Man wearing bullet-proof vest says, 'Shoot me,'-- is killed - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Starpluck;44815760]When you partake in a illegal contract, consensuality becomes irrelevant.[/QUOTE] How does that change whether she needs to be imprisoned though? Context is always a major factor in cases like these. She isn't a danger to the public, and it isn't worth the thousands of dollars required to incarcerate her. If she was to be imprisoned, everybody loses.

[QUOTE=Noss;44816299]How does that change whether she needs to be imprisoned though? Context is always a major factor in cases like these. She isn't a danger to the public, and it isn't worth the thousands of dollars required to incarcerate her. If she was to be imprisoned, everybody loses.[/QUOTE] Because that's our justice system...They WANT her to pay the obscene bail so they get money out of her. They will probably charge her with immense fines as well

If a person was to run a stop sign and tbone another car, killing the driver, I think we'd all agree that person deserves a bit more than a ticket for running a stop sign. There was no intent to crash into another car, much less intent to kill someone, but even so that person is getting charged with a crime. I see this case the same way. She deliberately pointed a loaded gun at someone and deliberately shot that person. That was her intent. But the guy died, which means she gets involuntary manslaughter as opposed to murder since she didn't intend to kill him. With involuntary manslaughter it's not out of the realm of possibility that she gets no time, but probation or something like that.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;44816775]If a person was to run a stop sign and tbone another car, killing the driver, I think we'd all agree that person deserves a bit more than a ticket for running a stop sign. There was no intent to crash into another car, much less intent to kill someone, but even so that person is getting charged with a crime. I see this case the same way. She deliberately pointed a loaded gun at someone and deliberately shot that person. That was her intent. But the guy died, which means she gets involuntary manslaughter as opposed to murder since she didn't intend to kill him. With involuntary manslaughter it's not out of the realm of possibility that she gets no time, but probation or something like that.[/QUOTE] Not the same thing. It's more akin to someone tricking out their ride with safety features and then asking their friend to crash into them as a test.

[QUOTE=usaokay;44815717]This scene would be [B]a lot[/B] different: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQNnY6-dFu8[/media][/QUOTE] Literally the first thing I thought of. That was an awesome movie.

Just natural selection. Nothing to see here.

[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;44816966]Just natural selection. Nothing to see here.[/QUOTE] Guns and bulletproof vests DEFINITELY existed when natural selection in humans was a thing. Cavemen would just find them under rocks and shoot eachother in the face with them all the time!

If they are gonna put her in jail, at least shorten it. I don't see how this is worth five years inside. I think that's too much.

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;44816993]Guns and bulletproof vests DEFINITELY existed when natural selection in humans was a thing. Cavemen would just find them under rocks and shoot eachother in the face with them all the time![/QUOTE] i think he means the fact that this guy asked to have a dangerous weapon shot at him.

A kevlar vest that doesn't cover his heart. I can't even begin to explain how colossally stupid that is.

[QUOTE=cyclocius;44815660]Even with a vest on, can't bullets still crack ribs and cause major bruising? Why would you ask someone to do that?[/QUOTE] Yeah, your life will be "saved" from the bullet (since the tissue damage to the organs the vest protects is pretty damn life threatening at the best of times), but chances are you'll still need medical attention to some degree because of broken ribs and internal bleeding. So it'll save you, but it won't prevent you from getting fucked up. [editline]15th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;44817115]A kevlar vest that doesn't cover his heart. I can't even begin to explain how colossally stupid that is.[/QUOTE] It was probably the wrong kind of plate for the vest, so it didn't cover it all properly.

If you're going to ask someone to shoot you for any reason, you probably have mental problems. Bullet proof vests aren't always 100% guaranteed to save your life.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;44815760]When you partake in a illegal contract, consensuality becomes irrelevant.[/QUOTE] But the illegality of it was unintentional?

[QUOTE=RobbL;44817384]But the illegality of it was unintentional?[/QUOTE] Is it legal to raise your firearm and and fire at someone? Not unless you are under threat of death.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;44817396]Is it legal to raise your firearm and and fire at someone? Not unless you are under threat of death.[/QUOTE] Is it? Or is it just the act or intention of injuring and killing someone that is illegal? I dunno

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!

[QUOTE=RobbL;44817420]Is it? Or is it just the act of injuring and killing someone that is illegal? I dunno[/QUOTE] If I shoot at you and miss, it's still illegal.

[QUOTE=Rents;44817431]If I shoot at you and miss, it's still illegal.[/QUOTE] Yeah but I assume that's because you tried to kill me

[QUOTE=RobbL;44817450]Yeah but I assume that's because you tried to kill me[/QUOTE] Discharge of a firearm is usually considered illegal outside of a self-defense situation.

[QUOTE=Vasili;44815778]They should rename those things to 'sorta-bulletproof' to avoid being sued, that'll fix it.[/QUOTE] No vest is marketed as "bullet proof" Not even level III/IV interceptor armors are even labelled as "bullet proof," professionals know better than that. It's just hopped up Hollywood jargon, they are bullet resistant and no one can expect them to absolutely guarantee survival, except people who stake too much faith in the realism of cop shows (ie: op article)

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;44815641]They were both to blame here. The guy for asking, the girl for doing.[/QUOTE] [I]~Shot through the heart and she's to blame~[/I] [editline]15th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=draugur;44817199] It was probably the wrong kind of plate for the vest, so it didn't cover it all properly.[/QUOTE] Kevlar isn't plate, it's a fiber. Odds are the vest simply didn't fit correctly.

[QUOTE=booster;44815732]So there's no kevlar protecting the heart? Note to self right there.[/QUOTE] assuming the vest wasnt his size, was probably his dads

[QUOTE=Drsalvador;44817888][I]~Shot through the heart and she's to blame~[/I] [editline]15th May 2014[/editline] Kevlar isn't plate, it's a fiber. Odds are the vest simply didn't fit correctly.[/QUOTE] I've never seen anyone with kevlar that didn't have both kevlar and plates, hence my assumption it involved plates. Then again my experience with this is limited to actual military combat gear.

[QUOTE=draugur;44819943]I've never seen anyone with kevlar that didn't have both kevlar and plates, hence my assumption it involved plates. Then again my experience with this is limited to actual military combat gear.[/QUOTE] Someone dumb enough to ask a girl to shoot them while wearing a vest probably isn't wearing a plate carrier.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;44817115]A kevlar vest that doesn't cover his heart. I can't even begin to explain how colossally stupid that is.[/QUOTE] He could have been wearing it on his head for all we know.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;44817115]A kevlar vest that doesn't cover his heart. I can't even begin to explain how colossally stupid that is.[/QUOTE] Small caliber rounds can tumble and fragment pretty far from where they hit. That's part of why 5.56/5.45 became desirable over older larger rounds for a lot of militaries.

[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;44816966]Just natural selection. Nothing to see here.[/QUOTE] that edge of yours

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44817472]Discharge of a firearm is usually considered illegal outside of a self-defense situation.[/QUOTE] Only when shot at (or near) a living thing. If they really had to shoot it they should have put it up to a wall, not on somebody.

[QUOTE=_Kyle_1;44824599]Only when shot at (or near) a living thing. If they really had to shoot it they should have put it up to a wall, not on somebody.[/QUOTE] No, it's illegal to discharge a firearm about 75% to 90% of the time within city limits. Most cities have statures or laws against usage of firearms outside of an indoor range or outside city limits. For example, here in Bismarck-Mandan, we have two firing ranges that are 15 miles south of the major city centers, and the only indoor ranges are runned by the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and you are only allowed to use weapons up to 9mm. You fire anything above an Air Rifle or .22LR outside of say the 4th of July, you'll most likely have a run in with the local sheriff. Yes you could get away with discharging a gun in city limits, but it really depends on how the officer feels like making your day. :v:

Guns don't kill people, stupid people do....kill other stupid people.....with guns