Youtuber gets in guy's face.....gets shot

[M1911]

Who’s law? Mass or Kentucky?

The law of self defense, which is founded in Common Law and is very similar across the country. Seriously, you need to read this book: Amazon product ASIN 1943809143View: https://www.amazon.com/Law-Self-Defense-Indispensable-Citizen/dp/1943809143

The victim perceived a threat. Was it reasonable?

Yes, the victim perceived a threat. Yes, that perception was reasonable. However, the threat did not rise to the level of death or grave bodily injury. You can't shoot someone because they threaten you unless it is an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury. That is as true in Kentucky as it is in Massachusetts.

Kentucky’s a stand your ground state.

You keep throwing this out, but stand your ground was not an issue in this case. All that stand your ground means is that you don't have to try to retreat. That's not the issue here. The crucial issue is the level of threat.

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!

Again, if you shoot someone because they might punch you and that punch might kill you then you will be in a world of legal trouble. That is as true in KY as it is in MA.

 

[M1911]

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.

But, again, that's not germane to what the defendant knew at that time.

 

[M1911]

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.

Yes, the defendant would have been well within his rights to use pepper spray.

 

[Edek Kasica]

But, again, that's not germane to what the defendant knew at that time.

Regardless of whether he would get the videos in, a good attorney would get the shooting victim to admit what he was doing at the mall. I believe any denial of him doing a gag to get a rise or reaction out of a person would get the videos in on those grounds.

 

[M1911]

Regardless of whether he would get the videos in, a good attorney would get the shooting victim to admit what he was doing at the mall. I believe any denial of him doing a gag to get a rise or reaction out of a person would get the videos in on those grounds.

Yes, the video that the perp took at the time would be admissable. The fact that the perp was trying to get a rise out of the victim would also be admissable.

The fact that the perp did this often is immaterial unless the defense can show that the defendant knew this ahead of time. The legal standard is what the defendant knew at that time, not what he has learned since then.

Just because you have a good lawyer doesn't mean he will necessarily get something admitted into court.

 

[vicorjh]

You can't shoot someone because of what they might do.

It was a general hypothetical of threat / response. Use of force ... to disable a threat and at what point. No gun necessarily. Did assume there is limited time for options, e.g. getting choked.

But where in this incident does it ever rise to threat of death or grave bodily injury? It simply doesn't.

Applied to the hypothetical, after assailant is hand-on and victim is choking. Tough call. idk.

Training under pressure for better decision making?



FWIW, this isn't entirely hypothetical Just collecting thoughts on where is the threshold when confronting a threat. I'd also agree that the topical result was surprising but also not surprising.

 

[M1911]

It was a general hypothetical of threat / response. Use of force ... to disable a threat and at what point. No gun necessarily. Did assume there is limited time for options, e.g. getting choked.



Applied to the hypothetical, after assailant is hand-on and victim is choking. Tough call. idk.

Training under pressure for better decision making?



FWIW, this isn't entirely hypothetical Just collecting thoughts on where is the threshold when confronting a threat. I'd also agree that the topical result was surprising but also not surprising.

If someone is choking you, that is an immediate threat of danger of death or grave bodily injury and deadly force is legally justified. I strongly recommend that you read Andrew Branca's book the Law of Self Defense.

 

[namedpipes]

The guy actually said, as reported, he plans on continuing ...

Darwin

 

[whatluck]

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!

The KY mindset is that in most places there's no cops, so being able to defend yourself effectively is key. Stand your ground applies to anywhere you can be legally, not just your home or car.

And if you ask me, the defender had reasonable cause to believe he was in imminent danger. I would probably also shoot.

 

[milktree]

Ugh...

When I watch that video I think he could have done a lot more to avoid shooting, like shouting, or more actively walking away.

But... I have no sympathy for the youtube jackwad. He's doing grade-school level harassing, and, because he's 21 years old, he's absolutely old enough to know better. Combine that with him being 6'5", and it's completely reasonable for someone to treat his bullshit as a threat.

 

[M1911]

The KY mindset is that in most places there's no cops, so being able to defend yourself effectively is key. Stand your ground applies to anywhere you can be legally, not just your home or car.

And if you ask me, the defender had reasonable cause to believe he was in imminent danger. I would probably also shoot.

Again, stand your ground was not the salient issue in this case. Nor was the salient issue whether he was in imminent danger. Yes, the perp threatened him.

The salient issue is simply this: did that threat raise to the level of death or grave bodily injury. It did not.

The question isn't whether he was justified in defending himself. He was. The issue was whether he was legally justified to use deadly force.

 

[milktree]

View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=guGxpw4kMm0&pp=ygURVGFubmVyIGNvb2sgdmlkZW8%3D


Real gem of society. His “pranks” aren’t even funny.

Now I have even less sympathy for him. That's classic punch-down "humor".

 

[whatluck]

Again, stand your ground was not the salient issue in this case. Nor was the salient issue whether he was in imminent danger. Yes, the perp threatened him.

The salient issue is simply this: did that threat raise to the level of death or grave bodily injury. It did not.

A KY jury disagrees and acquitted.

 

[M1911]

A KY jury disagrees and acquitted.

Yes, they did. That was either jury nullification (the perp was a shitbird so they decided FAFO) or they simply got it wrong on the basis of the law. I would not assume that another jury would rule the same way nor would I take this as an example to follow.

This is a situation where the defender would have been much better off if he had used OC spray or simply kept walking away. While he was found not guilty, the impact on the defendant's life has likely been horrific.

As I've said, I've got no sympathy for the shitbird and hope he earns himself a Darwin award.

 

[FalArAk]

When this kid makes teeth imprints on the floor, I'll offer a not-guilty while on the jury of the defendant.

View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Dlaj7kEWrRI

That was set up big time.

 

[pastera]

Again, stand your ground was not the salient issue in this case. Nor was the salient issue whether he was in imminent danger. Yes, the perp threatened him.

The salient issue is simply this: did that threat raise to the level of death or grave bodily injury. It did not.

The question isn't whether he was justified in defending himself. He was. The issue was whether he was legally justified to use deadly force.

I tend to agree that the shooter did not show any big attempt to disengage and that is why they convicted on the lesser charge - because he definitely had cause to use force given the obvious disparity of force but that's offset by the youtuber not actually physically threatening him

There is also more to the altercation than the short video - if a third party started filming then it likely had been going on for a while

 

[Junior314]

So the delivery kid turns his back to walk away and gets a punch to the back of the head. Kid shouts at him to get away from him and escalates the situation further. Not sure that you can't argue there wasn't a threat. My first reaction watching the video is the idiot YouTuber picked this kid because he looked like someone who wouldn't fight back.

Does it meet legal requirements for self defense? Not sure that I care the idiot got what was just.

 

[Bonesinium]

If he was acquitted on the one charge because they found the shooting to be justified self defense, then the judge ought to to their job and overturn the juries guilty verdict in the shooting in an occupied structure charge. If the shooting is justified self defense, you can’t criminalize it in some other manner.

Reminds me of the Branch Davidians verdicts.

 

[BigTimber]

The law of self defense, which is founded in Common Law and is very similar across the country. Seriously, you need to read this book: Amazon product ASIN 1943809143View: https://www.amazon.com/Law-Self-Defense-Indispensable-Citizen/dp/1943809143


Yes, the victim perceived a threat. Yes, that perception was reasonable. However, the threat did not rise to the level of death or grave bodily injury. You can't shoot someone because they threaten you unless it is an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury. That is as true in Kentucky as it is in Massachusetts.

You keep throwing this out, but stand your ground was not an issue in this case. All that stand your ground means is that you don't have to try to retreat. That's not the issue here. The crucial issue is the level of threat.

Again, if you shoot someone because they might punch you and that punch might kill you then you will be in a world of legal trouble. That is as true in KY as it is in MA.

Apparently not. And general rules of self defense are just that. Kentucky statues my differ….

 

[BigTimber]

The salient issue is simply this: did that threat raise to the level of death or grave bodily injury. It did not.

Says you and nobody in Kentucky cares what you think.

 

[M1911]

So the delivery kid turns his back to walk away and gets a punch to the back of the head. Kid shouts at him to get away from him and escalates the situation further. Not sure that you can't argue there wasn't a threat. My first reaction watching the video is the idiot YouTuber picked this kid because he looked like someone who wouldn't fight back.

Does it meet legal requirements for self defense? Not sure that I care the idiot got what was just.

Oh FFS.

Yes, THERE WAS A THREAT. No one is arguing that there wasn't a threat. No one is arguing that he was justified in defending himself. Neither of those points are the salient issue.

The salient issue is simply this: did the threat rise to the level of death or grave bodily injury. The threat must rise to that level before you are legally justified in using deadly force. There are levels of force below deadly force. You can't just reach for your gun in response to any threat -- that threat must rise to the level of deadly force.

 

[M1911]

Apparently not. And general rules of self defense are just that. Kentucky statues my differ….

Please, for your own legal safety, read Andrew Branca's book the Law of Self Defense.

Self defense law is very similar across the states. You can only use deadly force in response to an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury. That is just as true in KY as it is in MA or IL or FL or NH.

There are some differences about whether you need to retreat (if it is safe to do so), with that not being required in stand your ground states. But the basics of the law are the same.

 

[BigTimber]

Please, for your own legal safety, read Andrew Branca's book the Law of Self Defense.

Self defense law is very similar across the states. You can only use deadly force in response to an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury. That is just as true in KY as it is in MA or IL or FL or NH.

There are some differences about whether you need to retreat (if it is safe to do so), with that not being required in stand your ground states. But the basics of the law are the same.

Nobody cares about Andrew whoever and their book of self defense. All that matters is Kentucky statutes.

 

[M1911]

Nobody cares about Andrew whoever and their book of self defense. All that matters is Kentucky statutes.
View attachment 801192

You seem to think that is different than other states. For the most part, It is not. Serious physical injury is the same as grave bodily injury. Rape is considered grave bodily injury in every state.

Consider each one of these issues one at a time.

Death: was the victim in danger of death? No.
Serious bodily injury: was the victim in danger of serious bodily injury? No.
Kidnapping: was the victim in danger of being kidnapped? No.
Rape: was the victim in danger of being raped? No.
Felony involving force: was the victim in danger of being the victim of a felony involving force? No.
Home invasion: this was not a home invasion.

You keep digging in the same hole. The threat simply didn't rise to the level of death or grave bodily injury. The jury likely found him not guility because of FAFO, but I would not recommend depending upon that.

Nobody cares about Andrew whoever and their book of self defense. All that matters is Kentucky statutes.

Branca is an attorney who specializes in self defense law. He gives a very good presentation of the subject matter, which is common across most states. The KY statues are effectively no different. The salient issue is whether the victim was in danger of death or grave bodily injury (which is the same as serious bodily injury). He was not.

As folks who carry guns, it is vitally important that we know when we can and when we can't use deadly force.

 

[BigTimber]

You seem to think that is different than other states. For the most part, It is not. Serious physical injury is the same as grave bodily injury. Rape is considered grave bodily injury in every state.

Consider each one of these issues one at a time.

Death: was the victim in danger of death? No.
Serious bodily injury: was the victim in danger of serious bodily injury? No.
Kidnapping: was the victim in danger of being kidnapped? No.
Rape: was the victim in danger of being raped? No.
Felony involving force: was the victim in danger of being the victim of a felony involving force? No.
Home invasion: this was not a home invasion.

You keep digging in the same hole. The threat simply didn't rise to the level of death or grave bodily injury. The jury likely found him not guility because of FAFO, but I would not recommend depending upon that.


Branca is an attorney who specializes in self defense law. He gives a very good presentation of the subject matter, which is common across most states. The KY statues are effectively no different. The salient issue is whether the victim was in danger of death or grave bodily injury (which is the same as serious bodily injury). He was not.

As folks who carry guns, it is vitally important that we know when we can and when we can't use deadly force.

You seem unwilling to accept the use of deadly force differs from state to state. I’m sorry at this point I don’t know what to tell you. The Kentucky jury spoke. Your opinion doesn’t matter. You are yet to post Any Kentucky statute contradictory to the juries decision. This is not England 1635, this is not Massachusetts, and Kentucky does not go by use of deadly force for dummies written by who cares. In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property (see the horn case) here in Ma? looked at the same way? We are not all the same state to state. When you can come up with some Kentucky statute germane to this particular case I’ll have a listen.

 

[M1911]

You seem unwilling to accept the use of deadly force differs from state to state. I’m sorry at this point I don’t know what to tell you. The Kentucky jury spoke. Your opinion doesn’t matter. You are yet to post Any Kentucky statute contradictory to the juries decision. This is not England 1635, this is not Massachusetts, and Kentucky does not go by use of deadly force for dummies written by who cares. In Texas you can use deadly force to protect property (see the horn case) Ma? Is that basically the same Massachusetts? We are not all the same state to state. When you can come up with some Kentucky statute germane to this particular case I’ll have a listen.

In every state, you can only use deadly force if you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. The one exception is Texas which allows the use of deadly to protect property at night.

You've posted a short summary of KY deadly force law, which supports my position that KY deadly force law is basically the same as every other state. As I posted above:

Death: was the victim in danger of death? No.
Serious bodily injury: was the victim in danger of serious bodily injury? No.
Kidnapping: was the victim in danger of being kidnapped? No.
Rape: was the victim in danger of being raped? No.
Felony involving force: was the victim in danger of being the victim of a felony involving force? No.
Home invasion: this was not a home invasion.

In every state you can use deadly force if you are in danger of death. In every state you can use deadly force if you are in danger of death or grave bodily injury. In every state you can use deadly force if you are in danger of being kidnapped. In every state you can use deadly force if you are in danger of being raped.

The salient issue is whether the victim was in danger of death or serious bodily injury. He was not.

 

[Edek Kasica]

I think the jury settled on this having had happened.

To unlawfully place another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the use of threatening words and/or other conduct, but without displaying a weapon or subjecting the victim to actual physical attack.

 

[Junior314]

Oh FFS.

Yes, THERE WAS A THREAT. No one is arguing that there wasn't a threat. No one is arguing that he was justified in defending himself. Neither of those points are the salient issue.

The salient issue is simply this: did the threat rise to the level of death or grave bodily injury. The threat must rise to that level before you are legally justified in using deadly force. There are levels of force below deadly force. You can't just reach for your gun in response to any threat -- that threat must rise to the level of deadly force.

No as pointed out... the issue is did it rise to serious physical injury. 2 on 1, aggressive behavior, continuing to pursue, and a noticeable size difference. KY statue also includes a felony involving force.

This is KY not MA. He was found innocent by a jury of his peers.

ETA: Not guilty for M1911

 

[M1911]

No as pointed out... the issue is did it rise to serious physical injury. 2 on 1, aggressive behavior, continuing to pursue, and a noticeable size difference. KY statue also includes a felony involving force.

Serious physical injury is the same as grave bodily injury. Yes, the behavior was aggressive, but the perp did not commit a felony involving force. Did this threat rise to the level of serious physical injury? In my opinion it did not. The victim should have continued to disengage.

This is KY not MA. He was found innocent by a jury of his peers.

No, he was not found innocent. He was found not guilty. And the process he went through was life changing.

 

[Junior314]

Serious physical injury is the same as grave bodily injury. Yes, the behavior was aggressive, but the perp did not commit a felony involving force.

No, he was not found innocent. He was found not guilty. And the process he went through was life changing.

I'm quoting from the statute and using the terms found within it. You are not. As would the process of this guy had he been assaulted or worse which I imagine was what threw his mind when this punk continued to get in his face, harass and pursue him. Or maybe he thought he was about to be the victim of strong armed robbery which would mean he was justified in his actions.