This is right on. If the judge wants to punish her AND mitigate the threat she poses to society, he should ban her from social media for life.
She’s going to be a hot brand when she gets out of jail, and performing on social media is her livelihood. That’s already proven to be a bad combination. A short jail sentence seems reasonable, but the judge needed to force her out of this line of work.
She may only be in jail for 180 days, but she’ll be dumb for the rest of her life.
Sorry. I’m childfree and a bit of a sarcastic asshole.
I know. Better than you might imagine (my home wasn’t). But, with no evidence of abuse or likelyhood that she would date an abuser, it is most likely better to keep her family together as much as possible (the kids lost their dad as it is).
100% with you on this.
I don’t see any mal-intent and the deceased was fully aware and was party to the idea of testing his bullet stopping book with a .50 cal firearm. I’d say 180 days is too much. She’s already suffered more than she needs to.
There’s a difference between knowing something and truly understanding and having to deal with it.
At that age you’ve spent your entire life getting stronger and more capable, your experience tells you that will happen indefinitely, and most of the big doors are still hypothetically open to you so you don’t quite understand the potential for loss.
It’s a lot more time than some cops have done.
I really didn’t [have a sense of my own mortality]. I’m a little amazed that I made it to my 30s. My sense of my own mortality is still pretty under developed.
As someone who knows people who have been through the foster system, I would want more evidence of her being unfit before committing two kids to the system that don’t have to be there.
I can completely agree with condemnation of her act, but I don’t have enough information to condemn her as a parent. Kids need their moms even if they make some really bad mistakes.
I get the distinct impression that there’s nothing the criminal justice system could do to this young woman that’s any worse than what she’s going to be doing to herself for the rest of her life.
I was overly cautious when I was young, but at the same time I never really though anything bad would happen. Personally I think this stems from cognitive dissonance - nothing bad has happened so far, why should that change? People do crazy stunts all the time and it works out awesome.
I am a bit curious what other shenanigans they did before this last one. I assume the channel is gone, though. Did anything else have similar amounts of danger.
Au contraire, mon cher. Plenty of people are that stupid. See; religion, creationism, climate deniers, Drumpf voters, … science, education, logic and evidence mean nothing to any of them.
Lifehack: Killing someone in cold blood, passion or even accidentally can land a person in jail for years, if not decades. But, if you film it, you could get off with a significantly less stringent sentence.
The couple were definitely being idiots to the Nth degree, there’s no need to minimize the danger/death that happened but i’m also struck by the lack of compassion here by Seamus. The leading statements, title of the post labeling her just “Killer” and questions at the end of the BB post definitely tells me Seamus wants and expects us to agree that they’re idiots and the girl got off lightly. Perhaps i’m reading into it, i know i do that a lot… but if that’s the case i just can’t agree wholesale. Definitely the girl exhibited an extreme lack of judgement but she doesn’t deserve to be years in jail for it.
there are four very simple rules to gun usage – these are not being taught anymore because? “guns”
The Four Rules
All guns are always loaded. (Treat them so!)
Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target (and you have made the decision to shoot).
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
i do not think people should need to be taught “do not point a gun at someone and pull the trigger” — but apparently…
With you there - I thought the post had a pretty buzzfeed (or similar) vibe
Supposedly it was his, and she was reluctant, but it’s a convenient narrative since he can’t contradict it.
Yeah, I’m not even sure what the point is.
Unfortunately they are, and unfortunately they can buy Desert Eagles.
180 days in prison doesn’t seem to do much good in either model, though.
Yeah, but their activities before that didn’t either, and I’m afraid that if we took the children away from people who failed to think things through sufficiently, we’d have a lot of children who need homes. The vast majority survive just fine where they are, even in wildly unsafe home environments, so there’s that, at least…
It seems worth noting that TFA says “A Minnesota woman who mistakenly shot her boyfriend to death in a stunt concocted for YouTube fame “tragically relied on his assurances” before pulling the trigger, the prosecutor said”. If even the prosecution agrees with something that potentially exculpatory (that the guy who got shot assured the shooter it was safe) I’m inclined to suspect that there is decent evidence for it.
That doesn’t settle the “bafflingly dumb or actively suicidal?”; but either way it makes me pretty unsympathetic to coming down hard on the shooter; exactly how unsympathetic depends on exactly what assurances were provided: if it was a general “nah, I’m sure it’ll be fine!” then proceeding anyway does seem rather recklessly negligent. If it was a “yeah, while you were out I tested it with an equivalent book and a chunk of ballistic gel; stopped it well within safe margins” then it seems pretty harsh: does non-recklessness really require that level of skepticism in specific factual assurances provided by the person who stands to lose? Intermediate levels of assurance obviously fall somewhere in between in terms of negligence vs. incompetent good faith.
Bullets are bullets right? I saw this trick on a different channel and want to do it for some views. Hey boyfriend, do you still have that gun you bought because you take it every time in Counterstrike?
I mean trying the trick first (off camera) without the person just to make sure it will work seems like obvious idea #1 that neither of them apparently had.
Did any of their ‘other activities’ end up killing someone?
Like I said earlier, I have no viable solutions here; I just can’t fathom stupidity of this magnitude, not even back when I was 20 and thought that I knew everything.
I certainly appreciate that, but it’s also like saying we shouldn’t put someone in prison because they’ll be raped, or we shouldn’t call the cops because they might shoot us. Whatever merit, it doesn’t change what we should do.
I creeps me out that there’s a mother who will never hug her son again, and there’s this attitude in America of, “oh well, moving along”.
