3 ms·
(2023), and article seems to be solely based on a linked (and more interesting) New York Post story: https://nypost.com/2023/02/09/lawyer-dead-after-mri-discha
by bell-cot 1y ago
(2023), and article seems to be solely based on a linked (and more interesting) New York Post story: https://nypost.com/2023/02/09/lawyer-dead-after-mri-discharges-gun/ https://nypost.com/2023/02/09/lawyer-dead-after-mri-discharg...
The juicy bit:
> “Both the patient and his companion were properly instructed regarding the procedures for accessing the examination room and warned about the removal of any and all metallic objects,” they [a spokesman for the MRI facility] declared.
> The facility’s PR added that both Novaes and his mother signed a form regarding the protocols, but that the lawyer failed to mention his weapon and entered the unit with it “by his own decision.”
> A police probe confirmed that the [concealed and undeclared] weapon was registered and that the attorney had a valid license for it.
Too bad about the lawyer lingering for 3 weeks in a hospital, before he finally died of his wounds. But otherwise, this sounds like cut-and-dried case of "exercised his own fully-informed free will in taking the risk, and no bystanders nor innocents were injured".
- bookofjoe 1y agoI chose not to link to the New York Post story because of 1) the misleading photograph showing a guy with an assault rifle (https://imgur.com/a/7MyRSmN https://imgur.com/a/7MyRSmN), and 2) the overwhelming onslaught of ads.
- bell-cot 1y agoReasonable. I have js disabled (mostly blocking the ads), and read carefully enough to understand that that misleading photo was almost certainly pulled from the deceased's "frequently posted pro-gun content to his more than 8,000 followers on TikTok" content. And with a button-pushing subject like guns, it might prove imprudently charitable to assume that every HN user will look so closely at the details.
- bookofjoe 1y agoI hadn't noticed that the guy with the rifle was the deceased. You really do read carefully!