Man acquitted for shooting "prankster"

[ilikegunspdx]

I dont understand how the guy got acquitted, in all my layman understanding of the law this was not a righteous shoot. I see a case of harassment. I didnt clearly hear what was being played on the phone or anything the prankster said verbally, is it possible it was something threatening designed to make someone feel in danger? Best I can second guess here.

And Im not buying the jury is tired of these pranksters, somethings off with that idea, thats not how juries are instructed to judge.

I think it's size of aggressor/# of people disparity, him taking passive actions to avoid "an attack", and in general him not being the aggressor and agressor would not stop. Also probably had a good attorney I'll bet. Personally I think there is a reasonable case for an attack being imminent but there was no obvious case for threat of death. Just what I see. I think the thing we are going to see more of is groups/gangs of kids acting aggressively/stealing/harassing more and more.

 

[cdmontgo]

I dont understand how the guy got acquitted, in all my layman understanding of the law this was not a righteous shoot. I see a case of harassment. I didnt clearly hear what was being played on the phone or anything the prankster said verbally, is it possible it was something threatening designed to make someone feel in danger? Best I can second guess here.

And Im not buying the jury is tired of these pranksters, somethings off with that idea, thats not how juries are instructed to judge.

I don't really know much about VA state law, but my understanding is that a shooting is considered self defense if there is a reasonable threat of death or bodily injury which is the case for every state I know of. Reasonable in VA is considered the attacker being menacing. My understanding is that VA sets the bar pretty low for the definition of menacing as it applies to using deadly force for defense.

In this case, the "victim" was approached by two unknown individuals with one being larger than the victim. The large attacker, played an offensive phrase on his phone, was asked to stop, ignored that, the victim attempted to walk away, the attackers followed continuing to play phrase with phone in the victim's face, the victim continued to try to walk away while telling the attacker to stop and hitting the phone away.

In other words, said victim was being both pursued and harassed by multiple attackers with one being larger. The attackers ignored multiple verbal commands as well as attempts to swat the phone away while continuing to follow the victim that was attempting to flee. I don't know if they take into account that the victim's hands were full with items needed for his job, but they most likely did take into account that he fired a single non-fatal shot rather than more than that.

I guess in VA that qualifies as menacing due to multiple attackers, size difference, invading personal space, ignoring commands, and pursuing. If they found the attacker was menacing, I don't understand why he didn't get charged with anything.

I think that is a piss poor way to define the law. Pepper spray or a fight would have been a better solution.

 

[Paolung]

I dont understand how the guy got acquitted, in all my layman understanding of the law this was not a righteous shoot. I see a case of harassment. I didnt clearly hear what was being played on the phone or anything the prankster said verbally, is it possible it was something threatening designed to make someone feel in danger? Best I can second guess here.

And Im not buying the jury is tired of these pranksters, somethings off with that idea, thats not how juries are instructed to judge.

A jury has the absolute power to acquit or convict in a criminal case, regardless of what the law says or how they are "instructed" to act (see Jury Nullification for details).

That said, judges can (and have) overruled juries in civil trials on occasion (see JNOV). These types of reversals are only allowed if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict as a matter of law.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

a fight would have been a better solution.

Ummmm, and why am I required to get hurt 'just a little' bit to prove that I might have gotten hurt a lot?

 

[Member 53328]

It blows my mind that some members think this is a valid or legit self defense shooting…..

Remind me to steer clear if your out in public with a gun.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

This guy was just assaulted in Portland and died of blunt force trauma. So even though no gun or knife may be immediately visible you can die from such attacks so they must be taken seriously imo.

Portland police identify victim in Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood homicide

A medical examiner determined that Barisich died of homicide by blunt force trauma.

www.koin.com

 

[wombatz]

Remind me to steer clear if your out in public with a gun.

I get your point, but I think we *do* have the right to not be harassed in public or private. The shooter did not consent to be part of this staged bull pucky. I do think he should have held off on firing the gun and just "brandished", but I also think he was honestly afraid. Big guy right in his face with a friend right next to him. The guy was trying to intimidate. That is the opposite of "steer clear".

Yes, I was very surprised at how quickly he pulled and fired, but I also get why the jury found as they did. This is a hard one.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

It blows my mind that some members think this is a valid or legit self defense shooting…..

Remind me to steer clear if your out in public with a gun.

Might be because some of us remember this

Knockout game - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And there is another trend going around antiSocial Media these days of filming surprise fights mostly in schools

 

[Member 53328]

I get your point, but I think we *do* have the right to not be harassed in public or private. The shooter did not consent to be part of this staged bull pucky. I do think he should have held off on firing the gun and just "brandished", but I also think he was honestly afraid. Big guy right in his face with a friend right next to him. The guy was trying to intimidate. That is the opposite of "steer clear".

Yes, I was very surprised at how quickly he pulled and fired, but I also get why the jury found as they did. This is a hard one.

Lol. No it's not.

If this was "legal" or "righteous" I could neutralize a homeless person daily/weekly in Portland for the same offense.

You can't shoot someone cause you're scared….

I'm steering clear of people who carry a gun and think this was a good and valid shoot.

No emotional control at all.

But hey men are supposed to live/act on how they feel nowadays so why am I surprised…..

 

[Member 53328]

Might be because some of us remember this

Knockout game - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And there is another trend going around antiSocial Media these days of filming surprise fights mostly in schools

Can't shoot someone cause of what may happen…. Especially if they haven't done anything to show intent of hurting you.

 

[Xaevian]

It blows my mind that some members think this is a valid or legit self defense shooting…..

Remind me to steer clear if your out in public with a gun.

Doesn't matter what we all think, the jury determined it was a legitimate use of self defense. It blows my mind that some members can't accept that at face value.

 

[Member 53328]

Doesn't matter what we all think, the jury determined it was a legitimate use of self defense. It blows my mind that some members can't accept that at face value.

I accept that. It blows my mind he was acquitted. He'll get bent over later on down the road. But that's on him.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I wonder if part of the split of opinion on this is from how we view "pranksters"

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Something to consider here is....

It ain't about what you* would do....
It is about what the fella did in the OP...and his acquittal.

As I said before...I don't think that it was a good shoot.
However it don't matter what I think....
I was not there at the time...
Nor was I the one being "pranked" / threatened / accosted / what have you....


What does matter is...
What the fella in the video was experiencing and did at that time....
What the "prankster" and his buddy did...
And that the fella who shot was acquitted.

*Collective "you" here...not anyone in particular who has replied here in this thread.
Andy

 

[Koda]

I'm steering clear of people who carry a gun and think this was a good and valid shoot.

This isnt a clear cut case, there are some valid points being made on both sides here. Im not seeing any threat to pysical violence until I consider how the prankster stays well inside the victims immediate personal space despite requests and attempts to get them to step back. Its reasonable to know that youtube pranks do turn violent. My guess is this is the kingpin in this case.

I see a case of harassment not lethal force. But I also see a case of harassment that also really compromises the victims personal safety.

I think the answer lies in what the prankster was saying and or playing to the victim, the media isnt reporting on.

 

[Member 53328]

Unwatching this thread. Lol.

 

[Dozer99]

And this my friends is why we have a Jury of our peers to decide our fate, not some arm chair quarterback! There is much more to consider here than just "Good shoot" or "Bad Shoot".

We don't know what the shooter was thinking or what had just happened prior to the "very" short clip that we have been shown. Besides, it's not for me to pass judgement, only to think about what I would do in this situation.

I will say this however, if the Bully had not been a Bully that day, he would not have gotten a new vent.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

This isnt a clear cut case, there are some valid points being made on both sides here. Im not seeing any threat to pysical violence until I consider how the prankster stays well inside the victims immediate personal space despite requests and attempts to get them to step back. Its reasonable to know that youtube pranks do turn violent. My guess is this is the kingpin in this case.

I see a case of harassment not lethal force. But I also see a case of harassment that also really compromises the victims personal safety.

I think the answer lies in what the prankster was saying and or playing to the victim, the media isnt reporting on.

Perp was chasing him as he backed away and kept pushing phone into guy's face. I think the usual law is "would a reasonable person feel threat of GBH or death". I think it's reasonable to think gbh may be coming due to him chasing him. But without a weapon or physical contact from the perp it doesn't rise to the level of defense with deadly force (IMO).

Bottom line for me is a person has a right to defend themselves with proportionate force to stop the "attack". The problem is if deadly force is the only tool in your toolbox you have minimal options. Imo it's better to have options (Fe pepper spray) to allow enough opportunity to get away (or counterattack effectively if needed Fe if perp escalates to using a weapon and continuing to attack they are going to be screwed up already by the proper spray).

 

[ma96782]

RE : Pepper Spray and "NOT a good shoot"

Pepper Spray.
Yeah....imagine. A regular guy now needs to carrying around an entire belt with most everything needed, like a cop's duty belt.

"NOT a good shoot".
Sorry. This that and everything else, COULD HAVE BEEN/SHOULD HAVE BEEN under BETTER CIRCUMSTANCES. You know.......CLEAR CUT and EASY to figure out. BUT, But, but....then, life is not always so clear cut. The circumstance is presented and one reacts to it. OK, Ok, ok......I wish that things COULD be BETTER. Rrrrrrright.......

Aloha, Mark

 

[Koda]

I think the usual law is "would a reasonable person feel threat of GBH or death". I think it's reasonable to think gbh may be coming due to him chasing him. But without a weapon or physical contact from the perp it doesn't rise to the level of defense with deadly force (IMO).

if its reasonable to feel great harm coming then does one have to wait to be attacked to defend themselves from great bodily harm?