I suspect some of their other activities more directly put their children in danger, though. And she won’t repeat any gun tricks with the kids, that’s for sure. (Which probably puts her ahead of a number of American parents…)
Yeah, I can’t conceive of this level of stupidity, either, and I see it in some relatives. (I worry about their kids even more than this woman’s.)
4 Likes
Well, you are related to them; that’s a vested personal interest, right there.
SMH
4 Likes
Or I just know my relatives well enough to know that even if the kids survive with bodies intact, they’re still going to be permanently messed up. I don’t know this woman well enough to say that.
3 Likes
Sound advice really. I wouldn’t anyway unless the fit had good and truly hit the shan. YMMV.
4 Likes
I’m genuinely sorry to hear that; such circumstances suck.
4 Likes
Homicide was correct, though broad. Manslaughter and murder are both subsets of homicide.
The worst part may be in realizing that they’re not especially abusive or anything - they’re just incredibly stupid, and that there’s millions and millions of parents in this country just as bad or worse.
6 Likes
Given the apparently bottomless appetite among chain email/Facebook meme people for Bibles and similarly flimsy but emotionally salient things stopping bullets it wouldn’t surprise me if there are plenty of people that stupid, though most of them probably not willing to try it themselves.
That, and apparently books aren’t wholly without merit. Still a wildly dumb thing to bet your thoracic integry on; but honestly closer to actually working than I would have suspected off the cuff.
1 Like
Couldn’t, he only owned one book.
*sighs
I’ll afford you the basic modicum of respect by not citing the dictionary definition;
Too many recent bad faith actors have been resorting to that flawed tactic as of late; but I will mention that homicide is generally differentiated from manslaughter (a charge which usually carries a lighter sentence) as an intentional act, if not necessarily a premeditated one (hence the three degrees used to classify that particular crime.)
And I’ll end by pointing out that’s what the woman in question was actually convicted of ; 2nd degree manslaughter.
Thanks and have a nice day; please do note my obvious disinclination to continue conversing with you further.
I hear ya. Talk about depressing topics…
6 Likes
There was mutual consent. It should not be a crime at all IMHO.
1 Like
Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century.
And Moby Dick for just in case.
1 Like
I doubt they owned two books.
1 Like
No, it’s always the same result. That round is going through the book. No matter what the angle. No matter how close to Target. Even if you’re in standing in the checkout line at Target. There’s no different test result.
1 Like
Encyclopedia Britannica; that’s a book, right? Or maybe a bound copy of Von Junzt’ Unaussprechlichen Kulten. I would use the Necronimicon, but I wouldn’t want to damage the dust jacket.
2 Likes
It’s a matter of energy. Rounds have the most energy at the muzzle, and that energy scrubs off with range due to friction in the air. So, for any given round from any given firearm there is a range at which a given book will provide complete protection. Even the book that Ruiz held would have stopped the round from the Desert Eagle … given enough range (I’m guessing at least 500m, rather than 1’) … assuming that Perez’s aim was good enough to hit the book at that range.
tl;dr: they weren’t strictly wrong that a book would stop the round, they just got the parameters horribly wrong.
6 Likes
Could be the perfect crime. Get away with murder and just do a few months in jail for it. Don’t bother not trying to get caught (that is super hard to do) just try to clear a lower bar.
Extra evil genius points for the audacity to film it.
2 Likes
I did. I was a very determined high school kid even when I was certain there was no value in finishing something I started.
2 Likes
Well…she did fire the gun knowing it was aimed at someone. From everything we can tell she didn’t think the gun would kill that person, but it did. Once it did, she didn’t make things worse by trying to cover it up, she called 911 to get help (ok, it was too late the moment she fired that thing). She didn’t make up a story about what happened.
So no intent to kill, no delay in summoning aid, and no attempt at a cover up.
If they had tested this on a similar book & a dummy (say a foam head from a hobby store), and the foam head came out Ok you might be able to classify this as an accident. As best we can tell though the didn’t test it, normally being stupid isn’t criminal, but in this case it moves you from “accident” to “negligent homicide” (which I think is actually spelled “manslaughter” in many places).
For manslaughter it is a really really light sentence. On the other hand as a DA you have to weigh what the jury is likely to think, and what the defense has is video from two camera of the act. Presumably showing the slain man utterly willing to participate, and showing the defendant with no obvious malice. Then the shot. What about after that? If she looks horrified, panic stricken, remorseful, in despair, as she takes in what happened, and then still as she calls 911 until the video ends? Well, it may be really wise not to put that in front of a jury who may well decide she had suffered enough, it was an accident after all…
Plus, really, the purpose of justice isn’t really to punish, it is to reduce the chances for more crimes in the future. In large part by making the wronged parties and those that identify with them think justice has been served so they don’t feel the need to become vigilantes, and in a smaller part by making sure the party that committed the crime is disinclined to do so again.
I think that was probably served with the light sentence. Lighter and maybe dead-guy’s family wouldn’t feel that justice had come. Heavier won’t really teach her more of a lesson. The lifetime gun ban is a good idea.
It seems like a workable sentence to me.
6 Likes
