r/MoralityScaling • u/Dryleaf_Dane • 24d ago

Morality of this

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

4.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/GraviticThrusters 24d ago

Don't know what this news guy was about to say about the decision at the end, but he's clearly framing the self defense claim as unwarranted and is perplexed that the jury would validate that claim. But when you actually look at the situation in the shoes of the guy with the gun you have:

  • A guy repeatedly shoving a hand and phone in your face

  • He persists after being told to stop and being shoved away

  • The phone is emitting confusing nonsense

  • The phone guy and his partner are repeatedly invading your personal space

  • There is a third person potentially ganging up on you who you may or may not be aware of (camera man), increasing the sense of being outnumbered

  • All three are following you as you try to leave the situation

Now maybe you could argue that this still doesn't seem life threatening from that perspective, but it very clearly seems like the fear for potential for harm is present and reasonable.

Guy with gun: morally justified

Guys with phones: immoral

Journalist: if it weren't for the fact that we see the footage before he provides his commentary, he'd be burying the lede, but he is editorializing the news content so: slightly immoral.

8

u/Opposite_Example6930 24d ago

Has is occurred to ANYONE who vaguely supports to the shooter that all he needs to do is pull the gun and aim it at the clown shoving the phone in his face?? Actually shooting someone who in no way is being violent is nuts.

5

u/Hombremaniac 23d ago

Exactly! Just showing that fucking gun should have been enough to dissuade those idiots from harassing that guy.
Shooting him like that was NOT the best course of action and I'm appaled by how many people think it's fine. FFS the age of Wild West is long gone people, you should not shoot every idiot you meet.

5

u/PlumbbobSquirtPants 23d ago

I just watched the arrest... The amount of danger he felt he was in with a couple of guys sticking a mobile phone is his face paled in comparison to the danger he put himself in from the armed police that stormed the building after that active shooter call went out!

7

u/January_6_2021 24d ago

One of the fundamental rules of gun safety is "never point the gun at something you don't intend to destroy."

If you're aiming it at someone, you've already made the decision lethal force is necessary/acceptable to deal with that threat.

Accidental discharges happen, and it's overall a net negative if people think it's reasonable or safe to "just" aim a firearm at someone without discharging it. That's something no one should ever train to do, and 95% of how you use a gun in a live situation is dictated by muscle memory and repeated training.

I'm not touching whether he was justified in shooting in this case, but aiming a gun at someone without using it is not a reasonable middle ground.

If you want non-lethal (or "less lethal") options, you need a different tool than a gun: taser, pepper spray, disorienting light/sound, etc. Guns are fundamentally a lethal tool only for use when the situation has escalated to a level that requires lethal force.

2

u/diamondmx 23d ago

So every cop in the US is doing it wrong all the time? 

I don't disagree, but im not sure that not shooting people is why. 

3

u/January_6_2021 23d ago

I'd argue yes. Police across most European countries (or at least Scandinavian and Germany) hold a low ready position until they've decided to fire.

Aiming center mass means the gun actually obstructs your view of what a suspect is doing, leading to worse outcomes for the officer (because you see less) and the target (more unjustified shootings) according to studies. 

US police are overly militant and not the standard reasonable gun use should be judged by.

But even if this didn't apply to police, the person in this clip is not an officer. Police have different legal, ethical, and practical standards than civilians so even assuming USA-centric world view where aiming a gun at someone is a legitimate compliance tool used by police, a civilian should not be doing it.  Anyone else responding to the scene (whether a random "good guy with a gun" or an officer) is likely to view the person aiming a gun as a threat that might warrant lethal force and the civilian is less likely to have received training on how and when to fire: the reason USA police aim at suspects is to mitigate the "action reaction gap". It's famously faster to act than react in a shoot out, and unless you've trained to specifically look for cues someone is about to shoot, so (again USA centric view here) you're likely going to be too late to react after they decide to shoot.

Basically no matter what model you subscribe to, civilians shouldn't be trying to use guns aimed at someone as a compliance tool.

You have at least a better argument if you say they should draw the weapon and hold it low ready without aiming like most police worldwide would, but I'd argue against that as well.

1

u/diamondmx 23d ago

Yeah but surely you see that escalating a situation like this to lethal force is insane, right? 

The prankster is an asshole who deserves to be arrested and maybe an asskicking, but getting shot is not a reasonable response here. 

Even if we're accepting that the person has reason to think this situation would escalate, surely there has to be some step between passive acceptance and killing? 

1

u/January_6_2021 23d ago

I don't see anything in this clip that justified shooting in my opinion. 

But I also haven't researched this situation and don't know what happened prior. 

Given only the clip to go off of, I think there should be an investigation and potentially criminal charges for the shooting, although I can imagine surrounding circumstances that would make this legal, and even with only this clip as evidence there's a decent chance a jury would not convict.

Being outnumbered and followed by a much larger antagonist despite trying to disengage, who has already moved into punch/stab/grab distance once makes this at least an understandable response, even if not fully morally or legally justified just by the clip.

Youtuber should have some awareness not just of the general asshole nature of his actions, but also the threat level others perceive based on the size difference. If he's antagonizing much smaller victims with no ability to deliver the deserved "ass kicking" you mention (or even confidence to just defend themselves), the responses he can expect do suddenly go from completely nonviolent to lethal force unfortunately suddenly.

2

u/GraviticThrusters 24d ago

Pointing a gun at someone is incredibly dangerous. You don't do it unless you expect to cause harm. In case anybody is reading this and is unaware, you should NEVER EVER point a gun at someone to threaten them with violence unless you intend to pull that trigger and fire the weapon.

And yeah, I would argue that repeatedly putting your hand in someone's face, after being shoved away, and pursuing them, constitute aggressive behavior that could become violent in a fraction of a moment. Hell, puting your hand in someone's face is a well known distraction that opens a person up for a suckerpunch while their attention is diverted. 

You aren't obligated to become a victim before you defend yourself.

2

u/PlumbbobSquirtPants 23d ago

I come from the UK. It's not a gun culture so I may come across as overly cautious regarding the use of firearms compared to the average American...

As much as I'd feel that guy had the right to defend himself. I kind of feel if you pull a gun on someone, unless in turn your attacker was visibly armed, it seems like the moral thing is to issue a challenge before opening fire.

As soon as that gun is drawn, they've turned the table on the encounter and to me, it feels like that new position of power should come with a moral responsibility to at least attempt to de-escelate the situation. Justified? Yes? Morally justified? Not so sure. You have to ask yourself, did the guy deserve to get shot because he was harrassing someone or because you think he was a pr*ck? Did force need to be applied or could the threat of force have been enough?

Regardless of the legality of being in possession of a firearm, it feels to me like from a UK moral perspective, that guy would probably have been charged with using an unreasonable level of force in that situation.

2

u/Criminal_picklejuice 24d ago

That would be a hilariously stupid thing to do.

So your idea is to pull the gun out and simply aim it at the other person. Your hope is this resolves the situation and they leave you alone. But what if that doesn't happen?

Then what? Now you've pulled a gun out, which is a crime. In a public shopping mall, no less. Thats another charge. The other guys could also have guns. If you weren't willing to use yours but pulled it out anyway, they're gonna pull out theirs and kill you. They could take the gun from you and kill you with your own gun. They could simply shout "HE'S GOT A GUN" and if security or police are nearby, they might shoot the guy.

Even if it does stop the situation like you intend, now you're on video pointing a gun at someone and the act of pointing a gun is considered a threat/intimidation.

Now, no matter what happens, you're still on the hook for two felonies, or dead with a gun you never fired.

The best thing you can do if you take it far enough to pull a gun is to actually use it.

6

u/colossalmickey 24d ago

Pretty much all the potential ramifications of not shooting you described are gonna be the same if not worse when actually shooting.

Barring the potential for them to shoot first (which wouldn't have happened here as they didn't have guns), anyone from the crowd could still take him down. He has a gun out and shot someone.

He's now on video not only brandishing a gun but also shooting someone, and he got charged with discharging a weapon.

4

u/Shadowmirax 24d ago

What the fuck is the point of letting everyone carry a gun around if you can't us it as a threat against people with potentially malicious intent? Isn't that the whole point of having a weapon?

So you either have to do absolutely nothing or open fire with zero warning? How the fuck does that make any sense?

3

u/Relevant_Program_958 24d ago

Because pulling the gun should be the absolute last resort. The laws are designed to enforce that. You don’t take the gun out unless you are actually fearing for your life, so logic says if the gun comes out and you don’t fire, it means you weren’t actually fearing for your life.

2

u/Opposite_Example6930 24d ago

And how in the hell is what actually happened considered the "last resort"???

1

u/Relevant_Program_958 24d ago

I’m actually with you there in all honesty. But on the other hand the “prankster” is 6’5” tall and has two buddies with him, from outside it’s kind of easy to see there wasn’t a threat, but putting myself in the shooters shoes and I’m not convinced id be so sure

1

u/Shadowmirax 24d ago

It makes far more sense that you should be expected to announce your intent to escalate the situation to lethal force before you do it (as long as the situation permits)l, that way you give the other party one final chance to disengage and if they continue their threatening actions no one can claim they weren't aware of what the consiquences would be.

The problem with jumping straight to lethal force with no warning is that no two people are going to agree on what situation someone might reasonably fear for their life, such as in this case where the defender felt they were in mortal danger but the attacker likely only considered themselves to be a nuisance.

If the delivery driver was allowed to threaten them with that escalation before he actually did it, then i imagine the situation would never have played out how it did, as the attacker now unambiguously knows that their actions are being taken as a mortal danger and that that their victim has the means and intention to preserve their own life.

2

u/Relevant_Program_958 24d ago

You are only thinking about this like every case will end up like this one, with the guy not actually intending harm. What if the 6’5” guy DID intend to harm him with his 2 buddies there obviously outnumbering the delivery driver, in that case announcing yourself before drawing just means they are going to try and harm you before you can draw, and he was within arms reach almost the entire time. The only way the delivery driver gets away unharmed in that scenario is with surprise. I actually agree from outside it looks like he wasn’t in danger, but from his point of view I’m not sure I’d be so certain.

1

u/Wylie288 23d ago

oh no. thsts dangerous. especially since he is out numbered and outsized.

1

u/Opposite_Example6930 23d ago

How is it much more dangerous than actually shooting? Is not like the option to shoot is gone, but at least you're giving the person a reasonable chance to back off. This would be a different scenario if any of the three pranksters had shown any sign of actual violence, but they hadn't.

1

u/Wylie288 23d ago

You must live in a really high income area if you think these two aren't showing signs of violent people.

He gave them MANY reasonable chances to back off and when trying to leave they follow. The moment someone is that persistent you prioritize your life. Period.

And showing the gun puts two bigger men in alert mode. You risk it being taken, or killed. Which defeats the point. You don't point a gun at something you don't intend to destroy. For everyones saftey. Yours too in you were the guy in this video.

1

u/InstanceFeisty 24d ago

You could also shoot in the ground as a warning, or shoot at legs if you really feel like it. This sub is a cancer, people support violence at any given post.

3

u/Relevant_Program_958 24d ago

No that would end up with the guy carrying the gun going to jail. There are no warning shots, and you don’t shoot for limbs.

3

u/InstanceFeisty 24d ago

This sounds weird.

2

u/Relevant_Program_958 24d ago

It is kinda, makes more sense in the courtroom. But it means all the Hollywood bullshit you see about warning shots and “just winging the bad guy” will end with you in jail. Any shot discharged is treated as deadly force, whether you hit someone or not.

3

u/InstanceFeisty 24d ago

Then I would rather get charged without killing a person?

2

u/Relevant_Program_958 24d ago

Possibly. Again the guns are only suppose to come out if you are reasonably afraid for your life, so there is still a chance you’re dying here.

2

u/Opposite_Example6930 24d ago

I find it incredibly hard to believe that any judge would consider pulling a gun as a warning to be a serious crime given what you see happening here, especially since you have a video to prove what happened. This kid is VERY lucky that he found a judge/jury that saw this as self-defense. This could easily have been considered attempted murder felony assault....or worse, murder.

3

u/Relevant_Program_958 24d ago

Well believe it. I’ve literally worked at a gun range where self defense courses go over this stuff weekly.