nosexatall (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:26 am Following those words its easy to imagine that one testicle and the penis are gone.

I think this accident should be nominated for Darwin Award.

I´m not used to firearms.

But for me it is quite clear that the dangerous end of an gun should show away from me.

This kid sounds pretty dumb. Let's hope he never finds about out prostate stimulation and turkey basters! LOL

Nowadays it is possible to breed without one single ball , nut, testicle or what ever is combined with a man´s genitals left.

The miracle is cloning!

So it is not neccessarry to have any sexual contact for breeding.

But for a human male this is not all.

Poor boy, but there is one ball left. He also is really male.

Believing in the first headline published here, there is no "joystick" left.

This boy would never be able to have childs without medical help.

Perhaps it would be much easyer to shoot at the remaining right ball.

I don´t know, what "Schrot" is called in Englisch. But this will destroy the remaining testicle propperly. In this case he´ll need a rifle. But before pulling the trigger it is necessarry to call (I don´t really know: 911?) for help.

(I´m sorry about my English! I haven´t been improved it for years. So, it could be much better!)

Writing and reading here is a good exercise! Not only for castration!

Darwin strikes again!!

nonuts (imported) wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:28 am Any other laws you'd like to implement that violate the first amendment? Once that door is open how long do you think it would take for sites like this to be outlawed?

Free Speech and Press does NOT mean people are allowed to say or print anything they want. It is illegal to harass, slander, lie under oath, yell fire in a theater, violate noise bylaws, threaten someone, violate copyright, violate obscenity laws, etc.

This could easily be considered harassment, invasion of privacy, even incitement. In this particular case, the publication may still be allowed as it may be considered sufficiently newsworthy (since he discharged a weapon, initially reported a 2nd party, etc.). But I was commenting on this sort of thing generally -- for example when Catherine Becker cut off her husband's penis there was absolutely nothing newsworthy (i.e. public needs to know) about the husband's name and nature of his injury. Usually the question is whether the public need to know is greater than the harm -- for example if it is a public official it is more likely to be newsworthy.

Legally, personal rights only go as far as they don't harm others unduly. Please learn more about the Constitution and our legal system before discussing it.

While it may be their legal right to do so, I'm sorry to say it but I think the Huffington Post crossed the line by posting his picture. I feel sorry for this guy, even though the wound was self inflicted. He has to live with the consequences and what the Huffington Post has done is to throw salt on the wound.

Did some digging and found a bunch of articles on gunshot wounds to the penis. The first website article has a picture of what a penis looks like after being shot.

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ibju/v32n1/v32n1a09.pdf

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Cops ... 652516.php

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18404072

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/disco ... xperience/

This last one says that gunshot wounds to the penis are rare, but then lists 58 in 16/17 years. That's just in one urban hospital. I bet that if they research was done during that same period throughout the U.S., they wouldn't conclude that they're rare.

If the penis is not completely blown off, which apparently doesn't happen that often amazingly enough, the usual treatment is to first deglove the penis, meaning they cut the skin loose from the corona (top of penis or glans) and pushed the skin tube down to the base so they could get a better look at the penis inside. "The surgical technique employed was a subcoronal incision with degloving of the penis and exposure of the corpus cavernosum and urethra". Then they usually cleaned the wound(s) to the corpus cavernosums and stitched up or sutured the bullet hole(s) close. If the urethra was involved or penetrated, they usually gave the man a temporary urethrostomy and sutured the hole shut, then they'd reverse things after healing.

FYI, a lesion is: an abnormal change in structure of an organ or part due to injury. Debride/debridement: to cleanse; the surgical removal of foreign matter and dead tissue from a wound.

I didn't read that any penis had to be removed due to a gunshot wound in this article:

Hash (imported) wrote: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:03 am http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ibju/v32n1/v32n1a09.pdf

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:30 pm Free Speech and Press does NOT mean people are allowed to say or print anything they want. It is illegal to harass, slander, lie under oath, yell fire in a theater, violate noise bylaws, threaten someone, violate copyright, violate obscenity laws, etc.

This could easily be considered harassment, invasion of privacy, even incitement. In this particular case, the publication may still be allowed as it may be considered sufficiently newsworthy (since he discharged a weapon, initially reported a 2nd party, etc.). But I was commenting on this sort of thing generally -- for example when Catherine Becker cut off her husband's penis there was absolutely nothing newsworthy (i.e. public needs to know) about the husband's name and nature of his injury. Usually the question is whether the public need to know is greater than the harm -- for example if it is a public official it is more likely to be newsworthy.

Legally, personal rights only go as far as they don't harm others unduly. Please learn more about the Constitution and our legal system before discussing it.

I know plenty about our legal system and constitution. Enough to know that while anyone can argue it's possible this could

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:30 pm be considered harassment, invasion o

r privacy or incitement, it's doubtful it would survive a court challenge. Particularly incitement, as that would be used by the perpetrator of this crime to defend himself from a crime he committed as a RESULT of this publicity. Incitement can't be claimed when nothing has happened. Further, there is no invasion of privacy when someone posts the picture in a public place. This photo was taken from the perpetrator's facebook page (and that's the primary point of law here in case you're confused; while this person is the victim, he is also the perpetrator of crime for which there is a public police record). The Catherine Becker example has no relevance on this case. The husband was the victim and as such his name is not to be released to the public, Catherine Becker was the perpetrator, and her name can be released. Why? So the public knows this woman is potentially dangerous. In this case someone who unlawfully discharges a firearm is considered dangerous, it is irrelevant to the law that in this particular case he only endangered himself. Number two, you were not commenting as you are now, you were suggesting that there needed to be laws to prevent such specific types of events. The events you have listed are protected exclusions of the 1st amendment. I was only suggesting it was a slippery slope to suggest adding more, and that at what point would you suggest those exclusions end? Allowing more and more exclusions from the protection of free speech, could jeopardize sites like this, and many others, or do you disagree with this thought as well? For some strange reason it's necessary online to attack or lash out at people when they are merely making comment on a general social drive, in this case I was commenting on how "there ought to be a law" is a common theme when people find something objectionable. My point was merely to suggest that making laws might have consequences that reach far beyond what it is that is being protected. You're pejorative comment suggesting that I learn more about something you have no idea as to the depth of my knowledge was derogatory and uncomplimentary and it was intentionally so.

Thank you for explaination, Proff. Nonuts

Paolo wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:59 pm How does stuff like this get into the news, anyway?

Whatever happened to privacy? Does the ER have a reporter on staff?

The ER might not have a "reporter" on staff, but there is almost certainly an informer. I remember when I was a kid back in the stoneage, the local law enforcement agencies had an awful problem with "leaks." The local newspaper and radio station were telling the names of suspects, victims, and blowing investigations all over the place. Eventually, the newspaper reporter let on that he did have an inside reporter: one of the dispatchers. She got $5 for every hot news tip she phoned in...