Is it proper to shoot a stranger who follows you around at close distance, behaves menacingly and has his buddies film you? This jury said “yes.” My main question: “Why did this even go to trial?”
Jury acquits man of main charge in Virginia mall shooting of YouTube prankster
This is a good precedent. Pranksters suck. They *pretend* to be an immanent threat, then when faced with physical force, claim “It’s just a prank, bro!” Naw. Acting like a threat makes you a valid target for responding to you as if you are a threat. Maybe instead of trying to terrify people for clicks, you do something productive.
Sadly, the victim was convicted of some firearms charge, which doesn’t make sense given that the jury recognized that this was a self defense situation. Never forget: even in the most obvious self defense situation, where everything is as clear as can be… we’re operating in a system of anarcho-tyranny where the government *wants* you to live in fear of actual criminals. Defend yourself, your stuff, your friends or family, the government will do what it can to drop an anvil on you. Because you defending yourself offends the powers that be somehow.
Here’s one of the videos of the incident filmed by one of the villains co-conspirators:
a jury made it legal to shoot youtube pranksters
god bless america🫡🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/AjAQ7zYzfM— a ghostly fella (@mr_gh0stly) September 30, 2023
3 responses to “A good shoot”
Two guarantees and one supposition:
G-1: People who wear hats like that backwards always turn out to be assholes.
G-2: That particular asshole has been bullying others since about kindergarten.
Supposition: If he survived, he might have learned something, but I doubt it.
FAFO in action.
I’m pretty sure this guy got convicted by the sort of jurors that think being fair means giving each side half a loaf.
I saw this phenomenon in the jury room once, in a case that was completely one-sided. One juror wanted to get wishy-washy, but a few of us saw what she was up to and said “NO!” to it. She folded immediately, no surprise, but if we hadn’t been firm, the more weak-minded jurors would have gone along and we might have rendered a split verdict just so we could go home.
Incidentally, this sort of muddle-headed juror gives plaintiffs and prosecutors a huge incentive to bring multiple complaints.