Jury acquits delivery driver of main charge in shooting of YouTube prankster
abcnews.go.com
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
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
There is little to celebrate here.
Victim still got charged with a felony after spending 5 months incarcerated waiting for trial, and has to wait another month in jail to find out if the judge will overturn his final charge.
Self-described "Goon" still walking around on the streets getting paid for harassing and assaulting strangers. As a bonus, nearly doubled subscribers.
This case is exactly why DA's level stack multiple felonies in these cases.
Jury: Well this is clearly self-defense, but he also probably pushed it too far so we don't think he is innocent. Better just give him one felony.
For those that don't know, the American courts have interpreted the constitutional "right to bear arms" as void for felons. This guy who was just acknowledged to have used his firearm in self-defense, is no longer allowed to own a firearm for his own protection.
Discharge of firearm in in public building: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-279/
Good. Because that wasn't self-defense, and he clearly doesn't know what situations are appropriate for lethal force. Neither his life nor property were in any danger.
That doordash guy shouldn't own a gun.
You know that his life wasn't in danger because you know it was a prank. The defender here did not have the benefit of that knowledge.
When someone nearly a foot taller with 50 more pounds of muscle gets in your face and starts accusing you of thinking about their private parts, then you get to decide if self-defense is necessary. The defender tried to get away from the aggressor multiple times and told him to stop multiple times, but the aggressor obviously kept engaging.
Do you think he should have waited until the giant started punching or kicking him before he decided to draw his weapon? Should he have tried to punch the giant instead of using the weapon he has? Do you think you could outrun someone taller and in better shape than you are?
If the defender had multiple self-defense options he might have chosen another, but all of this is arm-chair quarterbacking. We weren't there and the person that was chose the only real defense option they had.
This situation is entirely the Goon's fault. He should be the one facing charges. While it might be reasonable to recommend a self-defense course for the victim, my understanding is that he already followed good self-defense principles.
Edit: Also, since no one else is saying it, I will. If the victim happened to have been gay, the aggressor probably would have been charged with a hate crime. The goon was clearly accusing him of it.
I see the argument for self-defense but that is not the same as using lethal force. Nor is it the same as opening fire in public.
I think that is a reasonable stance, one I even mostly agree with. If any of the charges were misdemeanors, I might even have let that one through myself with time served and a request to take a firearm safety or self-defense course. However, I think the judge would still be having to decide whether to throw it out in a month.
However, once you say the self-defense is justified, trying to tack on additional charges is pretty unfair to the defendant. If he had another method of self-defense with him, he might have used it, but he only had the firearm and he used the minimum amount of force possible with that tool.
As I said below:
It would be pretty reasonable to lay the entire situation at the feet of the instigator. I will be interested to follow a civil case if the defendant attempts to sue the aggressor.
There wasn't a threat or posturing like a bar fight. There needs to be some actual positive evidence to be able to claim you fear for your life. Even cops make up those reasons.
Seems to me that people are just happy about the annoying guy getting shot for shitty behavior, and they'll rationalize it however needed.
You don't need to fear for your life just your safety. Those guys cornered him up against the counter and then followed him when he tried to get away, despite repeated requests to stop.
There are plenty in this post that would take that stance. However, I am not one of them, and nothing in my comments indicates otherwise.
The driver owning a gun is not a danger to random members of society. His actions clearly indicate he is willing to deescalate the situation and try to walk away before defending himself. Even when he did fire, he didn't unload the chamber at the aggressor and his friend, he fired a single round while continuing to try and leave. It was the bare minimum for the weapon he had available.
At any point, the self-described "Goon" could have ended this hostile interaction by just standing still.
Cook said he continues to make the videos, from which he earns $2,000 to $3,000 a month.
Professional asshole gets shot and learns nothing. All over 2 to 3k a month. Dude could literally work at mcdonalds and make that kind of money.
I'd rather get shot than work at McDonald's. Have you worked a low wage customer facing job? Literally anything is better. I'd rather have children kick me in the balls all day.
But you would also have to be a total asshole and go around harassing strangers who are just trying to get on with their lives.
True, my point was more about using McDonald's as a measuring stick is a bad call. Like I'd seriously have to think about it if I have to do one or the other for an extended period.
So a mcdonalds customer too, got it ;)
Harassing people seems like less work
If I could guarantee I'd live, I think I legit agree.
Guaranteed to live but you have to shit in a bag for the rest of your life.
Pull the trigger
Should make a YouTube channel and call it Ow My Balls
Having worked in fast food and factories, I'd much rather the fast food work than any kind of repetitive factory work.
I'd rather get shot if it was a mild wound and I didn't have to pay the medical bills afterwards*.
America, the land of opportunity!™
It's interesting, the YouTuber clearly doesn't have medical insurance through his job because... well he makes YouTube videos for a living. He was shot, so that was presumably a huge medical expense. I wonder who's paying his bills? His parents?
So long as you pay something on a bill, you generally don't have too much of an issue. I can't tell you the number of people I know that are making $5 a month payments on $$$ medical bills. One of my coworkers and his wife had separate major health emergencies that put them in the hospital within 3 days of each other. She was in for months, he was in for weeks. Their combined bills after insurance is just over $500,000. $5 a month.
I have a feeling I'm going to be having surgery sometime in the near future, and I'll be joining that $5 crowd, because I'm still getting bills from a host of tests run at the beginning of the year that I'm paying on. I'm pretty much tapped out at this point.
Well if you get shot at McDonald's, you'll get workers' comp. for a while. They'll cut you off eventually, pay you pennies on the dollar of what wages you lost. They will cover your medical bills though.
Do what you love, and you'll never work a day in your life...
This kid loves being an obnoxious asshole, it's his calling.
He's working up his immunity by getting shot with smaller calibers first, by the time he's making 10k/month, he'll have himself immune to high-caliber rifle rounds from people that are trying to kill him from a distance.
.338 Lapua?
Sue the youtuber until he bankrupts.
What McDonald's are you working at for $25+ an hour?.Don't listen to me
2,000 a month is 12.50 an hour not 25. And here 12.50 is below minimum wage.
You're right, my bad. I'd like to blame the bad math on it being early morning... But it's just me being dumb.
Don't apologize, their math is wrong too. That might be their gross pay, but their take home is likely ~2/3 of that.
That's fine. How would you expect anyone in a conversation like this to apply taxes? Which city, county and state are you going to use for those calculations?
Are you purposely missing the point, or...? Seems like you're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.
I'm good.
I don't know, you completely lost me
Well that's not take home. They'd prob be taking home around 2/3 of that. So more like 1,300 at $12.50/hour if my quick math is right.
You realize they pay taxes either way right?
Huh? I'm just saying that someone making $12.50/hour, working 40 hours a week, isn't taking home anything close to $2,000.
And neither is the youtuber which is exactly the point I was making. That theyre being a cunt to other people over what amounts to be a minimum wage job.
Being a youtuber does not magically make you not subject to the exact same taxes that everyone else is. They are not taking home all of what they made any more than a mcdonalds worker does. In fact, being self employed means you are paying the other half of the medicare/social security tax not just half of it directly with most jobs.
Please look at usernames, I'm not the person you're arguing with. I just corrected the person who said people who make $12.50/hr are making $2k a week because that's absurd. That's all.
I was the person you responded to. Check the username and:
I did not say 2,000 a week. I said 2,000 a month.
A youtuber making 2k a month is not taking home more money than someone making 2k a month at mcdonalds. They pay the same taxes. Actually the employer pays half of the social security/medicare tax while the self employed pay the entirety of it themselves.
I meant month. Who fucking cares, you were wrong. I pointed it out. Be an adult. Accept it and move on.
No I really wasnt. You dont understand how taxes work and are apparently under the impression that a youtuber that makes 2k before taxes is making more after taxes than a mcdonalds worker making 2k before taxes. Which isnt correct. And I have explained why that isn't correct.
And as for the month/week thing, you made it an issue. You dont get to just go "who cares" when youve been shown to be wrong trying to correct me. You were wrong about who you responded to and you were wrong about how much the youtuber actually takes home compared to the mcdonalds worker. Did you let it go or admit you made mistakes? Fuck no! You decided I was the one that made mistakes and got mad. Thats a very childish thing to do and if you are ever going to grow as a person, you need to at least learn when to stop digging. I dont expect you to say "oops I was wrong" I just expect that you learn from what you did and not double down.
PLEASE go back to the original comment I made and which comment I replied to. It said "what McDonald's worker is making $25/hr" which the commentor corrected after someone told them that someone making $12.50 is taking home $2k/month. All they did was 12.5 x 40 x 4.
And alll I said was, no, someone making 12.50 an hour isn't taking home anything close to $2k a month. That's it. No bigger commentary, just pointing out the math was wrong.
No comments about what a YouTuber makes.
People seem to be putting all sorts of shit in my mouth.
Also while I didn't even venture into this part of this discussion... pretending that the way taxes work for a YouTuber is anything like someone working a minimum wage job, then you're the one who needs to learn about taxes.
Or are McDonald's workers out there giving up the standard deduction so they can write off all their "equipment"?
Dude, what in the world are you talking about? Lol
I feel like every person in this thread that cannot fathom how he feared for his life has never had personal experience dealing with someone with severe mental illness, in their family or in public or something. Direct experience, though, of interacting with a large, loud, mentally ill person.
If you think you can just assume a stranger you encounter who shoves a phone in your face is mentally healthy, you're missing some facts of life.
The youtuber is 6 foot 5. Someone that tall is going to be intimidating if they get in your face and will not fuck off when asked regardless of what your prior experiences are. This guy knows he scares people. Thats the point of his channel. I mean the dude calls himself the goon squad. He knows hes being an asshole. He gets into peoples' faces, scares the shit out of them and films the reaction.
Being intimidated is not enough of an excuse to kill someone.
You dont need to have dealt with mental illness to have that feeling.. you just have to had trauma in the past. I have been jumped 2 times in the past by gang members, and you bet your fucking ass I get absolutely anxious if some stranger gets up to my face... good times
Man, you really moved the goalposts to another time zone in just 2 paragraphs.
the fact that you think mentally ill means it's okay to shoot him means you have lived a bit too long in the dystopiam shithole that's the USA.
You're putting words in their mouth.
did I? or did I just make the logical conclusion feom thwir words, he just said lthat you can't assume someone is mentally healthy when he approaches you and puts a phone in your face, he said many people don't understand the trauma of dealing with mentally ill people and feeling threatened thus justifying the actions of the person who shot the youtuber.
You know you did.
I really did not, what else is there to interpret from his words?
as long as you feel threatened and you have past trauma with mentally ill people, you can shoot them in a public place and call it self-defense, it's just how the US works.
Obviously, that being on the receiving end of a someone's mental health crisis is often frightening and upsetting.
Your interpretation, that they meant that "it's OK to shoot the mentally ill", is absolutely ridiculous.
How is that a ridiculous when OP was defending a guy who shot someone by saying "every person in this thread that cannot fathom how he feared for his life has never had personal experience dealing with someone with severe mental illness" and "If you think you can just assume a stranger you encounter who shoves a phone in your face is mentally healthy, you’re missing some facts of life".
What in the world else do you think that could have meant other than that it's okay to fear for your life and defend yourself with deadly force because someone is acting mentally ill?
Yep, the Glaswegians invented the headbutt just for this scenario
You're going to headbutt someone half a foot taller than you? Do you wings? Spring boots?
What are you going to do next?
Gut/nut punch to get them to double over, THEN headbutt. Or even just pull them into you by their shirt. It's not overly difficult once you know what you're doing, but don't celebrate your ignorance of hand to hand combat like it's actual knowledge.
Lmao ... he says to a combat veteran...
This shit ain't Hollywood. You aren't doubling someone over unless you've trained pretty hard. And even then it's not guaranteed. Your mugging will not be choreographed.
Lol. "Combat veteran".
Also. Lol "mugging".
You wouldn't last 2 minutes outside a Glasgow pub.
Funny. I'm not saying I'm any kind of in shape these days, just that I once was. But I was in some glasgow pubs earlier this year. Maybe you had a specific one in mind? All the ones I saw were really welcoming to a couple Americans.
🤦
... than a box of rocks.
I work with people with mental deficiencies and emotional issues. Some of them are significantly bigger than I am.
Can you then not empathize with how this delivery driver was afraid for his life? Not necessarily taking his time and thinking through his options, but reasonably in an actual state of irrational fear?
No. I can't.
I can empathize but that doesn't mean I think he was justified in shooting someone.
That's fine. But it does mean there was no malice, as the jury eventually decided as well. He could have reasonably been afraid for his life, as he had no way to know if this 6'5" individual was sane or very much not.
I mentioned this in another thread but I keep thinking about Trayvon Martin and how upset I was that Zimmerman was released and got his gun back. I feel like our country is increasingly more acceptable of gun violence as a fact of life. How could precedents like this be applied to future cases? I'm not claiming to have all the answers I'm just not convinced that this is the best decision. I could be wrong though. It wouldn't be the first time.
The issue in that case if memory serves is that nobody actually knew and could testify as to what happened during the confrontation.
The privilege of self defense can be gained and lost in the course of an altercation. If an initial aggressor says "sorry, I'm outta here" and starts walking away, the initial victim's privilege ends. If you shoot them in the back while they leave, it's a crime. I didn't believe a word that Zimmerman fuck said but the burden of proof was on the state. All Zimmerman had to do in the criminal case was say nothing, which is what he did. In the Martin family's wrongful death suit against the homeowners association, I believe the association's insurer settled for seven figures or more. Guess they thought Zimmerman wouldn't make a very credible witness when he'd be required to testify in civil court. They knew why was he was hastling Martin in the first place, knew Zimmerman's story had gaping holes in it.
The right to remain silent and the reasonable doubt standard rightly freed Zimmerman, in my view.
In the story above, there were numerous witnesses and video. I didn't follow the trial, though.
So theoretically if someone shot someone else and there weren't any witnesses or video and the shooter said exactly what happened in this case happened in this hypothetical situation do you think it would be equally justified?
Good question, I think.
It's not a great fit because of two factors the food court patron knew there were others around and saw the YouTuber's posse standing there with cell phone cameras. If I were on the jury, that would make it less reasonable for the patron to claim he was in fear for his life. He had no reason to assume the YouTuber was armed, and with that evidence of so people around and it being so open and public, and again, no weapon, patron was at best about to catch a beating, which I think even is a stretch because there was no verbal threats or display of intent to do violence.
Anyway, to your question, assuming the jury is going to disregard the public location and cameras everywhere, if the patron gave the exact same story, I think it would remain unjustified. The shooter claimed that, given the circumstances, he drew the inference that his life was in danger, a danger of serious bodily injury. That's the standard.
I think there the facts support only an inference of a threat to bodily injury. The shooter could have safely waited before escalating to shooting. Shooting a YouTuber in the chest was disproportionate to the facts, in my view. The proportion has to be objectively reasonable, such proportion as society is willing to accept. I think, if everyone shot in this sort of situation, nobody would like it, and there would be many, many more deaths by gun violence.
... I think you're right, we are becoming a little more accustomed to gun violence, of the large-scale type especially. While I think we've always had a lot of gun violence in general, especially if you include gang/organized crime activity, the 24/7 unending stream of news makes exposure to stories of it a lot more consistent and even.
Regarding how the precedent could influence things into the future, I'm not sure.
Thankfully in this case no one died. I think we can all agree on that.
Can we?
apparently not
Sure he did. He could have pulled out the gun so the aggressor saw it. Could have said "stop or I'll fucking kill you." All while continuing to walk backwards and creating space.
If the person keeps coming after you've said that, that's what you can hang your hat on at trial: you knew your life was in danger because the assailant had no fear of death. You could at least say you feared the guy wanted to take your gun and kill you with it. Evidence was that the guy in the article shot immediately upon drawing and didn't give any sort of warning. He apparently took a few steps backwards, said stop three times, and then drew and instantly fired.
I think the fact that the police arrested the guy, the prosecutors put the case on, the judge didn't dismiss the it after close of evidence, and the jury was nearly deadlocked, show, that the charges were reasonable in this case. Certainly the jury is in the best position to decide the facts and apply the law.
The thing that may have saved him is that he fired only one shot and the aggressor lived. You'll notice he was not charged with attempted murder but rather wounding in the commission of a felony, or something like that.
I wonder if the aggressor will pursue a civil lawsuit for assault. Sort of how OJ was acquitted in criminal court but then found civil liable; the criminal standard is one of reasonable doubt, the civil one of preponderance of evidence. Certainly both parties could be found liable under negligence, if the parties sue each other.
Not a very good idea when you're already inside grappling range. A handgun becomes useless if a much stronger person seizes the hand that you are using to hold the gun. Additionally, if your first few shots fail to stop him, perhaps he's on powerful drugs and you have a bad angle, then he can kinda just rip your face off anyway, since he's already there. Or he could attack with a hidden knife, that'd be unpleasant.
This tells me you have no actual personal firearms training, no one with any training (and sense I suppose) would advocate for threatening an unknown assailant with a point blank gun.
The question becomes, could it reasonably have been perceived as an assailant. And that is a subjective question, a matter of opinion. Answering these questions is the job of juries, and they did so.
Also, I have at no point argued the charges were unreasonable. The charges were reasonable, this was not a clear-cut case. The verdict was also understandable and reasonable, that's all.
Oh, and if you "fuck around", you might "find out". This is an important life lesson in general, that almost everyone learns at some point in their teens to 20s. If they make it that long, without getting shot by a doordash driver for a dumb prank.
Ps. Self defense has elementals of both subjective and objective reasonableness.
The Defendant's good faith mistake doesn't matter when regardless the force was objectively excessive or premature.
You're changing the hypothetical and added mere possibilities. Anything is possible. That's why self defense is considered an imperfect legal remedy, and it's one reason why it is said "the law abhors self help."
When the qualified privilege to use reasonable force in defense of yourself or others proves insufficient, the perfect remedy is in a civil action for wrongful death.
What matters in evaluating the use of force, the privilege only exists where these hypotheticals are reasonably probable.
What fact would you hang your hat on here, to tell the judge and jury that you probably had absolutely no choice but to try and kill, especially when, as here, you are proved to have been mistakes, and were not in physical danger and the putative aggressor was unarmed?
That an assumption that any putative aggressor actually is unarmed is flawed. That is not determinable in a short span of time, and an inappropriate assumption for a person to make.
And yes, there will probably be a civil suit.
It's flawed because it's possible it's wrong.
You don't get to kill based on mere possibility. And you would not like living in a world where you could.
The patron had plenty of room to retreat. Plenty of time to give a better warning, such as "stop or I'll fucking kill you." If a person keeps coming after that sort of warning, that's a fact from which the inference a threat to life is more reasonable; a person with no fear of death.
This dude had a phone in his hands. Didn't take a swing at the guy. Didn't persist with no apparent fear of death. The patron pulled out the gun and fired instantly after merely saying "stop" three times.
I accept the jury was in the best position to decide the facts and apply the law. The dude was charged, stood trial, and was only partially aquitted. I rest my case.
Possibility is irrelevant. Their instruction is to find beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all conceivable doubt. These would be two different things.
Possibility is irrelevant, correct.
Okay, but you can't just shoot someone because you're not sure if they're sane. You get that, right?
I cannot emphasize with anyone carrying around guns.
And the mask comes off
lol what mask? I am not exactly hiding my disdain for guns and gun nuts
These are the types of people who don't understand consent. They shove a camera six inches from your face, say nonsensical bullshit, keep following you when you back up, don't listen when you repeatedly say No and Stop, yet are all shocked Pikachu when someone finally has enough. Fuck these "pranksters". I hope his next injury is worse, because we all know this literal warning shot wasn't enough and he's going to continue.
I don't think a shot in the abdomen counts as a "literal warning shot". I think it's more of just a shot shot.
In the context of not being fucking dead, it's a warning.
It's still not a warning shot.
Homeboy still ain't dead is he? He was told to stop 3 times and kept doing his bullshit.
I have no sympathy. Maybe fuck off when you've been asked to stop 3 times. Maybe the next person he tries this on will have better aim.
Still not a warning shot.
Exactly.
Also warning shots are stupid and dangerous.
If you are in imminent enough danger to be discharging your firearm, It should be discharged into the danger.
By firing warning shots, you are showing that you are not in imminent threat, because if you were, you wouldnt be wasting time shooting into the air or off to the side, both of which has a decent probability of ruining some innocent persons good day.
Whats the guy supposed to do, just shoot up in the air? Or maybe carefully aim and shot by his foot just enough threaten him? Or maybe just show the gun to this much bigger guy whos already harrassing him? Any of those situations could either result in a bystander getting hit, or the victim getting killed when his assualter pulls his own gun out.
He did the right thing to protect himself. However he should not have been placed into this situation, all the fault should fall on the aggressor. But instead this victim is being held in jail and might be charged a felony for protecting himself from some deranged youtube asshole, WHO IS PROFITTING FROM THIS CRIME. The victim wouldve been better off if he had got a kill shot.
I think if the Youtuber dies, the jury convicts him. It shouldn't be a factor, but you know it is.
I know! He was supposed to go all Yosemite Sam on his ass and yell 'dance, partner!' while discharging his firearm at the assailant's feet very quickly. Hillarity would have surely ensued! /s
Back away, run away, call 911, get a mall cop to help, throw a punch...
Literally just about anything other than try to kill another guy.
I mean you actually admitted it yourself without meaning to: "guy whos already harrassing him". Harassing isn't threatening. It's annoying, but it doesn't make you fear for your life. The other guy didn't have a weapon, didn't make physical contact, didn't threaten him, he just aggressively harassed him. Nobody should die in that situation.
Naw the victim was assualted, the jury already decided that. But thats besides the point. None of what you suggested is a viable option when you are face to face with a deranged person. We're not going to see eye to eye, so i wont be resppnding even if ypu reply.
Assaulted.
Beside the point.
responding
you
Of course it is. A possibly deranged person who isn't violent, who hasn't attacked, or even touched you. That's no excuse to use lethal force. You're not going to respond because you know you've lost the argument. When you admitted it was harassment you knew that it wasn't suitable for killing, but you want to pretend that it is, because you like the idea of being able to kill someone who annoys you.
Silver lining.
A) it says he was acquitted of one charge, but convicted of another. I'm trying to figure out what the second charge was, except
B) all the news sites that popped up at the top of Google search are literally identical. Cool.
Alan W. Colie, 31, is charged with aggravated malicious wounding, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and discharging a firearm within a building following the April 2 altercation in the mall’s food court.
Since the second charge depends on the first, which he was acquitted of, I'm guessing he was convicted of the third.
If any person maliciously discharges a firearm within any building when occupied by one or more persons in such a manner as to endanger the life or lives of such person or persons, or maliciously shoots at, or maliciously throws any missile at or against any dwelling house or other building when occupied by one or more persons, whereby the life or lives of any such person or persons may be put in peril, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 4 felony.
That would corroborate his lawyers saying that a conviction after a finding of a lack of malice is inconsistent.
This tracks.
Weird how every article about this from today is copy and pasted and omits such key details.
Welcome to modern journalism. It's copy and paste and AI translators all the way.
Except the next paragraph says:
But, if the shooting was in self-defense, was it unlawful? Maybe the guy was legally allowed to defend himself, but not legally allowed to shoot a gun inside a crowded food court. Like, the self-defense covers him for injuring another person, but it doesn't cover the danger he posed to other people when he did it?
Guess I gotta cool it with throwing missiles in public, keep it to the backyard for a bit.
Wait, can I benignly throw missiles in public? Do I have to call something out, like yell hot potato then chuck it?
Very confusing rules
Malice is required.
Those are the two other charges. I'm not sure which one he was convicted of though.
The wounding is the main charge.
I was just skimming through them, so it took me about five articles to realize that they weren't just sharing quotes but were actually exact copies. I felt like I was crazy for a minute. I have never seen this kind of thing with news articles, but makes me wonder how common it is.
Also, I was using DDG not Google so it is not just their problem.
I noted this as well. No info about the second conviction.
Another poster said there was an appeal, I can't find anything about it, by whom, or on what.
Also see no info about post verdict motions.
It sounded to me as though there may be inconsistent verdicts. I don't know this aspect of criminal procedure to say what happens in this case. I think it's a mistrial, and dude may be retried? Could be a directed verdict on the convicted charge.
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.
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.
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 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.
It's not a ruling. That's what judges do. This was a verdict, which is returned by a jury.
Okay? Im not a lawyer, so whats your point.
Aim higher next time
Or lower
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.
I wouldn't be surpised if he had complications from that for the rest of his life.
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?
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.)
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 driver did try to retreat:
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.
Hey I never said that he should draw the gun before the warning. Warn first, then draw if they still keep advancing.
Brandishing a firearm can be illegal even if you don't draw it.
I get what you're saying, but even just making the threat without pulling a weapon is enough to get a charge in some places. In any case I don't think we should be carrying guns around in our day to day as if it was normal anyway. It's kind of like wearing a rubber suit all the time because you're worried about lightning strikes.
Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Can't fathom you people that don't get this.
Are you living somewhere abnormally dangerous? You are far more likely to use it when it isn't needed. It's the worse bet for most people and if you can't understand that then your fear is blinding you. This is like someone with OCD saying it's better to wash their hands constantly "just in case". Sure maybe you don't wash your hands for the 20th time one day and catch ebola, but more likely you just destroy your hands over time.
Currently no, where I live is not particularly dangerous. That doesn't stop the fact that I've been held up at gunpoint here by a meth head that was quite a bit larger than I am. And I moved here from a large city, well known for it's gang violence. People that are so afraid of guns have never been involved in any kind of dangerous situation, and put far to much faith and trust in the Police and Government. There is nothing wrong with being prepared for the worst. Most here that are saying the guy shouldn't have been afraid because it was a prank are looking at it through hindsight.
Your anecdote is irrelevant. Carrying a gun is not a rational decision for most people because it increases the risk of harm to yourself and others regardless of how you feel about it. I'm not saying this guy should be in jail for defending himself either, but he ultimately was not in mortal danger and wouldn't be facing charges if he didn't have that gun.
I always find it interesting when folks like you try turning "we don't all need guns on us all the time" into a fear of guns. When you seen to be afraid of leaving your house unarmed.
There is something wrong with it. There's always that temptation to use the gun in a situation that doesn't call for it. We've had two "self-defense" shootings in my town in the past few years and in both cases, someone legally carrying a gun used it in a situation where they could have simply walked away, and they probably would have if they didn't have their guns. The shooters in both situations ended up with felony convictions.
He was in a public food court at a mall during lunch
Oh true. Violent acts had never happened in a food court before! /s
Okay, but the only violent act that happened in this case was the shooting of the prankster idiot.
And?
So was Dominic Billa.
I've been robbed at a busy, open public library with a gaggle of elementary kids literally 15ft away. Being in public ain't the deterrent you think it is.
Running a youtube prank channel should justify a drone strike.
I'd watch the prankster-drone strike channel though.
Can the narrator be the cart narcs guy?
What would you have done in that situation?
Walked away, if necessary run away? Maybe throw a punch?
He did try to back away. And punching someone significantly larger than oneself is generally unwise.
He didn't continue to back away. He didn't run. Punching someone bigger is unwise, but not as unwise as trying to kill someone who arguably didn't even commit a crime.
No one was killed, so....
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.
Shooting at someone is intending to kill them.
Source?
I would have thought it common sense, but sure: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/use-force-continuum
Firearms are at the bottom, under lethal force. There is no way to use firearms to be less-lethal.
Understood. I know that firearms can kill. Stabbing too.
But not every use of a firearm is with the intent to kill. Someone could just shoot to a foot or a hand. Foolish? Sure. Intent to kill? Nah.
Those are very small targets. They'd be hard enough to hit on a static range with no pressure. They'd be even harder to hit when moving, in a stressful situation, at close range. If you miss, you could hit someone else. Even if you hit them, the bullet will probably go right through and into whatever is beyond. This is why you aim for center of mass. Easier to hit, less chance of overpenetration, and more effective in stopping an attacker in a life-or-death situation.
Despite what the movies may show, you can't just shoot to wound. If you shoot someone in the leg, and hit the femoral artery, they can bleed to death in seconds: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17334183/
Those are just strawmen. It doesn't matter if "those are small targets" or if "you can still hit an artery." What matters in the persons's intent.
That's like saying that "any person delivering a punch to someone else's face intends to kill them because of the possibility of the punched falling down and cracking their skull open on the floor."
Yeah, for fights that's very possible. And in fact that would have been preferable if feasible in this scenario, because it's still far less likely to be fatal than shooting someone.
Proper use of a firearm is intending to kill someone. Again, there is no way to use a firearm to be less-lethal. If you shoot someone, you are shooting to kill. Presumably this guy had some CCW training and would know that.
I disagree with you. Of course there is a way to use a firearm to be less lethal. Regardless, and again, no one was killed in this story, so....
Nobody that's ever used a gun is taught to shoot at the edge of the target. Aim center-mass or don't even pull the weapon.
Making a lot of assumptions here. What about people who use guns without that kind of training? Because those people exist, or else you wouldn't see gun-related accidents being reported in the news.
Regardless, and again, not the point. As there were no people killed here, and the shooter was acquited, so.........
That's just luck.
An inch either way that bullet could have been fatal.
You can certainly put them in jail for attempted murder. And that doesn't require proving they intended to kill that person, it only requires "conscious disregard" of whether their action could kill someone. For example, randomly shooting into someone's house.
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 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?
I honestly don't know. Emotionally I agree with the verdict but intellectually I question it.
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?
He's still making videos, so apparently he didn't actually learn anything from the experience
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.
In that one I think ol' zimmy kinda deserved it and I wasn't happy with the charges/trial results.
I don't think it's the same at all, though. Zimmerman was the OG aggressor. He fucked around, found out and got butthurt and killed a kid.
I guess not according to Lemmy, lol. I don't care if the youtuber was. the size of Shaq, you can't just shoot someone for showing a phone in your face not even if he is following you.
This sounds like jury nullification more than an actual legal judgment.
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.
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.
It is in a civilized country where you have to assume everyone has a gun.
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?
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".
One of these things is not like the other
Ah yes, let's circlejerk around the definition of "civilization".
For the record, I'm not American (thank god!), but this is neither funny nor useful.
It is factual tho.
Then provide the factual basis. What definition of "civilization" excludes societies with loose gun laws?
They did, right here.
Are you trolling, or are you arguing on the level of a three year old?
Words have meanings. They don't necessarily have one single meaning, but generally words only make sense in the context of commonly-understood definitions. If I make up a new definition, it's not useful to use it, as long as other people don't use it.
Now, I can argue that the sky is blurple, and I'm fully correct if I define blurple to be the color of the sky. But you will notice that this sentence doesn't hold any meaning as long as blurple isn't a commonly understood definition.
You're free to show that loose gun laws are commonly understood to be an argument against something being a civilized society. But until you do that, you're doing what I said earlier: just circlejerking with neither funny nor useful descriptions.
Do you understand now?
30 seconds is a long time for someone to be harassing you. I can see why it escalated.
But it still doesn't justify deadly force. That's a last resort.
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'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.
What if they beat you to death. Can you shoot then?
Not if you're dead. Gotta sell your horse before it dies.
Anyone you say?
Sure.
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?
Yes, they probably do think America is nuts, they just don't have any choice. You think they're migrating because they want to attend barbecues in parking lots before football matches?
There are less nutty places to go, in that case. Yet, they prefer America.
And yes, barbecues and football matches are, in a way, a representation of peace and prosperity.
Nowadays when the US gets involved in a war, Europe generally joins them.
Blatant racism is found throughout Europe.
Has Italy legalized gay marriage yet? No? Can gay Italian couples at least adopt children? Oh, that's a shame. How about Greece? Huh.
Several European countries have major political parties with Christian in their very name. One European country even founded their own state religion.
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.
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.
Another thread, another demonstration of majority Lemmy users being fucking insane.... depressing.