A jury has found a delivery driver not guilty in the shooting of a YouTube prankster who was following him around a mall food court earlier this year
I know everyone loves when YouTube pranksters get whats coming but shooting someone over a mild annoyance is never a good thing. This is why america seems fucking nuts to anyone that doesn’t live there.
Yet they all line up trying to get in.
Sure, everyone wants to get to America. Except that more Americans are trying to move to many first world countries than the other way around. Kinda makes you think, right?
Believe it or not, turning every country into Britain isn’t as appealing as some of you seem to think.
If the only good thing about your culture is the use of weapons, your culture isn’t as appealing as you think.
youhave statistics on americans leaving vs immigrants coming in? curious about it.
Somebody approaching you, even though you’re trying to move away and telling them to stop, is not a “mild annoyance”. It’s dangerous because weapons are so freely available. It would be better if they weren’t, but while they are, you shouldn’t do something like this.
It’s not enough to shoot someone in any civilised country.
It’s important to realize that the confrontation lasted 30 seconds. That’s the amount of time he waited before almost killing someone.
He wasn’t being chased in a dark alley or stalked for half a hour, someone played loud noises in his face and it took a total of 30 seconds for him to decide to shoot someone over it. Literally insane.
He also did not warn the person.
Say: “Stop or I’ll shoot.”
If the person keeps coming at you after you say that, you can infer their intent to do serious harm.
Have to have a fact to hang your hat on, or you end up charged, and need to get massively lucky, like this dude, to avoid prison.
It is in a civilized country where you have to assume everyone has a gun.
It’s important to realize that the confrontation lasted 30 seconds. That’s the amount of time he waited before almost killing someone.
Yes, I do realise that, and I did realise it when I wrote my initial comment. What is your point? That someone can’t become dangerous towards you if your interaction lasts 30 seconds or less?
He wasn’t being chased in a dark alley and stalked for half a hour, someone played loud noises in his face and it took a total of 30 seconds for him to decide to shoot someone over it. Literally insane.
See, if your point only makes sense due to leaving out important details, it’s not a good point. He wasn’t shot because “someone played loud noises in his face”.
It’s dangerous, it’s not an imminent danger to life and limb.
If you’re about to catch a beating, you can’t just shoot.
The police, prosecution, judge, and half the jury, and me, think this conduct exceeded any right of self defense the dude had.
No question he could.lawfully have maced him or punched him and there’d have been no charge. But to try and kill the guy?
The jury apparently fucked it up by rendering an inconsistent verdict on the sole conviction. It’s dangerous when the jury says it’s deadlocked. It generally means someone in the room isn’t being reasonable, or is not following the judge’s instructions. And it resulted with inconsistent verdicts.
If you’re about to catch a beating, you can’t just shoot.
What if they beat you to death. Can you shoot then?
Ask any female friends or relatives of yours how they would feel if a 6’5” man continued to approach them and ask what they thought of his penis. See if they think it’s a mild annoyance.
My wife is 5’2". She’s been physically pushed around by a man in the past. I’m 5’11" and if I get upset at her, she will cower. If I advanced on her threateningly, she would panic. If a stranger who was half a foot larger than me did, she would absolutely fear for her safety.
Yes. Your country has a shit reputation because of the gun cult, the shootings, the constant war mongering, the blatant racism and homophobia, and the Christian lobby that fuels all of the above.
Being the world’s economic leader doesn’t mean your internal policies can’t be shit, grow up.
When Trump was visiting foreign countries, they literally flew giant ballons mocking him lmao.
Lol Trump is not president anymore. Guess why.
Plus my point still stands.
You said “anyone” thinks America is fucking nuts. And yet people are willing to immigrate illegally. Do they think America is fucking nuts too?
war mongering
Nowadays when the US gets involved in a war, Europe generally joins them.
the blatant racism
Blatant racism is found throughout Europe.
homophobia
Has Italy legalized gay marriage yet? No? Can gay Italian couples at least adopt children? Oh, that’s a shame. How about Greece? Huh.
Christian lobby
Several European countries have major political parties with Christian in their very name. One European country even founded their own state religion.
Trump was visiting foreign countries
Italy practically invented the media-buffoon/fascist-politico/laughingstock combo.
And Trump, like Berlusconi, is no longer in power. But Meloni and Orban still are.
Pulling out a gun should have a VERY HIGH bar. This kid is clearly an idiot but was the bar high enough to kill him?
I am not a lawyer. So everything I say could be wrong and every state is different but generally I think there’s a five point test for claims of self defense: Avoidance, Innocence, Imminence, Proportionality, and Reasonableness.
Avoidance is moot because I think this is Virginia and I think they have a no-retreat provision. Innocence is just that you didn’t willingly engage in a fight that got out of control. So that applies. Imminence applies because it happened in the moment. I just don’t see how Proportionality applies here. I just don’t see how holding a cell phone is proportional to a shooting. Emotionally I get it that the YouTuber is a major jerkwad and may have deserved a comeuppance. But I don’t think the jury followed the law.
I’m not a lawyer. Everything I said there could be wrong
I’m happy he didn’t die over this, but I’m also kind of happy he got a little fucked up over it.
I tend to think about these situations with small people as the initial victim. How far should a smaller person or woman let something go before they can defend themselves? If the person is way, way bigger, do you just have to let yourself get beat?
I honestly don’t know what the right answer is here. I don’t like that it seems like it’s easier to shoot someone because of a threatening feeling. This makes me think of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. People will say these are completely unrelated cases but both involved a shooting and a claim of self defense. Again I don’t know what the answer is.
Looks like someone has paid attention to Andrew Branca @ The Law of Self Defense.
I kinda waver on reasonableness for cases like this but I generally think using a weapon against an unarmed aggressor is reasonable when there is a significant size disparity or a disability or something like that. In this case the “prankster” was significantly larger and had a group of friends with him so I don’t think it’s out of the question that the use of a gun for defense is reasonable in this situation.
If the defendant has been carrying a less lethal self defense measure, such as a taser, mace, or a baton, and had used that to defend himself, would you see that as more proportional?
From the description of the incident, it definitely sounded like he feared for his life. A 6 foot something guy keeps advancing on him, asking why he’s thinking of the guy’s penis. He tells the guy to leave him alone multiple times, but the guy keeps advancing. He retreats multiple times, but the guy keeps at it. He even tries knocking the phone out of the guy’s hand, but the guy keeps at it.
It definitely sounds like the guy was afraid of where this was going and tried all of the non-lethal options (retreat, tell the person to stop) before resorting to pulling out his gun. The YouTube “pranker” has nobody to blame but himself. He should have stopped when asked instead of repeatedly pressing the defendant for a YouTube “prank” video.
(I use “prank” in quotes because I don’t consider this type of thing a real prank. It’s just a guy acting like an idiot and calling it “a prank.” A real prank should leave all involved laughing when it’s revealed, not leave one person fearing for their life.)
Well like the article said, he fucked up by shooting immediately after drawing the weapon, instead of giving Cook (the YouTuber) a chance to see the gun and finally back off. I agree with their decision to keep him in jail because of that one simple fact. The guy should have warned him that he was going to shoot if Cook didn’t back down.
This is wrong and will firmly land you on the wrong side of the law in many places. Pulling a gun is a last resort to defend yourself when de-escalation doesn’t work. You pull the gun when you’ve already determined that you have to fire it. Otherwise you’re just escalating and making the situation more dangerous for yourself and any bystanders. This is also why I don’t carry a gun in the first place even though I might legally be allowed to.
From the description of the incident, it definitely sounded like he feared for his life.
No it fucking doesn’t. The whole thing lasted less than 30 seconds and the driver never tried to retreat. He told the prankster no a few times, tried to swat the phone out of his hands, and then shot him. It’s not shocking that the jury had a difficult time coming up with a verdict.
the whole point of firearms is that it’s deadly force. you can’t fire one at a person without being ready to take their life because it’s always a likely outcome.
But no one was killed. You can’t put a person in jail for shooting at someone else assuming that their intent was to kill.
This is coming from someone who despise the idea of owning a gun.
He did try to back away. And punching someone significantly larger than oneself is generally unwise.
Good.
Man doesnt deserve jail for shooting the piece of shit.
he deserves a medal, and a license to go do it to more of those tiktok assholes.
They’re both pieces of shit. You shouldn’t shoot someone without a reasonable fear of your life (or arguably property) being in danger. This situation wasn’t there yet. The fuckface was just being intentionally annoying.
The Youtuber should be in jail for harassment or assault. The shooter should be taking a nice plea deal for a low amount of prison time.
You can’t just shoot someone in the middle of the mall because they’re annoying.
After watching the video of the incident, I don’t blame the driver for shooting him at all.
The “prankster” was acting really creepy and was being right up in the guys face after being asked to stop. Even after trying to walk away, the “prankster” still came right up to him, holding his phone right up to his face.
Fuck that guy. He deserved to get shot. He said he’s gonna keep making those videos, and I hope he gets shot again, but hopefully the next time is the last time.
Yeah, all the people crying about how unjustified the shooting was, would probably shit their pants if two huge guys came up to them, were physically aggressive while chasing and trying to corner them and constantly in physical contact and shoving shit in their face.
You have no idea its a couple of dickheads making a video because they think harassing innocent people is funny. For all you know you’re about to be assaulted, robbed, or worse by someone that should be in a mental health facility.
Although I don’t like the guy pulling the pranks, he should not have gotten shot. A gun is a weapon of last resort. The consequences are irreversible.
Would I liked to have seen him get pepper sprayed, punched, or tazed though? Hell yeah!
I mean, he got shot and he’s recovered so… in this case the consequences were definitely reversible.
This is such a bad ruling. Not only does that jackass get off with no punishment he is even being rewarded for his crimes! Setting the precedence for other pranksters to assault people more and more, and when they fuck around and find out, all they’ll be finding is more viewers and more money.
Should dude had shot him? Thats not my place to say, but if he did indeed feel threatened, which the jury agreed, then he should not be punished for reacting to being assaulted like this.
Its like some people online want the victim to get in trouble for simply owning and carrying a gun, its ridiculous! The victim was being assualted full stop! Not his fault for using what his legally own gun is meant for.
This is such a bad ruling.
It’s not a ruling. That’s what judges do. This was a verdict, which is returned by a jury.
Uh… the guy who shot the YouTuber isn’t being punished; they found him not guilty. The YouTuber isn’t being punished because this case wasn’t about his actions, it was about the dude who shot him. He’s not being rewarded, though.
The only weird part about the ruling is the jury wants to convict on the “gun charges” (that’s what the article referenced, doesn’t say what that means) but acquitted him on the shooting.
The victim is being punished! He is recieving a felony for protecting himself just because it took place in a building. And that dumb youtuber was rewarded by having his followers almost double after the fact, which equates to more money, while the victim is sitting in jail.
The only weird part about the ruling is the jury wants to convict on the “gun charges” (that’s what the article referenced, doesn’t say what that means) but acquitted him on the shooting.
The original three charges (I don’t know if any were modified later) were “aggravated malicious wounding, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and discharging a firearm within a building”. In Virginia, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony acts as a multiplier charge for malicious wounding. My guess is that he was acquitted of malicious wounding and use of a firearm in commission of a felony, and convicted of discharging a firearm inside a building.
