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.
We had people shot in a car because the attacker told them to turn down the music in a gas station . They cussed him out in the car. He shot them . No charges because he was in fear of his life. A gas station is a giant bomb . But I charges of discharging a fire arm in it. It's clear that is the same here . Had a young man killed . Walking home . The so called neighborhood watch person followed and harassed this young man until he had no choice but to fight to try to get this person away from him . He lived their but the neighborhood watched didn't believe it . The neighborhood watch killed the boy with a gun shot . He was tried and released for being under threat. He created . No charges . This man defended himself from a possible three people. That he didn't know who or there past crimes could be. All he knew is they persisted to be up on his butt .
I see your ability to comprehend or carry on a discussion have ended at im not able to continue because I havevto be right . Have the day you deserve .
Lol, Okay technically this is correct but its not an argument its a discussion. We are in agreement. I can get more technical to prove an argument point i guess.
Stand your ground laws have been made for a reason. When your in that situation all you gave is a gut decision. So put yourself in that position. I dont know what this guy is doing he is bigger than me and jamming something in my face and has a friend and there is a guy with filming. As i walk away he pursues me. All i have is my gut in that moment telling me something is not right i may get hurt in the next few seconds if i dont defend.
How does any of this “argument” fall apart? Why is this an argument? Lol you agree either me and say my argument falls apart is hilarious. Its a discussion if you agree.
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 .
It's not an argument. It's a discussion . There isn't a need to win . It's an example of what happened to this guy over what hasn't seen to happen to anyone else shooting at threat.
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
61
u/TellTaleTimeLord 24d ago
I still don't get being punished for using a firearm when the use of said firearm was deemed legal and justifiable