Fatal Youtube stunt
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 1,437
well hold on a sec, I imagine they probably tested the bullet proof glass a little first! Are bullets and encyclopedias so expensive in murica that they thought, na lets not even test it once, just go ahead and shoot me.... i mean..... oh boy. :S:S:S:S
if that was in this country and the guy died i would fully expect the HSE to get an involuntary manslaughter charge to stick.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Once the judiciary decide to lock people up based on a low IQ I suspect a lot of new prisons will need to be built..... 
My take is a prison sentence of any sort was inappropriate, both were willing adult partners in an experiment that was merely imprudent.
My take is a prison sentence of any sort was inappropriate, both were willing adult partners in an experiment that was merely imprudent.
It says in the link that she was convinced to do it "after he showed a her different book through which the bullet did not pass."
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 2,136
lol at this, 'it's not her fault she's stupid so she shouldn't be punished.
She's not being punished because she's stupid, she's being punished because she has been recklessly irresponsible. You can't give people a free pass for manslaughter just because they didn't mean to do it, especially a pregnant mother. Jesus lol.
She's not being punished because she's stupid, she's being punished because she has been recklessly irresponsible. You can't give people a free pass for manslaughter just because they didn't mean to do it, especially a pregnant mother. Jesus lol.
This.
she's not being punished because she's stupid but she's being punished because she did something recklessly irresponsible (I.e. She did something stupid)
If she had say Down's syndrome and the guy gave her a gun and asked her to take part in the same stunt would you still want her charged?
If someone dies on a proper movie set during a stunt they themselves set up does anyone else they instructed to play a part in it (like trigger the explosion etc..) get a manslaughter charge?
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
Ah a common mistake, I would imagine the print in the first book was much smaller, thus leaving less space between characters and words meaning that the bullet couldn't slip between the gaps, creating an impenetrable shield of language. #science
its a fair point but it wasn't a movie set with all the precautions and sign off from a legally responsible H&S person(s)/department.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 2,136
You can mince words if you want, but a pregnant mother, who discharged a DS infront of her other kid, and killed her partner in the process all in the name of creating a viral video for Youtube stardom, is not just 'stupid'.
No of course not but she doesn't have Down's Synrome, so another confusing anology. I.E I don't understand how you think what they've done is akin to trained professionals discharging live ammunition in a controlled enviroment, just because he was holding a book.
Last edited:
It's not that confusing. You're happy that someone who is very limited mentally wouldn't be charged, you're also happy that in a 'professional environment' it would be less stupid for someone to take part in a stunt. The main thing is just that the stunt she was involved with was stupid/she did something stupid...
That's not what you said:
Not that it makes any difference either way. She knew the danger of firing a gun at someone, hence why she had to be convinced into going through with it. It should not be a legal defence that injuring/killing someone was not an intended or at least predicted outcome of shooting at them, whether they're holding a book or not.
I don't, I'm giving an example of a scenario where someone's life is also at risk.
She didn't set up or test the stunt she pulled the trigger. If you were some assistant on a movie set who triggered the explosion are you liable to be charged even if the guy killed was the one who designed the stunt/did the initial test etc.. and instructed you to push the button?
The difference here is that she is stupid and a reasonable person should have known it wouldn't work. But you're also happy that someone really stupid (someone with a mental condition) shouldn't be charged.
I know, I was paraphrasing the other poster
Read my post again, I'm quite clearly arguing that she's basically being charged as a result of being stupid.
So what is your opinion on the YouTube stunt posted above. Or indeed any dangerous stunt where someone else has to trigger an explosion or similar that deliberately endangers another?
Surely the main difference is just the level of risk involved? People can and do die in professional stunts too.
No, she's been convicted of manslaughter on account of her firing a gun at a man and killing him. Her "stupidity" got her a more-lenient sentence, if anything. She also gets to explain to her kid one day that she killed their father for a YouTube video.
My opinion is that two barely-similar situations can and should be scrutinised entirely differently.
I know she's been convicted of manslaughter. I don't think that was in dispute...
It's the same thing in principle, just a less stupid choice of object to stop the bullets. However had that object failed then I'd suspect the person instructed to fire the weapon wouldn't be charged. I can see why you didn't want to answer though.