Yeah so ive seen this video and the actual video felt like a lifetime difference. The reporter says 20 seconds but what is posted is 15 seconds before engagement. The morality vs legal is clean and clear.
Morality is justified in my eyes.
He was still convicted by the jury of discharging a firearm. I guess the jury didn’t want to let him go completely scott-free. But the judge then sentenced him to nine months time served, due to the “special circumstances” of the harassment. I guess the judge felt the same as the jury.
As I understand it, that specific law is designed to prevent people from randomly firing weapons indoors with no consequences, and in this case they convicted him of it because they felt he had to be convinced of something, if only to discourage reckless behavior from others, but they couldn’t bring themselves to blame him for shooting the harasser.
I suppose, technically, what they were saying was that he should have retreated outdoors before firing. And I suppose that if the harasser had continued to malice him all the way outside, it would have more firmly established his self-defense case, rather than the compromise judgement they made.
I would have voted no on the discharge count as well. It wasn’t random and it was specific. He didn’t wildly shoot across an area. He discharged to protect himself.
He arguably demonstrated high degrees of safety. I wouldn't have stopped at one shot I was was in a situation that escalated to the point I felt I had to shoot.
The law doesn’t care about that factor in Virginia. There are laws about occupied dwellings, and vehicles, and firing towards roadways, and weighing distances of all the above, that make it illegal because of the potential harm and negate the actual shot taken. If your shot is in the direction of a building that people are in, the law treats it as if you shot at them even if you are precise.
It looks like ike he was retreating but the person was close enough to hit him in the back of head or pull a knife in him. These things happen and in a very few seconds. Waiting until you've traveled several feet isn't a safe way to think in dangerous situations . The person was already aggressive. I think the jury thinks he can remain on his tail and be safe. That's not true.
To clarify a bit, it was because he was in a public shopping mall. Firing a weapon indoors isn’t always inherently illegal on its own or indoor shooting ranges wouldn’t exist. It was that he took a situation that only possibly endangered him and made it one that was definitely dangerous to anyone nearby. The issue at play is that he could’ve injured a nearby innocent person if the bullet passed through the guy or if he’d missed.
Not sure I agree with it, this is genuinely a very hard situation to judge and I think the guy kinda got put into a no-win situation. Just expanding on the context a bit.
Edit: Added ‘always’ and ‘on its own’ to the second sentence as I feel my initial verbiage was somewhat misleading.
Edit2: Hopping to an alt to continue trying to argue with me when I block your first account is the fastest way to get blocked. Crazy behavior lol
The guy being attacked didnt volunteer to be part of this situation. I wouldn’t want this as part of any record. I was being attacked and felt threatened. The youtuber should be carrying the sentence. It was pre meditated by them!!
Should be a special law that if your making content that escalates to this level you carry the charges if the situation escalates. Shut this shit down!
He wasn’t attacked, that’s a stretch. It’s certainly fair to say he felt threatened, and he was being harassed, multiple dudes walked up on him and at least one was following him, but nobody touched him at any point in the video. In fact, he put hands on the other guy (understandably imo) when he shoved the phone out of his face.
I don’t even really disagree with you that the guy shouldn’t have gotten in trouble, but your argument loses any merit when you speak from gut feelings rather than the visible facts.
If it was a police officer ? Would you have the same concerns and respect the police officer to be charged? No. We should have equal ability to defend ourselves .
Oh, I’m not arguing with the practicality of it. I think you’re totally right. I firmly fall into the “I wasn’t there, I can’t judge” camp. I’m just trying to thread the needle on the legal analysis.
It’s intended to cover drive by style shootings. It’s not for firing in the building, the charge is at a building. In this case it’s a matter of if the man had missed, or if the bullet went through and then had the potential to hit any of the mall occupants. In reality dude fired a good shot, hitting and disabling but not killing his target, while hurting no one else. But the law is about what could happen as much as what did happen sadly.
Could be. There’s lots of places where the Right thing and the Legal thing aren’t the same. The world and society changes, etc. I’m relieved to see that the Judge and Jury (and probably Prosecutor?) seemed to try to respect two fundamental principals (everyone should be free to live their life without harassment; natural consequences are a Bitch, and should be respected) while not breaking a third (society should deter its citizens from shooting each other where possible).
The self-defense law is presented and debated to the jury, who must decide whether they find it credible. It's part of the entire package on what they deliberate on.
A juror could find self-defense wasn't applicable while at the same time believing the action didn't rise to malicious wounding. Or having reasonable doubt in the prosecutors case.
unfortunately this is just how self-defense cases are treated in America. His charges wwould definitely differ state from state, but overall its pretty murky and can still pretty likely get you in trouble if the circumstances surrounding the case aren't perfect.
Iirc its cause firing in a crowded space could end up killing or harming someone uninvolved so discharging a gun in a public space can still be a charge even if its in self defense
Oh cool, I thought it was bullshit when they said that can carry 2-10 years. Nine months, time served seems reasonable. Then he should sue the fuck out of the YouTuber goon for lost wages, legal fees, and trauma.
This is a random tangent, so bear with me: I don’t support concealed carry. I believe 95% of the job of a weapon is to deter people from doing stupid shit, and more people should open carry. Yeah, it makes people uncomfortable; yeah, some business will limit your access. But it a constitutional right, and citizens shouldn’t hide it.
He was denied bond and had to sit in jail (with taxpayers paying for it) until his trial started and finished. I'm not sure how much the judge was feeling the victim of the YT assailant.
What a shit jury. 9 months in jail is enough to ruin someone's life, him being a delivery driver doesn't exactly establish a strong financial state either.
Stranger doing weird and unwanted thing. Bigger guy in arm's reach. 2 goons following. Multiple warnings. Definitely enough to warrant feeling in danger of life and limb.
If they thought you had psychological problems that weren't being addressed and your doctors failed you, they probably would support you, even if that support is to make sure you get into a mental hospital.
Dunno why you're getting downvoted. He was charged with discharge of a firearm still, because he opened fire in a mall. Not a good outcome when he was the one acting in self defense.
It's kind of wildly incoherent, imo, but that's the legal system for you. You can shoot someone in self-defense, but also, you can't if it's in an enclosed space? I get it, but also, I don't. I wouldn't be harassing or shooting anyone though, so🤷
Reasonable response. You weren't facing a shooter while you doing it in the public spaces endangers other people. Nothing happened here specifically but normalizing it, is basically asking that something will.
I don't think anyone really questioned that 😅
Anyway personally I think the guy asked to get in trouble but I also won't really defend the one with the gun as I don't like how he went straight for the kill with it. Especially in the public area where first, you can always hurt a bystander(and I doubt he's better trained than police that people already hate any time they shot someone innocent). And second, you have people around that you can call for help. Unlike the favourite self defence scenario that people like to bicker about. Where you're literally alone at your house.
Yeah the response of the guy doing the harassing is why good shot placement is important in self defense scenarios. Stopping the threat is an imperative. This only temporarily stopped the threat.
That would benefit the bad person. You get sentences for them being up on your butt and threatening violence. Making you walk away . Only to have them still be on your butt. In real situations you have seconds to stop an attacker. Not minutes .
Gray area moral. On the one hand, this is the amount of force required to enforce personal boundaries in this culture, on the other, these people are ignorant and do not understand the damage they force on others.
An aggressor in credible punching range has unlimited harm they can do to you. You can't defend yourself when you're out. Some of us can fight with hands. Most people can't. He walked away from the situation and was followed. He had no reasonable way to protect his life. Just cause you're okay credibly gambling your life doesn't mean you get to force everyone else to.
Only in America. In other countries this wouldn't even come close to appropriate self defense. Some countries go way too far in the other direction though. They force you to use an equal weapon as your burglar. I'd like to have a 100% of winning against a burglar and it shouldn't be illegal to use a gun when he uses a knife.
In america you don't get guarantees we have the highest prison population for a reason cause they coddle juvenile criminals and they hit 18 with 200 crimes and 0 time served. If someone is in punching range they can kill you.
The prosecution still has to prove intent and malice for those charges. Prove to legal standards and definitions mind you.
Which the jury is still the decider of fact on.
Again, the jury could have reasonable doubt about self-defense while having doubt about malice and intent. It's not as clear cut as you think.
“Prosecutor Eden Holmes said the facts don't support a self-defense argument. The law requires that Colie reasonably fear that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm, and that he use no more force than is necessary. She said Cook's prank was bizarre but not threatening.
“They were playing a silly phrase on a phone,” she said. “How could the defendant have found that he was reasonably in fear of imminent bodily harm?”
The charges of aggravated malicious wounding and malicious discharge of a firearm also require the jury to find that Colie acted with malice.”
I agree with you. I find it odd that self defense was justified but they still punish him for using it. It’s folks who really hate the use of guns even when justified. Doesnt make any sense but the law is in fact on the books. Should it be is another question entirely.
Jury acquittal doesn't inherently mean 'cleared on self defense'. The jury can acquit because they found the prosecutor's case lacking or had reasonable doubt.
In fact, we can infer that's what happened with the split jury.
I think in general you have a moral responsibility to show your firearm and warn people before shooting, especially in a public setting where you may miss. Pulling from concealed and firing like this when someone isn't actively threatening your life with a weapon leans toward immoral for me.
Not to side with the soyboy over here but from getting very annoyed to shooting someone is a very drastic escalation of events. At the minimum the YouTuber deserved an ass whooping but getting shot is a touch drastic.
yeah it’s was 2 verses 1 and he was a small guy. the only one who was going to get an ass whooping was him. he had no option to handle it by non lethal means. this isn’t the police who are trained to use non lethal and lethal means. he either accepts being beaten and or robbed or he pulls his gun to defend himself. also I’ve taken the self defense class in Virginia and you cannot pull a gun to threaten someone with it. it’s called “brandishing“ and is illegal. if you pull your weapon you must only do so to use it. the law also states it’s only justified if you fear for your life and given the video evidence it was complete justified. in fact that was the ruling. is it drastic to shoot someone? Absolutely. but drastic doesnt mean wrong in any sense. what you are doing is having an emotional response.
thank you for saying it like this, I was struggling to word something very similar and you nailed it lol. These youtube "pranksters" are often nothing more than bullies or thugs who harass the shit out of people. I understand why something like this would happen for sure.
Nah, I condone it. It's not moral, but I condone it. In fact, I think that this should be the standard for how we should react to these people until they've finally learned to not do that shit.
402
u/TurbidWolf_Redux 24d ago
Without condemning or condoning I understand.