Man who shot YouTuber on video at Dulles Town Center found not guilty by jury

LEESBURG, Va. — After two days of testimony, the man who shot a 21-year-old YouTuber inside Dulles Town Center on video in April has been found not guilty on two charges of malicious wounding.

The jury found Alan Colie not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding or use of a firearm for aggravated malicious wounding, however, he was found guilty of firing a gun inside the mall. That guilty verdict has been set aside until a hearing to discuss it on October 19.

Colie, a DoorDash driver, was on trial for shooting Tanner Cook, the man behind the YouTube channel “Classified Goons,” at the Dulles Town Center back in April. Colie admitted to shooting Cook when he took the stand Wednesday but claimed it was self-defense.

The case went viral not because there was a shooting inside a mall, but because Cook is known to make prank videos. Cook amassed 55,000 subscribers with an average income of up to $3,000 per month. He said he elicits responses to entertain viewers and called his pranks “comedy content.”

Colie faced three charges, including aggravated malicious wounding, malicious discharge of a firearm within an occupied dwelling, and use of firearm for aggravated malicious wounding. The jury had to weigh different factors including if Colie had malicious intent and had reasonable fear of imminent danger of bodily harm.

Cook was in the courtroom when jurors were shown footage of him getting shot near the stomach – a video that has not yet been made public. Cook’s mother, however, left the courtroom to avoid watching the key piece of evidence in her son’s shooting.

The footage was recorded by one of Cook’s friends, who was helping to record a prank video for Cook’s channel. The video shows Cook holding his phone near Colie’s ear and using Google Translate to play a phrase out loud four times, while Colie backed away.

When he testified, Colie recalled how Cook and his friend approached him from behind and put the phone about 6 inches away from his face. He described feeling confused by the phrase Cook was playing. Colie told the jury the two looked “really cold and angry.” He also acknowledged carrying a gun during work as a way to protect himself after seeing reports of other delivery service drivers being robbed.

“Colie walked into the mall to do his job with no intention of interacting with Tanner Cook. None,” Adam Pouilliard, Colie’s defense attorney, said. "He’s sitting next to his defense attorneys right now. How’s that for a consequence?”

The Commonwealth argued that Cook was never armed, never placed hands on Colie and never posed a threat. They stressed that just because Cook may not seem like a saint or his occupation makes him appear undesirable, that a conviction is warranted.

“We don’t like our personal space invaded, but that does not justify the ability to shoot someone in a public space during an interaction that lasted for only 20 seconds,” Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Eden Holmes said.

The jury began deliberating around 11:30 a.m. Thursday. Shortly after 3:30 p.m., the jury came back saying they were divided and couldn’t come to a resolution. The judge instructed them to continue deliberating and later returned with the not-guilty verdict.

WUSA9 caught up with the Cook family following the verdict. When we asked Tanner Cook how he felt about the outcome, he said it is all up to God.

“I really don’t care, I mean it is what it is,” he said. “It’s God’s plan at the end of the day.”

His mother, Marla Elam, said the family respects the jury and that the Cook family is just thankful Tanner is alive.

“Nothing else matters right now,” she said.

Here’s the video by NBC Washington, apologies that it’s served by Discord

masterspace,

I guess there’s a reason Just For Laughs Gags is filmed in Canada.

Paranoia and heavy armament don’t seem to go well together.

zik,

Also Just for Laughs mostly uses people who are already in on the joke, which helps.

mindbleach,

This is one of the more polite takes that ignores the victim’s reasonable expectation he was about to get mugged or something. But it’s no less wrong.

If you stuck a toy gun in people’s faces, information revealed afterward will not change those people’s experience of a life-or-death threat, in that moment. Same deal for clown-with-a-knife bullshit. Same deal for getting in stranger’s faces. The degrees matter - and we get further from an “I might die here” response being justifiable and obvious. But presumably the Canadians aren’t committing assault for the sake of television.

masterspace,

Same deal for getting in stranger’s faces. The degrees matter - and we get further from an “I might die here” response being justifiable and obvious.

Yes, we’re already so far away from it that’s it’s not in sight at this point.

mindbleach,

Stop trolling in every subthread. You act like Colie walked up and shot this guy out of nowhere - when he was confronted, followed, and surrounded.

As an observer from the future, you know he wasn’t in physical danger.

He did not.

He had every reason to anticipate harm.

masterspace,

The entire interaction from the start til when he was shot lasted 20 seconds, in broad daylight, inside a public mall.

That is not being followed and surrounded in a way where you think you’re about to be killed in any mind but the most deluded and paranoid.

mindbleach,

This asshole’s lawyer did a better job than you and still couldn’t convince anyone. Take a hint.

theluckyone,

Cook’s lack of respect for people and his total disregard of the consequences of his actions is what caused this situation, not paranoia and heavy armament.

CmdrShepard,

I don’t have any sympathy for Cook, nor do i think it’s a bad verdict, but shooting someone is a pretty extreme response to having a phone held near your face/ear for 20 seconds.

RememberTheApollo_, (edited )

It’s a losing battle trying to inject reasonable responses to situations here. Running away is apparently something that is no longer allowed. People somehow think going for violence is always the correct and immediate response to something like this. This place is no better than Reddit for that, there are some bloodthirsty motherfuckers itching to tell someone who is in charge via the point of a gun.

FlowVoid, (edited )

You don’t have a monopoly on reasonableness. Twelve jurors, not Redditors, agreed that the YouTuber was behaving aggressively, and violence is a common response to aggression.

And the YouTuber’s entire shtick is to make people think they might be in danger, by not letting them back away. Because that’s how fights commonly start. If he did the same routine ten feet away from his victims, the whole shtick would fail.

CmdrShepard,

12 jurors agreed that they couldn’t agree on a verdict and the judge told them that wasn’t an option so they came back with a not guilty verdict.

FlowVoid,

Yes, they agreed they couldn’t agree and then they agreed they could agree. And the verdict they could agree on was not guilty.

heyoni,

You’re reading into that the wrong way. There was one incompatible charge about firing indoors. Somehow you can be guilty of that without being guilty for shooting someone? That’s almost definitely what the hangup was about and the judge is going to hear arguments for it next month even though it was the only charge they found him guilty for.

RememberTheApollo_,

And that result proves that society is too quick to use a gun by deeming potential lethal force so acceptable.

FlowVoid,

Or maybe it proves that society has deemed intentionally menacing bystanders, particularly for money, to be completely unacceptable.

Microw,

violence is a common response to aggression

And that’s the thing about US legal law: the active support for violence in response to aggression.

Most European countries have a clear legal principle of not allowing violence in response to aggression.

FlowVoid,

Most European countries allow the use of force in self defense.

jarfil,

Proportional force.

For example:

  • Shooting someone, for telling you to given them your wallet, is NOT proportional.
  • Stabbing someone to death, for trying to mug you at knifepoint, IS proportional.
  • Stabbing them and dismembering the body afterwards, is NOT proportional.

The main difference, is most European countries have a (mostly) functional police force you can expect to help you deal properly in most conflict situations.

Still, this case “could” be considered proportional if the guy saw the prankster and his friends as potentially assaulting him as a group.

FlowVoid,

Laws vary by country and state, but some European countries are actually more permissive than the US in the matter of self defense.

For example, Germany allows you to use deadly force to protect mere property, this is not allowed in many US states.

jarfil,

Germany allows you to use “up to” deadly force… if you can argue there was no other way to stop the attacker… and basically with your bare hands, because guns and weapons are way more controlled than in the US.

To have a gun you need to pass not just a criminal check, but also a proficiency test, a fitness test, and then justify a “special need” to own a certain gun. Even carrying a foldable knife can land you in jail before you get a chance to use it for “deadly force”.

On the bright side, you could probably legally run over a thief with your car.

FlowVoid,

Most Germans have easy access to a kitchen knife, especially if they are at home. And those can readily be used to kill someone.

jarfil,

You can have a lot of stuff at home, like a katana, a crossbow, a nail gun, or any sort of airsoft replica gun. You can also carry it in a bag, a backpack, or anywhere else out of easy reach.

The “out of easy reach” part is especially important for paintball, airsoft, archery and hunting enthusiasts; you better make sure that weapon is well packed and hard to reach while carrying it around in public, unless you want it confiscated and land your ass in jail way before you have a chance of using it for self defense.

Microw,

Within a narrowly defined scope, yes. Pretty sure that with how the case is described here that he would be convicted in a lot of European countries for overstepping the amount of force he’s allowed to use in self defense.

FlowVoid, (edited )

Depends on the country, of course. Some European countries are actually more permissive than the US.

For example, in the US you must have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm to use deadly force. Reasonable means an average person would feel the same way.

But in the UK, any actual fear of great bodily harm justifies deadly force, even if it is not reasonable, ie even if an average person would not have that fear.

Furthermore unlike most US states there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force in the UK, France, Spain or Sweden. This means you can immediately use deadly force when threatened, you don’t need to reserve it as a “last option.”

mindbleach,

Dishonest minimization helps nobody. It’s like saying ‘having a toy pointed at you’ and neglecting to mention that it was a toy gun.

This man thought he was getting jumped. He attempted de-escalation, immediately, to no effect. These assholes had twenty whole seconds to figure out the guy backing away, yelling at them to stop, and shoving Cook away did not consider the situation acceptable.

This was assault.

CmdrShepard,

You’ll have to explain how you can confuse being beaten up by multiple people with having someone put a phone near your face. You’d think it would be obvious as one involves a group of people punching you while the other one doesn’t. Using your definition means anyone who makes another person fearful, whether justified or not, deserves to get shot. Someone with paranoid schizophrenia essentially gets a free pass to murder everyone they come in contact with.

As I said, I don’t have an issue with the ruling and I think the youtuber is a POS, but you’re essentially arguing that killing someone is an appropriate response to just about every annoying/inconvenient situation that may arise in a person’s daily life.

mindbleach,

Battery and assault are different things.

This thing was assault.

It’s not “my definition.” It’s the definition.

And stop fucking minimizing what happened by repeating annoy when you mean confront, bewilder, violate the personal space of, refuse to back off from, ignore verbal warnings by, etc.

CmdrShepard,

Not sure where your definition is derived from. In Virginia, assault is defined as:

An assault is an overt act with the intent to do bodily harm to another together with a present ability to cause such harm, or it is an act intended to place another person in fear or apprehension of bodily harm.

You’re minimizing things here by pretending like shooting someone (attempting to end their life entirely) is an appropriate response to someone holding a phone playing some oddball text-to-speech message near you for 20 seconds.

What was the overt act to do bodily harm here? Did this guy ever even touch the shooter? Should any paranoid person be justified in shooting anyone who puts them in a confusing situation? You’re advocating that anyone who becomes afraid of another individual, under any circumstance, is justified in trying to kill them which is absolutely insane.

You’re talking about getting jumped when nobody even touched the guy. You’re attempting to rely on charged language and outright falsities to prove your point.

mindbleach,

Placing people in apprehension of bodily harm is this asshole’s career. It’s what he plainly means he wants, when he says he ignored repeated warnings to stop, because the victim wasn’t giving him the reaction he was looking for. He is such a fucking nutcase that he went on to say “there was no reaction.” He says this of a man repeatedly yelling “STOP!” and backing away.

You’re lying to me about my own claims, because the only way you can defend this is to pretend the victim shot this guy completely out of the blue. You toss around absolutes, as if judging this case means any violence, for any reason, must always be-- shut up.

This was assault.

This asshole’s entire career is assaulting people. There’s no violence… but people often think there’s gonna be, and he goddamn well knows it. He said so himself.

Like all tired “it’s just a prank bro!” types, he has no idea what a prank is, besides making people angry and laughing at them. As an actual fucking jury at an actual fucking trial found - his actions made a man reasonably believe he was about to get jumped. And your ass wants to scoff ‘he hadn’t been jumped yet,’ like you don’t know what ability and fear mean. Like you’re struggling with the words - about to.

CmdrShepard,

Placing people in apprehension of bodily harm

When did this occur? Did he state that he was going to harm Cook at any point?

You’re lying to me about my own claims

I literally just repeated exactly what you stated in your comment.

the only way you can defend this is to pretend the victim shot this guy completely out of the blue

Nobody has stated this. I stated that this was a response to having a phone held up to their face/ear for 20 seconds. You seem confused about the details and would benefit from reading the article.

This was assault.

It was not and I quoted the Virginia statute on assault. You don’t seem to be able to defend against the wording without stating absolutes while ignoring the text of the statute.

There’s no violence…

Well at least you can admit the truth finally. Previously you stated “he thought he was being jumped.”

Like you’re struggling with the words - about to.

Like I stated, paranoia. Are you arguing that any person with a heightened level of paranoia is justified in shooting someone? Can you answer this question without deflecting onto something else? I don’t believe you can. People with all sorts of mental illness believe others are out to get them. If I believe in “gang stalking” should I be allowed to shoot anyone near me without question? Why or why not? How about making a legitimate argument rather than grand standing with little more than charged language. This verdict was decided by a hung jury that likely wanted to go home and do something other than debate on some dipshit youtuber and the guy who shot him…

mindbleach,

I literally just repeated exactly what you stated in your comment.

You’re advocating that anyone who becomes afraid of another individual, under any circumstance, is justified in trying to kill them which is absolutely insane.

I’m not wasting any more time on someone who’s gonna lie to me about their own words in black and white.

Previously you stated “he thought he was being jumped.”

You might fail the Sally-Anne test.

ram, (edited )

I’m glad he got off on the first two charges, but his lawyer argues that the third charge, “shooting in an occupied dwelling” shouldn’t be applicable since it was deemed self defence. The judge will be hearing arguments for this next month.^[newsio.com/…/alan-colie-man-who-shot-youtube-pran…]

Also, dude’s now spent 6 months in jail, only to be found not guilty of at least 2/3rds of the charges. Is there any compensation he’ll get for those missing months of his life? He’s already been punished, and yet he’s still presumed innocent.

30mag,

Is there any compensation he’ll get for those missing months of his life?

If he files a lawsuit, maybe.

masterspace,

He tried to murder a teenager for annoying him for 20s.

You’re absolutely fucked in the head for thinking this is justified.

SnipingNinja,

21 year old teenager?

Sea_pop,

Just because a 21 year old YouTube prankster has the mental and emotional capacity of a teenager, does not make them a teenager. They should know better.

Mafflez,

If some random idiot wants to try and fuck with me and I don’t know them and I TEL THEM TO STOP and they persist. They get whatever I give them. If I have my kids they get no warning. I don’t fucking play and I don’t care about them. My safety and that of my kids is first. Do NOT FUCK WITH STRANGERS. PERIOD.

masterspace,

Unhinged smooth brained morons like you are why America is a shithole.

Mafflez,

No man. Just doing fucking mess with people. End of the story. You want to act like a loon go for it. Those actions have consequences. I’m under no obligation to make sure you aren’t hurt for acting a fool neither is anyone else in this world. Stop acting like a cunt because people don’t want to or will not put up with being harassed. My first instinct isn’t to harm someone and least of all kill them. However I won’t fuck around if my safety or children’s safety is potentially at risk.

gregorum,

Self-defense ≠ murder. They are two legally distinct terms. Perhaps you should look them up, as you seem unfamiliar with their definitions.

Endorkend,
Endorkend avatar

He'd probably need to file a suit against the state or the YouTuber.

If he's only cleared on 2/3 charges in the end, they'll just slap a minimum of 6 months on him and call it time served.

He probably doesn't have a leg to stand on suing the YouTuber if only cleared on 2/3 charges.

If he is cleared of all charges, he can sue the pants of both.

But lawsuits are expensive.

Frozengyro,

And I’m sure he’s already spent a ton on a lawyer.

Very_Bad_Janet,

If he is cleared of al charges, there will definitely be lawyers interested in his lawsuit esp for the publicity.

thepianistfroggollum,

Those types of cases are usually taken on contingency, so money isn’t a huge factor.

collegefurtrader,

No, not for criminal defense

SaltySalamander,
SaltySalamander avatar

Considering what's being discussed is a civil lawsuit...

collegefurtrader,

Oh i see

thepianistfroggollum,

I was speaking to getting a lawyer to sue the city and YouTuber, not the criminal trial.

Unaware7013,

The jury found Alan Colie not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding or use of a firearm for aggravated malicious wounding, however, he was found guilty of firing a gun inside the mall.

Quick correction, he was found guilty of discharging a firearm in a building, the other charge “use of firearm for aggravated malicious wounding” was one of the two the jury found him not guilty on.

ram,

Edited ty

radix,
@radix@lemmy.world avatar

It is certainly a weird conclusion. You CAN defend yourself. You CAN defend yourself with a gun. You CANNOT defend yourself with a gun indoors?

phx,

More that the nature of the indoors location had an increased likelihood of hitting a innocent bystander.

Maybe you’re more justified in somebody if it’s a 2-on-1 situation and you feel like your life is threatened, but pull out a gun and start blasting and you also put the lives of anyone within a certain distance around your target in danger.

Given the lack of apparent weapons on the “assailants”, drawing on them might have been sufficient to disengage and assess without actually needing to fire the weapon at all

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

Doesn’t that infringe everyone’s right in the building not to get shot while shopping?

ikidd,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

Only the ones that aren’t threatening someone else.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

Was it only the idiot YouTuber and the guy defending themselves or were there other people in danger?

ikidd,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

It’s ok, the prankster blocked it with his stomach and saved everyone. He’s a hero.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

Sounds to me like two idiots out other people in danger.

jeremy_sylvis,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

One idiot put one idiot in danger - don’t victim blame.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

So shooting in a mall is safe for everyone else?

jeremy_sylvis,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

Why would a single round fired into an assailant be unsafe for anyone other than that assailant?

Do you believe bullets travel on some trajectory not subject to the rules of physics, curving around randomly?

bastion,

Give him some slack. He doesn’t like it, and so he feels unsafe, and would rather not have to think about danger at all.

Now that we’re human, we’ve evolved beyond such things as danger, personal responsibility, right to self defense, etc.

/s, in case that isn’t clear to anyone.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

The country I live in would throw the shooter’s ass in jail for that shit.

YouTuber was no saint, but shooting someone for getting in your face is a sign you’re weak as hell.

bastion,

You’re taking, but all I hear is Satan’s Maggoty Cum Fart.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

It’s always a great look when you have to resort to an ad hominem.

bastion,

You mean, your actual username?

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

It’s okay if you have nothing else to add to this conversation.

bastion,

pat pat

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

I guess we’ll see what the court says next month!

jeremy_sylvis,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

To be clear, the court has already said he was perfectly justified from the self-defense perspective. I look forward to it clearing him of the “firing indoors” nonsense.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

The charge he was found guilty of by the jury?

jeremy_sylvis,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

The same charge pending judge review due to its inconsistency with having acted in self-defense?

Colie’s defense attorney, Adam Pouilliard, said the conviction on the firearms charge is inconsistent with the law, given Colie’s acquittal on self-defense grounds. He asked the judge to set aside the conviction. A judge will hear arguments on the issue at a hearing next month.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

So they didn’t find him guilty of that charge?

jeremy_sylvis,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

As we’ve covered, the same charge I look forward to the court clearing him of next month. If you’re still having trouble with the concept beyond this, I’m going to leave it to you to figure out.

SatansMaggotyCumFart,

It sounds like we both are saying that he was found guilty but both are looking forward to what the court says, I’m not sure why you’re being disagreeable.

Fosheze,

That’s why in most places only hollow point bullets are legal for self defence. They are designed to mushroom out and break up when they hit something. This makes them ideal self defence rounds for 2 reasons. They have a ton more stopping power against an unarmored tarket (odds are your mugger isn’t wearing kevlar). Aditionally they usually don’t really survive going through walls. Even just sheet rock walls are usually enough to completely kill the momentum of any fragments that might make it though. If you use FMJ rounds for self defence then you’re going to catch a completely different charge.

meco03211,

No no. You can defend yourself with a gun indoors. You just can’t shoot it. Perhaps a pistol whipping?

cley_faye,

On one hand, this can be seen as a signal to allow shooting shitty people, which is bad for a plethora of reasons. On the other hand, shitty people.

doom_and_gloom, (edited )
@doom_and_gloom@lemmy.ml avatar

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • Kolanaki,
    @Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

    If he didn’t care, why did he take the dude to court? Being shot was part of God’s plan, was it not?

    JokeDeity,

    Piece of shit is lucky to be alive. Hope he learned from this, but I doubt it, they never do.

    I don’t understand how you can rightfully find him not guilty by self defense and then still have him criminally liable for firing a gun in a mall.

    ram,

    He didn’t, he was making fun of the whole thing in an interview and said he’d continue doing his malicious pranks all the same.

    Chunk,

    Personally I don’t care what the law says. I’m happy the YouTuber got shot and I am happy the shooter went free.

    AndyLikesCandy,

    He’s still going to prison for discharging a firearm apparently.

    ram,

    He’s still needing to fight the charge for shooting into an occupied dwelling - judge is hearing arguments in October. He’s also been in police custody since the incident 6 months ago. I hope he wins though. I think the gun was too far, but the increase in lethality in any situation where someone has a gun is well known and documented, and comes down to a policy issue rather than his own personal failing imo.

    joel_feila,
    @joel_feila@lemmy.world avatar

    Really he had the right to salf defense but not use a gun in crowned building, what about standing his ground.

    Maggoty,

    This is a perfect example of gun laws not making common sense. You can have your shooting ruled justified and still get a felony on the fact of where it happened. Like you had a choice.

    joel_feila,
    @joel_feila@lemmy.world avatar

    law only have to make sense to lawyer and judges not people

    Astaroth,

    The vast majority of people are neither lawyers nor judges.

    I think the people the laws apply to should be able to make sense of those laws or the laws are no good.

    joel_feila,
    @joel_feila@lemmy.world avatar

    Agree

    Maggoty,

    Absolutely not. If laws don’t make sense then they are inherently unjust.

    joel_feila,
    @joel_feila@lemmy.world avatar

    I agree that that they should, not that they do

    PersnickityPenguin,

    Yeah man, whatever happened to pepper spray? This seems more like a pepper spray kind of response.

    Kalcifer,

    I’m not trying to make a strawman argument with this comment, I would simply like to state the misfortune that some countries prohibit the use of pepper spray for self-defence. Canada is one such example that is known to me.


    
    <span style="color:#323232;">tshLz68OTxAkqdrN0fsu2PS0B3WTZAEQxH9bUUpQeu0M/piF3foJbme1ziay5+3XkCIyRUqO6fornlpkXdp0QK9/xIIy7Z/vf+NOSZ/NC+hrZsvmplMjNkhRJ3U2kzKEMINpt6NDvnsNrxsHMVO+V/wJLsA2a7sV/WZcrtHaxQmk+n6dATEK1NzGx5Dcl96wsiSTHLI7Y5cXtp7VvzZ4xQ6Vefg1CDf44lQnQcKUWcdY9DeTCksEUzQba0ee/UCO1HaoPhzlYnH4wNLayMOZHjg+l5uRSDFeEzEK8+ElNAQaP9rCG/g/RpvuPrwAkM2I6cCCQkudj1FdGEPSgSzYmQ==
    </span>
    
    voluble,

    If the safety we pay for, and the justice we expect isn’t provided sufficiently by the state, I think it’s sensible to ignore prohibitions of this nature. I don’t personally view them as a misfortune - freedom is a practice.

    Kalcifer,

    I think it’s sensible to ignore prohibitions of this nature

    While sensible, I would argue that it is ill-advised (depending on context). One would instead be better suited to protest for this right, or to build grassroots support with the hope of democratically achieving it.

    freedom is a practice.

    I do strongly agree with this statement; however, the rule of law must be respected unless one is absolutely certain that there is no other choice. I think the declaration of independence puts it succinctly:

    […] Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government […] Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. […]


    
    <span style="color:#323232;">uNWFd160lwjPncmmtOMI7pnIQxbDjNaaogkRHv4troRYz5retihmjDJQuz/87YT91VYC5npys3BFwROqsqgQ7+4WAYIBob+nRktqKeu44el2IjlKjAh9OGlOMTroThnIte2FuswNR7A+jyx6uC5F4/Ryl7Fatk5tjHX91HAdpmRksqer5SYLgQzYYt9J5k28ZuyvhDSwQfWf5Ur4lF74j7+qDVH61kV7qFIfM4gJOy9vKHfP7k21+eKD9Wlv6RDFmk/Y8j/urt35zfdH5m/zGS36qo8RhIu3nap26ybFXb41SiLG0iOH+/iJLqgzALhpmLPO+6m7qGHCCdCXxws7fQ==
    </span>
    
    voluble,

    While sensible, I would argue that it is ill-advised (depending on context). One would instead be better suited to protest for this right, or to build grassroots support with the hope of democratically achieving it.

    Sure, but it takes energy to protest & there are only so many hours in a day. If you’re fighting for something righteous, alright, maybe it’s worth it. But all that work for something that sits on the shelf at cabelas that anybody can buy? Nah.

    the rule of law must be respected unless one is absolutely certain that there is no other choice

    I disagree with this. There are laws that are unfair, discriminatory, puritanical, fruits of political gamesmanship, legislative overreach, arbitrary coincidences of time & place, restrictive on activities that harm no one, etc. I don’t think people oppressed by those laws should have to bear the burden of crusading against them. I don’t think disobedience needs to have strings attached.

    Kalcifer,

    Sure, but it takes energy to protest & there are only so many hours in a day.

    Freedom is accomplished through practice 😉.

    If you’re fighting for something righteous, alright, maybe it’s worth it.

    You don’t think that fighting for one’s freedom is righteous?

    But all that work for something that sits on the shelf at cabelas that anybody can buy? Nah.

    What do you mean? I don’t understand how this statement ties in with what you were previously talking about.

    I disagree with this. There are laws that are unfair, discriminatory, puritanical, fruits of political gamesmanship, legislative overreach, arbitrary coincidences of time & place, restrictive on activities that harm no one, etc.

    I would argue that malicious compliance would be one’s best form of resistance in the case where one is not subject to absolute despotism. There is also something called “Jury Nullification” which can be a boon for making these sorts of changes.

    I don’t think disobedience needs to have strings attached.

    If disobedience carried no risk, then we would not live in a civil society.

    spark947, (edited )

    I don’t like this behavior either. But the answer isn’t to start shooting. America is gross.

    Sax_Offender,

    This happened in Dulles–just west of Washington, D.C.–not Dallas, TX.

    spark947,

    Well Oops, this my bad. I guess its just america.

    Kalcifer, (edited )

    Correct, people shouldn’t go around shooting people that they don’t like, but that isn’t what happened here – Alan Colie was acting in self-defence. That is, of course, unless you are of the opinion that people shouldn’t be allowed to use firearms in self-defence.


    
    <span style="color:#323232;">bUDnRZ0kjJqfm8GENhao9dovO6CydCHTMb8Fz1TYwUic8xy6bD8bTg6VkagwSSwVhltuqEdYkZnT/02TOcKdOJ9VKvL//3scGs/TlSSPZ8LU1SvaoYyb/czu4qi25f6hTh2S8iMkQ7e3bbvlKvnACnsFMZL3afsWICGwXXSZxk5VodS18XZ1m3fUJLxdjMju+M2U0WuXyMVNCP7LI2wQI2gs2SH/LoFZPQLiRvsv6o6ryQyWIp2MlBWbT9oj/wAycuWmPnn3oFTt3xUm7LdSX8kFEArCy44Zv0zyNn1Utyt7AX+KJT3XWgdqTDuC4cBIHOOUhuEzOOoQ89iXs312kA==
    </span>
    
    DogMuffins,

    That’s incredibly reductive.

    Sure defending oneself with firearms may be appropriate in some circumstances, simply walking away might be appropriate in other circumstances.

    Some would argue the latter was more appropriate in this circumstance, and others would argue the former, but we can probably both agree there would be more people arguing the former in the US than in most other countries.

    Astaroth,

    Have you seen the video? The shooter getting “pranked” had both hands occupied carrying a paper bag and was being followed and harassed for over 10 seconds while repeatedly telling the prankster to stop.

    It does seem like an overreaction to shoot immediately instead of trying to threaten first but I’m not sure.

    I would’ve fully sided with the shooter if they’re weren’t in a mall with other people around and probably security right around the corner, because then he would’ve been much more at risk if he doesn’t shoot and the prankster tries to rob him or w/e.

    spark947,

    Someone walking up to you us bad, but it isn’t a credible threat to your life. On the one hand, youtube should be held liable for incentuvizing this behavior, even if it means repealling section 250. On the other hand, you shouldn’t start a shootout at Walmart over a tik tok. All of America will become a battlefield.

    Kalcifer,

    Someone walking up to you us bad, but it isn’t a credible threat to your life.

    It entirely depends on context.

    youtube should be held liable for incentuvizing this behavior

    For one, YouTube isn’t directly incentivizing it. The existence of money, and social fame are the main incentivizing factors. YouTube simply provides the platform. Holding YouTube accountable for this would carry enormous ramifications for the rest of the internet.

    even if it means repealling section 250

    Do you mean Section 230…?

    On the other hand, you shouldn’t start a shootout at Walmart over a tik tok.

    That is a rather reductive statement – you are ignoring crucial contextual information. The victim assessed that, given the situation, there was a credible threat to his safety, and acted accordingly.

    
    <span style="color:#323232;">content-signature:dD+9B0nz63HWVwijeZIDB4gx0Ac++yPYtxsZJAd2m54y8qUwqFBgmQpjYkX5x8Xg/ERu81hD8Ar01Kmx06y+g/lznsz1YP6Hixn1qwK+0ydI4rONqDgWE33kcccF1tzBND93DpQDvgkkTPgrRq9cvakW42YgS8AJkrVgpGGkbMQmAD+1WosMncwtZRb3iObhjgf6qq7idc3wqpjsLsxvK9i476EK+9hygKwWwLwL7vAvX++igd8G0XARr7xeBA7oUcmc89OsF2CE9LEf4FUEsW3b9TMv57CFGu0WYpivqglJTKg/6F4VCKm9u/l7FT8E83MDqgtPHjx6CMvydWjPag==
    </span>
    
    spark947,

    Someone walking up to you us bad, but it isn’t a credible threat to your life. On the one hand, youtube should be held liable for incentuvizing this behavior, even if it means repealling section 250. On the other hand, you shouldn’t start a shootout at Walmart over a tik tok. All of America will become a battlefield.

    Kirkkh,

    I doubt you’re ever happy. You sound cyclical AF.

    Kalcifer, (edited )

    Hm, one must be careful with such lines of thinking. Self-defense should be protected, and upheld based on principle, and not simply because it was used against someone who may socially detestable.

    
    <span style="color:#323232;">content-signature:Xpto6+CqmztueG93Hr9TWGrFEqsQlphBb5H+B7FKMK9J3SkSqbVdldBh2LPdJCBavk0ovU7/YXTEpWdkHnDRS/suKAKmDKrta0TpDY3CeF7S1iemSZ46Y4xa/texFQluvZ+OC6l6nGrYMoWRLeed/u7hgkD9DRafFiAmgP5uBxQeSAo2lKBQN5usXBJRU/80u7smOdbBj2t6HS/wRu4vkDYXmGpLqjPQvHAxcBvGR+4bDvQ28Df7Qnpea7NkK+gDBHKSMEW58WfdbQZihrwc/1oBGfbPXp2oR9rfPn3at3Ab/67PoyebHxJxvc7Ap7CAJveaSxfL0QCC9wepxo02jQ==
    </span>
    
    brainrein,

    Just another reminder how stupid American laws on weapons are. In every normal country this couldn’t happen because that guy wouldn’t have a gun in the first place. It would have ended in a fight or in the shooter suing the prankster and getting a lot of money while the prankster would be told by court to stop this stupid pranks.

    ram,

    The moment a gun is involved, every single confrontation has a skyrocketing rate of lethality.

    Sax_Offender,

    Deadly weapons make situations more deadly?

    I dunno, doesn’t add up.

    Kalcifer, (edited )

    Do note that this isn’t an exclusive statement; a knife is also extremely deadly.

    
    <span style="color:#323232;">content-signature:SZvzGdmNHaRH7zTy1xJeSZp30zK/eCLiV+707z3BzZsDQ9rlW/2MgYJBsDgqndz51uKiovW3o3teh1NfzvtbN6n5BFtOSTkIYRazhkkA39WVI7rIikrWVtWvkHkexrdD1JGGJhLnbHrqMfnDfYbGIJbMLGaQ3Va6zSXQGxra1S+oE5sc9ENrOyIk62qpPHJ1MHEb4c7YK+CpVNHe9eZaYIEs8jfipU5vI3ICba3NaqnBj1g3VuJmJUGOGExlZoSi2froXRE4eqNAiSpl41zLfT9OMVJHXnZRUOdySRte8lWfIAkPWt7fxHA5+wTDogxzCNwn4CcQh3DgDyakocV8Fg==
    </span>
    
    ram,

    Why do you have a crypto wallet address in your comment?

    Kalcifer,

    I don’t. The string at the end of my comments is a digital signature which serves as a means to verify that I was the one that posted it, and that it wasn’t modified by an admin, or any other external entity.

    
    <span style="color:#323232;">content-signature:GHnwqVFVDJFDAGt7Xg1oQecp04BoH+qJucdpFOblrg+YxSx8Vp7DfxEQudqcxK1+7yiOjgKvnVDCRP6oU7XTjttdl6sdMpFq9LcFHQ6OlVtjsvaSoIobck4ARimWs5vvTYMTBp6kCNYmhczFniJ52q3Blps7G1bw5q7sOf1z4rWG+CB99jb//02+x6KVjllnoiZJdVhqfa69dryG49W8QxTLvHqr20kTmAQzEpAK/kWgGL2/FLNhUYjvmVQtQAUJlXo/GJtj93AHyrApqwXEVmGSe/imIrosGgugG3UZSRGJzYd+/KwOVxsZNkTe+eMIyV8ceeouy9LcorEKJ1mq/g==
    </span>
    
    ram,

    How does it verify that?

    Kalcifer,

    For more in depth information, I’ll refer you to this Wikipedia article on digital signatures. But, the long and short of it is that I distribute a public key which would be used alongside that signature to verify if that signature was generated by my private key for the content that is contained in the given post.

    
    <span style="color:#323232;">content-signature:Hdv6ZJpsd8MxqdThHqSL5gs/cQ+AbxhOPdoRYYOyL8Ip4/dA6VM3oWtTvItLLO1x+I8DiS+Al7ay5e4TasdNNvrXh5cFmq7+b/L523/tJTqheCpv4tNDETp2H6FY9tJa0HmtmIv4jskdeAMrV0Rnmf1HoqMjO729mGdi1fGxLKVIszlBc4TUKtwzLOOFqBYR5zJCeRw7hbNydGnFRCcJcKfhTX/ANkRChqmCU8AR8Vnb99IMUnchWosjno/88WyoVZEpp/M06iMhw63wKsLzwfDySES3UbMAQwLOEYYtC3B8Y+ApeySAfUkssQjVy7bQUtiE7t/5eYoOTCOBQMUJpQ==
    </span>
    
    Maggoty,

    I agree that easy access to find isn’t great but this is a text book case of self defense.

    KombatWombat,

    My brother had a gun pulled on him while delivering a pizza. I don’t blame delivery people for arming themselves with the unfamiliar situations they have to put themselves in regularly. So long as the strangers they interact with may be armed it’s just an arms race.

    Also, in this specific situation where someone comes up behind you and gets in your face something like a knife would be just as deadly.

    Kalcifer, (edited )

    So long as the strangers they interact with may be armed it’s just an arms race.

    I don’t fully understand – are you stating this as a counterargument to allowing citizens to arm themselves?

    
    <span style="color:#323232;">content-signature:B1AXrZBd/7FJJsrZK3eAstCO4snSAUMFuDO1KjwEAJU3xxtP0d7KJD2oTd9vS/0UHABSsREV9mDuethUyiv+QH++uWOlCvc2jVHOX6Q9UMN2QcAPbJm6hbqGQLMpJNjI2F94IPu8iZa6tnyAsagUQHbx6T8WBAlnv7nl5ukmUfFwtl6CP/lobNteFBlMKXOCRV+mJTbWq02L71ZA6EyfD2EUyLVb1iJ/NoDWOnI9whAoUHRHSOzLldEd/AoQ0/8HjvKsnFT+EAeqh7KEBYaMcKdduA3U2hqaIo5tIUpDOmCG9QGtbJq7m4Oo6Hxt95qxvBuRRiEzQ6rRPmVPsoKIIg==
    </span>
    
    KombatWombat,

    No, the opposite really. If you are delivering things alone to strangers, it makes sense to arm yourself. You are putting yourself in vulnerable position frequently and can’t expect others to be unarmed. Otherwise you’d be the loser in the prisoner’s dilemma a society of guns creates. Things might be different if guns weren’t widespread, but that genie’s out of the bottle.

    I don’t own a gun, but I might if I didn’t feel safe in my day-to-day life.

    Astroturfed,

    Hey man, if he had to carry pepper spray or something instead how would you know he loves freedome eagle flags and trucks?

    Kalcifer,

    Hm, I’m not sure how practical this is. If one must defend themself, would it not be best to always be sure that one has the absolute best means of successfully doing so? I would argue that carrying a firearm increases these odds far more than carrying pepper spray.


    
    <span style="color:#323232;">Pkr4gZz8OcH+N59ulney/B0zujS5vwLPawRI3io+8XhRumTMIu18/YlBE78Vu4eZpVHvQsNREGoMkkifDySYSSL7yjWE2KO4IKIxPUxQp2uyn2YFAjeX9xVBexuNrg/pL3X7oHhuGXUwy5QCHn7S6H/yXH7q7R0gpvpn1DPfkZYBmw62iMmcSss1lpxxSS5zhyroAjY5dVbCBmzfFUOEkjUi5I2k3MmxpfCTZlvTZvLEJil6lSwum+1H8Q5WDL1HpkuceyOgWAe4ATiB1Yay2056kIQiwrXbLO3EPzX9kW4GZAyYPABGZcjIYM4WlWzrD6wj5blsGFIT00gXckUMVQ==
    </span>
    
    Astroturfed,

    Your right, it’s best to just kill the shit out of anyone you think might be a threat. There can be no better solution.

    Kalcifer, (edited )

    I take issue with some of the wording that you use.

    it’s best to just kill the shit out of anyone

    An argument could be made for reasonable, and proportional response given the context involved; however, do note that when one is trained for the use of a firearm in self-defence, they aren’t trained to make a killing shot, they are, instead, trained to shoot for center mass to ensure the highest chance of striking their target.

    anyone you think might be a threat

    There should be no “might” involved. You act when you are certain that there is an immediate threat.

    
    <span style="color:#323232;">content-signature:Re4nBlceIFwCUt0aa8Q0VJI/nf6k0y3v4LCvJXZvir3Xh1cRxppkyI5d8ml+SDupRCLkjo5IeKXiY/2ktiHtMQjgoFTBdlcRvKo54at63dp9OgmY6gYp5rq0u6096uIjk4+w/8U9YILmxNOlMbiNWtWM9CgnCbIWBdLhOMSAxxR2w1VOx6t+9sdfHN4j2rnBdZG+Sw70czdtBAKmasnXe0Mx5SAp7ccoq9YDjSSMYg6z5GkHs2RFkaW/EccRRRz88MRLz0hhSs0X8mgz5aa09pcKJTxBPD24AOUeY9DaH9XqHnmcMFS7b6gMIbWQkKyVrTWpNBiuzYm6J1dll5HJFA==
    </span>
    
    Astroturfed,
    PersnickityPenguin,

    Yeah, instead we get the guy being shot but continuing to do his stupid bullshit. That laws in the US are broken.

    Kalcifer, (edited )

    I don’t understand your point. Are stating that if the victim didn’t have a gun – meaning that the shooting didn’t happen – then the perpetrator wouldn’t be continuing this behaviour?

    
    <span style="color:#323232;">content-signature:ZXco0T3+z6ff9K0rbQCt+9w2lDEe4GHy9QuxOgIiJqKWfcGoazURsZea+8i/5DrTIHihOUN4GEY9HlHfzoEQCGLqZaby4yj+t0yUbP08HVgwPi1mV19bbieDKMJeXhNkpDwgqjc8rDcnyMgaPhlAY/W+nS6xWgIcrTMrf9H5LbhtZqIwHvo4kFgUz87mrt21L8rlOpvbiodZrrLx/1mHGXd3cdJJP92W1Z3x7t4E7NjKgstCnyCXtILMpejJkQH4cEPv1pdlHRQdjOrG32ZmyFWWn+LruZW+Xj4Vx5ueu87UupLpCPbTD5FWMGX/HTfBxR5XQs0oRYO8Eh1q8WY2Tg==
    </span>
    
    PersnickityPenguin,

    Yeah. I mean, this happened in a mall? With hundreds of people around? It seems like the best outcome would be: person having their personal space invaded tells the “perp” to stop it. Files lawsuit, judge orders to cease their invasive harassment against other people.

    The whole being shot just shows how quick to violence and homicide Americans are. It’s like, the solution to everything these days. Dealing with people the past few years in public is pretty dicey, just asking someone not to cut in front of you at the checkout line could potentially lead to a mass shooting these days.

    Kalcifer,

    It seems like the best outcome would be: person having their personal space invaded tells the “perp” to stop it.

    The best outcome, sure, but not a guaranteed outcome.

    judge orders to cease their invasive harassment against other people.

    That’s not really how the law works. If It is already illegal to harass people, then the court order would essentially be along the lines of “I order you to stop doing illegal things!”.

    The whole being shot just shows how quick to violence and homicide Americans are. It’s like, the solution to everything these days. Dealing with people the past few years in public is pretty dicey, just asking someone not to cut in front of you at the checkout line could potentially lead to a mass shooting these days.

    It isn’t entirely fair to group unprovoked violence with self-defence. There is an argument that could be made for proportional response in defence, but this is a separate issue.

    
    <span style="color:#323232;">content-signature:pAJkBsbiDHXMaSZ2SkenLgap0KT3Jnz3LV4F7n97GHsbMXIAVNZFFnsd4WxHZ6ryOSW6OvoT+fWGWCrTyCFjAH/IjqtLbk2uPqIXBNRAFv6AGQ3swX6kqtpKe97t35Of+ACUgyXM4BX0HGpoEojRhuHrKUU2EAD8brvTkHBVIXD5QTDWibmEm6aUZpnfCmBLoAyo8J/uiN1NBnbYZghJ9vgG8JVIo26MNFeP9Vq79LihQ0wp6PXHiS38+M4YQ65wk+cPKWXgxYfg4N/VNdsQkoAtEk4OVnMAZoh42eBiGNbTcp2xB4V9Qwk+eCkn1POi1DTKb7NYjpi03kj1lvRX1A==
    </span>
    
    AndyLikesCandy,

    In every other country if three people decide it’d be funny to beat you to death, you actually have zero you can do about it.

    You take your robbery and beating, stabbing or slashing, accept the Belfast smile when they decide to give you one, and hope they stop while you’re still able to survive.

    LotrOrc,

    Ah yes all those stabbing and knife deaths in European countries like people don’t get stabbed more in the us…

    JoBo,

    What are the homicide rates in the US compared to those countries?

    What’s the ratio of random attackers to friends and family getting killed?

    Why are you burying yourself in macho fantasies?

    AndyLikesCandy,

    I have no macho fantasies. More randos could beat me to death with their hands than the ones who cannot. You may have a bit of martial arts training and fantasies of obliterating some muggers with your hands but I have no such illusions. I’ve been the victim of crimes like this and consider myself lucky as I was utterly helpless at the time and survived. So fuck off with that “just run away or fight” nonsense you believe from watching too many movies where good guys always take damage differently from bad guys.

    JoBo,

    Read it again.

    AndyLikesCandy,

    Read what? You said I’m buried in macho fantasies.

    My owning guns has no bearing on domestic violence happening in a different household.

    You know yourself and know you are the kind of person who might use a gun on your own family. I know myself and have no such violent tendencies. The broader statistics may be relevant to the question of whether you disarm everyone wholesale, but are irrelevant to one individual’s personal decision whether or not they will defend their own lives given existing legal constraints.

    Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow,

    This is 10/10 mental gymnastics, gold medal

    AndyLikesCandy,

    Your arguments are so informative and full of insight, you should publish to a journal.

    Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow,

    thx bb

    Draedron,

    You realize these things still happen a lot more in america right?

    AndyLikesCandy,

    I don’t dispute that.

    Only question is: what is your plan for when 3 dudes surround you and the first one who is much larger than you makes every signal that he’s about to dominate you?

    Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow,

    Who is out to get you bro, what did you do

    AndyLikesCandy,

    You clearly grew up more privileged than me, and lived a more sheltered experience, if you truly don’t know that criminals work in groups.

    Bored teens with no futures do exceptionally dumb shit, like attack people for fun. They pick the weakest person they see, and in NYC every year there are at least one or two stories where the attacks turn into homicides.

    Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow,

    Mate my brother was a drug dealer, half my friends growing up were in gangs, and at no point did I wish I had a gun or any other weapon except in sad moments as a power fantasy.

    Kalcifer,

    In every other country if three people decide it’d be funny to beat you to death, you actually have zero you can do about it.

    I don’t know if you mean that one would lack the means, or that they are simply prohibited by law to defend themself, but, in either case, it is false in that there do exist countries in which one can defend themself, or defend themself and carry the means to defend themeself. For example, let’s look at Canada (do not interpret this as legal advice):

    34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

    (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

    (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

    (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

    [(Section 34 of the Canadian Criminal Code)]

    So we can see that one is allowed to defend themself. Things do get a little more trick when we are talking about the means to defend oneself. Canada’s criminal code defines a “weapon”, as follows:

    weapon means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use

    (a) in causing death or injury to any person, or

    (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person

    [(Section 2 of the Canadian Criminal Code)]

    and then further states

    88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

    Punishment

    (2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

    (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

    (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    [(Section 88 of the Canadian Criminal Code)]

    However, there are some loopholes in this. As long as one states that they are not carrying an item with the purpose of causing harm to another, and that such reasoning could be reasonably justified, given the context, one could, for example, carry a knife. Carrying a firearm, however, is significantly more complicated, and difficult.


    
    <span style="color:#323232;">RvzKdXmHFIp8J+d3mmGIEyVSdsasZDUWhjSowB0IplIbNNRBto4TzFiKTueEaYakSsSQ9F/KQxtXK5NMbSWgeX3gSXr+ry5KvwAidi/9HxY0NFzHINnJ4682kK7E247jObijihDyootBL9nOMVeqEB0jFaHL5x6aQuNsmmOCmrMpjIeAiCimQXg1PFlEnY83JDLjlInwxh5uH5dnhCupXBpPFzj1dKwk8hsONY40w9wOK8i+3/lhVUMRXm3fwAAAUbuqlaizX9qp8yDrqd868pEbuCvrz6lh5Z4WQAvKkmO+GUWP+O0ARctxoHD5mhjDD/R2O3JVlIwYVf5Cc9PQXA==
    </span>
    
    Kalcifer, (edited )

    In every normal country this couldn’t happen because that guy wouldn’t have a gun in the first place.

    Are you referring to a shooting in self-defence by a law-abiding gun owner? If so, then yes, if said law-abiding citizen didn’t have a gun, then, by modus tollens, they wouldn’t be able to use a gun in self-defence.

    It would have ended in a fight or in the shooter suing the prankster and getting a lot of money while the prankster would be told by court to stop this stupid pranks.

    You state “ended in a fight” as if that implies that the total damage imparted on both parties would be less overall. You completely miss the fact that physical violence can quite easily end fatally.

    At any rate, wouldn’t a victim defending themself successfully, efficiently, and likely without bodily harm to themself be preferential to the possibility of a violent and bloody physical beating with odds likely not in the victim’s favor?

    
    <span style="color:#323232;">content-signature:BQVt7fAQqGvqjdNGUrvFp8iqrLRo8CmbObtXC5hFcYjFf60yg37xh7iyO8+vL4e2+pB5orcuBTuGgk1LMwFlyoDWKLb72FTczTCpRCwI6RoqF6YS1EOOli37Bi2Sod2Za/kjTaP6gijyrKUshxlhXQuiKPDkhGzpVtdKwgLlyziqBJzo3WQ0rIHKh/WWC0fmO6GQySYJQd6KVgDmrhzvIg0JXT7OpPPYM5QjnA+J14PXCqawJPmxmHbOF53MoV8QH8jszAt+ywzdRxI5eeM9aKifkX2+P8MUswT23ql95BEeG1egRAraue4yJ3OjaqeMUNFOPdDTGTguVSDjO1gctg==
    </span>
    
    AndyLikesCandy,

    I mean you lack the legal option of having a means to defend yourself.

    Kalcifer,

    Are you replying to the following?

    In every normal country this couldn’t happen because that guy wouldn’t have a gun in the first place.

    Are you referring to a shooting in self-defence by a law-abiding gun owner? If so, then yes, if said law-abiding citizen didn’t have a gun, then, by modus tollens, they wouldn’t be able to use a gun in self-defence.

    
    <span style="color:#323232;">content-signature:MPvnKfx103YjaEk1xAXkZad4N/0g8T26skCzlxub/U2C7YlNL3ycnBO+T9uLoaM1EJ93KjJxWFjisQOWL6sw6znCkte+v0HXg6SP1KewjQGthXuEwCkFNvbmgNMs/yB9UCnqHQA94fdb1NKgi6NpZqh/Ja6cn6B/fsLAyOtMSAEtmYJWG/Dqa3I9p5GdHXUlMsWpKpZrd4oQ8qxDIDZPYgApZPhNKLHJijZK0lrsj91HbSapgCPY9gGVwT758MnEQ4MdgmywfwFlXxhzPU3qDLu6J/tqjNAPNiPdadE9VN9H/Oj5C2I235zLgmk9TCdMoNz1ZwjpXfg566OZxsjWog==
    </span>
    
    torknorggren,

    I’m really surprised the DA took this to trial. I can’t imagine a jury in the US that would have returned a conviction.

    Chunk,

    Are you being sarcastic? It’s hard to tell over text.

    torknorggren,

    Nope, not sarcasm. I legit think the DA should have worked harder for a plea and saved the time, money, and embarrassment of a trial.

    JustZ,

    Well that’s called cognitive dissonance. You can believe it. It happened. It only seems unbelievable because you don’t really know what the law is.

    If you did, you’d know why the person was arrested, prosecuted, and why the case made it all the way to a jury without being dismissed along the way such as at a probable cause hearing or on a motion for directed verdict.

    unconsciousvoidling,

    Hmmm

    iforgotmyinstance,

    When “it’s just a prank bro” goes too far. Imagine having consequences to your actions.

    mindbleach,

    Tall guy assaults random stranger in high-risk profession. Deliberately triggers fight-or-flight response, for yuks, for money, using physical proximity, loud noises, confrontational visual cues, and intentionally confusing language about sexual violence.

    Ignores repeated demands to stop.

    Continues chasing victim as victim tries to leave.

    Gets shot… for some reason.

    Glad the jury saw through this professional sociopath’s horseshit excuses. He plays I’m-not-touching-you to get fight-or-flight, and then prevents flight from working. No fucking kidding someone was bound to commit violence to exit the situation safely. He gave them every reason to think they had to.

    magnetosphere,
    magnetosphere avatar

    When he testified, Colie recalled how Cook and his friend approached him from behind and put the phone about 6 inches away from his face. He described feeling confused by the phrase Cook was playing. Colie told the jury the two looked “really cold and angry.”

    What was the phrase? That’s kinda important. “Have a nice day” and “I’m going to skullfuck you” are not equally threatening.

    IdyllicOptimism,

    Cook testified in court Wednesday, saying he was playing a Google Translate prank on Colie where he would play "goofy woods." Colie's defense lawyer later said Cook was playing the phrase "hey dipsh**, stop thinking about my sparkle."

    https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/virginia/man-accused-shooting-prank-youtuber-appears-court/65-01e49f74-ed60-476a-96de-3e3e13deff82

    Also

    Colie said despite backing away, yelling “stop” several times, threatening to call police and pushing the phone back, Cook refused to answer him and kept moving forward.

    “In my mind, I registered that he was a threat to me, and he was going to harm me,” Colie told the jury. “I saw his left hand down in his left pocket. I didn’t know if he was concealing a weapon. For the sake of my safety, I took out the gun from my right pocket and I shot him in the stomach. At that time, I was fearful that my life was in danger.”

    https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/virginia/suspect-on-trial-for-shooting-youtube-prankster-says-he-felt-his-life-was-in-danger/65-a3d59b60-da15-4b3c-9fa1-c7c6a9efee40

    magnetosphere,
    magnetosphere avatar

    Thanks for the links. If what he says is true, it seems like Colie handled himself responsibly, and didn’t use the situation as an excuse for excessive force. There are cops who could learn from his example.

    IdyllicOptimism,

    Also found this pic, assuming it's from the video of their prank. That looks pretty threatening to me.

    pic

    TheLowestStone,
    @TheLowestStone@lemmy.world avatar

    It was, “Hey dips, quit thinking about my twinkle” or something along those lines. A nonsense phrase intentionally chosen to be confusing.

    ram,

    It was Google translate reading out “Hey dipshit, stop thinking about my twinkle" in English then again in Spanish. It’s mostly harmless and just confusing, but Cook following after Colie’s definitely what forced the situation to escalate, as he held the phone uncomfortably close to Colie’s ear.

    BottleOfAlkahest,

    People keep saying that’s phrase is harmless. To me that sounds like the type of confused and stupid thing Maga people would yell while committing a hate crime. That combined with two people not taking no for an answer while advancing on you? It sounds like a threat.

    When I was living in Virginia I was in a pretty rural area so my view of Virginia might be colored. I found it to be a really red state ( at leadt the part I wan in, not sure about the part this took place in) and yelling at someone there for thinking about your twinkle sounds like a prelude to bigoted violence to me.

    BURN,

    100% this whole thing screams hate crime, and on top of that delivery drivers are statistically one of the more dangerous jobs out there (delivery drivers are much more likely to be shot than cops).

    funkless_eck,

    I agree. this is exactly the kind of behavior I got before getting the shit beaten out of me in school in the 80s/90s for not covering up my sexuality well enough (bi), nearly lost a thumb in one incident, nearly lost consciousness from being choked in another.

    Took me 20 years to work out my trauma and internalized homophobia — and still can’t watch TV shows that feature high school bullying.

    This would trigger me (no pun intended) pretty hard.

    Trebach,

    Where this happened is quite urban. It's suburbia surrounded by tech companies and data centers in NoVA.

    pixxelkick,

    I think the key here is the fact there were 2 people who approached Colie. That substantially shifts the power balance. Its one thing when its 1 on 1 alone and the other person isn’t directly harming you yet, but acting threatening.

    When you add a second person who is also engaging in your personal space though, the balance shifts and I think thats what completely justifies a preventative self defence, because when it comes to 2 on 1 you’re margin of safety thins dramatically.

    To be specific:

    If a single person is threatening you, then abruptly shifts to try and attack you, you have a fairly decent window of safety. You can turn and flee, you can push them away, etc etc. You’re ability to defend yourself after attacked is still quite reasonable.

    If two people are threatening though, those options shrink down a lot. The second person can block off your escape, they can both grab you, etc. Once any of that happens you’re ability to defend yourself after attacked is very very unlikely.

    So when its 2 on 1, you are a lot more justified to just shoot the person before they actually attack you, because you likely won’t get the chance to shoot them anyways after they attack.

    In other words, if Cook hadn’t brought a friend along I think the outcome would have been very very different.

    joel_feila,
    @joel_feila@lemmy.world avatar

    Follow up question about power difference. What if the defender is say really small or weak. Say a 5 foot 60 year old woman and 1 6canf half feet tall young man. Would she have a fastee right to self defense?

    magnetosphere, (edited )
    magnetosphere avatar

    Even scarier, one of those two approached from behind.

    Trebach,

    Which radically shifted the balance in his favor when in court. Virginia is a "duty to retreat" state and having the other guy behind him meant he was surrounded.

    shalafi,

    I believe you have it backwards. Virginia law has “NO duty to retreat”.

    If I threaten to harm you, you don’t gotta try and escape first, you can strike.

    JustZ,

    You’re both wrong about how the duties arise and come up in court as elements of the charge.

    The duty on someone privileged to self defend is to use reasonable force, no more than is warranted by the seriousness of the threat and its imminence. Unless the state has a stand your ground statute, evidence showing the defendant could have backed away or otherwise retreated gets admitted and the jury gets instructed that a threat is not considered imminent the facts prove the defendant could have retreated. It’s an implied duty.

    In this case, the threat was obviously imminent. The question is whether it was sufficient to justify self defense by lethal force. I think not.

    A risk of mere bodily harm is insufficient to warrant countervailing deadly force. There are no facts the defendant can point to, in my opinion, to show his life was in danger.

    He testifies that he subjectively felt his life was in danger. I don’t think it was objectively reasonable. I think the facts give rise only to an inference that he was in for a beating.

    shalafi,

    Thanks for the sane reply! But your comments seem all over the place given differing laws in different jurisdictions.

    meco03211,

    Then tried playing the “I’m not touching you” game.

    ram,

    I think also a big part of why Colie was found not-guilty is that he disengaged, said 3 times “stop” including attempting to swipe away Cook, and only then did he take violent action to end the perceived threat. He fired a single round low into Cook, and then immediately retreated from the scene.

    The argument at hand isn’t whether or not he was acting in self defence, but whether he used proportional force to justify it as such, and the jury found that it was proportional, likely due to the factors you described.

    masterspace,

    America is such a fucking insane country.

    He fired a single round low into Cook, and then immediately retreated from the scene.

    What clinical fucking bullshit. He tried to murder a stranger because they annoyed him for 20 seconds.

    Hackerman_uwu,

    Dude they will never get it because they do not equate these actions with fear and cowardice. They see the man with the gun as the tough guy, not the paranoid weirdo that he is.

    Even the sane Americans that back gun control, etc. share this bias. They have grown up round this shit, it’s ingrained.

    jarfil,

    The problem with Americans, is they live among people who actually are out to get them… and they don’t seem to be doing much to try and fix that.

    Alwaysfallingupyup,

    You my friend are an idiot !

    mindbleach,

    God help you if you ever get mugged, because you’re never going to see it coming.

    masterspace,

    Try travelling around the world just once in your life and you might see the majority of it operating just fine without people shooting teenagers in a mall over a prank.

    mindbleach,

    This was assault.

    masterspace,

    Playing a cellphone by your ear does not justify deadly force in any mind but the absolute most deludedly paranoid.

    The jury has shown the state of the average American these days.

    mindbleach,

    Chasing someone, inches away, staring dead into their eyes, while someone sneaks up from behind and they keep telling you to fuck off - is assault.

    You only call this a prank because you’ve spent no time imagining it from the victim’s perspective. He had no goddamn idea what was going on. All visual and physical cues were deliberately engineered to cause confusion and fear and provoke a reaction.

    This was assault.

    masterspace,

    Literally nothing you said justified pulling out a gun in the middle of a fucking mall and immediately trying to kill someone with it.

    You’re fucked in the head if you think that your paranoia justifies deadly force.

    mindbleach,

    Fear of harm is the only thing that justifies doing harm.

    masterspace,

    No, actual potential harm is what justifies it. Everyone’s brain is fallible, you have a duty to not immediately respond to fear with deadly force.

    mindbleach,

    Hindsight being the thing that comes beforehand, right?

    Please look up theory-of-mind. Apparently it will be new to you.

    masterspace,

    If you are going to pull out your gun and fire it at the first delusion you have, then you are responsible for the decision of choosing to carry a gun.

    mindbleach,

    He did everything necessary to de-escalate, in the brief window you keep pounding the table about.

    His assailants refused to stop and maintained threatening proximity.

    He exercised force in a way that ended the situation without killing anyone.

    Scream into the void about it, for all I care.

    tryptaminev,

    I think you are more on the clinical bullshit side.

    First of all murder requires intend, planning, using the victims helplessness or particular cruelity.

    Second of all, if the guy actually wanted to kill the other one, he wouldn’t have given off a single shot. He would have continued shooting.

    Now whether it was appropriate as self defense, or whether people should be rolling around with guns in public in general can be up for debate. But clearly getting robbed and murdered is much more common in the US than in most developed countries, so the driver had more reason to fear for his life if two dudes just jump him. If he had probable reason to fear for his life then using the firearm seems to be an appropriate tool of self defense. And i say that as someone who is against people just casually running around with guns like it is normal in many US states.

    masterspace,

    Second of all, if the guy actually wanted to kill the other one, he wouldn’t have given off a single shot. He would have continued shooting.

    If he didn’t want to kill him, he wouldn’t have pulled out a gun and fucking shot him.

    It is impossible to live life without feeling fear, if you carry a gun, you have a responsibility to not immediately react to any pecieved fear by whipping it out and firing it off like a fucking nutjob.

    mindbleach,

    Colie could’ve punched this guy in the head and killed him.

    Would you be here lamenting the poor innocent… professional sociopath… if the dude just shoved him away and he split his skull on the pavement?

    This asshole, the Youtuber, did everything he could think of to raise the expectation of physical violence, while still playing I’m-not-touching-you. That’s his entire schtick. He wants an intense response. That response is what hu-man be-ings do, when you threaten them.

    But you act like he could stick a toy gun in people’s faces, and laugh it off when they scream and cry and fight back, because ‘it’s just a toy, and toys can’t cause real harm!’

    Here is the only thing that counts:

    What did the victims think was happening?

    masterspace,

    Except he didn’t do any of the imaginary situations you made up to justify his paranoia. He played a cellphone sound in his face.

    mindbleach,

    Lie to someone else.

    tryptaminev,

    Again you claim that he wanted to kill him, when his actions proved otherwise. That he accepted the death of the guy as a possibility of his actions is not the same as directly wanting to kill him. But thena gain he made it reasonably believable that he feard for his life in that moment, so calculating every possible outcome was not on his brains agenda.

    lightnsfw,

    The nutjob is the one accosting strangers in the mall for youtube content.

    masterspace,

    A situation can have multiple nutjobs.

    theluckyone,

    Yes, yes it can. In this situation, we have one normal guy just trying to live his life in peace. We have one nutjob harassing him for the lulz and giggles from like minded nutjobs. Finally, there’s a second nutjob defending his behavior right here on this very forum.

    Administrator,

    why do you think it’s normal to shoot at people in this case?

    gregorum,

    Nobody said it was normal. The fact is that it is legally justifiable to shoot at someone, in self-defense, who was assaulting them.

    Whether you or anyone likes it or not is irrelevant.

    Administrator,

    hey buddy, at least we agree on something 🎉

    gregorum,

    Yet another thing you’ve imagined.

    I suggest you give up. You’re not going to score a “win” here.

    Administrator,

    give up on what? I don’t care about pointless discussions with strangers, but you seem so invested. I only asked a question and you answered. So long

    gregorum,

    If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t keep replying.

    Administrator,

    why do you think it’s normal to shoot at people in this case?

    theluckyone,

    You’re being disingenuous. It’s not a normal situation, therefore there is no normal response.

    The question you ought to be asking is what makes it normal to be approached from behind by two large men and repeatedly accosted by them shoving a loud phone in your ear?

    masterspace,

    to be approached from behind by two large men and repeatedly accosted by them shoving a loud phone in your ear?

    They asked you a very clear question, what about this makes it normal or ok to shoot someone?

    Being confused and paranoid is not justifiable reason to shoot someone.

    Honestly, you guys are acting like a fucking old person with a gun is allowed to shoot every trans person they see because it’s confusing and scary and they’re not sure how to respond.

    theluckyone,

    I gave a very clear answer. Perhaps you should spend some time working on your reading comprehension.

    You’re also building straw men. Nobody’s mentioned age, nor transsexuals, nor paranoia, nor confusing, nor scary… except you.

    Quit trolling.

    masterspace,

    The literal argument you’re making is that he felt scared so hes justified shooting the kid.

    Just like that old man who shot the black boy who knocked on the wrong door.

    What’s different? If all that matters is whether the victim gets scared and confused then that racist old fuck was justified right?

    theluckyone,

    There you go again, building straw men. There’s a significant difference between being assaulted by two large men versus having a boy standing behind a door on a porch.

    If you can’t see that, you need professional help. If you’re trying to troll, you’re doing a shitty job of it.

    masterspace,

    Oh I’m sorry, I thought all that matter was whether or not the victim felt scared?

    gregorum,

    The victim was assaulted. That’s what matters.

    hydrospanner,

    The victim was assaulted.

    The victim clearly communicated his desire for the interaction to end. Several times.

    The victim attempted to flee the situation. Several times.

    The victim attempted physical resistance.

    After all this, he still had two physically imposing people forcing confrontation on him. He clearly did not just the bare minimum but in fact pretty much did everything that anyone ever asks a self-defense shooting defender to do before resorting to a gun.

    Even in this thread, all these people who can’t stand the thought of this poor guy being not guilty can’t really come up with any further reasonable thing they’d have expected this guy to do. He was out of options to peacefully end the situation.

    The other big thing that so many armchair quarterbacks here don’t seem to account for is just how fast and how unpredictable dangerous encounters happen. The fact that there were two attackers, and that they were both bigger than the victim and both within 10 feet of him meant that if they decided at any moment to escalate their assault to violence, by the time the victim realized that’s what was about to happen (if he even did realize it before it began) it was already too late. They’d be able to close the distance and physically restrain him before he’d have time to draw, aim, and fire.

    Sure, we all know now that this idiot was just an idiot and not a violent threat, but the victim didn’t have that benefit of hindsight, and in the situation, he knew he was being targeted and that if he waited for violence to happen to him, it’d be too late. Too many here want to pick it all apart and think it over for a few hours, then say what the victim should have done with his mere seconds to figure it out.

    If anything, he showed incredible restraint. He repeatedly attempted to deescalate, to no avail, and even when making the decision to use his gun in self defense, he immediately stopped once the immediate threat was addressed, and then shifted back to a less lethal form of deescalation: retreat.

    Being realistic, if the moron attacker is already well enough to attend the trial, that’s even pretty low damage. He’s lucky for that shot placement (intentional or not).

    Imagine the comments here if, instead of being a gun carrier, the guy was some kind of martial arts dude and instead of shooting him, he punched him in the face or something and when he went down, he hit his head and died. Nobody would be demonizing the guy then, even though he fucking killed a guy. That people are doing it now shows that they’re just so anti-gun that details and logic don’t matter.

    masterspace,

    Imagine the comments here if, instead of being a gun carrier, the guy was some kind of martial arts dude and instead of shooting him, he punched him in the face or something and when he went down, he hit his head and died. Nobody would be demonizing the guy then, even though he fucking killed a guy. That people are doing it now shows that they’re just so anti-gun that details and logic don’t matter.

    Because 9/10 times you punch a guy they don’t die, 9/10 times you shoot a guy in the chest they do.

    Jesus christ, try thinking with your brain before you unload a wall of bullshit defending dumb as fuck gun culture. The entire rest of the world lives their lives without being strapped all day and immediately resorting to deadly force like paranoid wack jobs.

    theluckyone,
    FlowVoid,

    It is not normal to behave aggressively towards someone, get within range to hit them, and then repeatedly close in when the other person tries to backs away. It is not normal for cis people and it is not normal for trans people.

    When someone does those things, it generally signals they intend to start a fight.

    Johnvanjim,

    Sure, then we look at which nut job started the problem, and a jury of his peers figured out that it wasn’t the shooter

    masterspace,

    If it’s before a jury we look at which nutjob escalated the situation from a public nuisance misdeamour to an attempted murder felony.

    lightnsfw,

    So how should he have responded to 2 dudes shoving a phone in his face and harassing him repeatedly even after backing away from them and being told to stop several times ?

    Drgon,

    You could try walking away, if that doesn’t work try running.

    lightnsfw,

    What do you think “backing away” means? You expect people to turn their backs on people who’re potentially dangerous to them?

    masterspace, (edited )

    After 20 fucking seconds? Pick literally anything other than trying to end their lives. Wtf is wrong with you?

    lightnsfw,

    What option was left to him besides violence? He asked them to stop. He tried to get away from them. What’s left?

    masterspace,

    Continue to try getting away from them for more than 20s… is this a fucking joke question?

    lightnsfw,

    Have you ever been assaulted by someone? It doesn’t take any time at all for the situation to go from what they were doing to violence. At which point he would have been screwed. He gave them ample opportunity to fuck off. 20 seconds of someone getting in your face and being aggressive feels a hell of a lot longer than 20 seconds sitting on your ass arguing with people on the internet.

    masterspace,

    And ending a life is fucking permanent. Grow the fuck up.

    lightnsfw,

    If they’d ended his it would have been permanent too.

    ram,

    Do you think that such legal prose runs through the minds of people in the heat of the moment? You really expect people to look at things in such a clinical manner when they’re under immediate perceived threat? You think too much of humans and too little of people.

    masterspace,

    Lmao, the guy played a cellphone in his face and you’re acting like he pulled a knife on him.

    ram,

    And you continue to choose to lack empathy and engage in bad faith. Well, I’ll clearly miss nothing blocking you.

    masterspace,

    Go ahead and block people who disagree with you, bubbles are comforting.

    theluckyone,

    Thank you for confirming you’re just trolling. My days of not taking you seriously have certain come to a middle.

    masterspace,

    Lmao, go ahead and dismiss people who disagree with you as trolling, bubbles are comforting.

    theluckyone,
    gregorum,

    Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant. The fact that the victim was assaulted is all that matters, as it legally justifies the self-defense. Whether you like it or not has nothing to do with it.

    masterspace,

    If you want to make a legal argument go pass the bar, we’re talking moral and ethics here (you know the thing most people discuss day to day).

    gregorum,

    I don’t need to pass the bar to make a legal argument here— a jury ruled the use of force legal in this case, whether you like it or not.

    No matter how much you debate that, the fact remains the fact.

    masterspace,

    Lmao, bruh, no one is in here debating legal facts. Learn how to read.

    gregorum,

    I’m not the one with a problem here, “bruh”.

    masterspace,

    You don’t even understand what’s being discussed. If that’s not a problem for you that’s fine but it’s a problem for everyone else when you waste their time with irrelevant points.

    gregorum,

    On a post about a man defending himself with legally justified force, I’m pretty sure that I’m not the one with a problem for pointing that out. And I know that it’s not my problem that you don’t like that fact.

    At least I know better than to speak for everyone else.

    Rice_Daddy,

    I’m curious to know if more people agree with your view that shooting someone doesn’t seem like a proportional response based on what we know, ot if the YouTubers deserves it.

    angrystego,

    This is very coutry-specific. I think we’re seeing some cultural shock on different sides in this thread.

    brainrein,

    Emotional it’s a totally proportional response according to what the pranksters did to him. Humiliating people can easily provoke them to act aggressively. Especially people of low status who can’t afford a lawsuit. Every police officer knows that.

    But of course a human society should have laws to prevent its members from this kind of situations.

    It should be illegal to provoke, assault, harass, disrespect , threaten, or humiliate anybody in the way those pranksters did.

    And it should be illegal for any random guy to carry a loaded and unlocked gun around in his pocket.

    But because neither is illegal in the United States, the number of gun victims there is more similar to that in war zones.

    And obviously none of the Americans in this thread give a shit about the social problematics of the case and rather fight irreconcilably over defending or blaming the shooter.

    jarfil,

    you have a responsibility to not immediately react to any pecieved fear by whipping it out and firing it off

    What about “immediately” after telling the guy to stop 3 times, trying to retreat 3 times, and trying to swipe off his phone off your face?

    JackbyDev,

    He didn’t immediately do it. He asked them to stop multiple times.

    sndmn,

    deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • masterspace,

    Have you considered not defending insane paranoid gun culture?

    ram,

    This is definitionally an ad hominem argument; i.e. you’re attacking people in place of actually attacking the argument.

    But to refute your attacks on people’s character, I’m just going to say, you’re from lemmy.ca, so I imagine you’re Canadian. sndmn is also lemmy.ca, so I imagine they’re a Canadian. If you check @ram, the account I’ve been using until I signed up to my current instance, as well as the content I interact with, you’ll see that I’m a Canadian.

    As for the idea that maybe I’m some pro-gun PoS, I’m radically anti-gun. I think our gun laws in Canada are much too lax. The fact that pigs walk around with guns means that criminals are more likely to carry guns as well.

    Not if I’m to emapthise with the person in the video, instead of making emotional judgements reliant solely on reading articles and a 3rd person video perspective, I can try to understand that people living in the US are painfully aware that those around them are constantly surrounded by guns. I can also try and understand that if you have an easy “fuck off” button that carries big consequences with it, you’ll be quicker to jump to it the moment things get dicey.

    I do think he was too quick to pull out the gun, but seeing as he’s a human, I also understand people make hasty decisions that are suboptimal. So if I look at things outside a clinical perspective and consider how I’d react in such a situation, with at least two much larger men playing something weird in my ear, chasing me, and continuing to play it as I try to disengage - them refusing to allow me to disengage, I can very well see why someone who would go for the big fuck-off button.

    Maybe I describe it in a clinical way - that’s just what it’s like to be neurodivergent for some people. But the reality is that my perspective is defined by my empathy for the person, despite not being someone who’s had to suffer living in a gun-happy country, and despite being someone who, based on life experience, would likely die before pulling that big fuck off button on someone.

    Try empathising with someone for a bit instead of jumping to “guns are the problem.” The only problem with guns is that they were involved at all. Any situation with a gun is more deadly than without, but the reality of the dystopia that is the USA is that situations have guns.

    shalafi,

    For context, I’m a liberal gun owner who doesn’t carry all the time.

    At first, I felt the shooter was on very thin ice. Your comment completely shifted my view on the situation. I might well have taken the shot myself, given the 2 on 1, and one coming from behind.

    And remember kids! This is why we wait for a court of law to bring out the evidence before forming a solid opinion!

    Thanks you so much for changing my mind, and doing so in a sane and logical manner.

    Touching_Grass,

    What a sinful murderous culture

    TheFriar,

    What a weird response.

    No one was murdered. What “sins” were committed here? “Love your neighbor,” which gets violated everywhere every day. We live in a stupid, decadent, vapid capitalist culture. A worker, making way less than he should so a company can call him an independent contractor, carries a gun so he doesn’t lose his little bit of money, and a twat making peoples lives miserable for money…capitalism is the common culprit. This isn’t “society” rotting. This is your economic system inflicting it’s dominating principles, coldly, on everyone.

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    Man youre taking literally shooting someone way too lightly. Do you often shoot people with the expectation theyll be fine?

    magnetosphere,
    magnetosphere avatar

    I’m not going to defend the shooting, but I think you’re taking the idea of being approached by two strangers (one of whom is behind you) way too lightly.

    Without seeing the video it’s hard to say, but the situation sounds absolutely terrifying.

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    Have you never been approached by strangers before?

    IphtashuFitz,

    Yes, from behind like in this case. By a mugger.

    magnetosphere,
    magnetosphere avatar

    Not by someone who snuck up on me and played a recording in my ear while his friend watched.

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    Ah the phone is what makes this a situation that needs a corpse then

    Ducks,

    Please identify the corpse in this story. Or has making shit up to support your arguments been working out for you?

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    When you choose to shoot someone, you are choosing to kill. Hindsight is 20/20, when this occurred this guy chose to kill.

    gregorum,

    That may be your choice, but that doesn’t mean everyone thinks the way you do.

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    if you dont think shooting people is lethal, that's legit mental problems

    ram,

    Thanks for the input, but maybe you need to take a breather for a minute, try to understand the perspective of others, and then you can find better arguments to suit what you want to say? I assure you that accusing people of mental illness is not actually an argument in your favour or even against you, nor does mental illness actually prevent someone from having reasonable and subjectively correct opinions on various matters.

    gregorum,

    Refusing to acknowledge reality and the very real facts of this case while constantly attempting to change the subject away from accountability for such are what psychologists refer to “denial” and “deflection”.

    And, once again, nobody died here, proving that the shooting was not lethal.

    lightnsfw,

    Everyone who’s ever approached me in the manner of this “prank” has either attempted or done me harm. The dude didn’t know this was a prank. He told them several times to stop and they didn’t. His only safe bet was that the situation would continue to escalate.

    jeremy_sylvis,
    @jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

    “approached” - you seem to be performing Olympic-tier stretching to reduce this aggressive harassment and intimidation to “approached”.

    This is incredibly disingenuous - it’s hard to take anything you say seriously through such. It’s also clear you aren’t actually here for any form of conversation, aren’t here to understand what happened as shown by video and conclude from that, and are instead here to just shill your anti-firearm point of view.

    Beyond disappointing.

    ram,

    I added a link to the video in the post. Unfortunately the original was taken down, but I did have a cached version I could save and repost.

    thepianistfroggollum,

    No, you shoot people because you believe they pose a legitimate threat to you. Cook was assaulted and defended himself.

    This is a case of, “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

    It’s also important to note that the scumbag that was assaulting him is 6’5", so he’s automatically intimidating just by existing.

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    I like that addition at the end that just being tall warrants you being murdered.

    thepianistfroggollum,

    No one was murdered

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    Again, do you shoot people expecting them to be fine?

    thepianistfroggollum,

    No, you shoot people to remove a threat to your life.

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    By killing them

    thepianistfroggollum,

    Yes, killing someone is often a successful way to remove the perceived threat to your life.

    But, you keep conveniently forgetting that no one was killed.

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    Usually, and very regularly, people are killed by being shot. Sometimes they survive. That doesnt change the fact they intended to kill someone.

    thepianistfroggollum,

    I’m not sure what that statement has to do with anything I’ve said.

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    You shouldnt shoot people because it typically kills them

    thepianistfroggollum,

    You should if you believe your life is in danger. I’m not sure why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp.

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    The part where there was no danger or even threat.

    thepianistfroggollum,

    You weren’t there, buddy. As I have said before, it’s really easy to look back after the fact and say there wasn’t any threat, but you have absolutely no way of knowing how Cook felt during the altercation.

    There are a ton of reasons that someone might have trauma and react strongly to something that triggers it. That’s the reason it’s generally ill advised to assault random strangers.

    Touching_Grass,

    a threat like a cell phone and a friend watching

    gregorum,

    If that person is using the cell phone to assault you and threaten your life, which is the case in this instance, then, yes, they would be legally justified in doing so.

    Touching_Grass,

    Lol no its the case here. The mental gymnastic used to justify shooting people in America is fucking bizarre

    gregorum,

    The only mental gymnastics present here are in your repeated twisting of and denial of the facts. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant.

    Touching_Grass,

    Says the person saying playing audio on your phone is a life threatening situation

    Touching_Grass,

    Says the person saying playing audio on your phone is a life threatening situation

    gregorum,

    I never said that.

    You sure do like making up stories.

    gregorum,

    Again, nobody was murdered in this case. The facts of the case are what matter, not your hypothetical musings.

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    in the cases where people are killed you're gonna be conveniently absent from discussion. And believe me, there will be many, many more cases of people being killed thanks to people like you.

    ram,

    I look forward to seeing more level headed discussion from the beacon of truth you must be to be so confident that you’re correct yet so incapable of adequately describing why to a convincing degree.

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    Confident that...more people are going to be shot to death in the future???

    How disjointed from reality are you people?

    gregorum,

    That can be avoided by not provoking people into self-defense by assaulting them, as is what happened in this case.

    blazera,
    blazera avatar

    Boy youre gonna run the absolute loosest definition of the word assault into the ground, you just want to see more people killed

    gregorum,

    Once again, nobody died here, and I’m not the one with difficulty understanding the definition of the word “assault”.

    gregorum,

    Since you feel so comfortable predicting the future, why weren’t you there to tell this YouTuber that assaulting this man would get him shot?

    Or maybe you just prefer to deflect attention from the fact that you peddle is disinformation and bad-faith arguments in order to push and agenda. Either way, considering the facts in the case, what we have is a person legally justified in defending themselves from assault, whether you like it or not. No amount of your hypotheticals, attempts at prognostication, or casting aspersions while refusing to accept the truth will ever change those facts.

    BrianTheFirst,

    They said that tall people are intimidating, which is absolutely true. As another 6'5" dude, I try to be careful how I walk up on somebody, because it is easy to accidentally scare the shit out of people.

    thepianistfroggollum,

    Yup, I’m 6’3 and I have to do the same.

    Touching_Grass,

    You could get shot for mildly scaring someone in america.

    Touching_Grass,

    Guys he this person walked at me aggressively and I couldn’t tell if they’d kill me so I shot them. Bless merica where life doesn’t mean jack shit.

    gregorum,

    You can get justifiably shot in self-defense for assaulting a person, yes. Because that’s what happened here.

    Touching_Grass,

    Not justifiable in a country unless the country is a place that’s insane

    gregorum,

    Your opinion is irrelevant. The facts are what matter in this case, whether you like it or not.

    Microw,

    But it’s true though: in a lot of countries the guy would be convicted and it would be classified as too much force for self defense.

    gregorum,

    What might happen in other countries is irrelevant. It happened here and was a legally justified response to assault, no matter how much you don’t like it.

    Microw,

    Where did I say I didnt like it? I’m not the guy you argued with.

    gregorum,

    That doesn’t matter. What might have happened in another country is irrelevant.

    Whether you like it or not.

    Touching_Grass,

    The fact is a guy shot negligently at a kid for playing a speaker at him. Its like speaking to a 1900 Arab whose saying it’s justified to cut a criminals hands off because his legal system deemed it so. The country is beyond reasonable and as I said is fairly evil when it comes to valuing life. You’re using a broken measuring stick to measure

    gregorum,

    Except that’s not what happened. Your entire argument hinges on your persistent mischaracterization of events, yet you accuse me of using a “broken measuring stick”. Even you can’t meet your own silly standards, lol.

    Touching_Grass,

    I used what’s in the article. Playing google translate and looking menancing

    gregorum,

    Manipulating the story to suit your narrative is hardly as honest as you claim it is. Your “version” of events is as irrelevant as how you feel. The facts of this case are all that matter, and you still can’t seem to get that right.

    Touching_Grass,

    Facts are facts. There was no threat to his life. Only in a violent country can you be not guilty for attempting to murder someone who looked menacing while playing audio on their phone. Those are facts

    gregorum,

    The fact is that he was assaulted and was legally justified in his self-defense. Your opinion is irrelevant.

    Touching_Grass,

    Your opinion is irrelevant.

    You’re hiding behind the word assaulted since just being assaulted doesn’t justify anything since clearly sounds is an assault. Should you shoot up a comedy club because the comedian assaults you with a joke. Words are violence now

    gregorum,

    The fact that a man was assaulted by the YouTuber, legally justifies the use of force, which was used in this instance, just because you don’t like that, doesn’t change the fact that it was legally justified. And no matter how much you twist words around or ignore the facts of the case, The facts, again, remain the facts in this case. A person was assaulted and defended themselves with a legally justified use of force.

    Whether you like it or not.

    Touching_Grass,

    You are legally justified to fuck a 16 year old in some states. According to your reasoning that’s all that matters.

    I’m telling you it isnt. In both cases its wrong. Legal justification is not enough and isnt a sword to fall on in a country that’s fucked up

    gregorum,

    This isn’t a discussion about sex with minors, but that seems to be on your mind.

    In this case, this man’s use of force was legally justified self-defense in response to assault. Your opinion is irrelevant.

    Touching_Grass,

    deleted_by_moderator

  • Loading...
  • gregorum,

    You’re attempts to change the subject to sex with minors is a straw man and comparing self defense to sex with minors is a a false equivalence.

    The fact remains, despite your logically fallacious arguments, that the use of force in this case was a legally justified self-defense against assault, whether you like it or not. Your opinion is irrelevant.

    Touching_Grass,

    Its not a false equivalency. You’re saying he’s legally justified as the justification. I’m showing you that isnt enough. If you can’t answer honestly then thats more than enough to conclude your argument is badly formed.

    Legal force was not justified since the threat was not proportional to the threat

    gregorum,

    Sex with minors is not the same thing as a person defending themself from assault. That is clearly a false equivalence. And changing the subject from self-defense to sex with minors is clearly a strawman. Don’t blame me because you simply cannot make your point without using logical fallacies, and don’t blame me for pointing out the facts.

    As someone who is incapable of making an argument without using multiple logical fallacies, you are hardly in a position to accuse anyone else of a badly formed argument.

    Not to mention that I find it rather curious that you’re suddenly so fixated on sex with minors…

    Touching_Grass,

    How was it an assault?

    SaltySalamander,
    SaltySalamander avatar

    Assault is words, you, along with most everyone else, are confusing assault with battery.

    Touching_Grass,

    Not confusing anything. Its not an assault that warrants any kind of violent reaction let alone a fatal one

    gregorum,

    Nobody died. You’ve been told this several times, yet continue insisting on using language like “deadly” and “fatal”. You seem to have trouble reading.

    Touching_Grass,

    So shooting to what? Say hello

    gregorum,

    I don’t presume to know what other people are thinking. I suggest you try that.

    Touching_Grass,

    Best to shoot anyways just in case.

    gregorum,

    Try again

    Touching_Grass,

    so you can reload?

    gregorum, (edited )

    It seems necessary to remind you that I wasn’t involved in this incident.

    ram,

    Shooting to end the situation that has escalated to what appeared to be a dangerous degree.

    Touching_Grass,

    Saying get away would have been enough.

    ram,

    He literally did that.

    Touching_Grass,

    and then escalated to shooting that’s the problem. Assessed wrong while carrying a firearm. Kid could be dead

    ram,

    You’re not explaining the problem.

    Touching_Grass,

    Played google translate near his ear and looked “menacing” lol come the fuck on. Not like he was throwing any haymakers or even kicks. Playing audio on your phone and having resting bitch face isn’t a justifiable reason to shoot someone in most places for a reason. Its insane to think it would be

    ram,

    You’ve clearly never been a victim of violence.

    Touching_Grass,

    Sure I have.

    One time at Halloween this kid jumped out of the bushes and screamed Book! But I shot him and another kid that I thought was with him. Jury found me not guilty so its all good.

    ram,

    So you’ve never been a victim of violence, gotcha. Blocking bad faith losers.

    TheLowestStone,
    @TheLowestStone@lemmy.world avatar

    By legal definition, assault is an intentional, offensive, or harmful act that may cause reasonable anxiety or fear of expected injury.

    Touching_Grass,

    Don’t care what the legal definition is. My definition is that is not an assault

    mindbleach,

    “I don’t care about the thing I’m arguing about” is a brave angle on any debate.

    Chailles,
    @Chailles@lemmy.world avatar

    I’m just gonna take a different approach here. That’s not a definition. That’s just a statement. You actually have to give a description of the criteria for what constitutes as “Assault” to make a definition. Why isn’t it assault?

    Touching_Grass,

    And I’m telling you sound out of a phone is not am assault. Is speech violence?

    Chailles,
    @Chailles@lemmy.world avatar

    It can be, yeah. Sound can be damaging, sometimes irreversibly for people.

    mindbleach,

    “I have a bomb.”

    “Put the money in the bag.”

    “Give me your wallet.”

    “I’ll stab you, heretic.”

    thepianistfroggollum,

    Well, the good thing is that the judge and jury weren’t wrong like you are.

    Touching_Grass,

    In a violent society of course they wouldn’t. That’s the sin of it all. Its normalized

    drcobaltjedi,

    My definition is that is not an assault

    Are we allowed to use alternative definitions now? My definition of assult is someone contunuing to use previously refuted statements.

    TheLowestStone,
    @TheLowestStone@lemmy.world avatar

    Classic willful ignorance. Thanks for clarifying that you’re not worth engaging with in the future.

    Touching_Grass,

    Well fucking shoot me then ffs

    thepianistfroggollum,

    Not willful ignorance, just a low effort troll

    jeremy_sylvis,
    @jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar
    jeremy_sylvis,
    @jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

    Don’t care what the legal definition is

    When we’re just casually disregarding pesky things like definitions, how can you actually expect any form of genuine conversation to take place? You’re playing pretend from the start.

    Touching_Grass,

    I am using a definition

    thepianistfroggollum,

    No, you’re using your definition that you’ve pulled out of your ass. The real definition is different.

    Words have meaning, and hopefully you learn that before you graduate high school and have to deal with the real world.

    Touching_Grass,

    Yes I am using my definition. Are you saying speech is violence? This was playing audio next to someone. Nothing physical. You’d have to argue that playing audio is some kind of violence that justifies killing

    thepianistfroggollum,

    Alright, if it was just playing audio next to someone, I’d agree with you. You’re intentionally leaving out important details to the situation.

    thepianistfroggollum,

    A very tall stranger shoving his phone in your face while saying nonsense is inherently intimidating.

    Or, are you confused because, legally, assault is the threat of violence while battery is the actual violence?

    Touching_Grass,

    So blow their brains out. Totally justified response in certain cultures

    thepianistfroggollum,

    No one got their brains blown out.

    Touching_Grass,

    Just shot a non threatening kid because they were annoying

    thepianistfroggollum,

    No, he shot a very large stranger that came up behind him and started aggressively shoving their phone at his head abs kept following him as he backed away. It’s completely reasonable to feel threatened in that situation.

    Touching_Grass,

    Not life threatening. Completely reasonable to feel threatened in many safe situations. Which is why walking around armed leads to this negligence and the devaluing of human life to justify it.

    thepianistfroggollum,

    You weren’t in the situation, so you have no idea how Cook felt. It’s easy to look back after the fact and say that things should have been done differently.

    Luckily, a jury disagrees with you.

    Touching_Grass,

    How he felt is objective and not as relevant as the facts which are these kids did not actually pose a threat let alone one that was life threatening. A jury in america would think he was not guilty. Because the culture in many place in America does not value life.

    thepianistfroggollum,

    No, how he felt is the only thing that’s relevant.

    Again, you’re playing Captain Hindsight. Of course he knows now that the moron wasn’t a threat, but when you’re in the situation you don’t get that luxury.

    Touching_Grass,

    No it isn’t relevant. Judgements are wrong like here. You carry and discharge a firearm in public then the threshold should much higher that a guess

    thepianistfroggollum,

    Well, hopefully you don’t ever serve on a jury, because your lack of empathy is concerning.

    Touching_Grass,

    If I lacked empathy, I would agree shooting an unarmed youngish person acting stupid was justified. But I have empathy and expect anybody carrying a firearm be held to higher expectations than just random guessing

    thepianistfroggollum,

    You lack the ability to put yourself in Cooks shoes to try to understand the circumstances that led to the shooting. Or, you’re purposefully ignoring it to push your agenda.

    BURN,

    It’s willful ignorance at this point. Or they’re just a fucking idiot.

    They’re deliberately misrepresenting the entire situation and ignoring the facts that don’t fit their narrative that this “murder”

    thepianistfroggollum,

    Oh, they’re absolutely a troll. I was just bored and playing along.

    gregorum,

    The YouTuber assaulted him, and that is a fact, no matter how much you want to ignore it.

    The man had a legally-justified right to defend himself. Whether you like that or not is irrelevant.

    Touching_Grass,

    Speech is violence I suppose then by your definition since all that was done was playing audio oh and looking menacing

    BURN,

    Ignoring being told to stop multiple times and continue if to advance, while your friend is behind them also attempting to box you in is a whole lot more than just playing audio and looking menacing.

    If you’re going to sound like an idiot, at least get your facts straight

    Touching_Grass,

    Nothing with what you said is a threat to anyone’s life. Where did it say he’s boxed in. Was he physically restrained or had hands on him in anyway?

    BURN,

    There’s no requirement for them to have hands on for it to classify as assault. Battery requires physical contact, not assault. That’s why there’s 2 separate charges.

    As a small person and a minority, if someone like this is advancing after being told to back off and had someone coming in from behind I’d be 100% sure I’m about to be the victim of a hate crime. If you wait till they’re hands on you’re likely going to be dead or severely beaten. At which point it is a threat to his life.

    Touching_Grass,

    And I’m saying that’s insane to say you’ll shoot someone for walking towards you

    gregorum,

    Your history of drawing the wrong conclusions is repeating once again.

    gregorum,

    That’s not all that happened, of course. But you have no problem twisting the story to suit your narrative. The fact is, the victim was assaulted and used a legally justified amount of force in self-defense. Those are the facts, whether you like it, or not, and no amount of your twisting the facts will change that.

    Touching_Grass,

    deleted_by_moderator

  • Loading...
  • masterspace,

    He literally attempted to murder him, that’s what you’re doing when you shoot someone with a gun.

    Stop making dumb semantic arguments.

    gregorum,

    He defended himself against someone who was assaulting him, which he has every right to do. That is a fact, whether you like it or not.

    thepianistfroggollum,

    You clearly don’t know what the word murder means.

    masterspace,

    To take a life. Go make dumb semantic arguments elsewhere.

    thepianistfroggollum,

    No, murder is the premeditated and intentional killing of another person. Killing someone isn’t automatically murder.

    thepianistfroggollum,

    No, murder is the premeditated and intentional killing of another person.

    Murder does not mean killing someone in self defense.

    gregorum,

    Murder is defined as the unlawful and premeditated killing of one person by another.

    That is not what happened here.

    masterspace,

    Go ahead and look up the definition of dumb semantic argument before commenting again.

    gregorum,

    It’s not my fault that you don’t know the correct definition of ‘murder’ and refuse to argue in good faith.

    jeremy_sylvis,
    @jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

    The extent to which you’re victim blaming here is beyond absurd.

    Touching_Grass,

    Yea cause the real victim is the guy who had sounds player next to his ear. Not Not the guy who was shot.

    jeremy_sylvis,
    @jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

    You’re doing it again. That’s pretty awful behavior.

    Touching_Grass,

    I guess that’s awful but negligently shooting kids is cool

    gregorum,

    You’re the only one claiming that.

    masterspace,

    In every other western country a teenage prank usually does not result in attempted murder.

    Capitalism may make someone desperate enough to lash out, American gun insanity has evidently lead most of the people in this thread to think that lashing out by shooting someone with a fucking gun is a justifiable response to an annoying prank.

    Touching_Grass,

    A murderous society is as you described. Life isn’t valued. Delivery drivers feel they should be armed. Shooting kids because they annoyed you is permitted. Everybody is on edge. The sin is attempting to murder, not in defense and having the culture so rotting that there’s no guilt in it. Blame whatever you got to. It is what it is. Its a society that’s so far gone that life is devalued that this happens

    toxicbubble,

    clickbait title

    magnetosphere,
    magnetosphere avatar

    I tend to think of “clickbait” as intentionally misleading. This isn’t.

    It’s such an unusual situation that it’s hard to write a short, accurate headline that doesn’t sound a bit sensationalistic.

    ram,

    I wanted to say it was a youtube “prankster”, but rules of the community forbade me.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • news@lemmy.world
  • modclub
  • DreamBathrooms
  • osvaldo12
  • GTA5RPClips
  • ngwrru68w68
  • magazineikmin
  • everett
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • mdbf
  • kavyap
  • tacticalgear
  • InstantRegret
  • JUstTest
  • Durango
  • cubers
  • khanakhh
  • ethstaker
  • thenastyranch
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • tester
  • cisconetworking
  • Leos
  • megavids
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines