Something tells me she’s not going to want to touch another gun for the rest of her life.
Her bail was $7000, which means that if she used a bail bond agency, she walked for a measly $700. It doesn’t sound like the judge thought she was any danger to anyone.
I seriously doubt that she’ll go to prison. Minnesota does not have a minimum sentence for second degree manslaughter. She’ll accept a plea deal and get probation, a fine, and maybe some community service. Sending her to prison would be pointless and a waste of resources.
I saw another article that said the guy had considered a much thicker book which, according to the investigators, probably would have stopped the bullet.
But the guy chose the one he did because it was hardback and he figured it would provide more protection.
Guess he never heard that you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover.
I think I haven’t been clear. I think it would be the same here.
Gee, I don’t know… maybe a person who had tested the gun out on a book with no person behind it and found it stopped the bullet, but then got caught out when the bullet went through during the “live” test?
This makes no sense. Based on this, if you drive your car down a street with a bend in it, towards a man standing beyond the bend, but when you try to negotiate the bend your steering fails and so you continue into the man, you have “killed a man through deliberate action”.
Your consideration lacks a vital element.
Your confusion arises from a failure to consider the distinction between “intent to perform certain physical actions” and “intent to achieve a certain result”. This is a vital issue.
So no armourer who wants to demonstrate a bulletproof vest on themselves should do so, and anyone who participates should be prosecuted. Right?
Ten minutes before this test occurred, if you guys were told that a stuntman was going to do a dangerous stunt but the stuntman had tried out the equipment and it seemed OK, would any of you have said “Oh no, they should be stopped because they are about to commit a crime?” If the stunt went ahead and the stuntman was OK would you be saying “but they should be prosecuted for attempted manslaughter?”
It’s all classic after-the-fact reasoning, in which you are (a) forming your view retrospectively about a decision taken by someone prospectively, which is leading to you (b) form your view of how dangerous something was by the seriousness of the outcome, rather than by the chances of that outcome, viewed prospectively.
There’s no doubt that this man (and his assistant) did something dangerous and ill thought through, but it’s a long way from there to where you guys are getting to.
It seems that the bf planned this stunt. Allegedly showed the GF a book that stopped the bullet. Convincing her that it was actually a safe stunt.
Will that reflect favorably on her charges? I understand she still bears some guilt, but it seems the BF is more at fault. I don’t think she needs to spend a decade in prison. I’d prefer that she serve a year or two and then focus on raising her two kids.
It depends whether it’s proven the BF planned this stunt and that she reluctantly agreed to participate. She’s screwed if they discover she helped plan it.
[
[
There is no absolute bar to disobeying one’s boyfriend or husband no matter what the social consequences.
QUOTE=Princhester;20312074]
So no armourer who wants to demonstrate a bulletproof vest on themselves should do so, and anyone who participates should be prosecuted. Right?
[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between metal or ceramic armour and a book; if I had one of each in either hand and we were in the same room I could demonstrate this, and why paper is generally not used for self-defence.
There is no absolute bar to disobeying one’s boyfriend or husband no matter what the social consequences.
There is a difference between metal or ceramic armour and a book; if I had one of each in either hand and we were in the same room I could demonstrate this, and why paper is generally not used for self-defence.
…
Too soon!
You’re doing it wrong.
Highly unlikely with that powerful rifle. And at that distance. I doubt two copies of War and Peace could have stopped the bullet.
You miss my point. Indeed you make it for me. BeeGee made an unqualified and absolute statement which is not in my view justifiable (and apparently not in yours either).
Well that’s what the information available says. It sounds to me like (at the least) the test conditions and the “live” conditions were different.
From the OP’s link:
I’m seeing a loss of custody of the children in her future.
Damn right.
I don’t see any scientific advantage of testing body armor on a human being over testing it on an appropriate dummy. It’s a completely unnecessary and risk and utterly unprofessional behavior.
… and yet it’s been done before and I’ve never heard anyone say that the persons involved should be prosecuted.
I don’t know if she should go to jail or not. More details needed. But from what I’ve seen, I’d like to see her lose custody of the two children, and part of any plea deal she gets that keeps her out of prison includes an implanted birth control method that lasts at least 5 years. She needs time to grow up and become responsible before she creates more children that could be placed in danger.
Does anyone else think the whole “He told me he had done it before!” excuse is really fishy? Unless he was the biggest idiot in history and used a much less powerful gun or did it at a proper range with a dozen yards between him and the target, a Desert Eagle a foot away would shred basically any book and even a dumbass would realize how dumb the plan is. On YouTube they’ve shown a .50AE round at ten feet away penetrating a 2000 page hardcover book incredibly easily.
It seems more believable that the dumbass had no idea of the power of the bullets and got his girlfriend to just shoot him without testing it. After she shot him and realized they should have tested it beforehand, she concocted the easy and non-provable “Well he said he tried it in the past!” to deflect blame.
Well, I’m someone, and I’m saying it now. Gun safety is no joke.
I can’t help but think of Mythbusters.
Oh, and I vote no jail time.
The couple should have read that first. The paper armor couldn’t stop a .45.