Darwin Award?

[SeaCat]

Well this is one way to get the Darwin Award and surviving it.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/new...2011/02/ouch_teen_playing_with_gun_sho_1.html

Let's just call him Dumbass.

Cat

 

[3113]

His sperm might yet survive!

What I wonder...was he really trying to tie the gun to his leg, or was he doing something else with it? I'm betting this story belongs in the fetish and toys category.....

 

[YoursSINSerely]

The line that pissed me off in here was how the police were unable to locate his mother. I'll bet the police can't locate the father, either.

Why couldn't they have written that as the parents were not available for comments; the same courtesy the press allows for politicians and town officials?

 

[stephen55]

Let's see...the guy says he was trying to tie the gun to his leg and it went off, putting a bullet through his scrotum. That tells me he had the barrel pointing up his leg, not down his leg, that is, if he was trying to tie it to his leg in the first place. My guess is that his story is crap.

It's like the answers you get in Emergency, when someone comes in with something personally irretrievable up their ass, and you ask how it got there...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Let's see...the guy says he was trying to tie the gun to his leg and it went off, putting a bullet through his scrotum. That tells me he had the barrel pointing up his leg, not down his leg, that is, if he was trying to tie it to his leg in the first place. My guess is that his story is crap.

It's like the answers you get in Emergency, when someone comes in with something personally irretrievable up their ass, and you ask how it got there...

Does anyone ever say flat out that they were jacking off?

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Does anyone ever say flat out that they were jacking off?

Would anyone say they were jacking off with a loaded gun?

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I wouldn't be doing that in the first place, but yes, I would admit to it if it happened.

 

[stephen55]

Does anyone ever say flat out that they were jacking off?

Never to me, but that might be partly due to where I worked. Small town northern Canada is...well...small town.

 

[mynameisben]

Does anyone ever say flat out that they were jacking off?

Not me. No, sir. Never.

 

[kromen]

He get's a nomination at best. If he tries to do it again and kill himself, we have a winner.

 

[3113]

Let's see...the guy says he was trying to tie the gun to his leg and it went off, putting a bullet through his scrotum. That tells me he had the barrel pointing up his leg, not down his leg, that is, if he was trying to tie it to his leg in the first place. My guess is that his story is crap.

Maybe he was trying to tie it to his leg waaaay up? Like, um, at the very top of the thigh near the hip...maybe?

No, huh?

 

[SeaCat]

Honestly I don't even want to know what he was doing, I might find out.

Cat

 

[TE999]

You just have to sit back and marvel at this level of stupidity...if this toad makes it through his early 20's it'll be a minor miracle...no one can be this dumb and live very long.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen55
Let's see...the guy says he was trying to tie the gun to his leg and it went off, putting a bullet through his scrotum. That tells me he had the barrel pointing up his leg, not down his leg, that is, if he was trying to tie it to his leg in the first place. My guess is that his story is crap.

Maybe he was trying to tie it to his leg waaaay up? Like, um, at the very top of the thigh near the hip...maybe?

No, huh?

For the bullet to pass through his scrotum and lodge in his thigh, it would have to have been on the opposite thigh.

Using the MacDonald's coffe suit as a guide, he will probably now sue the gun manufacturer.

 

[mynameisben]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen55
Let's see...the guy says he was trying to tie the gun to his leg and it went off, putting a bullet through his scrotum. That tells me he had the barrel pointing up his leg, not down his leg, that is, if he was trying to tie it to his leg in the first place. My guess is that his story is crap.




For the bullet to pass through his scrotum and lodge in his thigh, it would have to have been on the opposite thigh.

Using the MacDonald's coffe suit as a guide, he will probably now sue the gun manufacturer.

The whole story reeks of a Warren Commission scandal. The angles are all wrong. There must have been a a second gunman. What I want to know is, who is the kid covering for?

 

[squarejohn]

Maybe he was trying to "cock" his gun.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The whole story reeks of a Warren Commission scandal. The angles are all wrong. There must have been a a second gunman. What I want to know is, who is the kid covering for?

Was there a grassy knoll across the street?

 

[3113]

Using the MacDonald's coffe suit as a guide, he will probably now sue the gun manufacturer.

If you're going by the McDonald's coffee suit, the old woman didn't sue those who made the coffee grounds (saying to create such coffee required searing hot water) or what the coffee was brewed in (coffee brewer makers), she sued those who had made the coffee 180 degrees giving her severe burns she would have gotten no matter how that coffee happened to fall on her--meaning, she'd have gotten them if she's been sitting at a table and someone had knocked the coffee over onto her.

In this instance, if the kid was trying to do the same as that lady, he'd wouldn't sue the gun manufacturer; rather, he'd sue the one who sold him the gun and he'd have to prove that seller knew it would go off (in this way) no matter how the kid was holding that gun even though the seller implied that the gun wouldn't go off. Like, for example, if the seller had assured the buyer that this gun had a particular kind of safety on it that wouldn't let it be fired no matter what, yet somehow it was fired in this instance, never mind how the kid was holding it.

Also, the gun was meant to shoot. Thats' what guns are meant to do. Coffee, while meant to be hot, isn't meant to burn your skin black and send you to the hospital for skin grafts. That's not what it's intended to do.

So, really, the kid can't follow in the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

By the way, there's a new film out on that coffee lawsuit. Seeing your interest in the case, you definitely should see it.

 

[stephen55]

The gun maker is toast.

All the guy's lawyer has to do is show that the barrel of the gun was not stamped with a warning, reading...

Do not point at own balls while pulling trigger

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Come on people! He was actually trying to pierce his scrotum.

 

[stephen55]

Come on people! He was actually trying to pierce his scrotum.

Apparently he succeeded.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If you're going by the McDonald's coffee suit, the old woman didn't sue those who made the coffee grounds (saying to create such coffee required searing hot water) or what the coffee was brewed in (coffee brewer makers), she sued those who had made the coffee 180 degrees giving her severe burns she would have gotten no matter how that coffee happened to fall on her--meaning, she'd have gotten them if she's been sitting at a table and someone had knocked the coffee over onto her.

In this instance, if the kid was trying to do the same as that lady, he'd wouldn't sue the gun manufacturer; rather, he'd sue the one who sold him the gun and he'd have to prove that seller knew it would go off (in this way) no matter how the kid was holding that gun even though the seller implied that the gun wouldn't go off. Like, for example, if the seller had assured the buyer that this gun had a particular kind of safety on it that wouldn't let it be fired no matter what, yet somehow it was fired in this instance, never mind how the kid was holding it.

Also, the gun was meant to shoot. Thats' what guns are meant to do. Coffee, while meant to be hot, isn't meant to burn your skin black and send you to the hospital for skin grafts. That's not what it's intended to do.

So, really, the kid can't follow in the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

By the way, there's a new film out on that coffee lawsuit. Seeing your interest in the case, you definitely should see it.

In the case of Mick Dee, they nmade the coffee, using water and ground coffee, which is what the beef was about. It wasn't the water they ran from the tap or the bag of ground coffee, it was what was made with those things. In this case, since the kid is underage, the manufacturer and probably the gun seller are not liable, unless they actually sold it to him, but a jury might decide against them anyhow, if his lawyer is clever enough. It ain't right, but it's the way these things go.

At the same time, if there is no warning such as: "Don';t point this at somebody or something and pull the trigger, or you may inflict serious injyry." the munufacturer may be in trouble anyhow.