YouTube stunt goes very wrong

a reply to: Meee32

I suggest you bone up on the laws here before you make silly proclamations.



Homicide, which is killing someone with varying degrees of intent, and manslaughter, which is killing someone negligently (which this woman did) are two wholly different things.

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: Woody510

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Meee32

You seem to allege that this was "HIS" responsibility and his alone, but this is hardly the case. First of all, you base this statement on statements made to the police by Perez, not Ruiz. Ruiz couldn't make a statement to police...because he's DEAD. Second, Perez (the girl) claims to have been 'unwillingly' forced into performing the stunt, BUT she was the same one who made posts on FailBook BEFORE it happened about how their "most dangerous stunt ever" would be forthcoming. She welcomed the attention and notoriety. To me, this shows intent and at a minimum complicity.

The bottom line is; no matter what, she DID pull the trigger! The pistol was in HER hand, and she DID pull the trigger. She could have chosen personal responsibility in that moment, but she didn't. She pulled the trigger, knowing full well she had a deadly weapon in her hand and a human life at the other end of that pistol...but hey, they could be famous, right?

She absolutely should be charged, and given the facts presented so far she should be convicted and sentenced to the maximum allowable term under the law. Further, she and her now dead boyfriend and their families should be barred from any civil proceedings (i.e. legal action, lawsuits, etc) as a result of this case. Period.

Then you also agree that there should be no stuntmen allowed in society?

I"m not going to argue about this all day, I have stated my points.

Professional stuntmen do things in a controlled environment with minimum risk. This was done in a back garden in public big difference

Yeah they do but guess what, they still die and in my opinion they are still idiots! And no sometimes they also do it in public and die in public!

Anyway, I'm out of this thread... If it's gotten down to some paperwork or skill level then I consider that a win... It's not a crime, it's a couple of idiots that did something stupid like lots of other people do!

Its not a crime? I think the police and prosecutor disagree with you there.

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: Meee32

If she is guilty of manslaughter then so is anyone that sets up or has involvement with any dangerous sport/activity!

She was no doubt pressured into doing it and was convinced it would be okay. HE convinced her! Hell, if he wanted to do it, I would have pulled the trigger too!

Then you'd be guilty of involuntary manslaughter, or even negligent homicide.

Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is an act of either:
1 - Malice
2 - Inconceivable Ignorance

Your logic absolves so many people of their actions, flying in the face of the entire idea of personal responsibility. Anyone who can be convinced that the stunt was a good idea, belongs separated from society, and any children they may have.

How does it "fly in the face of personal responsibilty"? This is all about personal responsibilty! HIS personal responsibilty... Was this guy mentally challenged? As far as I am aware he was not! He made his choice!

Just as in the rally example the spectator chooses to be there and houdini chose to do the stunt! Steve Irwin chose to swim with stingrays... Yada yada...

Because she could have #in said no.

Your argument that he convinced her to do it is bull#. Those people Charlie Manson convinced to kill people still #in killed people.

No this is not the same thing at all! Convincing someone to kill someone (I'm guessing the person being killed was not willing right?) is nothing like this case! The aim was not to kill him and he tried to prove that he would not die, there was some precaution taken. But to be fair, I think if he wanted to be shot in the head that's okay with me too!

I am the ultimate advocate for personal responsibility.

She could have said no but that would not have necessarily stopped him from doing it anyway.

But come on, where is the personal responsibilty from him in your eyes? Are we forgetting that the guy had a choice too?

The person being shot wasn't "willing to die" either, that's why he was holding the book for "protection".

So what if saying no wouldn't have stopped him, if she had said no, if she had not participated then she wouldn't be responsible. But she did, and is.

They're both responsible, I'm not excusing either of them by holding her accountable for her actions.

a reply to: Meee32

Agree with you. The guilt and shame is enough. She will think about this every day for the rest of her life, let's not throw her kids into state care on top of it.

a reply to: Woody510

I dont know what to say.

Its sad but its like someone just jumped off a building thinking they could fly. A foot away with a high caliber weapon. Also a book....and in front of their toddler. Bye.

i guess he couldn't get it off his chest...

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Woody510

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Woody510

It would have been a good idea to see if the bullet went through the book before he held it against his chest.

There at one time was something called " Common Sense "

I think they actually tried it with another book at first and it stopped the round just not the 2nd time....

The moral of the story is, use the same book.

what if she used a different book on purpose knowing it wouldnt work? i mean why the heck would you switch books with so much at stake if it already worked once?

different books have different types of paper etc.. if it had worked i probably wouldnt ever have heard about it now its basically national news.

originally posted by: MedicineManJohnson

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Woody510

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Woody510

It would have been a good idea to see if the bullet went through the book before he held it against his chest.

There at one time was something called " Common Sense "

I think they actually tried it with another book at first and it stopped the round just not the 2nd time....

The moral of the story is, use the same book.

what if she used a different book on purpose knowing it wouldnt work? i mean why the heck would you switch books with so much at stake if it already worked once?

different books have different types of paper etc.. if it had worked i probably wouldnt ever have heard about it now its basically national news.

Personally I think even if the book stopped the round he'd have still been killed by the energy of it hitting his chest.

youtu.be...
Just searching Desert Eagle vs book brings up a video from 7 years ago showing the damage it can do. I'm also starting to wonder if he shot the first book with a smaller caliber weapon.

originally posted by: Woody510

originally posted by: MedicineManJohnson

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Woody510

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Woody510

It would have been a good idea to see if the bullet went through the book before he held it against his chest.

There at one time was something called " Common Sense "

I think they actually tried it with another book at first and it stopped the round just not the 2nd time....

The moral of the story is, use the same book.

what if she used a different book on purpose knowing it wouldnt work? i mean why the heck would you switch books with so much at stake if it already worked once?

different books have different types of paper etc.. if it had worked i probably wouldnt ever have heard about it now its basically national news.

Personally I think even if the book stopped the round he'd have still been killed by the energy of it hitting his chest.

You know nothing about simple physics. If the round don't make it through the book, he doesn't get hurt.

a reply to: Woody510

So why did it work when they tried it the first time.

If it did stop it even when he held it, it probably wouldn't have killed him, but it would have hurt like hell for sure. Maybe break a rib or something. Certainly knock the wind out of him and put him on the ground with a sore chest.

Either way a stupid idea.

a reply to: spite

Umm... NO!!

This... Creature already has a 3 year old and was pregnant with another when she did this...

You can be all about personal responsibility all you want, but no child should have to be raised by someone that stupid, weak, and utterly incapable of at least considering the potential ramifications for HERSELF should something go wrong MUCH LESS HER TWO CHILDREN and her former husband!!!!

This definitely shows a complete and very comprehensive lack of any redeeming qualities in her, and as much as I wouldn't wish foster care etc on ANYONE...

These two children are exponentially more likely to still be breathing and not already doing life in prison without her!!!

Seriously, the best thing that creature can do for the world now is hang herself in her cell and save the rest of us the tax dollars her prosecution and incarceration will otherwise cost us!!

Her kids did nothing to deserve such a soulless stupid weak and completely worthless so called mother

a reply to: roguetechie

Wonder if she's an illegal?

originally posted by: snuffie

originally posted by: Woody510

originally posted by: MedicineManJohnson

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Woody510

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Woody510

It would have been a good idea to see if the bullet went through the book before he held it against his chest.

There at one time was something called " Common Sense "

I think they actually tried it with another book at first and it stopped the round just not the 2nd time....

The moral of the story is, use the same book.

what if she used a different book on purpose knowing it wouldnt work? i mean why the heck would you switch books with so much at stake if it already worked once?

different books have different types of paper etc.. if it had worked i probably wouldnt ever have heard about it now its basically national news.

Personally I think even if the book stopped the round he'd have still been killed by the energy of it hitting his chest.

You know nothing about simple physics. If the round don't make it through the book, he doesn't get hurt.

I'm really hoping that's sarcasm.

a reply to: roguetechie

Well said!

Excellent points, all.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Woody510

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Woody510

It would have been a good idea to see if the bullet went through the book before he held it against his chest.

There at one time was something called " Common Sense "

I think they actually tried it with another book at first and it stopped the round just not the 2nd time....

The moral of the story is, use the same book.

You mean, the one with a hole in it?

You cannot be serious! who's going to get in front of that 50cal or aim it at someone? Better book to use -What about How to succeed without really trying./ Passages/ Brain Power Looks like nature comes through again as their genes made it through to another generation-(honorable mention Darwin award) Guess that guy went for and became the "click bait" strangely he got what he wanted.

a reply to: tadaman

Its sad but its like someone just jumped off a building thinking they could fly. A foot away with a high caliber weapon. Also a book....and in front of their toddler. Bye.

if the guy was that stupid, it's no wonder his wife shot him.

Pedro should have reviewed which calibers penetrated to which depth before doing the stunt. A dictionary or phonebook will stop a .45 ACP. An encyclopedia is about half as thick and a Desert Eagle .50AE is about 3-4 times the kinetic energy, on par with an assault rifle. (1400-1600 ft lbs for a Desert Eagle. 1200-1300 ft lbs for a .223/M-16/AR-15. 1500-1700 ft lbs for a 7.62x39/AK-47)

It is a sad day to recognize someone that stupid earned enough money to buy a $2200 gold plated pistol.

So sending a txt to a suicidal boyfriend is manslaughter but shooting a boyfriend in the chest point blank mearly wrekless discharge?

The justice system failed...