They wanted to go viral and gets lots of attention. Seems like they’ve done it. :smack:
It’s a sad story, and no purpose would be served by a jail sentence.
If you watch the videos on their channel, they seem like nice enough people - a pleasant, loving couple with a happy kid. Not the brightest, obviously, but I’ve seen worse.
I don’t know about getting pregnant at 15 or 16, but it seems like the guy had a good job and was supporting his family, and they had been together for 6 years (13 & 16 yo?). Feeding a 3 year old junk food isn’t a good idea, but they probably live mainly on junk food themselves.
He was always trying dangerous stunts, apparently, even as a kid. I wonder if he had some kind of subconscious death-wish.
Indeed. My father used to shoot phone books with a .32 in the basement. Now, that sort of round, a single thick metropolitan-area phone book actually can stop, but he always stacked a couple just in case. But something like a .50? That said, I actually was surprised that the round made it clean through two phone books. Fucking hell that thing packs a punch. Even if he held enough book to stop the round, that’s still a lot of force that has to be transferred somewhere.
She fired a gun at him, that’s the deliberate action. Your scenario involves an equipment failure, which didn’t happen in this case. If, instead we modify your scenario so that you deliberately drove the car into the man because you figured the curb would protect him from the impact, it would be similar. You might not have had intent to kill him, but you did something that any reasonable person would know is likely to kill him. The fact that you would claim to believe that a curb would entirely stop a car is irrelevant, because any reasonable person would know that the curb wouldn’t stop the car.
Not really sure why people want to ignore that she shot a guy and make analogies to equipment failures, the gun firing was NOT an accident in any way shape or form.
If their bulletproof vest is an ordinary book strapped to a cloth vest and the armorer ends up dying, absolutely. If it’s just some joker messing around, then still yes. If it’s actual competent people who, after testing, suffered some sort of unexpected failure, then no. But there’s a surprising lack of deaths from people who know what they’re doing demonstrating bulletproof vests.
The gun used is not a rifle, it’s a large caliber handgun that fires a bullet that is significantly less powerful than the .50 BMG round that most people think of as a .50 caliber round. Here’s a link showing the different sizes of the cartridges, the big one is not the one used here, and the extra space in it is used to hold more powder.
I was present when a guy claimed he could juggle really well. He offered to demonstrate with two axes. There were about a dozen of us watching, cheering him on. He eventually messed up and one of the spectators drove him to the ER.
I never considered intervening. Some people do stupid things. Some stunts go badly. Had the juggler not fucked up, it would have been really impressive.
Yes, it’s her goddam fucking fault. Does she have a brain? Does she have free will? Does she have independent thought, and the ability to evaluate situations for risks?
Or is she just a helpless female, who can’t be expected to think for herself? Is she a slave to Her Man?
Involuntary manslaughter. Real time in prison, not jail. And maybe a little remedial education while she’s in the joint.
This ep is even more on-point.
[Quote=MythBusters test summary]
Filling the cavities of a car’s doors with phone books will make the car bulletproof.
busted
The Build team filled several car doors with [a single thickness of] phone books and fired various firearms at it. The phonebooks were able to stop 9mm, .357 magnum, and .45 caliber rounds. However, the more powerful deer slug shotgun rounds and the M14 assault rifle were able to pierce the door and the phonebooks easily. Since the phonebooks could not stop all of the bullets, the myth was declared busted. However, the Build Team continued the experiment to see how many phone books behind the door would be needed to stop a deer slug and rifle round and found that only two phonebooks were needed.
[/quote]
Emphasis added.
One book simply wasn’t going to be enough for a high-powered round. Two may have been, but still amazingly risky. And considering that the MythBusters scenario included a layer of sheet metal as well (the car door)… naah, this was going to end badly. Period.
Don’t aim a gun at anything you’re unwilling to kill, and don’t stand downrange of a brandished firearm.
Their kids just lost their Dad. How is it okay for them to now lose their Mom? Who is served by putting her in jail/prison? Or her kids into foster care? Is she likely to reoffend? Is she an actual threat to anyone? Was this her first ever offence? You’re just criminalizing her and grievously damaging her kids, I think.
Making an example? Sending a message? To whom? Other really stupid people? They’re way too stupid to get the message!
Convict her, sentence her to several years. Suspended on condition… she attend every parenting class that exists, see a psychologist, supervision, stay off the Internet, etc, etc.
Just my opinion
I’m fine with that. I don’t have a compelling need to see her do hard time. I have a compelling need to ensure, in every way possible, that she never endangers another person again.
It’s worth noting that if the police arriving at the scene had determined she wasn’t fit to parent, she wouldn’t have custody of her kids right now. I’m inclined to trust the judgment of those in the position to evaluate the entire situation.
I already provided a citation suggesting that in Canada, at least, your definition is not valid. The question is not whether the shooter believed that she was doing something reckless, but whether a reasonable person would believe that the shooter was doing something reckless. The two are not the same thing at all.
Now of course, Canada is not Minnesota. You may be aware of things in the Minnesota law that completely validate your assertion, but if that’s the case I’d really like to see your cite for it.
Seems to me that when shaken baby syndrome began to be a thing, I read about a number of parents saying that they had no idea that saying an infant could produce dangerous injuries. Therefore they were not negligent in the deaths of their children. My recollection is that this was not generally a Get Out of Jail Free card…