If he likes playing “pranks” on strangers using a butcher knife, maybe it was for the best.
I eagerly await your opinion on what should replace firearms for the purpose of defending one’s life.
I think firearms should be strictly regulated and that law enforcement should not carry them except when an assignment definitely calls for an armed response, and I still have very little sympathy for someone who intended for other people to fear for their lives.
I agree. I have little sympathy for him. He still shouldn’t have been killed.
You actually can, if they’re thick enough like a phone book. My dad used to shoot them with a .32 in the basement when I was a kid. My college roommate used to do it with a 9mm in our common room. I think it took one or one and a half 80s/90s-era Chicago Yellow Pages. Now, neither shot them with a .50 from a foot away. I have no idea how many would be needed to stop one of those. And even if they did, I assume there’d be a hell of a lot of force still transmitted to the poor fool holding them. But books can stop bullets.
Say what? Is this a standard activity in common rooms in US colleges???
No. Most colleges don’t allow possession of firearms. There are a few states that prohibit public colleges from barring firearms but even then these kinds of Billy the Kid style antics aren’t common.
While the number of firearms being owned in the U.S. has increased, the percentage of individuals who own firearms has actually been decreasing. It’s a smaller and smaller group of people that is acquiring more firearms. The vast majority of people don’t own them and witnessing a stunt like this would be considered shocking in all but some very particular social groups.
No, not stupid. Back when phone books were a thing, people used them as backstop liners for shooting ranges. Fibrous material is great for dissipating impacts, and lighter to wear. That’s why the military stopped using steel for helmets and started using kevlar armor instead.
What’s stupid is not testing the experiment before trying it for real. A 50 cal bullet is an exceptionally massive round that delivers lot of kinetic energy. Had they done some trial runs, they’d have discovered that 1 phone book is not enough, that 3 is probably OK but would still probably break some bones.
Anybody who points a gun at someone and pulls the trigger should be held accountable as if they fully intended to kill someone. Otherwise people would be killing their spouses left and right under the guise of a YouTube prank gone bad. Our society is awash in firearms for better or worse, and everybody needs to understand that they should always be treated as loaded murder machines.
This was in an apartment we rented. Pretty sure it was against lease rules. 
I made the mistake of telling him the story of my dad and the phone books.
That link was pretty hostile (“Please remove your adblocker!” “Wow, thanks! Now subscribe to read anything, hahaha sucker!”). Anyhoo, Perez was also sentenced to six months in jail after pleading guilty to second-degree manslaughter.
Oh, and I see the confusion. I misused the term “common room.” It was an off-campus apartment split between three of us, and I meant the living room, which we all shared, of course. I think the terminology stuck from some of the dorms that had suites and true “common rooms.”
But in this case, that would mean we’d have to arrange society so that people who are actually attempting armed robbery with a knife should be treated with kid gloves. As someone who is generally very opposed to unrestricted gun ownership, I certainly do think if someone attacks you with a butcher knife that’s one occasion when you have every right to shoot them. So no, I don’t think there is any lesson here about how we should arrange society.
I agree that it’s unfortunate that the penalty for stupidity here was death. But it’s entirely attributable to the stupidity, not to some flaw in the way we arrange things in our society.
Thanks for sharing that – yes, that other link was terrible. Given the circumstances, the outcome of the case seems about right to me. 180 days in jail, and a prohibition on ever owning a firearm or profiting from her story. Honestly, if you’re looking to discourage other idiots from trying the same thing, it’s that last provision that may be the biggest deterrent.
But the guy tested it on another book and it stopped the bullet. What’s the cut off point between rigorous enough testing/practice and manslaughter or negligent homicide should the worst occur?
I’ve got no beef with the second one. A person can reasonably be in fear for their life if someone threatens them with a knife. Even if they don’t know it’s a real knife.
According to the stories I read, it was that she said the guy said he tested it on another book. That’s not the same as the definitive “the guy tested it on another book.” He may have; he may not have and just told her he did. He may not have, and she may have made up a story after-the-fact that he did.
Yeah, with the fake robbery, I can certainly agree that it’s tragic that someone died just because they were an idiot, but any reasonable way I can think of to prevent it is focused on not being an idiot, not on changing the consequences for that idiocy.
How is it NOT still an unnecessary gun fatality?
Yes, they were justified by self defence, no doubt. But if he hadn’t had a gun…the prankster, (stupid though he maybe, and certainly deserving of consequences), would still be alive!
The stupid prank would have played out and EVERYONE would still be alive!
Yes. The equation is “If I give this guy my money he might not kill me. If I shoot him a lot, he definitely will not kill me.” Shooting someone threatening you with a weapon is the sane, logicial, rational, reasonable thing to do. Don’t gamble with your life.
Yes, exactly.
I assume that whatever our views on private gun ownership, we agree that it’s appropriate for law enforcement to be armed (at least sometimes)?
If an idiot thought it would be a good prank to pretend to attack an armed police officer with a butcher knife, and did so in a credibly threatening manner that was indistinguishable from an actual life-threatening attack, would the police officer be at fault for using his firearm?
Whatever our views are on who exactly should generally be armed, when idiocy results in a situation where if someone is armed they are perfectly justified in shooting, the problem is entirely with the idiocy, not the presence of the gun.