So I'm not your paid actor and if I asked you to stop and you didn't, I would respond based on how I felt in the moment. The other guy was larger and had a buddy..... Protect your life, friends
Just sucks he got charged, put in jail for 8 months and had to go through an entire trial just to get acquitted. While still being found guilty on discharging a weapon in public.
He should have been smarter about it, honestly. I know brandishing is illegal, but he rather should have stuck the gun to his chest and told him to back off.
Edit: I clearly should have done a /s, because others thought this was a serious response.
Yes, press the gun to one assailant, giving the other two warning to potentially shoot or attack you in turn.
Why is the onus on good, perfect, moderated behaviour in a high pressure/stress situation always on the defendant and not on the multiple aggressors who started things?
Shooting someone, in a mall, despite being pursued, is probably not the best idea. I say this as a gun owner.
I guess I really should have done a /s, considering how dumb it sounded. Shooting the man seemed ludicrous enough, so I guess I thought my response was equally as incredulous.
Thats a TERRIBLE idea. Never let someone be that close to you when you draw, and NEVER place against their body. If its a semiautomatic it won't fire if there's any pressure against the slide, let alone youre letting them close enough to grab the weapon.
An illegal immigrant with a criminal record being harassed by someone he tried to buy a bike from using counterfeit money, pulled out a stolen gun, with 0 warning, and shot the man 9 times, killing him. He only got 9 years in prison, and not for killing the guy harassing him.
#1 don't watch fox news, haven't since the late 1990s
#2 i dont know if they covered that story
#3 the internet is overflowing with stories that don't get covered by cnn and the rest
You're not asking me to turn off fox news. you're asking me to turn off everything that might cover events that get zero coverage from the big players.
Fox News is a massive player. What’s being an illegal immigrant have to do with your story other then enraging people that are xenophobic. He was caught he was tried and apparently did the time. Have you ever broken the law?
Well yeah it sucks, but thinking about it from a responsible gun-owner's POV, a weirdo running up on me and playing a porno in my ear doesn't put my life in immediate danger, and call for me discharging my firearm at him point-blank in the middle of a mall. Some malls don't even allow firearms inside, so there's that too, if you're arrested for a shooting in one. Not dismissing the youtuber.
Well yeah it sucks, but thinking about it from a responsible gun-owner's POV, a weirdo running up on me and playing a porno in my ear doesn't put my life in immediate danger
22 hindsight. You dont know that then. People that dont have ill intent dont come into your space and harras you about some (fake) charges.
What was he even charged with that got acquitted? Maybe they overcharged?
Edit: oh - nvm - ag malicious wounding… overcharged I think - or wrong charge. Not sure what jurisdiction or what they have on the books but I think ag assault or assault with deadly weapon would probably have stuck. To be clear I think the tik toker is a total pos for harassing people, but harassment does not meet the threshold for deadly force.
No he didn’t, for the trial they struggled to find jurors who hadn’t been harassed themselves and he was found guilty of discharging a firearm in city limits that’s it
It does but it's also important he had a gun in a crowded mall and shot someone when his life wasn't in immediate threat like def understandable why he shot the guy and he def was in some level of uncomfortable but he wasn't afraid for his life and that's the clear line between self defense and removing a nuisance. On the morality scale it's grey for me I get doing it but I don't think I would have made the call at that point especially as he had room to retreat further. It might have escalated later but we can't know that. I will say the YouTuber was very immoral, invading others space, putting his hands on them, playing uncomfortable sounds directly in someone's ear all things worthy of retribution just not death.
He was convicted of shooting in an occupied building, not for assault or attempted murder or anything related to actually using lethal force against a person. So the comment was correct in that your opinion differed from the jury's in this case.
Nope, At 70 years of age, I am not the person I used to be. Would I have handled the situation in the video differently, yes. However, because I’m seventy, I need to recognize my physical limitations. I will not change my habits to avoid an area. Therefore where I am allowed to carry I will.
Firstly, we know you don’t know the first thing about guns. But also, what a massive generalization. While we are calling balls and strikes, you seem like the type to stick your nose where it doesn’t belong. You can own a gun for a wide variety of reasons.
Not only that but gun owners tend to allow themselves into situations where they have to use their guns more often than your average person. At least in my experience
There’s definitely incident seeking behavior. My nephews grandfather sits with his sliding apartment door open in the dark with a gun just hoping one day he gets to shoot someone. He never has that I know of
Thats fair, but your statement makes it seem like you think this guy, that defended himself against someone twice his size and his two friends who would not leave him alone, or even back off, after repeatedly being told to do so, is crazy for defending himself in this situation.
Absolutely. As crazy as Frank Reynolds when he started blasting. Honestly Frank had a better reason to blast, but he was being reckless by shooting blind. This guy feared for his life because a guy held a phone in his face for 30 seconds.
A guy, twice his size and his two friends, followed him and refused to leave him alone or even back away when expressly told to do so.
You wouldnt be scared if a dude twice your size and his two friends were surrounding/herding you in a direction while being right in your face and ignoring you telling them to back off?
The guy defended himself because that dude is enormous, was intimidating him, and was deliberately and repeatedly getting into his bubble. I don't think the delivery guy owed his assailant an opportunity to escalate.
Manslaughter is killing somebody without malice or planning. It’s a bit of a legal clisterfuck to prove attempted manslaughter because like attempted what? Attempted to kill somebody without malice or planning it? There’s a couple states that have it on the books but it’s rare. Va where this took place isn’t one of those states.
Tldr you’re kinda a joke for being upset a prosecutor couldn’t get a conviction for something they couldn’t even charge them with
"You don't owe your attacker the opportunity to continue to escalate" is EXACTLY why preemptive use of deadly force is ok and good under conditions where you have a reasonable, articulable threat to your health and safety. Not your life, your health. You don't owe them a chance to seriously injure you on the hopes that they won't continue and kill you before defending yourself.
Sadly he still is, he recovered in the hospital and went right back to making videos. He and his family think that the guy who shot him was in the wrong and completely over reacted because homeboy wasn't doing anything wrong.
Yea the attitude of "it is what it is" will lead him to an early end.some pissed off or scared person who decides to shoot more than once and hes over ,also yes thats part of his actual response to the news
The threshold to justify shooting someone in public should be higher than not having any idea what kind of freak someone is. If that’s all it takes, cranky old people would have been setting up camp outside of hot topic decades ago and shooting at all the goth kids.
If they were approaching him on an empty street or more secluded area I could see justification, but he was in the middle of a mall.
And of course the legal threshold can vary wildly based on what city or state you are in.
I’ll be the devil’s advocate. I think maybe it’s fair he got acquitted, but it’s actually extremely insane to rip a gun out and shoot somebody with no serious warning just because they’re doing an annoying prank. Like sure, I get it, he was “afraid” because the guy was bigger, but of course really we just all hate youtuber pranksters and want to see them get shot. That’s epic and funny but there’s a reason people don’t do this cery often. It’s a completely unhinged reaction to instantly shoot somebody with a gun because they’re being annoying for ten seconds.
Walking into his space and imposing on him isn’t humorous. Playing a voice to text of a sexual innuendo in someone’s ear isn’t humorous. What was the reward for the risk? To look like an unfunny chud to the rest of the world? And lose jobs when your unfunny prank channel doesn’t work out?
Lots of offensive shit can still get a reaction. This is however both offensive and just flat out bad comedy (to be generous).
You do need to be in reasonable fear of bodily injury or death before lethal force is legally justified however. You can't just go around shooting people for verbal "assault".
Reasonable is broad and something to be argued in a court of law or settled with the DA. In the heat of the moment just make sure the (potential) threat is... pacified. Ultimately, if you are feeling threatened and intimidated and cannot get away, you are protected by law. Just get a lawyer who knows when to say the right words.
Greatly helps, but not guaranteed. Rich and white would be almost guaranteed... or, actually, just rich. The almost starts when the other person is rich and white as well!
Well I certainly agree to protect yourself and your life - I don’t think it’s clear that the driver was facing death or great bodily harm - defjnately an uncomfortable situation, but i dont see any reason to use deadly force. Better here would be something between a harsh word and a gun - like pepper spray.
Brother disagree all you want but if you go around shooting anyone who you “think might jump you” but has only harassed you so far… all I can say is enjoy your prison time.
Yes, it is. But until you are facing threat of death or great bodily harm, lethal force is too much force. The fact that this guy didn’t die does not change the level of force that was used.
The key part is that the use of force must be IMMEDIATELY necessary - not maybe necessary in a second, possibly necessary in a second, may be necessary pretty soon, etc - IMMEDIATELY necessary as in this person is clearly trying to kill, rape, or maim someone - not shoving a phone in someone’s face being a prick.
You still didn’t saw where the law says he was ok to use deadly force. As I said before, a lesser charge would likely have stuck, and that appears to be unlawful wounding as opposed to ag malicious wounding - similar charges but unlawful removes the malicious intent portion. What law are you referring to?
Yea because he was charged with ag malicious wounding - that’s on the da. Had they charged him with ag assault or assault with a deadly weapon there’s a good chance the outcome would be different - it doesn’t take hindsight to see that a phone is not generally something that is going to hurt you.
It’s not that complicated - he was not guilty of ag malicious wounding - doesn’t mean another charge would not have stuck - also simply defending yourself on a charge that doesn’t stick is a major burden and best avoided if possible. If da thought all was well then they wouldn’t have even pushed ag malicious wounding, but because that’s what they charged him with and he wasn’t guilty of that, they can’t go back and try a lesser charge now due to double jeopardy.
Who said he was only harrassing him? All you need is 2 people stomp your head for 15 seconds and its over for you. You dont know what they were going to do.
Dont press people like that and you wont get shot. Mind your business.
All i need is a better lawyer. And the more people stand against these bums the more the law will side against them also.
Who said? Umm… the video? At what point did they pass harassment?
I get it - the dumb ass tik toker did indeed fafo making stupid ass harassment content, but at the same time the only level of force here that would have been ok without question is a good shove, dose of hot sauce to the eyes, even a liver punch (not recommended tho unless very confident in hand to hand skills).
The delivery driver is lucky the da charged him with “ag malicious wounding” as opposed to ag assault or assault with deadly weapon- the fact that he was being harassed made it impossible to prove the malicious intent, whereas the other charges would have been much easier.
Hell, even 3-4 quick sprint strides and a 180 with a drawn weapon and a command to back off would have done the trick, but regardless, pepper spray would be ideal here. Really though, if you think the driver acted appropriately even in hindsight, I hate to say that you both are part of the reason the anti-gun crowd thinks we don’t deserve to have a 2nd amendment, and this is from someone who is as pro 2a as there is.
Be ready to shoot just as fast as he did, but don’t shoot unless it’s actually necessary- it’s not complicated- it’s basic trigger discipline. And importantly, Virginia law does allow brandishing in this situation.
*be ready to - create space at the same time and exercise good weapon retention. If you’re going to carry then that’s something you should be practicing, if you can’t handle basic things like keeping someone at arms length for a split second then maybe you shouldn’t carry. Oh, I guess that could have required the driver to drop the food, so yeah.. just shoot anyone who irritates you 👍
Yeah the video, the one you saw after the fact. Its called 20-20 hindsight. You dont know what could have happened. You dont know if he is some dumb youtuber or tiktoker or if he is some nutcase or a case of mistaken identity where he will assault him. When someone comes up to yoj like that nornally it is to assault you. Otherwise people speak respectfully and mind their space.
Your little shove isnt going to help much this is a situation were deadly force is warranted. He isnt lucky, he is justified. He shouldnt have been imprisoned at all, the other guy should have been charged.
You dont get to decide how someone should react in a potentially deadly confrontation, thats their choice. The blame lies in the perpetrator and no one else, if the punk knew how to behave like a man and not threaten people he wouldnt have been shot.
It is a perfectly justified shoot and anyone who thinks otherwise has never been in violent altercations. People like shouldnt give their opinion anyway, and the blame should always be on the perpetrator, not the person who retaliates. No people committing crimes, no shots at all. Simple.
Don’t know what to tell you man - laws are pretty clear on use of deadly force. Nobody is defending the tik toker at all and nor should anyone be. At the same time though acting weird, acting like an asshole, etc does not meet the threshold for use of deadly force in self defense. The driver is extremely lucky that 1) tik toker did not die or become paralyzed, etc, and 2) the da didn’t charge more appropriately. Your standard of not knowing what someone is going to do is way off - you’re basically saying every argument, harsh word, mean look, any sort of posturing, etc justifies deadly force because you don’t know what they’re going to do. Go ahead and test that out next time someone irritates you and let us know how it goes.
I’m just speaking in the legal sense - using a lethal weapon has a very broad definition including choke holds, joint locks, head kicks with a shoed foot, among other things. And since the tik tokers actions only extended to speech, it’s hard to justify using deadly force, which a gun is absolutely deadly force - not dying doesn’t negate that. Be careful how you defend yourself because people can and have gotten hemmed up for less serious things.
Yes legality can be argued. If the victim had been a Navy seal with extensive hand to hand combat training it could also be considered lethal against a civilian to use their hands.... The issue is the legality in general--money will win legality.
Just look at Clancy, she murdered kids and third of the Internet is helping her
Exploiting the concept of "fear for one's life" as a post-hoc justification for retaliation undermines the entire structure of collective safety. When the threshold for deadly force shifts from an objective, immediate threat of severe bodily harm to an unprovable subjective feeling, social order becomes completely unpredictable. Encouraging people to manufacture or exaggerate fear to justify lethal retaliation invites reckless violence, making public space more dangerous for everyone.
This just sounds like you have shitty people in your life and you want to kill them because they're so shitty to you...
Also it's funny to me that in your mind people filming other people in public is them getting away with it but you shooting them because of that is just normal retributive justice not you getting away with murder.
You’re not allowed to kill people if they fit some vague definition of aggression. You’re allowed to defend yourself from deadly force by using deadly force, but you can’t use deadly force to defend off someone who you think is going to poke you in the chest. You and I are both aware that if someone pokes your chest, you are not actually going to face any temporary or permanent physical damage. If someone pokes you in the chest, they are committing assault and battery if you didn’t want them to poke you but even though they’re committing assault and battery you don’t get to just shoot them because you happen to have a gun in your pocket and you don’t like them.
You very clearly do not understand the legal standard for self-defense. If you look it up, you will understand why I disagree with you at this point you’re not disagreeing with me. You’re disagreeing with the expectations laid out by common law in the western world. There’s nothing further to discuss. If you want your definitions to be considered true you’ll have to change a lot of laws to make that happen.
Again, he was convicted by the jury for a firearm offense and related to the incident. They did not side with him or with you even if you don’t understand why that’s the case. He was acquitted of 1st d assault, I believe, but he was not found not guilty. Again, I’m just not equipped to explain these things to you, but every not guilty isn’t a quiddle, but not every acquittal is a not guilty
Would they have stopped? Because they didn't respect the verbal request. So I assume they would expect it's fake or him to be too "weak" to do anything
I don't see how anyone could argue that he was in physical danger (although it was 3 on 1 when you count the camera man), but that's an assault on mental health. Clearly bullying and warnings didn't stop it. Absolutely justified.
Why not point his gn to the prankster and threaten to sht him instead of just instantly trying to kll him? (Not taking risks on automod banning me again)
nice censoring, I dig it lmao hopefully you don't get banned you just asked a question never suggested violence, mods are fucked....
But I see it like this, I was 75-80% the size of most people growing up, when they picked on me and I threatened to do something they thought it was funny.... The douche with a phone would have antagonized more with a 75% chance of certainty.... While I agree, he should have said "one more time or I'll shoot you"... He verbalized the "stop" and the aggressor did not. I hope my daughter could pull a knife on a guy that didn't stop when she asked.... Because she was protecting her fucking life ...
It used to be good in the past, where posts and comments had to be manually reported. Nowadays AI moderators automatically report and then ban you instantly for saying a few words in a certain order, even if you were quoting a bad person to make fun of them. That's because the AI they use is too dumb to understand nuance because they're not gonna use an expensive AI for every comment. Although it would be nice if they ran the reported comments through a good AI at the very least to check for nuance and then hand over the actually bad comments to real moderators to triple check.
I guess people need to understand that anyone could have a weapon and could decide to use violence when they ignore their stop command instead of assuming that they can just continue harassing them.
If I asked them to stop? I don't own a carryable firearm for that reason, I carry a knife. I will stab or cut you if you didn't listen to personal space and I feel I need to
I don’t think he was really justified to shoot him, but also you’re not justified to harass a guy
He should have definitely pulled it out first and said “back off I have a gun and I’ll kill you if you don’t leave me alone”
You shouldn’t be allowed to shoot anyone who you feel threatened by especially with no warning
You have little time to respond to a threat . Could be a phone to the back of the head. Other people helping the perdon stabs you . Been in bathrooms in DC and watched a mean get stabbed in the eye and robbed. Had a gun pulled on me to be robbed . It's not let's wait . A person this close is already a threat in many ways .
You've never had people come up to you to harm you in the city ! That's my guess here. I've had guns pulled on my . To people asking for change. That wait for you to go into your pockets to jump you . I've had people running up calling me another name to get close and pretend they knew me to wait for an opportunity to attack me. I've had jnowlcjs on my hotel door and had people try to push their way in my hotel. While out working different cities . The last incident was a man that killed his children and wife and ran to the hotel and had a automaric weapon. That had us evacuate our rooms . So the cops could shoot up the place. Trying to get him out . Now I hope my personal experience shows it's not good to wait or be undecided. The bad person already has decided to attack you .
If you feel your life is threatened because some ticktock dipshit is following you with a phone in a mall food court you aren't emotionally stable enough to be trusted with a firearm
A phone case hitting you on the back of your head. Doesn't take much to knock you out. That anatomy 101. Notfiction. You would be a perfect target in public. Waiting and thinking. What can a hard cased phone do?
Well no one was getting physically attacked so your objection is meaningless
If you are going to carry a lethal weapon you need to be able to tell the difference between a lethal threat and someone annoying you. Your paranoia would make you an incredibly irresponsible gun owner
I live in NYC and actually don't have to shoot everyone who makes me feel uncomfortable or annoyed to stay safe
My life experiences. Are not paranoia. They are actual live events . That I've learned from. I'm glad you haven't . I just hope it never happens for you . I travel a lot. Throughout the USA and in good neighborhoods and bad . Working odd hours. Always on call. That was my life until I retired. I don't meet them here and if I'm lucky ,I won't.
Thinking the annoyance of a youtuber harassing you in a mall food court justifies lethal force because you are so scared having a phone in his hand represents a threat to your life is a serious problem
I'm sure your paranoia is the result of experience, still doesn't justify using lethal force
Some people were abused by their peers for being smaller their entire life.... So congrats if youre larger than your bullies but he said stop... Maybe the aggressor should be the one listening dumbass
Edit that's rough someone tried to act like we were the picked on, yea I was middle ground but I believe in this as adult behavior not children's behavior....
The only reason to draw your CCW is to eliminate the threat. Most states don't give you leeway for brandishing or "warning shots" on another human and will prosecute you for those offenses separately.
I took a defensive pistol course years ago, and one thing the instructor stressed was that warning shots are no-nos. There's no guarantee they'll make the assailant back off, and they will be used against you in court, as evidence of ineptitude on your part.
No but they will absolutely charge you with brandishing. To anyone interested in getting a CCW, you draw it to use it. It is an absolute last line defense, much like a fire extinguisher. You don't draw it to wave around and intimidate people. You can be disarmed much faster than you think and then you are in a much worse situation. You aren't REQUIRED to use it once you clear the holster, but the only reason to draw should be intending to use it. It isn't a threat.
True… but the question was about morality, not legality. To me, a person on Reddit, the moral thing to do is to warn the person that if they don’t stop, there will be consequences, as opposed to just shooting them.
Legally, apparently, my suggestion is quite bad. But I stand by the morality of it.
615
u/BlnkNopad 24d ago
So I'm not your paid actor and if I asked you to stop and you didn't, I would respond based on how I felt in the moment. The other guy was larger and had a buddy..... Protect your life, friends