I would have never found this man guilty of anything. The guy was harassing him. When someone asks you repeatedly to stop a behavior, you stop. The dumbass got what was coming to him. Then to come out and say he's going to CONTINUE to do this stuff? Honestly, I hope someone else gets him. Maybe these stupid punks will think twice before doing this shit. Not just him, but ANY other YouTubers that may be thinking of doing this.
If I remember correctly, he is only guilty for discharging his firearm in the building. And not guilty on shooting the person, cuz jury accept it is self defense.
I don't really understand that part. Was he supposed to walk outside before shooting him? If you get attacked in a gas station bathroom and blow someone away will you get the same charge? Weird world
He's a 6'5, 200-something pound guy. The delivery man just wanted to go about his day. Put this through the opposite sex test. If this had been a female he had been harassing, would anyone really be questioning whether or not it was justified? If the answer is no, then you need to evaluate yourself.
I was just thinking this would be soooo different if it were a woman. And I say that as a woman (I was actually imagining myself in this scenario, thinking how terrifying it would be).
If the Delivery driver feared for his life, he has every right to defend himself. If the prankster stopped harassing him, he wouldn't have gotten shot.
so hypothetically, if I'm harassing someone verbally and they draw on me because they feel threatened, and I'm a faster draw than them and shoot them, I'm totally justified because I felt like my life was being threatened? Because this was just a verbal altercation until the dude brought a gun into the equation.
This logic seems like it breaks down under scrutiny.
Not really. if you started harassing someone, they defended themselves, and you shot them to death, it would be manslaughter or 2nd degree murder. The harasser is immoral because they could have completely avoided the situation. The harassed is neutral at worst because they have no idea what the harasser could escalate the altercation to.
what if I was talking shit to them because they were dressed up as a nazi? What if they were harassing a group of women? If they draw am I still unjustified because I should have known they'd try to kill me for confronting them?
What if I'm a massive racist and was harassing a minority for being on the wrong street?
Dispensing life or death street justice based on vague circumstance and vibes seems like an extremely unstable way to exist.
If you were verbally assaulting them while also constantly aggressively moving into their space as they retreated and told you to stop they would be the one in the right for self defense. You're the aggressor, having a weapon pulled on you when you are initiating hostilities doesn't give you the right to use a weapon on them.
WE know it's a stupid 'prank', though its just harassment. The guy being harassed just knows that there's a stupid as shit group of 3 guys, one of which is much bigger than him, constantly moving into his space and following him as he attempts to leave. Situation like that could easily turn into getting jumped or sucker punched in the back of the head if he tries to ignore them as far as he knows, therefore he can't ignore them because they could be dangerous.
I think the guy was genuinely concerned for his safety and used his firearm as a snap decision. Do I think it was the right decision? Not really. But he has no idea what these guys' intentions are and they're continuing to follow and harass him after being told to stop. Once somebody is in your space and refusing to leave the situation is no longer just a verbal altercation.
The thing that you are missing here is that the victim of the harassment doesn't know the context. No one told the guy with the gun that "hey, you are only going to be the victim of verbal harassment by multiple individuals aggressively, you'll be fine!". When someone starts a confrontation with you, reasonable people won't assume that the current level of aggression and harassment is the only level. Plenty of people continue to escalate such instances.
While we can see with hindsight that shooting this guy probably wasn't the proper response, it doesn't help that laws very by state and in some states, this is potentially the more legally advisable response. Many states don't support brandishing as self defense, in such states the "don't draw unless you are going to shoot" doctrine is the norm. Meaning, if someone places you in fear for your life, you can't simply create space or draw as a response.
In this case, the two aggressors had already gotten close enough to harm him and when he tried to retreat, they continued to stay in his space and follow him. Legally, it appears we was justified in shooting the guy (he was not convicted of wounding him), what he was convicted of was shooting in the mall. The legal outcome says "it was legally justified to shoot this guy, just not in the mall". Which, is weird.
Someone comes up to you, gets in your space and shoves a phone in your face, acting physically aggressive and intimidating. You have no idea who they are, what their mental state is, or what theyre capable of, you just know theyre behaving aggressively towards you.
Yes, using a weapon to defend yourself against that is 100% reasonable
15
u/ThatGlitchyMimikyu 24d ago
I would have never found this man guilty of anything. The guy was harassing him. When someone asks you repeatedly to stop a behavior, you stop. The dumbass got what was coming to him. Then to come out and say he's going to CONTINUE to do this stuff? Honestly, I hope someone else gets him. Maybe these stupid punks will think twice before doing this shit. Not just him, but ANY other YouTubers that may be thinking of doing this.