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

  • Serinus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    This guy who was just acknowledged to have used his firearm in self-defense, is no longer allowed to own a firearm for his own protection.

    Good. Because that wasn’t self-defense, and he clearly doesn’t know what situations are appropriate for lethal force. Neither his life nor property were in any danger.

    That doordash guy shouldn’t own a gun.

    • Nahvi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I see the argument for self-defense but that is not the same as using lethal force. Nor is it the same as opening fire in public.

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

          I think that is a reasonable stance, one I even mostly agree with. If any of the charges were misdemeanors, I might even have let that one through myself with time served and a request to take a firearm safety or self-defense course. However, I think the judge would still be having to decide whether to throw it out in a month.

          However, once you say the self-defense is justified, trying to tack on additional charges is pretty unfair to the defendant. If he had another method of self-defense with him, he might have used it, but he only had the firearm and he used the minimum amount of force possible with that tool.

          As I said below:

          The driver owning a gun is not a danger to random members of society. His actions clearly indicate he is willing to deescalate the situation and try to walk away before defending himself. Even when he did fire, he didn’t unload the chamber at the aggressor and his friend, he fired a single round while continuing to try and leave. It was the bare minimum for the weapon he had available.

          It would be pretty reasonable to lay the entire situation at the feet of the instigator. I will be interested to follow a civil case if the defendant attempts to sue the aggressor.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There wasn’t a threat or posturing like a bar fight. There needs to be some actual positive evidence to be able to claim you fear for your life. Even cops make up those reasons.

        Seems to me that people are just happy about the annoying guy getting shot for shitty behavior, and they’ll rationalize it however needed.

        • Nahvi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          There wasn’t a threat or posturing like a bar fight. There needs to be some actual positive evidence to be able to claim you fear for your life.

          You don’t need to fear for your life just your safety. Those guys cornered him up against the counter and then followed him when he tried to get away, despite repeated requests to stop.

          Seems to me that people are just happy about the annoying guy getting shot for shitty behavior, and they’ll rationalize it however needed.

          There are plenty in this post that would take that stance. However, I am not one of them, and nothing in my comments indicates otherwise.

          The driver owning a gun is not a danger to random members of society. His actions clearly indicate he is willing to deescalate the situation and try to walk away before defending himself. Even when he did fire, he didn’t unload the chamber at the aggressor and his friend, he fired a single round while continuing to try and leave. It was the bare minimum for the weapon he had available.

          At any point, the self-described “Goon” could have ended this hostile interaction by just standing still.