Amputee Marksman
NES Member
I noticed that he was a lot taller. I couldn't help but make the assumption that he was probably an a****** bully when he was in high school.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Youtuber gets in guy's face.....gets shot
- Thread starter Palladin
- Start date
I noticed that he was a lot taller. I couldn't help but make the assumption that he was probably an a****** bully when he was in high school.
I've got no sympathy for the YouTuber. What he is doing is the very definition of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The YouTuber is a shitbird bully who uses his size to intimidate people for fun.
That said, I'm having a hard time finding what he did rising to the level of threat of death or grave bodily injury.
That said, I'm having a hard time finding what he did rising to the level of threat of death or grave bodily injury.
He is much bigger and acting menacing. And he followed the victim as he retreated from the situation the “attacker” started. Kentucky is a stand your ground state. Fu€k that dude. Poster child for FAFO.
Just my very unprofessional and shitty video opinion, from his reaction after the blaster went bang, it was a purposeful shot to the mid section.
Stand your ground doesn’t change the fact that what the bully was doing didn’t rise to the level of threat of death or grave bodily injury.
Im of the mind if you dont want to get shot then don't be a f-ing menacing d-bag. If more of these altercations ended like this there would be less of them. He was acquitted of the shot so the jury must have agreed with me.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
namedpipes
NES Member
Whatever the prank was, chances are the jackbutt won't do it again.
A delivery driver who shot a YouTuber who was pranking him said it was justifiable self-defense — and a jury agreed
Alan Colie, a delivery driver, said he was acting in self-defense when he shot the YouTube prankster, Tanner Cook, of "Classified Goons" fame.www.yahoo.com
Not guilty of the shooting, but guilty of discharging a firearm....which doesn't make sense
As for the mix of guilty and not guilty, if the shooting wasn't criminal then it was self defense and the other charges should have been dismissed or whatever the legal term is.
Should he have waited for the big guy to throw the fatal blow to his head? With that size difference it literally only takes one.
Again, you dont want to get shot dont do stupid shit. I'm old, on blood thinners, one punch to the head could end it for me. If some f-ggt is in my face after I've told him to back off 3 times he's getting the same thing.
I understand your point of view and agree with you. But that's not the law. The issue is the answer to the question "am I about to die right now?" If you can honestly say yes, then deadly force is legally justified. I don't see how this case rises to that level. Was the shitbird's behavior threatening? Yes, absolutely. But danger of death or grave bodily injury? No.Im of the mind if you dont want to get shot then don't be a f-ing menacing d-bag. If more of these altercations ended like this there would be less of them. He was acquitted of the shot so the jury must have agreed with me.
Do I feel any sympathy for the shitbird? Not in the least.
Last edited:
Yes, it can.
But "he might punch me and it might kill me" doesn't meet the legal definition of danger of death or grave bodily injury. Yes, I'm very well aware of the disparity of force. But the shitbeard didn't throw a punch, didn't have his fists raised, didn't say "I'm going to kick your ass", etc. Was his behavior threatening? Yes. But that threat level didn't rise to the level of death or grave bodily injury.
I do hope that the next person this shitbird "pranks" is a better shot.
The stupid runs deep in some people.
I understand that. But the jury's decision did not follow the law. Now you can say that their jury nullification was justified in this case (and I might agree with you), but that's not the law.
Using deadly force because of what someone might do is likely to get you in very deep legal hot water.
I don't know if these things are written by low quality bots or if the goal of human journalism is to simply create more ad space despite a lack of content. Either way most online articles are garbage, with multiple paragraphs rewording the garbage to stretch the page. Essentially six boxes of Hamburger Helper to one pound of burger that is already 50% filler.
A shame the little tool didn't win his Darwin.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2019
- Messages
- 491
- Likes
- 454
An armed society is a polite society. We need more of this.
Who’s law? Mass or Kentucky? The victim perceived a threat. Was it reasonable? Yes, they set it up by designed to seem threatening, that’s the gag. Did He perceive that threat to be of possible great bodily harm To himself? For the jury and me watching the video sure seems reasonable That he would. He’s out numbered and one of the assailants is much bigger, and his hands are full. Kentucky’s a stand your ground state. Where in the law does it say the aggressor needs to throw the first punch or needs to say I’m going to do this or that. It’s based on his [the shooters] perception. kid I went to high school died after being sucker punched. We’ve all seen vids where it’s happened.I would never allow an aggressive individual to get within the wheelhouse without me striking first if it was in any way possible. Anyone that does is a fool. His actions were reasonable. Good shoot, god bless Kentucky!
Last edited:
Rocky Mosasaurus
NES Member
Another thing to consider here is that people often do prey on DoorDash drivers and view them as easy targets both as food sources and currency holders. With hoodlums playing the knockout game and every other lunatic trend in society recently, aggression can be escalated at any time and be completely unprompted from outside parties.
I personally would have probably backed up from the scene while keeping my eye on the suspicious party and not turning my back on him, but with a big guy like that being able to cover distance quickly and exert more power with less warning this is the perfect example of needing a smaller intermediate force neutralizer like pepperspray or a taser gun, etc.
The goal should be have varying levels of threat neutralization: spray, taser gun, knife, firearm. This guy only had a gun and was a little quick to escalate use of force in my opinion.
I personally would have probably backed up from the scene while keeping my eye on the suspicious party and not turning my back on him, but with a big guy like that being able to cover distance quickly and exert more power with less warning this is the perfect example of needing a smaller intermediate force neutralizer like pepperspray or a taser gun, etc.
The goal should be have varying levels of threat neutralization: spray, taser gun, knife, firearm. This guy only had a gun and was a little quick to escalate use of force in my opinion.
I'd imagine the history of his bullying activities came out in the court. The whole interaction was bizarre and not funny in the least.
Hypothetically, someone is choking me. From the front. I also watched the individual approach with anger and mal intent.
Let's assume that I knew I could disable that person in a number of ways. At what point can declare the threat and how much time do I have to consider my options?
Before the physical contact but after the threatening behavior? After his hands are around my throat? Wait for someone to step-in to help (or record)?
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2019
- Messages
- 491
- Likes
- 454
I don't know I see him telling him to get away, pushing the phone out of the face which is making him go away and still being accosted with something kind of twinkie talk. At this point I believe a reasonable person can't assume that nothing good will come from this interaction. I know that juries are toss-ups and maybe pepper spray would have been a better escalation option.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2019
- Messages
- 491
- Likes
- 454
I would bet if it was a woman in this situation with all this Twinkie talk and getting up on to her, she would have not been charged.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2019
- Messages
- 491
- Likes
- 454
I thought covid was deadly within 6 ft. That would be my defense and I would get Dr Fauci to testify for me.
Once again, with feeling.
Yes, the shitbird was acting in a threatening manner. But there is a difference between threatening versus threatening death or grave bodily injury. This incident was the former, not the latter.
If you think that the law will allow you to shoot someone because they might punch you and that potential punch might kill you, then you will find yourself in a very great deal of legal trouble.
We need to be very careful to distinguish between what the law is versus what we might like it to be.
I seriously doubt that. His history of behavior is immaterial unless the defender knew about it. The issue is what the defender knew about the attacker at that time.
You can't shoot someone because of what they might do. If George St. Pierre, the world champion MMA fighter, raises his fists up to you and says "I'm going to kill you", then, yes, that is a deadly threat and because of the disparity of force, you can probably shoot him.
But where in this incident does it ever rise to threat of death or grave bodily injury? It simply doesn't.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2019
- Messages
- 491
- Likes
- 454
I would think that the defendant's attorney would be able to get the "victim" to testify as to what he was doing at the mall. And if he lied he would impeach his testimony with with previous videos that he did. I am not an attorney however.
Similar threads
