly didn’t mean for him to die. It’s just hard for me to put the entire blame on her, especially since he volunteered for it and (apparently) talked her into doing it. Yes, she was stupid too and should have refused…but let’s face it, I’m very strongly guessing she DID NOT KNOW OR EXPECT him to die. Just…one of those times where you don’t fucking think…and this was one of the worst fucking times to do it in; where you don’t fucking think.
But let me go back to what I believe is punishment enough, almost.
She killed the person she loved. Just think about that for a moment. Here she was, in love with this guy. He’s the father of her two children. And she’s the blame for him dying. I’m guessing it’s the first person she’s ever killed…that’s going to really fuck a person up, you know? I’m talking about “FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, FUCKED UP”. Extremely fucked up. Probably going to have nightmares the rest of her life…probably going to have mental issues the rest of her life…probably going to develop WHO KNOWS what in terms of irrational fears and anxiety and PTSD… I mean, it’s SO EASY to dump on her and say it’s all her fault and have no sympathy at all. That much is easy. And it’s just as easy to forget she lost someone too and has to deal with the fact that she caused it by being so fucking stupid and not using any sense at all.
Like I said, I’m almost of the opinion that all of that is punishment enough. I’m sure she’s probably very sorry and regretful. I’m sure she’s gonna wish every day, now, for the rest of her life that she could take it back.
I was also thinking about how she has to forever explain to them “Yeah, your dad’s dead because I shot and killed him. I’m sorry.” So when they’re like, 16 or 17—this is presuming they didn’t inherit the stupidness and that they live that long—they’ll be like, in high school “where’s your dad” “He’s dead” “Oh, …how’d he die?” “My mom accidentally killed him”.
Shit just ruined for life already. I just see having them taken away as just making it worse. They already might grow up hating her anyway. Yeah, I think it’s good punishment.
It’s times like this that I believe MERCY is the best answer. If I was the judge, I honestly believe I would have mercy on her more than not.
Now you may think she’s fully to blame or deserves what she gets or should be locked up if only so her stupidity doesn’t wind up killing another person…but I have to disagree. I’ve also seen many comments about how she should have her kids taken away from her…which…that’s so far extreme (IMO), I don’t even know where to begin. Again, this was a thing gone wrong, due to just not fucking thinking at all. It was not intentional (I’m guessing). It was not planned. Nay, it was not expected…I very much doubt it was, because unless the guy was suicidal, it just doesn’t work out.
No, it had to have been “they both honestly believed it would work”…which, AGAIN,…yes INCREDIBLY stupid, yes. Very much so. She’s a fucking moron and a half, trust me, you won’t see me disagreeing there. She should have thought and she didn’t…and now she has to pay the price.
…but again…there is a time when a person should have the full weight of things thrown at them…
…and there are times when it’s better to show mercy and to be much more sympathetic. I believe this is one of those latter times. If it were up to me…well, I dunno. I’m not sure I would sentence her to jail at all. Fines and community service and probation OUT THE ASS, yes…but jail time? I’m thinking no.
Which…by the way, she was charged with second degree manslaughter (manslaughter meaning “you killed someone accidentally, you didn’t mean for it to happen at all”)…and second degree at that. Punishable in her state by either going to jail for NO MORE THAN TEN YEARS OR a FINE NO MORE THAN 20,000 dollars…OR BOTH. Me, I’d go with the 20,000 dollar fine.
Disagree all you want, but it won’t change my mind. I’m sure she feels horrible and, again, she’ll have to feel horrible until the day she dies. It was stupid, but it was a mistake. She deserves mercy in the long run, I believe.
The SawStop stunt is somewhat on point here because of just how different it is. First off, the SawStop guy doesn’t routinely stick his finger into his table saw. His demos are generally done using wieners. He’s done the demo hundreds of times, and that’s after he had a working product - I can only assume that he did hundreds or thousands of tests while perfecting the design. So it’s not like he tried it once and it worked so next up he’ll try diving headfirst into the spinning blade. No. The system is very, very thoroughly proven.
He has done demos using his actual fingers, but they’re relatively rare and performed rather differently than the wiener demos. In the regular demo, a wiener is placed on top of plywood which is then fed, usually quite quickly, into the blade. Usually the wiener has a small nick in it - blood would be drawn, but nothing serious. But when he demos with his finger, he moves his finger into the blade very slowly, and at an angle such that if the system were to fail he wouldn’t actually lose a finger. So even though he rightfully has every confidence the system will work, he still takes precautions against the chance that it won’t.
Obviously a somewhat different mindset than the unfortunate subjects of this thread.
I heard right before she shot him, she uttered “Dodge this”
You should have the book thrown at you for that!
If we’re going to hold her responsible, shouldn’t we also incarcerate people who - with full knowledge of the implications - casts votes that lead to the death of lots of people? One pulls a trigger but the other pulls a voting handle that kills far more. I mean, if you’re going to jail people for people being stupid…we need to build a whole lot more prisons.
The idea of sending people to prison for voting the wrong way doesn’t appeal to me.
Regards,
Shodan
I have no idea. I just said there is at least one advantage in a human test. Whether the advantage outweighs the risk of such a test is a different matter, and depends on many factors.
I’m afraid I disagree, Leaffan. As Ulf the Unwashed, points out, there are mandatory sentences for both crim neg causing death and manslaughter, where a firearm is used. Both carry a four year minimum in the case of a firearm being used. Both offences could apply here
Criminal negligence is based on recklessness. The definition of recklessness is a mixture of objective and subjective thinking. The objective part of the test is, would a reasonable person consider the act to be dangerous and likely to cause injury? The subjective part is, would the accused have the mental capacity to appreciate that risk?
The reason for the combination, frankly, is to avoid stupidity as a defence. There have to be standard, reasonable understandings of what is dangerous. A purely subjective test would mean that stupid people would have licence to do dangerous things that intelligent people would be criminally liable for. So it is a reasonable person test: would a reasonable person think that this proposed act is dangerous?
The subjective test focusses on the individual’s own mental capacity: does the person have the mental capacity to appreciate the objective dangerousness of the act? But mental capacity here doesn’t mean momentary lapses of judgment. It means things like age, or a mental disability, things like that.
So in this case, by the objective standard, it was clearly a dangerous act. Shooting at someone with a high-powered firearm is dangerous, even if some stupid person says “it won’t hurt.” All the firearms training about “never, ever, point your gun at someone” and “never pull the trigger unless you’re prepared to inflict lethal force” all show that.
As for the subjective test, being persuaded to do a stupid thing isn’t an issue of mental capacity. It’s a bad lapse in judgment, but not a capacity issue.
Manslaughter is based on homicide caused by an unlawful act. Here, the unlawful act would be careless use or handling of a firearm, which is a criminal offence.
So yes, I think if this happened in Canada, she would potentially be facing a four year sentence. (Subject to constitutional challenges to mandatory minimums; some have been struck down, but I don’t think the criminal negligence / manslaughter sentence has been.)