Damn.
Seems he practiced with the book, then did it for reals with the kindle edition.
Criminal stupidity that kills someone is a crime, usually some sort of manslaughter. It seems likely that her story is true, and she’s not guilty of murder, but is guilty of manslaughter.
I don’t see any benefit to incarcerating her, but I’d like her to loose custody of the children and lose the right to own a firearm. Some sort of community service is probably adequate as actual punishment, or a very short sentence.
Stupid isn’t against the law, but it might as well be.
The danger is that there are probably some thousands of YouTube watchers who are saying to themselves, “OK, one book doesn’t stop a .50 caliber bullet. But two books will!”
And then several thousand more who will say, “OK, two books don’t stop a .50 caliber bullet…”
Regards,
Shodan
Today’s earworm…
♪♫♬Shot through the heart
And you’re to blame
Darlin’, you give love a bad name♪♫♬
They had been telling them several times, do not jump until the instructors say to jump. That the student misunderstood is a guess on her teachers’ part, as the Spanish Judiciary doesn’t employ mediums.
Regards,
Shodan
Clearly this stunt would have worked properly with the right book. Robbins’ “Pathologic Basis of Disease” might well stop a howitzer.
In med school, a disgruntled classmate blasted his copy with a shotgun at close range. It was wounded but not penetrated (the last 500 pages or so were still clearly readable).
If she had better aim, the bullet would’ve stopped at the appendix.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the difference between the test and the real thing was that the test shot was done with the book against a hard surface like a cement floor and the real shot was done with him holding it. With him holding it he might have been unable to withstand the force of the blow and it caused the book to move out of the way of the bullet.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I’m not sure she should do time, but what she did is at least as reckless as drunk driving, and we prosecute for that. It sounds like you’re arguing there should be no such crime as manslaughter, which is killing someone through reckless action without intent. Are you arguing that?
Ba-dum squish
Undergrad, a classmate was reading her Organic Chemistry tome while taking a bubble bath. She dozed off and the book submerged briefly. She couldn’t afford a new copy, so she dried the book, which swelled to many times its original huge size.
But I’ve never heard you say it before, about previous armour tests. It’s after it’s gone wrong that everyone is sure it should never have been done in the first place.
You may have heard of Sawstop. If not, it’s a system for stopping a table saw blade more or less instantaneously if it contacts something with capacitance (like a human). The owner has tested it on his own finger. Not once have I heard anyone say he should be charged with something (attempted GBH maybe?).
.
No shit, Sherlock. Also, wet water is wet, and next week a story about how tall people are tall.
The issue is whether or not the conduct rises to the level of criminality.
No, recklessness, as already explained, is where you know you are doing something with a stupid level of risk but still do it. It’s basically knowingly taking an unacceptable risk. And as has already been explained, it’s a subjective not objective test. Drink drivers know that drink driving causes great risk.
If she genuinely thought the book would stop the bullet, then she was not being reckless.
Also, to complete the moral picture, for drunk driving to be comparable, it would have to involve the potential victims telling the driver to get drunk then drive near them.
That wasn’t just some mook who bought a parachute off eBay. He was obviously experienced.
Why on earth should Perez go to prison? If the story is accurate and they planned it together, then it’s just two stupid people doing stupid things. What I can’t understand is the thirty spectators…it didn’t occur to any of them to intervene?
Couldn’t you argue that by nature of it being a ‘‘stunt’’ on YouTube, they both knew there was a stupid level of risk involved? The whole point of a stunt is doing something risky and pulling it off.
I don’t have a lot of knowledge in the legal arena, but it seems to me the latter point - telling the drunk driver to get drunk and drive near them - would probably not result in leniency for the drunk driver.
My interest is not in morally castigating the woman, here. It absolutely sucks when the price of stupidity is this high. It’s in preventing her from hurting other people through her stupidity, up to and including her children. This is a very practical consideration from my end, not a ‘‘rawr rawr burn the witch!’’ reaction.
In case anyone is wondering how much book is necessary to stop a Desert Eagle round,here’s a video I found of Desert Eagle vs phone book from about 10 feet away. (Apparently, judging by the comments, in light of the recent news, I’m not the only one to have though of looking on Youtube for a video.) The bullet basically goes through 2 1/2 phone books, each about 4-6 inches thick.
Which suggests that his claim that he tested it before is probably bullshit.