Slashdot Mirror
Seeking YouTube Fame, A Teenager Kills Her Boyfriend (arstechnica.com)
Last Monday a 19-year-old woman named Monalisa Perez gave the police a strange reason for why her boyfriend, Pedro Ruiz III, was dead. An anonymous reader quotes Ars Technica:
A Minnesota woman has been charged with manslaughter after she shot and killed her boyfriend as part of the pair's attempt to become YouTube celebrities... The two had set up two video cameras to capture Perez firing the gun at Ruiz while he held a book in front of his chest. Ruiz apparently convinced Perez that the book would stop the bullet from a foot away. The gun, a Desert Eagle .50 caliber pistol, was not hindered by the book. Ruiz, who was found with a single gunshot in his chest, was pronounced dead at the scene. Hours before the incident, Perez posted on Twitter, "Me and Pedro are probably going to shoot one of the most dangerous videos ever. HIS idea not MINE."
The teenager -- who is pregnant with the couple's second child -- now faces second-degree manslaughter charges, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $20,000, or both. A local sheriff told the New York Times, "I really have no idea what they were thinking. I just don't understand the younger generation on trying to get their 15 minutes of fame."
The teenager -- who is pregnant with the couple's second child -- now faces second-degree manslaughter charges, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $20,000, or both. A local sheriff told the New York Times, "I really have no idea what they were thinking. I just don't understand the younger generation on trying to get their 15 minutes of fame."
They have already reproduce. Thus they are not eligible.
Managed to reproduce before removing himself from the gene pool, so not sure if this qualifies...
Is it possible that she just murdered him, and made up this "it was his idea" story after the fact?
She posted that it was his idea before the shooting, so unless she has a time machine ...
Why yes, I did read the story. Several brain cells committed suicide after reading something so stupid.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Nominees significantly improve the gene pool by eliminating themselves from the human race in an obviously stupid way.
They are self-selected examples of the dangers inherent in a lack of common sense, and all human races, cultures, and socioeconomic groups are eligible to compete. Actual winners must meet the following criteria:
Reproduction Out of the gene pool: dead or sterile.
Excellence Astounding misapplication of judgment.
Self-Selection Cause one's own demise.
Maturity Capable of sound judgment.
Veracity The event must be true.
They are dead, obvious lack of judgment, did it to themselves, and the event is true. The only question mark is maturity. But the same can be said for most members of Congress and the Senate.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Intent is what distinguishes manslaughter from murder, not manslaughter from get off. Manslaughter yes, because it was criminally reckless.
I don't think you read the summary. If you didn't know, YouTube only exists because we created the technology. Technology has radically changed society, as well as remapping the global mindset. This as an example of that. In other words, you couldn't be more incorrect.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Since he's already procreated.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Cause we rounded up all the taxis, liquor stores, etc.
Lets take a look at a country that really did round up all the guns - Australia.
Did they license them first? Nope. They just rounded them up. (Side fact, gun deaths plummeted after they did it, not that you care.)
Licensing guns does not help you round them up. It is simply propaganda by the NRA to stop reasonable laws.
Note I do not advocate gun licenses for long guns. They simply are not involved in gun deaths. No need to regulate shot guns, rifles, (assault or otherwise).
Hand guns on the other have NO legitimate civilian use. They are poor hunting weapons, offer minimal deterrence (when compared with a big ass shot gun) against crime, and can't do shit against a modern military. They also are prone to accidental shootings, ideal for suicide, are easy for criminals to conceal, and police can't tell the difference between reaching for your pistol and reaching for your ID. No one should be allowed to posses a hand gun without a federal concealed carry license (so you can easily carry it across state lines, we should change the laws so they issue them, not the states).
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The issue at hand is that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically enumerated in the constitution therefore laws targeting to limit or control it are treated with the highest scrutiny, furthermore in Heller v. D.C. the Supreme Court ruled that given the historical background of the second amendment it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected with military service and that the idea behind the second was to provide a deterrent against tyranny whether domestic or foreign. That being said it seems like the government knowing who and where all the guns are would defeat the idea behind the amendment, but even otherwise the whole round em' up scenario is no longer a hypothetical situation as we've seen gun confiscating campaigns in California and New York already. Speaking of hypothetical situations there is also a famous scene in the movie Red Dawn, whose producers were opposed to the then new FFL system, where a soviet commandant in the invading force orders a subordinate to raid all the gun stores in occupied territory to collect all the Form 4473's so they can systematically quell any opposition in the bud before the citizenry can form a militia.
I'd also like to point out that licenses for firearms originated in the Jim Crowe south with the idea of oppressing certain racial groups from being able to defend themselves against injustice. Martin Luther King, for example, was denied a gun permit even though people were terrorizing his family, defacing his property and sending him death threats.
One could argue that you have some vague right to drive a car but the fact remains driving cars are not specifically enumerated in the constitution like arms are. A more apt comparison might be if the government tried to limit freedom of speech by requiring a license to publish anything for public consumption but then make the argument that because you might be able to get a license means your rights are not being infringed on. In fact we're already seeing this type of thing spread in Europe where certain types of speech is banned and a criminal offense.
This was 50 cal auto, a handgun round with 700 Joules of energy. What you saw was 50 cal BMG, a rifle round that has 20,000 Joules of energy. 50 BMG will put a hole through a phone book and the concrete wall you propped it up against...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Funny how you quote directly from NRA safety training materials before lying about what they say and teach just to get to validate your anti-gun bona fides.
Try actually reading some NRA materials. They are all about safe firearm handling. They are the leading producer of firearm safety training materials and certification of firearm instructors. They are all about safety. Real safety, not the false 'safety' that anti-gun groups try to call gun control.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.