Man acquitted for shooting "prankster"

[Koda]

He looks like a little weasel who's f***s to give have ran out a long time ago.

Mug shots are never going to be flattering, so I'm not going to judge him... and he didn't ask for this either. But I will judge the pranksters. I watched a news interview and his friends reaction to the camera news man had no respect. The mom encouraged it. These people are narcissistic bully's and are the reason we have so much conflict in society. They get their validation off of scaring and bullying people and they dont care about what that does to their victims.

 

[Member 53328]

The real victim here is the customer who didn't receive their door dash.

Hope they got a refund.

 

[saw2]

What is unbelievable or I guess more common these days is the kid that got shot seemed as if he's learned nothing from it other than getting a few more hits on social media. Oh I forgot probably a payoff off for being stupid and causing himself to be shot.. Some of the things we reward people for stupidity now days is a whole other topic.

If getting shot in the guts for pulling a prank doesn't teach you something I'm thinking you're a pretty slow learner, but what does this old man know. The times they are a changing.

 

[RVTECH]

If getting shot in the guts for pulling a prank doesn't teach you something I'm thinking you're a pretty slow learner,

No, you are not a slow learner but a psychotic, wack job with a complete lack of understanding of pain, life or death and as previously mentioned, zero empathy.

This kid is DANGEROUS and ya wanna talk about 'red flags' ? - well he is the 'pole'....

 

[Member 53328]

No, you are not a slow learner but a psychotic, wack job with a complete lack of understanding of pain, life or death and as previously mentioned, zero empathy.

This kid is DANGEROUS and ya wanna talk about 'red flags' ? - well he is the 'pole'....

Don't worry if he isn't already…… soon enough he too will own a firearm.

 

[Koda]

When we consider what bullying does to the mental health of the victim its a total mind rape. What we need to do is make bullying a felony....

 

[SonicBlue03]

There's a bit of either/or'ing in this thread. I'd submit:

The response was excessive and appropriate at the same time. Excessive in that actual battery hadn't occurred at that point, was only assumed. Appropriate in that the current generation needs to learn there are consequences for being a-holes.

These are different threads, but it's not a one-or-the-other thing.

 

[Mikej]

Here's the terrifying thing about all this. I watched about 20 seconds of a couple of this guys vids. The terrifying part is this guy has enough viewers that he makes money from torturing people as a joke. I'd wager, if this punk had any pets in the house when he was young, they weren't there for long.
America as great place to live sure seem to be changing.

 

[RogerJ]

Too bad you have to shoot an aggressive jerk to get their attention. But if that's what it takes...

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

America as great place to live sure seem to be changing.

I think it's changing less than most people think, and mostly what's changing is our willingness to talk about things previously kept secret (a good trend IMHO) and less fortunately the ability to profit off curlity, as this YouTuber does. My usual frame of refence for this opinion is the book They Shoot Horses, Don't They? from 1935. With the exception of a few very time specific references, like the majority of the story taking place at a marathon dance contest, the plot of the story reads like it happened in our time. The Sun Also Rises from 1926 is another good cultural reference point and reads like a Seinfeld! episode.

 

[WillametteWill]

Let me start with, I truly appreciate discussions like this and everyone's thoughts and opinions. It's a fantastic, healthy discussion. So much so that I used the video in a class last night for one of my wife's shooting groups to get their take.

Wouldn't that stuff be shown in court? Seems directly relevant to the case. History of trying to provoke reactions, aggressive behavior, whatever.

Remember this is a witness in the case, not the suspect. I think the jury saw enough and that is why the case turned out the way it did.

Why do I keep hearing "all your life will be dragged out in court, your social media, etc..." in regards to self defense cases. Fe massad ayoob has said that often. Seems like a lot of speculation in this thread.

As the "suspect" in a DGU, much more likely. Because the suspect/armed citizen is being charged with a crime, in come cases their history can come out. The rules are pretty tight but if can be linked to the actions it may come in. The difference here is that the "victim" in this case was not charged and in the eyes of the court did not do anything criminally unlawful, but that doesn't mean the jury doesn't get to see what happened...again, why the suspect was acquitted.

Why is it these pranksters arent getting charged with something? Seems like assault or at least harrassment?

In a well-functioning society, we should not need a law to prevent every wrong. To me, this is the crux of this situation. I think everyone here looks at the Youtuber and says, jerk, idiot, bully, immature, terrible human or something similar. It's wrong, clearly, but it dances on the edge of criminality. Even when you can interpret the black letter law where you think it could be a crime, it's another thing to convince a deputy DA, judge, jury (with the DDA stopping it before it gets to trial).

What is unbelievable or I guess more common these days is the kid that got shot seemed as if he's learned nothing from it other than getting a few more hits on social media.

Him being shot related to his popularity in social media is equal to a Kardashian being in a "leaked" pron video.

There's a bit of either/or'ing in this thread. I'd submit:

The response was excessive and appropriate at the same time. Excessive in that actual battery hadn't occurred at that point, was only assumed. Appropriate in that the current generation needs to learn there are consequences for being a-holes.

These are different threads, but it's not a one-or-the-other thing.

Andrew Branca's five elements of self defense come into play here. It was not proportional, a deadly force threat was not imminent, and not really reasonable. He failed three of the five (if you fail one your self defense case will usually go out the window) yet he was still found not guilty, not even a hung jury...pretty good for him. A face full of pepper spray would more easily check the boxes.

This is a GREAT case for everyone who carries a gun to consider as a "what if..." The real world is rarely black and white.

 

[Koda]

Even when you can interpret the black letter law where you think it could be a crime, it's another thing to convince a deputy DA, judge, jury (with the DDA stopping it before it gets to trial).

It just seems like there is a large disparity in what cases get prosecuted that largely favor prosecuting the defender in self defense cases and disfavoring prosecuting the person who started it. (The rittenhouse trial is a clear example)

 

[WillametteWill]

It just seems like there is a large disparity in what cases get prosecuted that largely favor prosecuting the defender in self defense cases and disfavoring prosecuting the person who started it. (The rittenhouse trial is a clear example)

I get what you are saying and with high profile cases, this seems clearly to be true. I can justify KR's actions for lawful self defense all day though. I can't do this with this kid. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of DGU cases that never make it past a DA review or grand jury because they are considered justified. They are but a blip on the radar of the MSM (doesn't fit the "guns are bad" agenda). I wouldn't take my chances in Mult county though.

 

[Mikej]

Let me start with, I truly appreciate discussions like this and everyone's thoughts and opinions. It's a fantastic, healthy discussion. So much so that I used the video in a class last night for one of my wife's shooting groups to get their take.

Remember this is a witness in the case, not the suspect. I think the jury saw enough and that is why the case turned out the way it did.

As the "suspect" in a DGU, much more likely. Because the suspect/armed citizen is being charged with a crime, in come cases their history can come out. The rules are pretty tight but if can be linked to the actions it may come in. The difference here is that the "victim" in this case was not charged and in the eyes of the court did not do anything criminally unlawful, but that doesn't mean the jury doesn't get to see what happened...again, why the suspect was acquitted.

In a well-functioning society, we should not need a law to prevent every wrong. To me, this is the crux of this situation. I think everyone here looks at the Youtuber and says, jerk, idiot, bully, immature, terrible human or something similar. It's wrong, clearly, but it dances on the edge of criminality. Even when you can interpret the black letter law where you think it could be a crime, it's another thing to convince a deputy DA, judge, jury (with the DDA stopping it before it gets to trial).

Him being shot related to his popularity in social media is equal to a Kardashian being in a "leaked" pron video.

Andrew Branca's five elements of self defense come into play here. It was not proportional, a deadly force threat was not imminent, and not really reasonable. He failed three of the five (if you fail one your self defense case will usually go out the window) yet he was still found not guilty, not even a hung jury...pretty good for him. A face full of pepper spray would more easily check the boxes.

This is a GREAT case for everyone who carries a gun to consider as a "what if..." The real world is rarely black and white.

Excellent! So, what I get is, in this case the shooter would have needed to wait until his assaulter showed a deadly weapon of some kind (club), and withstood a hit, before pulling his gun and shooting him. Maybe just threatening with a (club), and not hitting.
Still glad he didn't get convicted on the main charge.

 

[Koda]

I get what you are saying and with high profile cases, this seems clearly to be true. I can justify KR's actions for lawful self defense all day though. I can't do this with this kid. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of DGU cases that never make it past a DA review or grand jury because they are considered justified. They are but a blip on the radar of the MSM (doesn't fit the "guns are bad" agenda). I wouldn't take my chances in Mult county though.

I agree with you.
What I see in this prankster case is an example of just how fluid or subjective self defense cases can be. We try to define self defense as black and white objective situations but following self defense cases over the years shows its best to keep an open mind about what we think of as objective.
Ie, the defender here got lucky. Rittenhouse did not.

 

[RVTECH]

I think the prankster needs to grow eyes in the back of his head - and watch what he does in public.

He may just, ya know, find himself in a situation he will not get out of....

 

[Lilhigbee]

Twelve pages and I guess I'm the only one that considers this a good shoot. Not because the dipsh!t deserved it, although he did, but because it satisfies all three of the circumstances necessary to justify lethal force by a reasonable person; ability, opportunity and jeopardy,.
Ability - Two aggressors that the defendant could see, one of whom is much larger than himself. One or more additional that he may or may not have realized were part of the party.
Opportunity - They purposefully got within striking distance.
Jeopardy - They approached him for no apparent reason, were playing a recording intended, by their own account, to confuse and disorient him, refused to back off when told to and continued to advance while he was trying to retreat.
Perhaps not as clear-cut as other self-defense shootings, but the jury definitely came to the correct conclusion.

 

[Koda]

but because it satisfies all three of the circumstances necessary to justify lethal force by a reasonable person; ability, opportunity and jeopardy,.

AOJ are not the only things needed to justify using deadly force.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

@Lilhigbee

"Twelve pages and I guess I'm the only one that considers this a good shoot."

Maybe if you didn't have so many people on Ignore you would see that you are not the only one with that opinion.
But that's the problem with ignoring people that you have one disagreement with, you miss the opportunity to find out if there are other things you agree about


ETA: if you didn't guess, he has me on ignore, but all I have to do is log out to see his post, putting people on Ignore doesn't keep you from seeing theirs, it only keeps them from seeing yours.

 

[Barefootdog]

12 pages..I only read part of them. Have patience if this has been brought up prior.

How were the actions of the "Prankster" not defined as assault?

The conduct of the "pranksters" put them within deadly striking distance of the victim.

Victim would have zero time to react to protect himself if/when the assault escalated to battery or assault with a deadly weapon.

This is just another version of the organized flash mobs that are looting stores...The "Everyone must eat" BS. These stores are not allowed to protect themselves either. Look at downtown Portland to see the results of no downside to criminal activity.

Very satisfying to see the "prankster" laying on the ground...probably whimpering like the little kitty cat he is.

Is it a good shoot? Appears to be a divergence between letter of law and the realities of the everyday world we have devolved into. It's really a shame the shooter has been incarcerated.