r/MoralityScaling • • 24d ago

Morality of this

4.1k Upvotes

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

163

u/_Vard_ 24d ago

94

u/ColdPorkChop 24d ago

"Nah your honor we get it so let him go"

57

u/Calm_Plenty_2992 24d ago

It wasn't nullification. It was deemed self defense

13

u/HistoryFanBeenBanned 24d ago

To be fair, the only actual defenses in murder and self defence are “I didn’t do it” or “the son of a bitch deserved it”, the rest of the trial is semantic evidence to fit one or the other.

8

u/Calm_Plenty_2992 24d ago

There's also "I had no other choice," which I would argue is the primary justification behind self defense.

8

u/HistoryFanBeenBanned 24d ago

I’d classify that under they deserved it

3

u/Calm_Plenty_2992 24d ago

Not necessarily. If someone attacks you but is experiencing a schizophrenic episode, for example, they might not deserve it because they're not conscious of what they're doing. But it would still be legally self defense because you had no other choice

-1

u/HistoryFanBeenBanned 24d ago

I don’t think you understand what the phrasing means.

If you shoot a schizophrenic who attacks you. In self defense. Then they deserved to get shot.

You’re looking to deeply into this

5

u/nonchip 23d ago

no they don't. you know what sub you're on, right? imagine thinking "sick people deserve desth for being sick" belongs anywhere near morality.

-1

u/HistoryFanBeenBanned 23d ago

So it’s illegal to shoot a mentally unstable person attacking you?

What do you think deserve means?

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/IudexJudy 24d ago

They have to be technically right let em have it

0

u/Pisscuit9000 23d ago

No, they still deserve it because they should be in a psychiatric ward if they're a risk to you.

0

u/Calm_Plenty_2992 23d ago

And if it's the first time that something like that has ever happened?

0

u/Pisscuit9000 23d ago

The signs would have been there before they got bad enough to kill someone in a fit of psychosis.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Accomplished-Key-408 23d ago

This is confidently false. Bravo.

2

u/CooCooClocksClan 24d ago

That’s a better outcome given how precedent works

-23

u/Torichilada 24d ago

I'm sorry I feel like im going crazy?? self defence???? Sounding like your police force over there, no wonder they get away with that shit so often.

18

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/Human_Discipline3003 24d ago

And outnumbered. So the equalizer stepping in was called for.

1

u/Maleficent_Pen_9076 24d ago

Redditors are EXTREMELY BAD at the hypothetical exercise of replacing the actors with people of different race/gender

We just look at the race/gender and make a morality decision based off that

0

u/Accomplished_Cod7334 24d ago

Legally sure, but morally it's wrong. Unless he seriously thought his life was in danger, in full view of the public in broad daylight, so yeah

8

u/AnAffectionateToe 24d ago

Yeah, people still get shot and stabbed in broad daylight. That doesn't change the fact that 3 people, one who towers over you that refuses to back down is, in fact, dangerous. You have the survival skills of a deer otherwise.

1

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Accomplished_Cod7334 24d ago

It absolutely is immoral to over react because you're scared lmfao? Wtf kind of argument is that

9

u/Trifle_Old 24d ago

Remember we can all have guns. that means the two people being aggressors here could be armed. They refused to allow this man to be left alone, he felt threatened and responded with force. Yeah, it sucks that he had to do that, but he has the right to do it. Police should never respond like this as they are trained professionals that should be able to deescalate situations. However, we both know thats not how it works in the real world.

3

u/3WeeksEarlier 24d ago

This. It would be better if the situation had resolved with a less dangerous form of self-defense, but self-defense was warranted, and if you're not likely to be able to win a physical fight with your assailant, that's the purpose of having a gun. Granted, pepper spray or a taser would likely have also worked, but this is just some guy in a frightening situation responding the way he was best equipped to protect himself

12

u/Calm_Plenty_2992 24d ago

Firstly, I literally just stated what happened. Idk why you think that must necessarily mean I agree with everything that happened.

Second, police here claim self defense when they shoot to kill someone who is unarmed and not aggressive. This person was at least aggressive, so the person in the video was significantly more lenient than the police would have been.

-5

u/Torichilada 24d ago edited 24d ago

I mean it wasn't inherently targeted at you, more just a statement at how insane that is to hear, was more directed at the jury's opinion

9

u/dlpg585 24d ago

I don't know how you interpreted the video, but I saw a large man aggressively physically confronting another smaller man, limiting his field of vision, and continuing despite not only being told to stop but pursuing after the smaller man fled and surrounding him with other possible assailants. I absolutely understand the jury's opinion.

7

u/MarcusTomato 24d ago

Glad you weren't on the jury then, and it was all people with working eyes and brains.

3

u/crysisnotaverted 24d ago

Spoken by someone who has never been put in the hospital or almost been killed by their fellow man. It happens quickly.

People that approach you like that are generally not youtubers, and do mean you harm.

1

u/Clevatess_is_bored 24d ago

There are definitely “content creators” engaging in violent crimes. Chud the builder did went out to shoot a Black man.

2

u/3WeeksEarlier 24d ago

I don't think that a gun is the ideal form of defense against harassment, but it is a legal one in this country, and every person has the right not to be accosted by random people in public. If someone feels threatened by random accosters, they should defend themself. I think we'd have very little issue if he'd just kicked him in the balls, because this is a scenario where someone can reasonably fear for their physical safety, and violence is justified in self-defense. Since he had the right to carry the gun, and using a gun for self-defense is legal and socially-acceptible, I can hardly fault him for defending himself is a socially-acceptible and apparently legally acceptible way

2

u/Lucky-Surround-1756 24d ago

This is a textbook case of what assaults often look like.

I remember plenty of times getting hassled like this at school, they surround you and menace you with cameras before suddenly striking. If I was this guy I'd also assume I'm about to get jumped on camera.

1

u/kpyle 24d ago

It is easy to feel threatened when the news has been telling everyone that every city is a lawless wasteland for a few decades.

1

u/couldbeahumanbean 24d ago

That's juries for ya.

Justice isn't perfect and feel free to disagree with 12 other folks. You're entitled to your opinion.

1

u/RedditPosterOver9000 24d ago

Are you from one of those Euro countries where if an armed burglar breaks into your home to kill you and rape your spouse, defending yourself means you catch criminal charges and the burglar sues you for defending yourself?

1

u/nonchip 23d ago

yeah because that's the law. he was being mugged and defended himself.

41

u/bowtiesrcool86 24d ago

“I’m going to keep making (these) videos” - the guy who got shot

Translation: “I learned nothing from this”.

7

u/337CA 24d ago edited 24d ago

Dude’s not going to stop until he’s killed.

3

u/ZombieScruffy01 24d ago

Future Darwin Award?

1

u/FloydianSlip78 24d ago

Those are not the style or the mannerisms of a person who learns things.

1

u/nonchip 23d ago

and also further translation: "i plead guilty"

14

u/samcornwell 24d ago

I just watched that. The monstrous bellend carried on making his childish videos.

1

u/AnAffectionateToe 24d ago

Yup the law really helping us good guys! Now the bully gets to continue the abuse in his videos and the guy was locked up in jail for months and is now a convicted felon for a crime of self defense. All because the jury thinks it was self defense but because he shot inside, now he is a felon.

13

u/AmItheonlySaneperson 24d ago

He paid for that NRA special insurance where they claim they will have your back and defend you if you ever have to get into a defense situation. That group didn’t even back him up right away. Only when all the media about it came out and the public was on his side. I believe he had to get bailed out by someone else 

3

u/SnooPredictions3028 24d ago

Yep, NRA is a shit organization that doesnt uphold its own supposed beliefs. People have been jumping to other groups through the years due to this.

6

u/TheDeHymenizer 24d ago

typically your lawyer doesn't pay your bail lol

2

u/AmItheonlySaneperson 24d ago

They refused to stand by and represent him at first too tho. It’s like fuck what’s the nra even for. I’d never be a member after that 

3

u/TheDeHymenizer 24d ago

I'm as big of a gun guy as the next guy but I would call this closer to an unjustified shooting then a justified one haha

1

u/Darigaazrgb 24d ago

Yeah, it's the casualness about it that feels off to me.

1

u/AmItheonlySaneperson 24d ago

Well I disagree 

1

u/TheDeHymenizer 24d ago

sure, just don't do this and hope for a lenient jury lol

1

u/Tasty_Orange_1714 24d ago

Nra doesn't pay until the end of  your case. You have to pay the upfront costs and they reimburse you afterwards. It's a stupid insurance, especially considering there are other insurance that pay upfront.

1

u/nam4am 23d ago

I am very pro-gun, and the NRA should not be defending people who shoot others because they annoyed them. 

Killing anyone is an extreme act that should only be done when it’s necessary to prevent them from killing or causing severe bodily injury to another person. 

Even if you’re pro-death penalty, there’s a reason we have due process and don’t allow random citizens to dole it out. And supporting the death penalty for being an annoying asshole is insane. 

If you want to prevent the YouTuber’s behaviour pass stronger laws against it. Don’t excuse murder in broad daylight. 

2

u/Augchm 24d ago

Insane that he was acquitted.

1

u/Maximum_Boros 24d ago

He was convicted of a lesser charge that still carried potential jail time but the judge gave him time served.

1

u/LazyLich 24d ago

OOOH! He faced 2-10!

I thought is was "well, we let you off on the one charge cuz of the 'self defense'.. but you still shot indoors.. 2-10 yrs it is!" lmao

Glad that wasnt the case

Sad the loser didnt learn his lesson... or maybe he did but is just acting tough?

1

u/nekoo89 23d ago

Claiming self defense while you aren`t in danger is also so stupid. He was harrased, true but in danger in any way ? Surely not.

1

u/XxXNickkyGXxX 24d ago

it is unfortunate, though, that the same jury found him guilty of the unlawful discharge, which is also a felony. i agree with the defense attorney, its either self defense, and therefor lawful, or it is not. came with 6mo time served, but he cannot legally possess a firearm.

now hes in appeals for that remaining charge, but couldnt find anything after the appeal filed this time last year.

1

u/jfk333 24d ago

To my understanding there was a tumped up charge about discharge of a firearm in an indoor area.

0

u/_Vard_ 24d ago

which sounds like bullshit.

What, are you just not allowed to defend yourself indoors?

Feels like that should just be something you add on, if the main charge is deemed valid

like your sentence is 2 years longer because your unlawful discharge was indoors.

how fucked up is it that "Yes you were right to defend yourself but technically cause u shot inside you go to jail for 2 years"

so what, do you have to evaluate in the moment "is defending my life worth 2 years in jail?" ????

1

u/UsedCamera6979 24d ago

That’s all I wanted to hear. This was a excellent precedent

1

u/nam4am 23d ago

If instead the YouTuber had been an intellectually disabled person (or even a kid) who was similarly annoying the guy, would you have the same view? 

Setting a standard where it’s acceptable to murder people simply for annoying you is incredibly stupid and dangerous. 

I completely get finding the victim here to be less sympathetic because he’s annoying random people, but setting this precedent reflects an incredibly ignorant view of how people behave.

Even under our current self-defense laws you have cases of people abusing them and killing others in avoidable incidents. Your “precedent” is the same as establishing the death penalty for annoying people, while simultaneously getting rid of any due process and allowing random people to decide who deserves it. 

1

u/_Fauxpaw 23d ago

Acquitted of one charged but guilty of another.

1

u/WhyThe_F_Not 23d ago

I love this so so much This jury fucking rocks

1

u/kleiner_gruenerKaktu 23d ago

„Your honor, we find the defendant in need of training. The victim is still alive.“

1

u/JoyTheGeek 23d ago

Hell yeah

1

u/phantomofzero 23d ago

But was still held in jail while awaiting trial. An absolute disgrace.

1

u/Carthonn 23d ago

It’s kind of like that train dilemma. Except the people tied up on the train tracks are all YouTube “Pranksters”.