A young couple chasing online fame staged a gun stunt they believed would make their YouTube channel go viral. Instead, a single shot fired at close range pierced a book, killed the boyfriend in front of their child and left his pregnant partner facing prison and a lifetime of grief. The case has become a stark example of how the pressure to perform for an audience can collide with basic common sense, with deadly results.
Investigators say the woman, a vlogger who was seven months pregnant with the couple’s second child, pulled the trigger while her boyfriend held a thick volume to his chest, convinced it would stop the bullet. The round tore through the pages and into his body as cameras rolled and onlookers watched, turning what was meant to be a viral prank into a crime scene and a cautionary tale about the risks people will take for views.
The stunt that was supposed to make them famous
The plan, according to investigators, was simple and reckless. The boyfriend, identified as Pedro Ruiz III in charging documents, held a hardcover book to his chest while his partner, Monalisa Perez, stood about a foot away and fired a handgun directly at him. She later told authorities she believed the book would absorb the impact, a belief that had been reinforced by earlier experiments the couple carried out before attempting the stunt on camera, according to records cited in one investigation.
That night, the couple set up two cameras to capture the moment, positioning one on a ladder and another on a nearby vehicle to frame the shot from different angles. Roughly thirty people gathered in the vicinity to watch, including family members and neighbors who had heard about the planned stunt and the couple’s constant assurances about its safety. When Perez fired, the bullet sliced through the book and into Ruiz’s chest, causing him to drop immediately, according to a detailed account of the shooting and the crowd of spectators.
A child in the front row of a fatal prank
Among those present was the couple’s young child, who authorities say watched as the stunt unfolded and turned fatal. The presence of their firstborn at the scene has haunted relatives and prosecutors alike, underscoring how the drive for a dramatic video eclipsed even the most basic instinct to shield children from danger. The cameras were rolling not just for anonymous viewers online but for a family audience that included a toddler who would later have to grow up with the knowledge of what happened that night.
Relatives have described how the couple had been building a following on their shared channel, featuring pranks and challenges that escalated in intensity as they searched for a breakout moment. Earlier videos showed Ruiz pushing boundaries with risky antics, and Perez, who was seven months pregnant at the time of the shooting, often appeared alongside him as they teased bigger and bolder content. In one account of the case, officials noted that Perez called 911 immediately after realizing the bullet had gone through, but emergency responders could not save Ruiz as their child remained nearby in the chaos.
How a Minnesota couple turned YouTube into a high-risk stage
The shooting took place in a small community in Minnesota, where neighbors had grown accustomed to seeing cameras and props outside the couple’s home as they filmed content for their channel. Authorities described the pair as a Minnesota couple who had transformed their everyday surroundings into a stage for increasingly daring stunts, blurring the line between entertainment and real danger. The fatal video was meant to be the most dramatic yet, a clip they believed would catapult them into a higher tier of online recognition.
Police in Minnesota later emphasized that the stunt was not a spur-of-the-moment decision but something the couple had discussed and rehearsed, including test shots at books to see how far bullets would penetrate. In one report, investigators said the case highlighted some of the biggest hazards of social media, where people can feel compelled to outdo themselves for attention, even when the risks are obvious to outsiders. The charging documents, filed after the incident, described how a Minnesota woman was accused of fatally shooting her boyfriend in what was supposed to be a controlled prank, a scenario that local police said illustrated the dark side of viral culture.
Inside the couple’s relationship and their chase for views
Friends and relatives have painted a picture of a young couple who were deeply in love but also deeply invested in the idea that YouTube could change their lives. Ruiz, described as energetic and ambitious, often pushed for more extreme content, while Perez balanced enthusiasm with visible nerves in some of the videos. One account quoted a family acquaintance saying of the pair, “They were in love,” a sentiment that made the outcome of the stunt even more devastating for those who knew them and had watched their relationship unfold both online and offline, according to a report that highlighted how Police viewed the tragedy.
Perez, who was nineteen when the channel began to gain traction, had launched a vlog that mixed family life with pranks and challenges, inviting viewers into their home and their relationship. She is currently pregnant with their second child, a detail that prosecutors later cited as they weighed how to balance accountability with the needs of the unborn baby and the couple’s surviving child. A profile of the case noted that Perez had started the channel in March and that relatives later said the shooting should not have happened at all, reflecting on how the pursuit of viral fame had overtaken more grounded priorities for Perez and Ruiz.
From 911 call to manslaughter charge
Immediately after the shot was fired and Ruiz collapsed, Perez dialed emergency services, telling the dispatcher what had happened and pleading for help. Responders arrived to find Ruiz mortally wounded, with the cameras still in place and the book that was supposed to protect him now evidence of how badly the couple had misjudged the physics of their stunt. The scene, captured on video and witnessed by neighbors, left little doubt about who had pulled the trigger or how close she had been when she fired.
Prosecutors in Minnesota charged Perez with second degree manslaughter, arguing that she had caused Ruiz’s death through culpable negligence by firing a gun at him at close range. Court records describe how she admitted to investigators that she had been about a foot away when she pulled the trigger and that the stunt was intended to draw more viewers to their channel. Earlier stunts had already involved Ruiz being filmed as he held a hardcover encyclopaedia to his chest while they tested how far bullets would travel, according to a detailed summary of what Monalisa Perez told investigators.
The plea deal and a 180-day sentence
Facing the possibility of a lengthy prison term, Perez eventually agreed to a plea deal that reduced the potential punishment in exchange for admitting guilt. She pleaded to a count of second degree manslaughter, acknowledging that her actions had caused Ruiz’s death even though she insisted she never intended to harm him. The plea spared her a trial that would have forced relatives, including Ruiz’s family, to relive the shooting in open court while also taking into account her role as a mother and her pregnancy at the time of the incident.
Under the agreement, a judge in ADA, Minn, sentenced Perez to 180 days in jail, to be served in ten day increments each year over a period of three years, along with conditions that included a firearms ban, supervised probation and requirements such as providing DNA samples and paying restitution. The court also barred her from profiting from the recording of the shooting, which had been intended for their channel, and from contact with Ruiz’s family except for their shared child. Coverage of the sentencing in ADA, Minn, emphasized that the 180 day term was part of a broader package of penalties that reflected both the seriousness of the crime and the unique circumstances of a Minnesota woman who killed her boyfriend while filming a stunt for Minnesota.
Family forgiveness, public outrage
In court, members of Ruiz’s family delivered emotional statements that captured the tension between grief and forgiveness. His aunt, Paulita Ruiz, told the judge that she had forgiven Perez but also criticized her for failing to apologize directly to the family in the months after the shooting. That mix of compassion and frustration reflected a broader debate over whether the sentence was too lenient for a death caused by such obvious recklessness, or whether the lifelong burden Perez now carries is punishment enough.
Prosecutors noted that Perez faced two years in prison under the terms of the plea but that much of that time could be served through electronic home monitoring, a concession that took into account her responsibilities to her children. The arrangement allowed her to avoid a traditional long-term incarceration while still recognizing the severity of the offense and the need for supervision. One detailed account of the hearing described how Paulita Ruiz addressed the court and how officials structured the sentence so that Perez could serve much of it via electronic home monitoring, reflecting the complex balance between accountability and family stability for Perez.
What the judge and prosecutors said about YouTube risk-taking
At sentencing, the judge and prosecutors repeatedly returned to the role of social media in the tragedy, describing how the couple’s desire for attention had overridden basic safety. They pointed out that the stunt was not a necessary act or a moment of self-defense but a voluntary risk taken solely to create a dramatic video for their channel. The court heard how the couple had talked about the stunt in advance, with Ruiz reportedly assuring Perez that the thick book would stop the bullet, a belief that proved catastrophically wrong once the cameras were rolling.
One prosecutor argued that the case showed how the chase for online fame can distort judgment, especially among young people who see viral success as a shortcut to financial security or celebrity. In a separate account of the sentencing, officials stressed that Perez had been warned by others not to go through with the stunt and that she had expressed doubts, yet ultimately agreed to pull the trigger. A detailed report on the hearing in Halstad, Minn, noted that the couple had set up the stunt specifically to make a video for YouTube and that the judge in Halstad, Minn, framed the sentence as a message about the real world consequences of treating firearms as props for YouTube.
A pattern of warnings about viral stunts gone wrong
The case of Perez and Ruiz did not emerge in a vacuum. Law enforcement and safety advocates have been warning for years about the dangers of online challenges and pranks that encourage people to flirt with serious injury or death for the sake of clicks. In this instance, investigators said the couple had even tested the concept before the fatal night, firing at books to see how bullets behaved, yet still chose to repeat the experiment with Ruiz’s body behind the pages, a decision that one detailed account described as a tragic miscalculation by both Mar Perez and Pedro Ruiz III.
Officials have pointed to this shooting as a particularly stark example of how the architecture of platforms that reward shocking content can push creators toward ever more extreme ideas. In Minnesota, local authorities used the case to highlight the need for better education around firearms and for parents and communities to talk openly with young people about the difference between staged entertainment and real life risk. One summary of the prosecution noted that a Minnesota woman who was seven months pregnant at the time of the shooting later told officers she believed the stunt was safe, a belief that prosecutors said showed how the promise of online attention had warped her sense of what was acceptable, according to a detailed account that referred to the Woman and her actions.
More from Decluttering Mom: