r/cringereels • u/kendavis135 • 16h ago

TikTok prankster tried to trick someone

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

16.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/Lucky_Trouble9833 15h ago

Thats a load of shit. How tf you gonna be acquitted for defending yourself then be charged for how you defended yourself?

24

u/It_Just_Exploded 15h ago

I think it was because he carried his weapon onto property that was posted as "gun free". The mall is private property, the owner has the right to say weapons aren't allowed, so technically he broke that law.

Its one of those things that many legal CCW holders do and no ones the wiser unless you have to use it. And if you have to use it, its worth eating the lesser charge to protect yourself and/or family.

Yeah, its kinda fucked up, but thats how the law works sometimes unfortunately.

13

u/Fryboy11 13h ago

It doesn't stop at private property. States that allow open and or closed carry everywhere still carve exceptions so you can't carry in certain public buildings, State colleges are fine. Those public buildings you can't carry in are the state capital buildings where the lawmakers have offices and passed the law saying you can carry a gun anywhere, except near my office.

1

u/unlordtempest 11h ago

In Washington State, its illegal to carry firearm into places that sell drugs. Liquor stores, bars, weed stores, pharmacies, etc. However, you can be under the influence of any of these and legally carry.

1

u/os_beef 9h ago

Liquor stores are fine. Bars, areas of restaurants restricted to 21+, and weed shops are no go.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to enter the following places when he or she knowingly possesses or knowingly has under his or her control a weapon:

...

(d) That portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor and cannabis board as off-limits to persons under 21 years of age;

There's an exemption for business owners and their employees.

(11) Subsection (1)(d) of this section does not apply to the proprietor of the premises or his or her employees while engaged in their employment.

1

u/RJ_MacreadysBeard 7h ago

Restricted to 21+? You mean in the states, a kid under 21 years old can walk around with a gun? Seems insane to have people walking around with guns, but I never even considered how young they could legally be. Scary shit.

1

u/os_beef 2h ago

You mean in the states

I'm talking about Washington, a State in the US. Federal law is applicable, but secondary in this context.

The areas I'm referring to are restricted to people 21 years of age or older, because people under 21 aren't allowed to buy booze or weed. In other words, kids and adults 18-20 aren't allowed in bars or weed shops. People with concealed carry permits also aren't allowed in those areas, with the exception of employees under certain conditions.

Seems insane to have people walking around with guns

We have a concealed carry permitting system here in Washington. In order to conceal a pistol, you must apply for and receive a permit from your local sheriff. Just like buying a gun, you must have a clean legal record, not adjudicated mentally defective, etc. In addition, being subject to a court order related to DV, anti harassment, extreme risk, etc disqualifies an applicant. Open carry is effectively restricted to 21+, with some caveats.

but I never even considered how young they could legally be. Scary shit.

Two things to consider. First, we allow 18-20 year old citizens to join the military and die for our country, but also don't grant those adults full rights or privileges. It seems logically inconsistent and unfair. Maybe we should redefine the age of adulthood, or grant them all the rights and privileges that adults supposedly have.

Second, why would the law stop someone intent on committing a crime? Overwhelmingly, people who go through the steps in order to legally carry a gun aren't the ones committing crimes.

0

u/It_Just_Exploded 13h ago

I figured government property was a given, as i havent seen a single government building that allowed civilians to carry weapons.

2

u/UnimagineDragons 7h ago

Please stop using the word civilians when it's not the right word. Police are civilians. Military cannon military doesn't apply

2

u/ResinFinger 2h ago

Correct police are civilians but a lot of gun laws are supported by police as long as they are exempt from them.

-3

u/It_Just_Exploded 7h ago

You and everyone else knows what is meant by it in the context. Just accept it.

6

u/NPJenkins 9h ago

I bet that charge comes packaged nicely with a revocation of your CCW as well. Total bullshit, imho.

3

u/-Clem 1h ago

Yes it does. That way, the next time you have to defend yourself, you get a concealed weapon charge.

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/fairlane-shooting-19-year-old-who-acted-self-defense-killing-mall-gunman-sentenced.amp

"What do you need a gun for protection in a mall, in the first place?" Asks the judge to the man who killed a mall shooter in defense of another.

1

u/NPJenkins 57m ago

I carry every time I’m in the mall. When you think about it, malls are vulnerable places because they’re areas of high traffic and they have been shot up multiple times in the past. What’s the point of having a CCW if you can’t carry in places where, statistically, you’re the most vulnerable?

1

u/dillweed67818 55m ago

Well that judge is dumb. He doesn't know about all the shootings and gang activity that was going on in certain malls in the late 80's into the 90's?

1

u/MAKs_Brick_House 13h ago

Then that’s a civil issue. Not criminal. A business prohibiting someone carrying a firearm doesn’t fall under law. In WV there are no laws regarding a private business not allowing firearms.

1

u/TheRealistoftheReal 1h ago

Except if…you know…state laws specifically make it a crime if the business has their property posted and you violate it.

1

u/General_Cranberry_29 11h ago

That would fall under civil wouldn't it? I guess it probably depends on the state 🫤

1

u/It_Just_Exploded 8h ago

It may vary by state, but in mine and the few nearby ones i'm familiar with its akin to trespassing. Which is a crime.

1

u/noreplyguy 5h ago

Indeed! Crazy you live in a country where everybody can have a gun, but when you walk through the entrance of the mall you suddenly have to trust everybody leaving it at home. And then what about when you’re on your way to the mall? You don’t take your gun then? I would also just take it with me and hope I don’t need to use it, just like I hope I don’t need to use it when I am allowed to carry.

1

u/icouldntve 1h ago

Instead of getting charged at all, you can just not take your gun to Disneyland. No one is compelling you to be a coward.

0

u/StageVarious2812 14h ago edited 12h ago

He lost his gun because the jury found against his claim of self defense. The VA appeals court's verdict is available online; so is the jury's. Per the appeal's court "Here, the evidence,viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Colie acted unlawfully in discharging his firearm and did not act in self-defense". Their verdict can be read here;https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0874244.pdf

2

u/It_Just_Exploded 13h ago

The self defense was ruled on, thats no longer up for debate. Though i think there being another charge because people were around is kinda dumb. If someone attacks you are you supposed to just let it happen since there's people around? The presence of others shouldn't be an automatic charge in cases of self defense (imo) it should be one of those things where if you defend yourself and don't hit anyone else aside from your attacker, then no charges. If you do end up hitting someone else, then you get the charge.

I think most of us have seen vids posted online of people getting absolutely blindsided and curbstomped in a crowd of people.

But like i said, illegal or not, if someone legit makes me believe my life or the life of my family member is in danger, i really wouldn't give a shit about that charge and it wouldn't even be a variable at the time.

0

u/StageVarious2812 13h ago

Brother if someone is clearly recording and just standing near you repeating a video on their phone you're not in mortal danger. Also it is completely up for debate, just because a jury acquits something doesn't automatically mean that it isn't valid to talk about. There was no one armed, no one attacking him, and no CLEAR and PRESENT danger. Annoying? Yes. Self-Defense? Not really. He shouldn't have fired his gun in that situation period and this is backed by the court's decision to find him guilty of a negligent discharge.

Also go ahead, you'll end up in the same situation and lose your ability to carry a firearm for life.

-1

u/PeachPassionBrute 13h ago

The self defense was ruled on, thats no longer up for debate.

That’s nonsense. Unless it went to the Supreme Court, even in a legal sense it isn’t exactly final. But anyone who isn’t acting on behalf of the government is welcome to have an opinion and debate as they please.

My views aren’t defined by courts.

0

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 13h ago

Just the one brain cell roaming around trying to figure out why we have courts instead of some random online.

2

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 13h ago

Two entirely different things.

He was right to shoot. That's why he was aquitted there.

He was not supposed to have a gun in the mall. How YOU feel about this being threatening doesn't matter to the law he broke. And to the jury who thank God isn't made of dumb fucks like you.

-1

u/StageVarious2812 13h ago

"Here, the evidence,viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient for a rational jury tofind that Colie acted unlawfully in discharging his firearm and did not act in self-defense".

Page 11-12 of the court record accessible here; https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opncavwp/0874244.pdf

You can now stop pretending you're not dumber than rocks.

2

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 12h ago

Hey.. which charge is that one for again?

It's for the unlawful discharge? Oh yeah. Not the actual charge for hurting a human?

What happened to the charge for actually shooting the guy? Wanna find that one for me? Cause a jury can call me purple. If the case is about theft that doesn't really matter?

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/jury-divided-over-whether-delivery-driver-who-shot-youtube-prankster-acted-in-self-defense/3432763/?amp=1

0

u/StageVarious2812 11h ago

Brother you think this is a gotcha when the actual JURY cited they found negligent discharge in an open building and did sided against his claim of self defense. You can't actually be this stupid, like genuinely.

1

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 11h ago

Aquiited on the charges.

Charged for the gun issues.

The jury says they were split. Then later aquitted him. WERE split.

Then the charge for the harm was dropped. We can read buddy. Like.. it's there?

1

u/StageVarious2812 11h ago

Holy shit. Yes, they didn't find he acted in malice The literal reason for the neg discharge is cited by the appellate judge. Holy crap you literally can't read.

2

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 12h ago

Let's post the full results next time. (:

"A jury on Thursday found a delivery driver not guilty in the shooting of a YouTube prankster who followed him around a mall food court earlier this year in Northern Virginia.

Alan Colie, 31, was acquitted of aggravated malicious wounding in the shooting of Tanner Cook, 21, who runs the “Classified Goons” YouTube channel. The jury was split though on two lesser firearms counts, and decided to convict him on one and acquit him on the other."

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/jury-divided-over-whether-delivery-driver-who-shot-youtube-prankster-acted-in-self-defense/3432763/?amp=1

You posted court documents on different charges. This man was aquitted for the actual shooting of a human. And was convicted of having a gun in the wrong place.

Not everyone is dumb enough to read one paper and stop thinking. Sorry.

2

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 12h ago

Here's another one for you to ignore?

The jury's note said it is “divided in terms of whether the defendant acted in self defense.”

https://wjla.com/news/local/dulles-town-center-shooting-classified-goons-youtube-prank-door-dash-deliver-driver-self-defense-tanner-cook-alan-colie-shoppers-flee-panic-divided-jury-trial-deadlocked-mistrial

0

u/StageVarious2812 11h ago edited 11h ago

Great? The literal jury found that it wasn't self-defense so congrats. The ultimate verdict literally contradicts them being "divided". Genuinely why would the literal APPELATE JUDGE cite the verdict? Do you think he is just dumb? Doesn't know what he's talking about?

1

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 11h ago

You and the other down syndrome lawyer from earlier should hook up. Hold on I'll link you guys.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cringereels/s/iWeNJAuq7t

Go have fun pretending to understand law together.

1

u/StageVarious2812 11h ago

You've gotta be retarded dude. You're just pretending the court document doesn't say what it clearly does.

1

u/StageVarious2812 11h ago

I get being a literal baboon, but the Colie argued what you did to appeal the negligent discharge and was shot down with the jury verdict cited.

-1

u/GaibonAmduscias 15h ago

How does a corporate policy make something a law?

3

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 15h ago

I own a place. I say no guns.

You bring a gun. On my property. A weapon that is not allowed.

"How is that a crime?"

Normally under trespassing. "People WITHOUT GUNS are allowed here"

  • Goes on that area WITH GUN*

surprise Pikachu face

1

u/browni3141 10h ago

This is like criminally charging someone for violating a restaurant dress code. It should not be criminal. Some really stupid states like NY have tried to make it criminal.

1

u/angelbelle 10h ago

It's trespassing private property, why is this so hard to understand?

Are you in favor of people entering your property without permission?

1

u/browni3141 5h ago

Violating a rule is not trespassing. If I don't want someone on my property I have to inform them that they are trespassed. I can't pre-emptively trespass them because they came onto my property wearing sandals, while I require closed toe shoes.

It's unlikely anyway that a property owner would actually want to trespass someone for carrying onto their property. The sane response is to inform that it isn't allowed and proceed according to their response.

3

u/JackomaybeWacko 14h ago

Do you have that same question about trespassing? Or do you understand the concept of that?

2

u/It_Just_Exploded 14h ago

Its not just a policy thing. If you're a concealed weapon carrier, you need to understand property rights. A property owner or lease holder 100% has the right to legally bar your weapon from their property, and it is enforceable.

Its like posting "No loitering" and then getting caught loitering by police. Once a crime (even a minor one) is commited, that can change things moving forward. Like simple battery, say you and someone else are arguing, things are heated, and you slap or punch them. Thats a fairly minor charge on its own, but if the cops find a gun on you, well now shits serious. The fact you commited a crime (in this case a violent crime even if a minor one) while in possession of a firearm just opened up a shitstorm, even if you never pulled it or made it known you had it. If you don't have a good lawyer, you're absolutely fucked.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just trying my best to remember what i read in articles and saw in news clips back when this happened.

0

u/WhoSc3w3dDaP00ch 14h ago

Even with a good lawyer, still can be absolutely f-ed.

2

u/It_Just_Exploded 14h ago

No doubt, but without one its an absolute certainty.

0

u/MyEmbarrisingAccount 13h ago

I mean it makes sense to me. If you are carrying a fire arm you have an inherent responsibility to avoid violence because you know you're fairly safe with your trump card. If you then escalate the violence knowing that it could potentially lead to a life or death situation, as all violent situations have the potential to do, then you should be held accountable. It the equivalent knocking out an annoying small child and claim the child started it and you were justified in using full force.

2

u/usrdef 14h ago

Private property is treated very different from public property.

if I own property, I am allowed to set the rules however I see fit. I don't even have to respect your freedom of speech. If you say "I love the President" and I don't like that, I can ask you to leave. If you don't, I can trespass you. And if you still don't leave, you can be arrested.

Some churches also have rules about no firearms.

Social media sites like Reddit / Facebook, also don't have to respect your right to free speech. You can be banned for saying anything. It's not law, it's just policy on how private entities work.

Plus states have specific laws about people who conceal carry.

0

u/h3lium-balloon 13h ago edited 13h ago

Depends on the state really. Some states have laws that say private property owners can limit the legal ability to carry on their property by putting up a sign (it usually has to meet certain criteria) whereas some states say the any place open to the public isn’t allowed to restrict legal carry. Like many legal issues, know your local and state laws.

Edit: any private property open to the public to clarify.

0

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 13h ago

There are literally zero states without exceptions

0

None.

Not even the reddest state in the union will let you take your gun everywhere.

2

u/h3lium-balloon 13h ago

I didn’t say everywhere. I said some states let private property owners make the determination. I was answering a question about corporate policy and law.

1

u/notapunk 15h ago

I feel this is one of those compromises that occur in jury rooms. No one wanted to see the guy get in serious trouble, but one or more felt he couldn't just not be convicted of something

1

u/Joel22222 15h ago

It’s Virginia.

1

u/PerspectiveNew3375 14h ago

Welcome to america where government has a monopoly on violence.

1

u/Candid-Fan6638 12h ago

Guy served no jail time and you're still complaining...............

1

u/NotOnTheEpsteinList 10h ago

Ask the dude in Atlanta that stopped a mass shooter.

1

u/Next-Lavishness-9101 8h ago

In that mall case, it was private property. In that mall you’re not allowed to have a concealed weapon. So the State was ok with the self defense shooting part, but the dude got in trouble for having and using the gun in a location he was not supposed to.

1

u/czar_el 4h ago

I mean, yeah. Firing a weapon in self defense in your own home or in an unpopulated alley is very different than firing a weapon in a crowded mall. Context matters. They train cops and soldiers to be aware of what is behind/around a target they engage, and to disengage if there's a risk of hitting innocent bystanders (they don't always do it, but they're supposed to). The same goes for lawful civilian shooters.

1

u/dillweed67818 1h ago

This is actually pretty common. The aggressor becomes the victim and cries foul even though they caused the situation, so their lawyers bring up stupid stuff technical BS and then the judge feels obligated to throw them a bone, sort of like a consolation prize for losing. "No he is not guilty of shooting you, you brought that on yourself, but yes, he should not have fired a gun in that gun free zone, so we'll give him a little slap on the wrist."

There are also a lot of situations where someone will win their criminal case but then still be sued successfully, by the victim, in a civil case. Like, they might be acquitted of the crime but then still have to pay the guy's medical bills and stuff.

0

u/danieldan0803 15h ago

If you had the right to defend yourself but do so in an unsafe manner, like firing a weapon in a crowded area. It also likely was because the jury was split and this was the compromise to prevent a hung jury. Better this way than the jury moving towards a guilty verdict.

-4

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 15h ago edited 15h ago

I’m glad he got convicted. He deserved more. He almost murdered someone. I get that he was scared, but he literally shot someone in the chest who had done nothing at that point to harm him physically. If shooter instead punched him in the face or kicked him in the balls, justified. Shooting him??? I work as a lawyer and in my state, self-defense has to be proportional. You can’t respond with lethal force unless you are in genuine fear of your life. He literally shot a guy who bugged him for 30 seconds

6

u/RussianBot71137 15h ago

Look at the size of the bully, one punch can cause serious harm. He approached in aggressive manner, by watching the video it seems as if he was about to strike the guy. So, no, your argument would fail with me if I was in a jury.

0

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 15h ago

I didn’t see anything suggesting he was about to swing. Juries are wrong all the time. Idk Virginia’s laws, but I have seen dudes in WAY more trouble than this guy was get years in prison for defending themselves against an actual valid threat. They didn’t even have guns either.

People are glad bc this was an annoying youtube prankster. Imagine this was an equally big special needs adult or non-english speaker? And they got shot for annoying someone for 30 seconds

2

u/Substantial_Dish_887 15h ago

Imagine this was an equally big special needs adult or non-english speaker?

if an non-english speaker is constantly aggresively getting close to the person backing away? do they also not speak "human body language" in you imaginary scenario?

as for special needs person? if they are special needs to the point of acting in such a manner they are serious special needs and should have a guardian about to stop the situation from escalating to that point. if that guardian fails it's on them and would be a tragic event caused by their negligence.

2

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 14h ago

It falls apart before that even.

"Imagine if this scenario was entirely different. That would change things I bet!!"

This isn't a lawyer. It's a cosplayer on reddit and they aren't good at it.

0

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 15h ago

So you think annoying someone while larger than them is enough to be killed justifiably?

2

u/Substantial_Dish_887 15h ago

you keep using that word : annoying.

do you think aggresively being in face of someone who backs away from you repeatedly is just "annoying"? i think it's threathening.

should they be killed for it? no. in fact i'm likely WAY more harsh on what i belive gun control should be than you. but the fact is the man legally had a gun(allthough i guess it wasn't legal in the mall?) and he could legally use it for selfdefence.

0

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 15h ago

What life-threatening force/threat was he being subjected to that justified using that same force? Sounds like you are agreeing it was overkill while simultaneously justifying it

2

u/Substantial_Dish_887 14h ago

he was in fear of being attacked. because a guy was repeatedly aggresively getting close to him as he back away repeatedly.

i think it was overkill in the form that i think guns should not be legally useable to carry around for "selfdefense" in the first place but as long as that is legal using a gun for selfdefense is not overkill.

we can discuss if he and every other american should have acces to guns but i feel that's a bit of a different discussion than the one we're currently at don't you?

0

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 14h ago

I’m a gun owner and I see this as attempted murder. Gun owners have a special responsibility to use them responsibly. This guy thankfully lost his concealed carry permit. We can agree he was in fear, but that doesn’t justify shooting. Plenty of people are afraid

→ More replies (0)

1

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 15h ago

Imagine the scenario was entirely different. Wouldn't that be different??

You are not a lawyer. Or you're the worst lawyer to ever exist.

2

u/rsta223 14h ago

I think it could very easily be reasonable to be in fear of great bodily harm or loss of life in that circumstance.

0

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 14h ago

Explain. All I see is a big guy annoying someone

1

u/rsta223 14h ago

Aggressively getting right in someone's face and repeatedly advancing as they try to retreat is a common pre fight indicator, and contrary to Hollywood, a single strong, well placed punch can be enough for life changing injury or death.

1

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 14h ago

It’s apparent that this case will probably just embolden people to shoot first think later in the future. As if there wasn’t already enough needless gun violence in this country. Should have known better than to expect more from reddit

2

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 15h ago

You're an idiot.

That's okay. Just don't bother folks and you won't get shot. (:

Act like you'll hurt someone then be surprised they are in fear of harm?

You're the one lawyer who is the first with downs syndrome aren't you??

0

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 15h ago

Nah, but the prosecutor obviously was. You also revealed yourself as an idiot who is too irresponsible to actually be on a jury as you make up your mind without being presented with more than a sliver of evidence. I pray you don’t concealed carry as it seems the first guy who annoys you is dying

0

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 15h ago

Lmao. This was assault.

Sorry you'll get legally assaulted and try to keep walking. That makes you dumb. And I guess suicidal?

I don't need a gun to feel safe. How does that change what this man felt and how this was assault? Like.. there's a reason we have legal definitions and a reason he DIDNT go to jail(on sentencing for this crime) And that's cause threatening people with a situation they feel in verifiable danger is in literally assault and they are right to end you causing that danger.

A "lawyer" throwing out terrible bs, fear, AND insults?

Oh honey. I already dont believe you. Stop making it worse.

1

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 15h ago

Not entirely true. This is not an assault in my state. Assault requires bodily injury in my state. No bodily injury occurred to the shooter. Annoying someone does not justify lethal force. Prosecutor obviously royally screwed this up. Probably tried to overcharge and make an example instead of picking a charge he could actually convict on. Nothing new

1

u/NewACCTwhoDISENTERRY 14h ago

This was more than annoyance and you know it. So did a jury.

Again, down syndrome lawyer or a liar? I just wanna know which.

1

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 14h ago

I don’t know it. I’m a gun owner and a short guy and would not have shot someone approaching me with a phone, no matter how big they were. He was also wrong as the youtuber had no intent other to annoy him, so theres that. If the guy actually planned to rob him maybe Imd agree. Juries are wrong a lot. Prosecutors can butcher cases. I’ve walked extremely guilty people out the door of the courthouse, so you tell me what kind of lawyer I am. Since it sounds like you would have killed the guy in this situation you would probably be glad to have me on your team. Hopefully our prosecutor would be as bad as this one

1

u/RussianBot71137 14h ago

How the fuck victim knows his intent? Guy twice bigger than me, approaching me in aggressive manner, sticking a phone in my face while aggressively saying shit I don't understand. Fuck yeah I expect violence. And since I know (judging by the size difference) there's nothing I can do physically except aggravate him and make him even more aggressive and violent, I will use any means available to stop him 🤷‍♂️ Maybe he should try to bully someone his own size next time. But we know cowards like him don't do that

1

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 14h ago

According to the prosecution the victim was the guy who got shot, not this guy. They must have royally screwed their case. I’ve walked enough guilty ppl in my career to know how easy it can be to manipulate technicalities. As a human being I watch this video and see no reality where shooter thought his life was about to end. Maybe if it was a knife instead of a phone, but not what happened here. I’m not an expert in Virginia’s laws but I don’t think this would fly in my state, but hey, maybe I’d get a bad prosecutor too

1

u/Substantial_Dish_887 15h ago

You can’t respond with lethal force unless you are in genuine fear of your life.

you can not possibly be a good lawyer if you can not argue for someone being able to "fear for their life" without having been physically harmed first.

0

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 15h ago

Nothing about that situation should make a rational person afraid for their life. If that made him afraid, then he is the type of person to shoot more people. Thankfully he at least lost concealed carry

-1

u/Late_While_6220 15h ago

He said "if he kicked him in the balls" 🤣😂🤣😂

Imagine thinking that when you're kicked in the balls and laying on the ground in fetal position, fading in and out of conscience while experiencing the worst pain second only to child birth, is a good time and state of mind to pull out a gun and try to shoot someone.

1

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 15h ago

Did you misread what I said? I said if the shooter had chosen reasonable self-defense, like kicking the guy annoying him in the balls, instead of potentially ending his life

0

u/Late_While_6220 15h ago

Oh, yes I did misread. You do know that both a punch, and a kick to the balls could potentially end his life, right?

1

u/SkeettheVandelBuster 15h ago

Potentially, but the YouTuber made no active threatening comments or gestures that are apparent in the video to make the shooter think he was about to be put in mortal danger. If the defense presented evidence of that maybe I would be convinced. In my opinion tho, this was an especially irresponsible person reacting disproportionately to a strictly perceived threat. I think people are more glad an annoying youtuber got comeuppance than actual justifying shooting someone annoying you

1

u/Late_While_6220 3h ago

I don't think that potentially ending the YouTubers life is a good alternative to potentially ending his life. And since you're not the decider on how people should defend themselves but a jury is, and that jury decided that the shooting was justified, I have no idea what are we arguing here?