She kills her boyfriend but wasn't it just an accident?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/teen-youtuber-shoots-kills-boyfriend-video-stunt-n777851

This will torment us. He set it all up. He persuaded her that the bullet would be stopped by a hardcover book. They were videoing stunts. They had some idea of getting famous on youtube.

Anyway, our problem today for we posters is to pass judgment. We will know about all the facts by reading the article. She does not deny she shot him. She called 911. She took his word the book would stop the bullet. She was ignorant of how powerful the .50 cal handgun is.

So where do we go?

Jail or set free?

 

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

It was tragic, and negligent. She should do some time. She will learn a hard lesson.

 

Was it his fault for setting her up?

 

Yes, it was totally his fault. And, it was her fault for participating. He would have gotten someone else to do it if she would have refused. He wanted that viral video.

 

These two are a couple of idiots (or were). I feel sorry for their kids in more ways than one! I don't know if she should be charged with a crime though. I would consider this an "accidental" shooting because she didn't mean to harm him and you shouldn't jail people because they are just stupid.

 

I am with you here Chris. A lot of people underestimate the power in a pistol. Even a .22 cal bullet has been known to kill an Elk which is much larger than a human.

More on this thanks to the leftist Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m_term=.8256d00f5a1c&wpisrc=nl_az_most&wpmk=1

He thought a book would stop a bullet and make him a YouTube star. Now he’s dead.

Where they might try to legally pin her down is she called the event or stunt dangerous. She is admitting she understood how dangerous it was.

She might go to jail due to a tweet or rather stay in jail.

 

It's pretty sad and tragic, especially for their kids. Dad is dead and mom is going to prison? Why do people have to be so stupid?

 

A great rule to stick with.

Do not aim a gun at anything you do not intend to kill or in the case of a target, hit the bullseye of.

When i was in the Army, you should have seem how fast some of the range cadre were if one of the youth got careless with a weapon.

Her defense lawyers will base her innocence on his previous demonstration to her.

I don't follow Minnesota law but tend to expect her to get off.

 

She should be punished, but not too severely because she did not have intent to kill, just stupidity, stupidity that was egged on by the one who became the victim.
I see this as kind of similar to the old practice of dueling; he gave her his consent, he accepted the risk.

 

I want to move a bit different and see if I can connect your dots to the general notion of government taking from Group A to hand the ill gotten gain (taxes) to group B.

They tell us they have no intent to harm the public, only deliver good. But is that true? Her boyfriend enabled her. She imagined fame would hit both of them, not jail time.

They both might have been infected with what is called the value system of the Democrats. No, not 100 percent of Democrats, but the party leaders who coach them how to think.

The 19 year old mother to his children appears to have had a long term trust in the young man she killed. I would be positive killing him was not in her mind. But he died.

And he urged her to kill him. Though as I said about Welfare, he had no intention that was the result.

 

She should be charged and if convicted she should do some time. Doesn't mean they have tho throw the book at her. Let her do however long on work release or weekends; keep her in probation awhile to make sure her life doesn't spin out of control as a result of just being cut loose and in the wind alone with the emotions/guilt. Society punishing her in some way, however nominal, will help her in the long run cope with what happened.

 

Not to forget her children, but she has to heal. Jail is no place to heal. She has no doubt plenty of trauma. He urged her to shoot and told her it was safe. She is no expert on this.

I see a jury letting her go.

 

I see her taking a plea deal and people play the "I've got children" card in courts every day they are in session in the US and it almost never works. Having a child doesn't entitle you to get away with larceny let alone killing someone. If they were worried about their child, they would have never been playing with guns for youtube views. "Just think, yo, if we get a million view that'll be like $6K and we can party all month!!"

 

I'd say some kind of manslaughter charge (she's being charged for 2nd degree manslaughter). She didn't mean to kill him, but it was so stupid that she needs to be punished. Any common sense will tell you that won't work.

 

Think about that one. If I ran a red light (stupid), hit your car and killed you would I go to jail for manslaughter or would I be released because I was stupid?

 

He talked her into it then, didn't he!!! So, surely she will go free since she trusted his judgment.

 

Do you punish the passenger when the driver does something both stupid and foolish? We know by abortion events that killing humans is not wrong for all humans to do.

 

Unfortunately for her, no matter what posters claim, she is being presumed guilty by the party that has charged her for a crime. In the DA's mind, if he thought she was innocent, he would not want to try her in the first place. He has more power than her lawyer has.

This is a tragedy. And the alleged victim talked her into doing it.

 

Would she be charged, if say the stunt involved her chaining him up for some kind of Houdini type escape stunt that went bad?

As bad as this is, what's worse is what people will do in their desire to become famous.

Darwin at work here.

 

I agree with the first part of your statement re prosecutorial powers but I do stand by my position that she should be charged with something and if convicted she should do some time. This was incredibly reckless and so dangerous a thing to take part in that anybody with any degree of judgment should know better. "He wanted me to do it" is no justification for participating in such an ill-conceived plan. Even if it had worked, it would, as youtube does, set off a bunch of other people trying it until someone died eventually anyway.

 

Should the people who participated in this be charged? If not, what's the difference?

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-11-01/entertainment/ca-5220_1_wet-cement

 

They should have 27 years ago if they didn't investigate whether or not it would hold that much concrete--and by they I mean the people responsible for delivering the concrete, not the woman who sold tickets or whatever, and the difference is 27 years so I am guessing it would be a little hard to prosecute today.

 

I'm just saying that there are stunts that result in deaths, this one just SEEMS different because it was one person with a gun.

In reality, it's not much different than the example I gave.

 

I think it still boils down to common sense. I am assuming to pour 9 tons of wet concrete, there were professionals involved and accordingly they should have done some homework at the very least i.e. due diligence. When it came to the gun case, given the obvious danger, if she didn't test fire this thing into some books or whatever ahead of time to test this out, then I am not sure she has much of any excuse for why she did it and killed him. I am not saying throw the book at her and be punished will actually help her cope with what she did going forward.

 

wait .. did you say 'kids'?

isn't she like, a teenager?