A jury has found a delivery driver not guilty in the shooting of a YouTube prankster who was following him around a mall food court earlier this year

  • Breezy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Whats the guy supposed to do, just shoot up in the air? Or maybe carefully aim and shot by his foot just enough threaten him? Or maybe just show the gun to this much bigger guy whos already harrassing him? Any of those situations could either result in a bystander getting hit, or the victim getting killed when his assualter pulls his own gun out.

    He did the right thing to protect himself. However he should not have been placed into this situation, all the fault should fall on the aggressor. But instead this victim is being held in jail and might be charged a felony for protecting himself from some deranged youtube asshole, WHO IS PROFITTING FROM THIS CRIME. The victim wouldve been better off if he had got a kill shot.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think if the Youtuber dies, the jury convicts him. It shouldn’t be a factor, but you know it is.

    • SpiderShoeCult
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I know! He was supposed to go all Yosemite Sam on his ass and yell ‘dance, partner!’ while discharging his firearm at the assailant’s feet very quickly. Hillarity would have surely ensued! /s

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Whats the guy supposed to do

      Back away, run away, call 911, get a mall cop to help, throw a punch…

      Literally just about anything other than try to kill another guy.

      I mean you actually admitted it yourself without meaning to: “guy whos already harrassing him”. Harassing isn’t threatening. It’s annoying, but it doesn’t make you fear for your life. The other guy didn’t have a weapon, didn’t make physical contact, didn’t threaten him, he just aggressively harassed him. Nobody should die in that situation.

      • Breezy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Naw the victim was assualted, the jury already decided that. But thats besides the point. None of what you suggested is a viable option when you are face to face with a deranged person. We’re not going to see eye to eye, so i wont be resppnding even if ypu reply.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          assualted

          Assaulted.

          besides the point

          Beside the point.

          resppnding

          responding

          ypu

          you

          None of what you suggested is a viable option when you are face to face with a deranged person

          Of course it is. A possibly deranged person who isn’t violent, who hasn’t attacked, or even touched you. That’s no excuse to use lethal force. You’re not going to respond because you know you’ve lost the argument. When you admitted it was harassment you knew that it wasn’t suitable for killing, but you want to pretend that it is, because you like the idea of being able to kill someone who annoys you.