Jury acquits delivery driver of main charge in shooting of YouTube prankster

You know that his life wasn't in danger because you know it was a prank. The defender here did not have the benefit of that knowledge.

When someone nearly a foot taller with 50 more pounds of muscle gets in your face and starts accusing you of thinking about their private parts, then you get to decide if self-defense is necessary. The defender tried to get away from the aggressor multiple times and told him to stop multiple times, but the aggressor obviously kept engaging.

Do you think he should have waited until the giant started punching or kicking him before he decided to draw his weapon? Should he have tried to punch the giant instead of using the weapon he has? Do you think you could outrun someone taller and in better shape than you are?

If the defender had multiple self-defense options he might have chosen another, but all of this is arm-chair quarterbacking. We weren't there and the person that was chose the only real defense option they had.

This situation is entirely the Goon's fault. He should be the one facing charges. While it might be reasonable to recommend a self-defense course for the victim, my understanding is that he already followed good self-defense principles.

Edit: Also, since no one else is saying it, I will. If the victim happened to have been gay, the aggressor probably would have been charged with a hate crime. The goon was clearly accusing him of it.

But you would also have to be a total asshole and go around harassing strangers who are just trying to get on with their lives.

If I could guarantee I'd live, I think I legit agree.

Should make a YouTube channel and call it Ow My Balls

Having worked in fast food and factories, I'd much rather the fast food work than any kind of repetitive factory work.

I'd rather get shot if it was a mild wound and I didn't have to pay the medical bills afterwards*.

America, the land of opportunity!™

.338 Lapua?

2,000 a month is 12.50 an hour not 25. And here 12.50 is below minimum wage.

Being intimidated is not enough of an excuse to kill someone.

Can you then not empathize with how this delivery driver was afraid for his life? Not necessarily taking his time and thinking through his options, but reasonably in an actual state of irrational fear?

You're putting words in their mouth.

Yep, the Glaswegians invented the headbutt just for this scenario

In the context of not being fucking dead, it's a warning.

I didn't watch Steve-o's own show but were there any Jackass skits where they accosted sometime who wasn't in their crew? Some of them happened in public but they were still members of the crew being stupid and filming the publics reaction from afar.

That said, maybe I'm forgetting a skit?

This tracks.

Weird how every article about this from today is copy and pasted and omits such key details.

That would corroborate his lawyers saying that a conviction after a finding of a lack of malice is inconsistent.

Except the next paragraph says:

If any such act be done unlawfully, but not maliciously, the person so offending is guilty of a Class 6 felony;

But, if the shooting was in self-defense, was it unlawful? Maybe the guy was legally allowed to defend himself, but not legally allowed to shoot a gun inside a crowded food court. Like, the self-defense covers him for injuring another person, but it doesn't cover the danger he posed to other people when he did it?

Guess I gotta cool it with throwing missiles in public, keep it to the backyard for a bit.

Wait, can I benignly throw missiles in public? Do I have to call something out, like yell hot potato then chuck it?

Very confusing rules

The wounding is the main charge.

After watching the video of the incident, I don't blame the driver for shooting him at all.

The "prankster" was acting really creepy and was being right up in the guys face after being asked to stop. Even after trying to walk away, the "prankster" still came right up to him, holding his phone right up to his face.

Fuck that guy. He deserved to get shot. He said he's gonna keep making those videos, and I hope he gets shot again, but hopefully the next time is the last time.

The victim is being punished! He is recieving a felony for protecting himself just because it took place in a building. And that dumb youtuber was rewarded by having his followers almost double after the fact, which equates to more money, while the victim is sitting in jail.

The only weird part about the ruling is the jury wants to convict on the “gun charges” (that’s what the article referenced, doesn’t say what that means) but acquitted him on the shooting.

The original three charges (I don't know if any were modified later) were "aggravated malicious wounding, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and discharging a firearm within a building". In Virginia, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony acts as a multiplier charge for malicious wounding. My guess is that he was acquitted of malicious wounding and use of a firearm in commission of a felony, and convicted of discharging a firearm inside a building.

Okay? Im not a lawyer, so whats your point.

I wouldn't be surpised if he had complications from that for the rest of his life.

From the description of the incident, it definitely sounded like he feared for his life.

No it fucking doesn't. The whole thing lasted less than 30 seconds and the driver never tried to retreat. He told the prankster no a few times, tried to swat the phone out of his hands, and then shot him. It's not shocking that the jury had a difficult time coming up with a verdict.

Well like the article said, he fucked up by shooting immediately after drawing the weapon, instead of giving Cook (the YouTuber) a chance to see the gun and finally back off. I agree with their decision to keep him in jail because of that one simple fact. The guy should have warned him that he was going to shoot if Cook didn't back down.

He was in a public food court at a mall during lunch

I'd watch the prankster-drone strike channel though.

Walked away, if necessary run away? Maybe throw a punch?

I kinda waver on reasonableness for cases like this but I generally think using a weapon against an unarmed aggressor is reasonable when there is a significant size disparity or a disability or something like that. In this case the "prankster" was significantly larger and had a group of friends with him so I don't think it's out of the question that the use of a gun for defense is reasonable in this situation.

If the defendant has been carrying a less lethal self defense measure, such as a taser, mace, or a baton, and had used that to defend himself, would you see that as more proportional?

I'm happy he didn't die over this, but I'm also kind of happy he got a little fucked up over it.

I tend to think about these situations with small people as the initial victim. How far should a smaller person or woman let something go before they can defend themselves? If the person is way, way bigger, do you just have to let yourself get beat?

Looks like someone has paid attention to Andrew Branca @ The Law of Self Defense.

the whole point of firearms is that it's deadly force. you can't fire one at a person without being ready to take their life because it's always a likely outcome.

It's not enough to shoot someone in any civilised country.

It's important to realize that the confrontation lasted 30 seconds. That's the amount of time he waited before almost killing someone.

He wasn't being chased in a dark alley or stalked for half a hour, someone played loud noises in his face and it took a total of 30 seconds for him to decide to shoot someone over it. Literally insane.

It's dangerous, it's not an imminent danger to life and limb.

If you're about to catch a beating, you can't just shoot.

The police, prosecution, judge, and half the jury, and me, think this conduct exceeded any right of self defense the dude had.

No question he could.lawfully have maced him or punched him and there'd have been no charge. But to try and kill the guy?

The jury apparently fucked it up by rendering an inconsistent verdict on the sole conviction. It's dangerous when the jury says it's deadlocked. It generally means someone in the room isn't being reasonable, or is not following the judge's instructions. And it resulted with inconsistent verdicts.

Yes. Your country has a shit reputation because of the gun cult, the shootings, the constant war mongering, the blatant racism and homophobia, and the Christian lobby that fuels all of the above.

Being the world's economic leader doesn't mean your internal policies can't be shit, grow up.

When Trump was visiting foreign countries, they literally flew giant ballons mocking him lmao.