A local jury thought so.
https://x.com/dkaplanfox5dc/status/1707856453241823245?s=61&t=nsVXZiCUm1aguM6ABLo7hA
If one doesn’t exist, there needs to be an anti-menacing law that throws the book at these internet prankster assholes. In the karmic sense, dude got what was coming to him, but I’m surprised by the jury’s decision.
I’m a fan of some prank video crews but only the ones where they are pranking themselves. Like Shammi. His crew’s pranks are almost entirely between themselves. That’s what they signed up for.
Pranking the unexpected public at large is just obnoxious, dangerous, and pure assholeness.
This reporting made the local news last night with complete video shown to include the shooting. Shooter was found guilty of lesser charge of unlawful discharge. The prankster has recovered and intends to continue his career as a prankster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agE-U38y888
I watched the video a few times and I don’t see a “prank” there. I see bullying and intimidation of a stranger.
I’m not sure that I see a justifiable shooting because he could have done a bit more to create space between himself and the a-hole (although the law probably does not obligate him to).
I’m sure that the jury heard a lot of evidence that goes beyond the video, but I think that people in general are just done with obnoxious kids and personally feeling threatened by them, so maybe they went with he “F-ed Around and Found Out,” and that’s that.
I watched the video a few times and I don’t see a “prank” there. I see bullying and intimidation of a stranger.
I’m not sure that I see a justifiable shooting because he could have done a bit more to create space between himself and the a-hole (although the law probably does not obligate him to).
I’m sure that the jury heard a lot of evidence that goes beyond the video, but I think that people in general are just done with obnoxious kids and personally feeling threatened by them, so maybe they went with he “F-ed Around and Found Out,” and that’s that.
Just done with obnoxious … kinda like shoplifters will be shot? I see a parallel. And it is disturbing.
I watched the video a few times and I don’t see a “prank” there. I see bullying and intimidation of a stranger.
I’m not sure that I see a justifiable shooting because he could have done a bit more to create space between himself and the a-hole (although the law probably does not obligate him to).
I’m sure that the jury heard a lot of evidence that goes beyond the video, but I think that people in general are just done with obnoxious kids and personally feeling threatened by them, so maybe they went with he “F-ed Around and Found Out,” and that’s that.
Just done with obnoxious … kinda like shoplifters will be shot? I see a parallel. And it is disturbing.
The Wild West. Street culture. Mafia politics. The lone vigilante. The rogue businessman (aka wolf of Wall Street) all romanticized. Hero worshipped. People think they want to live in that culture. Hard people who don’t take no for an answer and want what they want. A culture of non compromising imbeciles.
Fuck around and found out.
Both sides dumb as fuck.
This reporting made the local news last night with complete video shown to include the shooting. Shooter was found guilty of lesser charge of unlawful discharge. The prankster has recovered and intends to continue his career as a prankster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agE-U38y888
The universe: Young man, have you learned anything from this?
Young man: Hmmm, could be more clicks if I got shot in the head instead of stomach. Let me work on that.
Fuck around and found out.
Both sides dumb as fuck.
Only in the U.S. would someone annoying someone with their phone result in a deemed-defensible shooting. It deserves a spot on the cultural Mount Rushmore of Uniquely American Things.
A local jury thought so.
https://x.com/dkaplanfox5dc/status/1707856453241823245?s=61&t=nsVXZiCUm1aguM6ABLo7hA
If one doesn’t exist, there needs to be an anti-menacing law that throws the book at these internet prankster assholes. In the karmic sense, dude got what was coming to him, but I’m surprised by the jury’s decision.
I’m conflicted. At first, my reaction was that although that guy was being an annoying douche, there’s no way he should’ve been shot. BUT that guy did say ‘stop’ and was walking away and the guy was following him very closely. For all I know, he did feel a threat to his safety.
It seems like Virginia law permits the use of deadly force without warning and with no requirement to retreat. It also considers that use justifiable if there is an imminent overt act that causes the person to reasonably feel threatened with great bodily harm or death, and where the person is free from any fault in provoking the attack.
I’m sure I haven’t captured the entirety of the law on this, but I think I might struggle to say that the overt actions of the prank guy constituted something that could reasonably make one fear a threat of grave bodily harm or death. Just based on the video, and not having heard any additional arguments or having more background on how the whole thing played out, I don’t think I would have come to that conclusion. I think I would have thought the guy was a douchebag, but I’m not sure I would have feared for my life. The video makes it look like he shot the prank guy out of annoyance more than fear.
Agree with all of that. I saw nothing whatsoever that suggested imminent bodily harm or death absent the use of lethal force in defense. I saw an annoying dude with a phone and an armed guy with an itchy trigger finger.
In my view, stepping away from the guy and pulling the gun with a threat to use it if he didn’t desist would be a reasonable use of the firearm in this instance, though I think it easily could have been resolved without a gun being involved; the presence of the gun is equally problematic in situations like these and only escalates annoyances to lethal consequences not just for the pursuer but for bystanders and the shooter himself.
This situation play out much differently in pretty much every developed nation but the U.S…
When does this A-hole Tanner Cook get called out for harassment? Yes this situation deadly force shouldn’t have been used. Wish the guy had been kicked in the balls real good, and every time he does it. What would you do if he was harassing your 17 year old daughter?
When does this A-hole Tanner Cook get called out for harassment? Yes this situation deadly force shouldn’t have been used. Wish the guy had been kicked in the balls real good, and every time he does it. What would you do if he was harassing your 17 year old daughter?
I wouldn’t dare to do or say anything. Here in Lotusland of the province of BC I would have to call the cops who would have to politely ask him to stop if it is not too difficult while a bunch of bystanders would record everything on their phones hoping to catch the police in the act of brutality so they can become the next youtube star. If I kick him in the balls, I would be found guilty of brutality, racism ( if the guy is not white) and would have to apologize. In Croatia, I would kick him in the balls, somebody else would kick him in the ass and he would learn his lesson very fast. But he can consider himself lucky as we don’t carry guns.
If one doesn’t exist, there needs to be an anti-menacing law that throws the book at these internet prankster assholes.
I’ve seen some pranks that don’t well and the pranksters plead, “woah woah woah it’s a prank! it’s a prank!”
Maybe I’m old and out of touch, but I don’t think these kids understand what a prank is. Annoying someone for the purpose of internet clicks is not really a “prank” that everyone is just supposed to be okay with.
In my view, stepping away from the guy and pulling the gun with a threat to use it if he didn’t desist would be a reasonable use of the firearm in this instance,
That is never a reasonable use of a firearm: brandishing a firearm is a crime in and of itself. If you feel the need to pull your weapon, you’d damned well be ready to use it snd justify it’s use.
I’ll not speak to the validity and justification of using deadly force in this case, as I was not there, and a court of law has already ruled on that.
However, back to the first point: there was a case here in NH about 20 years ago where a complete whack-job (seriously, she had been involuntarily committed several times - if I recall correctly) drove into this guy’s yard, who had it legally posted for trespassing, and essentially was giving the homeowner a ton of shit even after he had asked her to leave multiple times, and because he had a sidearm, in a holster, and when she finally went to leave he removed it as to secure it as he went back in the house, he was sent to prison for brandishing and threatening with a weapon. (Sorry for the run-on sentence.)
The next governor actually commuted (think that’s the right term? It’s late and been a long day…) but somehow he remained a felon and could not get his firearms back. All because of a complete nut job errantly and illegally drove down his driveway one day and didn’t want to leave.
It was quite the bull-shit trial, with a very overzealous prosecutor looking to make a name for themselves, basically.
The best part? The looney-tunes lady never even showed up to testify, if I remember correctly.
Long way to say: don’t pull a weapon unless you are fully prepared and ready to pull the trigger.
though I think it easily could have been resolved without a gun being involved;
There is no doubt in my mind that this could have - and should have - happened.
Long way to say: don’t pull a weapon unless you are fully prepared and ready to pull the trigger. //
Or just dont have your weapon on you outside in the first place, or have a weapon at all. All solutions to this and the OP’s original problems. Both instances solved like they would be anywhere else in the world where folks aren’t packing their whole lives…But where is the fun in that, right?
1:35 to 2:00 min mark tells you all you need to know about this kid.
His poor mother.
There is no doubt in my mind that this could have - and should have - happened.
Hence my comment about this being a uniquely American problem both in terms of it happening and a jury finding it acceptable. In a rational society a gun would play no role in this situation whatsoever.
Do you think it’s reasonable to allow people to carry concealed weapons and to use them in defensive situations like this (such that it was) and to shoot without warning? This question came up in our discussion about the college kid shot while entering the wrong home; does responsible gun possession require that the shooter attempt to warn or retreat before shooting? I think it should, whenever possible. In this situation I don’t think the shooting is justifiable by any measure, and the fact that he seemed to shoot in response to annoyance without explicit or implicit threat and without warning strikes me as abuse of our second amendment right.