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."

Comments

Doesn't belong here

[Stormwatch]

Old news, not for nerds, shit that doesn't matter.

Re: Doesn't belong here

[Zero__Kelvin]

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.

Re:Doesn't belong here

[Stormwatch]

That's a bit different. (Damn, I loved Voyagers! when I was little.)

Re:Doesn't belong here

[michelcolman]

Or they might have first tried with a book held in front of a melon or something like that.

Maybe they only had one book...

Re:Doesn't belong here

[rmdingler]

Charles Bronson, indeed; yet, Carlos Ray (Chuck) Norris gets all the tough guy memes...

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...

Turns out, the celebrity they achieved was beyond what they imagined, as was its cost.

Re:Doesn't belong here

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I had thought a Desert Eagle costs in the range of $1000.

Even used a Desert Eagle is ~$1200 and up, most are in the $1500 range.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Deser...

It'll be interesting to see where the gun comes from and how he got a hold of it.

Re:Doesn't belong here

[ravenshrike]

You would be wrong. It takes about 6-8 telephone books to stop a handgun bullet 9mm or larger.

Re: Doesn't belong here

[Hognoxious]

One would do it - if it was about physics and you read it.

Re:Doesn't belong here

[Hognoxious]

It'll be interesting to see where the gun comes from and how he got a hold of it.

By the wrong end?

Re: Doesn't belong here

[rtb61]

There is nothing new about greed driven stupidity. All they see is dollar sign and caution is thrown to the wind. Youtube or no Youtube, greed was the driver, and likely they couple would have found other ways to fuck up driven by greed, if Youtube was not available. From top to the bottom of society, greed will drive people to do the stupidest things imaginable, regardless of consequences.

Re:Doesn't belong here

[arglebargle_xiv]

But we did not learn how thick the book was, nor its title or author.

The first book was "The Art of the Deal". The bullet got halfway through the book and died of boredom. The second book was Harry Potter, the bullet flew through it looking for more sequels.

Re:Doesn't belong here

[Cederic]

I support everybody's right to make a long term commitment to their partner of choice.

I don't support giving tax breaks or other benefits based on whether they've done that.

Where the fuck does gender or sexual preference come into it?

Re:Doesn't belong here

[Big Hairy Ian]

Old news, not for nerds, shit that doesn't matter.

Hey I want to know which book they shot!

Re: Doesn't belong here

[trg83]

Although it violates conventional logic, or mythology in this case, a .22 is quite deadly. Last I read, they were responsible for a majority of firearms deaths in the U.S. They are cheap to possess and fire and have interesting ballistic properties. Because they lack the penetration power of a center-fire handgun round like 9MM NATO or .45ACP, they are known to follow the route of bones and connective tissue in your body and wreak wide-scale havoc. They are not effective defensive rounds because many of the people who are injured by them die hours or days later due to internal injuries and gradual blood loss. Thus the focus on "stopping power" in the debate over the merits of different types of handgun rounds (think tabs vs. spaces or vi vs. Emacs).

Simple

[qbast]

Stupidity kills.

Re:Simple

[gweihir]

And physical reality is utterly merciless.

Darwin Award...

[__aaclcg7560]

They're YouTube famous for all the wrong reasons.

Re:Darwin Award...

[Anonymous Coward]

Managed to reproduce before removing himself from the gene pool, so not sure if this qualifies...

Re:Darwin Award...

[BarbaraHudson]

The rules are clear - you only have to remove yourself from the gene pool (preferably in a funny or ironic way). They say nothing about previous offspring.

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.

Re:Darwin Award...

[locopuyo]

Offspring carry your genes, so you aren't out of the gene pool if they're alive.

Re:Darwin Award...

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually, 50%.
Unless want to count the mitrochndrial DNA.

Re:Darwin Award

[thexile]

They have already reproduce. Thus they are not eligible.

And the sheriff doesn't understand?

[BarbaraHudson]

I just don't understand the younger generation

19-year-old couple, 3 year old daughter, one in the oven - and you expect responsible behaviour on the internet?

Re:And the sheriff doesn't understand?

[BarbaraHudson]

We shouldn't have to label every gun with "this can kill" and every book with "this will not stop a .50 cal. bullet". This has nothing to do with education, but with common sense and the stupidity that the Internet brings out in people. In a "virtual world", they're astounded that there are real-world consequences?

Re: And the sheriff doesn't understand?

[ColdWetDog]

How very Republican of you to blame the child instead of the gun. If they didn't have the gun, then this would not have happened.

If we didn't have the Internet, this would not have happened.

It's Al Gore's fault.

Re:And the sheriff doesn't understand?

[darthsilun]

Anybody who can heft a frying pan, owns death.

Burroughs

I dare say if she'd hit him in the book with a frying pan, he'd still be alive to talk about it.

And how many deaths by frying pans are there every year, in say, England?

Re:And the sheriff doesn't understand?

[lucm]

Desperate to become famous, most likely due to having few other opportunities, and the product of a society and education system that failed to teach them to know better.

This is America. People literally risk their lives to cross the desert or the ocean and get here so they can enjoy those "few other opportunities". And guess what? Those who come here to chase the dream are not posting Youtube videos from their iPhones and buying $1,000 guns.

The only way society failed those Youtube idiots is by letting people like you establish a culture of non-accountability for personal decisions.

Re:And the sheriff doesn't understand?

[blindseer]

Frying pans specifically or just improvised bludgeons in general? I can't imagine too many deaths by frying pan but I do recall reading how the sale of baseball bats go up with every street riot.

Murder rates generally are unchanged or go up with restrictions on gun ownership. I can't imagine death by stupidity would be changed by gun control laws either. This guy was looking to get killed, jumping off of roofs and driving go-carts like mad.

I'm paraphrasing Penn Gillette who said something like passing insane laws to stop the insane from doing insane things is itself insane.

Re:And the sheriff doesn't understand?

[AmiMoJo]

Actually there are gun licences in the UK.

Re:And the sheriff doesn't understand?

[LeftCoastThinker]

Unless you want to also require licenses for car batteries, wall AC voltage, bleach, knives, drain cleaner, gasoline, kerosene, pool acid, etc, you are making a specious argument. None of the items listed above (and car operation) are constitutional rights, whereas gun ownership is, but you can kill yourself with any of them quite easily. In a free society, you must exhibit responsibility or bad things happen.

  Furthermore, there IS a federal background check to make sure you are who you say you are, and you don't have a criminal history, and you have to be an adult, but beyond that, it is your responsibility to learn about your gun. When you purchase a gun, they all come with a user manual if purchased new, with all kinds of common sense warnings, as well as how to clean and maintain your gun.
  I learned as a child that guns aren't toys and to never aim, let a lone shoot at anything you didn't intend to kill. The fault here is likely with grossly incompetent/absent parents, as these kids went off the tracks long before this (19 years old with a 3 year old and another on the way, basic math says she probably got pregnant when she was 15).

Re:And the sheriff doesn't understand?

[AmiMoJo]

Wait, are you arguing that sex education put ideas in their head and contributed to their getting pregnant? Evidence suggests that education tends to lower teen pregnancy rates.

Re:And the sheriff doesn't understand?

[lucm]

Human beings aren't like that. While they have to accept responsibility, they are note solely responsible. Why is that so hard for your to grasp?

It's not hard for me "to grasp" that you're draping yourself in the cloth of social virtue instead of looking at things for what they are.

Here we have two kids living in the land of opportunity (Minnesota unemployment rate is under 4%, placing it in the top 15 states) who choose to make a video of one shooting at the other as a mean to get instant access to fame and money.

They could have spent that time working their way up the ladder in any organization, or creating a small business (lots of programs to help your entrepreneurs in MN), or learned to sing and at the very least try to get famous for their music. But no. They choose the shortcut and didn't even spend 5 minutes on google to find out that their stunt was ill-designed.

We are talking about careless, idiotic fame-seekers with no skills and no interest in hard work. If you want to play the game of finding who is responsible beyond them, suits yourself, but society/the media/trump/religion/global warming had nothing to do with it. Stupidity, laziness and greed, that's all there is in this case.

Re:I wonder...

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re:I wonder...

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

I read about this in the news a couple of days ago. She posted a message on social media before the event saying that the boyfriend thought it up. So, it's possible that she was lying about it, but if so, she started lying about it before the fact.

I'm with qbast on this one. I don't know how a couple would pull this off without agreement of some kind. This involved a high level of stupidity.

Re:If they would have used a .22,

[deesine]

Apparently they were very scientific about it. He practiced on a thick book without the bullet exiting the other side. Test_run_1 total success, theory tested & proven, move to launch phase for project Shooting Star.

They were on youtube?

[rebelwarlock]

Then they had access to DemolitionRanch. They should know how much shit a 50 cal will go through.

Re:I really shouldn't say this but... apk

[bigfinger76]

You do realize that by having children, this couple isn't really Darwin Award material?

The argument goes

[rsilvergun]

that licensing guns is the first step to rounding them all up. Personally, if my gov't gets to the point where they're rounding up small arms I'm not going to be able to do much about it. I wouldn't last 5 minutes against a modern military. Hell, even Isis is being whittled down by the rather tepid force we toss at them (they just lost a couple major sources of income, Mosul).

Re:The argument goes

[AmiMoJo]

So diving licences are the first step to rounding up cars? They are an attempt to limit your constitutionally guaranteed right to travel around?

Re:The argument goes

[ProzacPatient]

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.

Re:The argument goes

[blindseer]

Side fact, gun deaths plummeted after they did it, not that you care.

I care about crime rates, not "gun crime" rates. Gun deaths went down after the 1996 confiscation but gun deaths were already declining before that. Murder rates went down too but those were also declining before 1996.

Licensing guns does not help you round them up. It is simply propaganda by the NRA to stop reasonable laws.

"Propaganda"? There are multiple instances of the police getting caught looking into firearm ownership records to take lawfully owned firearms. It's not a widespread phenomenon but it happens in the USA regularly.

Hand guns on the other have NO legitimate civilian use.

Is that why the effort to ban them was successful in the 1930s? It was not successful because there were women's groups concerned about being unable to defend themselves. Seems a lot of people disagree with you on that.

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).

There is an effort to enact a law where a concealed carry license issued in one state is valid in all states, kind of like how licenses to drive are still valid, marriage licenses are valid, and so on. What is also happening is a lot of states are doing away with their requirements for a license to carry a handgun, 12 so far. Seems to me that they think that if you are a law abiding person before you pick up the gun that you will continue to be one after you pick up the gun.

Re:The argument goes

[angel'o'sphere]

Erm, that is not how it works.
First you get a letter telling you to hand over the gun at a certain office with a timeframe.
Then they come as a small team, armed, armored.
If you pull a gun at them you are most likely dead.

No idea in what ferry world you are living.

Re:The argument goes

[dwillden]

Gun deaths did drop, Crime rates went the other way. As to registration/licensing they had already registered most of them so they knew where to collect them. But even then they only collected about a 5th of the expected national stockpile. And violent crime rates went up.

Hand guns have a very legitimate civilian use. They are poor hunting weapons but my uncle hunted from four wheeler for years with one due to injuries that made a rifle unfeasible. And more importantly they are prime defensive weapons. Nor are they prone to accidental shootings, contrary to popular opinion they are safer than rifles as no handgun made since about 1900 will go off if dropped. Simply put you have to pull the trigger to make the gun go off.

If handguns are so crappy against the military, why does the military issue so many to front line combat troops?

You speak with little knowledge

Re:Darwin Award

[Calydor]

Doesn't change the fact that their genes get carried on regardless, which is the whole point of calling it the DARWIN Award.

Re: I wonder...

[Hognoxious]

I was wondering why they didn't do a test run. Then I figured they only had one book.

Re:Can't do math

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

This case is particularly unimpressive; but I suspect that the sheriff isn't thinking hard enough about it. Mortality in the late teens to early 20s related to doing really stupid things to impress your peers isn't exactly something that was invented at the same time as smartphone selfies.

"Cars and alcohol", "pointless fights", and "things not to do in flooded quarries" are more common variants than "youtube stunts"; but unless the sheriff's social circle is really small, he probably doesn't even have to imagine; odds are pretty good that someone he went to school with, or was otherwise close enough to have heard about, died while taking really stupid risks for attention. It's not that uncommon.

Re:Darwin Award

[ColdWetDog]

No, the point of the Darwin Awards is to be morbidly amusing.

Re:If they would have used a .22,

[iggymanz]

what kind of .22? you can see some powerful .22LR going through 2,000 pages of phone book on youtube.

we won't even talk of .22 magnum or .223

Re: I wonder...

[Aighearach]

The story about it I read last week said that he did test it on another book and showed it to her to convince her it was safe.

That's why she's not going to prison. They'll drop charges, or she'll get acquitted. He asked to do the stunt, she said no, and he kept trying until he convinced her it was safe. Stupid? Yes. Manslaughter? No, she only did it after he had convinced her it would be OK.

The key thing here is that if they had done the stunt successfully, everything is legal. This is no different than a circus accident at the knife-throwing event.

Re: High speed assault bullets...

[lucm]

After Clinton's assault bullet ban expired, so many more Mexican children are dying.

After Clinton's assault bullet ban expired, he was no longer in a position to take bribes to renew it.

Sure it does....

[IwantToKeepAnon]

It teaches a lesson, Don't test in Production ...

Re: Sure it does....

[Jason Levine]

Maybe he didn't have a lot of books or bullets?

"Don't test in Production" still applies, though. You can't just say "well, we can't afford to have a test environment so we'll do it in Production and work out the bugs there." ALWAYS have a test environment. Work out as many bugs as you can there.

This guy's test environment was simple: A second copy of the book, a second bullet, and a melon.(Melon credit to michelcolman.) Position the melon behind the book and fire on it. If the book stops the bullet, move to production. If, much more likely, the melon suffers a gunshot "wound", then cancel any production plans because your meatbag skin won't fare better.

Re:Sure it does....

[Hognoxious]

Before testing or reconfiguring, always mount a scratch Mexican.

Re: Sure it does....

[LesFerg]

Or third option; just fake it and edit the video, like the majority of other unbelievable videos on YT.

Re: Sure it does....

[dwillden]

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.

Re: Sure it does....

[Triklyn]

... how often do you see PSA's about jumping off bridges with umbrellas to break your fall?

some things are to stupid it's assumed that the majority of americans won't do it.

Re:Darwin Award

[Calydor]

Pretty sure I'm not retarded, thanks for asking.

Are you capable of reading replies in a discussion in the proper order, though? Because what you're saying after your insult AGREES WITH ME.

It doesn't qualify for a darwin award

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Since he's already procreated.

Test fire first, you idiot

[gurps_npc]

First, you use a freaking blank in the gun for something as inconsequential as a Youtube video. This isn't a Mythbusters tv show.

Second, if it were something more important than a Youtube, then you do a TEST fire first.

Third, you still freaking use a blank. There is no media police checking to see if you used a real bullet.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: I wonder...

[HornWumpus]

A lot of variables. He clearly didn't test it adequately.

Book thickness, paper type, # of pages, moisture content, cover type.

Plus round type variations. Low velocity, hollow point, unjacketed would likely be the best bet for under penetrating. Practice, won't wear out the gun rounds, not full tilt. Just the kind a kid wouldn't bother buying.

Tests rigor

[DrYak]

The story about it I read last week said that he did test it on another book and showed it to her to convince her it was safe.

Which overall speaks for the necessity of being very rigorous during testing.

Yes, paper armor is a thing. (And was a thing in historic China).
Swords blows, and even some (not to high velocity) bullets can be stopped, while the overall armor is extremely light.
(The explanation : the friction with each individual layer of paper slow the weapon a bit. After dozens and dozens of layer, a sword will get stopped. Some bullets might to. I think there might be a Mythbuster episode about this ?)

BUT it's extremely dependant on the exact parameters.

If he did the test with a massive book (some thick dictionary) and some not too powerful pea-shooter (sorry, we're not gun nuts enough on my side of the atlantic pond to have any vague idea what exact type of gun and bullets could get stopped) yeah sure, it might have worked.

If on the D day they decided to use a book with different characteristics (number of page, paper weight, types of cover, etc.) than during the test and if they switched to a different weapon (TFS mentions a Desert Eagle and I think I might remember that these have some power. Again, not gun nut enough to know) that will be enough for the bullet to simply flight through the book almost unencumbered.

Proper procedure would have been :
- run tests with the exact same setup (distance, type of book, type of bullet, type of gun) than the final take
- run SEVERAL tests to confirm that it is reliably reproducible.
(- while you're at it : run the tests with the camera. help you find the correct setup, and gives footage for a decent "making of")
- on the D day, try as much as possible to wear protection (ballistic plate dicretely hidden under the shirt, in case the trick fails ?)
- also best if you have emergency responders ready to intervene if anything goes wrong.

(But that's the difference between a real stunt and a youtube trick by teenagers).

Re:This differs from stage show accidents how?

[itsdapead]

Did either of them get prosecuted? Of course not.

...because there was probably a rigorous paper-trail of risk-assessments, safety precautions, waivers, insurance, compliance by-laws for handling dangerous animals etc. proving that everything had been done to make the "stunt" relatively safe. Oh, and lawyers. Lots of lawyers. If it had just been a case of "hey, why don't you get in the cage and play with the tigers - I saw somewhere on Slashdot that tigers never attack humans" then there may well have been a prosecution. I bet there was also a doozy of an out-of-court settlement to stop the civil courts going mediaeval on someone's ass.

If this woman goes on trial, she will surely be asked why she imagined that firing a .50 cal at someone's chest at point-blank range would be OK provided they were holding a book. If she weeks of research that they did, practicing on dummies, comparing the effectiveness of phone directories, bibles, encyclopaedias to find a publication that could reliably stop bullets then maybe she can get off. I doubt it, though.

Re:A Desert Eagle? What a mong.

[Calydor]

I haven't even listened to rap music to know that. The Desert Eagle is the totally OP handgun in so many shooters I've lost count. Max Payne took it up a notch and let you dualwield Desert Eagles.

Re:I wonder...

[jittles]

She could also have been planning this and made the "his idea" post to bolster her story later.

Nope. They had two different GoPros rolling the whole time and it shows that he clearly was a willing participant in the endeavor.

Fools Repeat History, the Wise Learn

[LeftCoastThinker]

Fools ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

Hitler signed the Weapons Law of 1938 followed shortly after by Jewish gun confiscation, and 7 million Jews were murdered.

Stalin presided over CPSU gun licensure followed shortly after by gun confiscation of all dissidents, and the USSR murdered 20-60 million people, unable to resist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Mao presided over gun licensure followed shortly after by gun confiscation, and tens of millions were murdered by the Mao regime, unable to resist in any meaningful way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

All of the state sponsored mass murders of the last century took place after gun registration and subsequent confiscation. The total body count is over 100,000,000. That is a pretty fucking huge price to pay for giving up guns.

The first step in confiscation is knowing who owns guns. If you don't know who owns a gun, it is essentially impossible to confiscate them. Once you register the guns or "license" the owner, you have a list of who to arrest if they don't show up and surrender their guns when it is time to confiscate them. As gun ownership is a constitutional right, there is no reason to require licensure, although most states require that you obtain a license to concealed carry, which involves both a proficiency test as well as a written test regarding the laws and steps to take in a situation requiring the use of your concealed carry weapon. Those states, not coincidentally, have drastically lower crime/murder rates than the liberal bastions of Chicago, New Orleans etc. where the first amendment is abridged.

Re:Just FYI: bullets go thru things

[LeftCoastThinker]

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...

Re:Just FYI: bullets go thru things

[Ihlosi]

50 BMG will put a hole through a phone book and the concrete wall you propped it up against...

... and the car parked behind the concrete wall, and maybe, if you're lucky, it won't penetrate the wall behind the car.