EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 18, 2014 19:57:44 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/maryland-man-killed-while-testing-bulletproof-vest-190509854.html
(Reuters) - A Maryland man faced murder charges on Friday after accidentally shooting his friend while testing out a bulletproof vest, a shooting reportedly recorded on a video camera.
In that video, Mitchell brags that he is about to take a “deuce deuce in the chest” - a shot from a .22-caliber bullet - before Ramiro, who is seen standing in front of Mitchell, fired the handgun once. He struck Mitchell just above the vest, the newspaper said.
Darwin award candidate- sure. But murder? |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,919 
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 18, 2014 20:02:56 GMT -5
Criminally negligent manslaughter?
|
|
msventoux
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 12, 2011 22:32:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,049
|
Post by msventoux on Jul 18, 2014 20:36:04 GMT -5
If they'd only watched Reno 911! they could have seen this demonstrated without having to try it out.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 18, 2014 20:37:38 GMT -5
So he's criminally negligent because......he was a bad shot?
Yea the law- at least if it was TN- would (maybe) be negligent homicide-but it is really a unique situation. This would be akin to a stunt gone wrong. No criminal intent.
If a guy tried to jump a moving car- like on many videos- and the guy screwed up and got hit- is it vehicular homicide? I think we need a Darwin clause in the law- if everyone involved is an idiot then shit happens.  |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 18, 2014 20:41:00 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 22:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 20:43:01 GMT -5
manslaughter doesn't require intent
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,919
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 18, 2014 20:53:01 GMT -5
If they'd only watched Reno 911! they could have seen this demonstrated without having to try it out. One of my favorite shows along with Strangers With Candy. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 18, 2014 20:55:38 GMT -5
manslaughter doesn't require intent True- and I see no intent to kill here.
Just ask the Texas rich kid that mowed down 8 people that is going to get off with probation- his drunk ass didn't intend to kill anyone either 
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 18, 2014 20:59:05 GMT -5
Not trying to make a mixed argument which I realize I just did- but driving drunk and stupid and killing pedestrians and passengers is a world different than willing people trying to make a dumb video.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 22:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 21:17:12 GMT -5
Criminally negligent manslaughter? I, at first,  this... but upon consideration, I took it back. Actually, while it IS manslaughter, I don't see it as "criminally negligent"... because it was (likely, unless other proof to the contrary exists somewhere) an accident. According to the Legal Dictionary section of freedictionary.com, "criminally negligent" is: The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner.While stupid, when firing a bullet into a "bullet proof vest" that is rated to be able to handle that bullet... death is NOT the foreseeable outcome. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,919
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 18, 2014 21:24:08 GMT -5
Criminally negligent manslaughter? I, at first, this... but upon consideration, I took it back. Actually, while it IS manslaughter, I don't see it as "criminally negligent"... because it was (likely, unless other proof to the contrary exists somewhere) an accident. According to the Legal Dictionary section of freedictionary.com, "criminally negligent" is: The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner.While stupid, when firing a bullet into a "bullet proof vest" that is rated to be able to handle that bullet... death is NOT the foreseeable outcome. I considered it criminally negligent manslaughter because the event did not take place in a controlled environment nor done by professionals. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 18, 2014 21:39:26 GMT -5
Criminally negligent manslaughter? I, at first, this... but upon consideration, I took it back. Actually, while it IS manslaughter, I don't see it as "criminally negligent"... because it was (likely, unless other proof to the contrary exists somewhere) an accident. According to the Legal Dictionary section of freedictionary.com, "criminally negligent" is: The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner.While stupid, when firing a bullet into a "bullet proof vest" that is rated to be able to handle that bullet... death is NOT the foreseeable outcome. Legal dictionaries are not local law. And you are going to intent- plus you are mixing tort law with a criminal act.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 29,483
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Jul 18, 2014 22:14:27 GMT -5
This one will definitely make the Darwin Awards. Sadly, my extended family watches for that list every year.  |
|
Peace Of Mind
Senior Associate
[font color="#8f2520"]~ Drinks Well With Others ~[/font]
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:53:02 GMT -5
Posts: 15,554 
Location: Paradise
|
Post by Peace Of Mind on Jul 18, 2014 22:17:52 GMT -5
Criminally negligent manslaughter? I was thinking suicide by moron. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 22:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 22:20:32 GMT -5
I, at first, this... but upon consideration, I took it back. Actually, while it IS manslaughter, I don't see it as "criminally negligent"... because it was (likely, unless other proof to the contrary exists somewhere) an accident. According to the Legal Dictionary section of freedictionary.com, "criminally negligent" is: The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner.While stupid, when firing a bullet into a "bullet proof vest" that is rated to be able to handle that bullet... death is NOT the foreseeable outcome. Legal dictionaries are not local law. And you are going to intent- plus you are mixing tort law with a criminal act. I understand that legal dictionaries are not local law. And yes, I AM going to intent, I don't disagree with that. Intent is VERY important. Perfect example of why: It's perfectly legal to kill someone in self defense or defense of others, but it's not legal to kill someone in the commission of a crime. In both cases someone is dead. In one it's a crime, in the other it's not. What's the difference between the two? Intent. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 22:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2014 22:22:04 GMT -5
I, at first, this... but upon consideration, I took it back. Actually, while it IS manslaughter, I don't see it as "criminally negligent"... because it was (likely, unless other proof to the contrary exists somewhere) an accident. According to the Legal Dictionary section of freedictionary.com, "criminally negligent" is: The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner.While stupid, when firing a bullet into a "bullet proof vest" that is rated to be able to handle that bullet... death is NOT the foreseeable outcome. I considered it criminally negligent manslaughter because the event did not take place in a controlled environment nor done by professionals. I could see the inclusion of "negligent"... Still don't see the "criminally", though. |
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 19, 2014 8:37:40 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/maryland-man-killed-while-testing-bulletproof-vest-190509854.html
(Reuters) - A Maryland man faced murder charges on Friday after accidentally shooting his friend while testing out a bulletproof vest, a shooting reportedly recorded on a video camera.
In that video, Mitchell brags that he is about to take a “deuce deuce in the chest” - a shot from a .22-caliber bullet - before Ramiro, who is seen standing in front of Mitchell, fired the handgun once. He struck Mitchell just above the vest, the newspaper said.
Darwin award candidate- sure. But murder? Yeah, guilty of stupidity for sure. Not so much murder since the victim wanted to be shot...very difficult case to try, I would think.
But they also say he "accidentally" shot his friend, which is laughable. There was no accident here - he shot him on purpose, he just ended up shooting him in the wrong place.
I think involuntary manslaughter would be the best indictment they could get out of this stupid act.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,914
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 19, 2014 8:40:55 GMT -5
Didnt this just happen to some girl who shot her boyfriend? Thank heavens neither idiot will reproduce.
|
|
Peace77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 1:42:40 GMT -5
Posts: 4,034
|
Post by Peace77 on Jul 19, 2014 8:45:10 GMT -5
No, it was 2 men.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 19, 2014 9:45:26 GMT -5
Why would you drive someone to the hospital? How about calling 911? If paramedics arrived within minutes maybe they would have been able to save his life?
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 29,483
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Jul 19, 2014 10:19:52 GMT -5
I'm thinking Monty Python's "The Twit Race"!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 22:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 10:54:00 GMT -5
This is another example of why women live longer than men. I defy you to find a woman that would stand there while a "friend" shot them.  |
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 26,306
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Jul 19, 2014 11:01:21 GMT -5
This is another example of why women live longer than men. I defy you to find a woman that would stand there while a "friend" shot them. No way!! I am the only good shot amongst my female friends  And if one of them wanted to try out a bullet proof vest and ask me to shot I would be calling the guys in white coats with a jacket for my friend........  |
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 19, 2014 11:02:37 GMT -5
Stupid is as stupid does.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 19, 2014 11:03:36 GMT -5
However, if you point a gun at someone and fire, then you bear responsibility for that. Not saying it should qualify as intentional homicide but that goes beyond accident into recklessness.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 22:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 11:12:36 GMT -5
However, if you point a gun at someone and fire, then you bear responsibility for that. Not saying it should qualify as intentional homicide but that goes beyond accident into recklessness. If he gets a jury of men they will find him not guilty cause every one of them thinks this would be the coolest stunt ever! |
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jul 19, 2014 11:13:34 GMT -5
True dat!
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Jul 19, 2014 11:33:19 GMT -5
Huh??
One bone-headed idiot decides he wants to test fate - and the vest. He finds another bone-headed idiot stupid enough to actually go along with it and pull the trigger. (Probably at fairly close-range).
I don't know of any one man who would think this to be "the coolest thing ever". That's a mighty broad paintbrush you're using to classify all or most men (in general) as fools.
ETA: Due to he recklessness of the incident, it would probably be classified as Negligent Homicide - it wasn't an intentional or premeditated murder carried out.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 22:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 18:04:25 GMT -5
However, if you point a gun at someone and fire, then you bear responsibility for that. Not saying it should qualify as intentional homicide but that goes beyond accident into recklessness. If he gets a jury of men they will find him not guilty cause every one of them thinks this would be the coolest stunt ever! <----- This man disagrees. |
|
msventoux
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 12, 2011 22:32:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,049
|
Post by msventoux on Jul 19, 2014 20:35:25 GMT -5
If he gets a jury of men they will find him not guilty cause every one of them thinks this would be the coolest stunt ever! <----- This man disagrees. A jury of young, dumb men, much like those who participated. A jury of their peers. |
|
~ Friendships Are Warm ~ True Passions are Fire ~ 