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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    141 year ago

    Not a very good idea when you’re already inside grappling range. A handgun becomes useless if a much stronger person seizes the hand that you are using to hold the gun. Additionally, if your first few shots fail to stop him, perhaps he’s on powerful drugs and you have a bad angle, then he can kinda just rip your face off anyway, since he’s already there. Or he could attack with a hidden knife, that’d be unpleasant.

    This tells me you have no actual personal firearms training, no one with any training (and sense I suppose) would advocate for threatening an unknown assailant with a point blank gun.

    The question becomes, could it reasonably have been perceived as an assailant. And that is a subjective question, a matter of opinion. Answering these questions is the job of juries, and they did so.

    Also, I have at no point argued the charges were unreasonable. The charges were reasonable, this was not a clear-cut case. The verdict was also understandable and reasonable, that’s all.

    Oh, and if you “fuck around”, you might “find out”. This is an important life lesson in general, that almost everyone learns at some point in their teens to 20s. If they make it that long, without getting shot by a doordash driver for a dumb prank.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
      link
      fedilink
      -1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ps. Self defense has elementals of both subjective and objective reasonableness.

      The Defendant’s good faith mistake doesn’t matter when regardless the force was objectively excessive or premature.

    • You’re changing the hypothetical and added mere possibilities. Anything is possible. That’s why self defense is considered an imperfect legal remedy, and it’s one reason why it is said “the law abhors self help.”

      When the qualified privilege to use reasonable force in defense of yourself or others proves insufficient, the perfect remedy is in a civil action for wrongful death.

      What matters in evaluating the use of force, the privilege only exists where these hypotheticals are reasonably probable.

      What fact would you hang your hat on here, to tell the judge and jury that you probably had absolutely no choice but to try and kill, especially when, as here, you are proved to have been mistakes, and were not in physical danger and the putative aggressor was unarmed?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        That an assumption that any putative aggressor actually is unarmed is flawed. That is not determinable in a short span of time, and an inappropriate assumption for a person to make.

        And yes, there will probably be a civil suit.

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s flawed because it’s possible it’s wrong.

          You don’t get to kill based on mere possibility. And you would not like living in a world where you could.

          The patron had plenty of room to retreat. Plenty of time to give a better warning, such as “stop or I’ll fucking kill you.” If a person keeps coming after that sort of warning, that’s a fact from which the inference a threat to life is more reasonable; a person with no fear of death.

          This dude had a phone in his hands. Didn’t take a swing at the guy. Didn’t persist with no apparent fear of death. The patron pulled out the gun and fired instantly after merely saying “stop” three times.

          I accept the jury was in the best position to decide the facts and apply the law. The dude was charged, stood trial, and was only partially aquitted. I rest my case.