- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A YouTube prankster who was shot by one his targets told jurors Tuesday he had no inkling he had scared or angered the man who fired on him as the prank was recorded.
Tanner Cook, whose “Classified Goons” channel on YouTube has more than 55,000 subscribers, testified nonchalantly about the shooting at start of the trial for 31-year-old Alan Colie, who’s charged with aggravated malicious wounding and two firearms counts.
The April 2 shooting at the food court in Dulles Town Center, about 45 minutes west of Washington, D.C., set off a panic as shoppers fled what they feared to be a mass shooting.
Jurors also saw video of the shooting, recorded by Cook’s associates. The two interacted for less than 30 seconds. Video shows Cook approaching Colie, a DoorDash driver, as he picked up an order. The 6-foot-5 (1.95-meter-tall) Cook looms over Colie while holding a cellphone about 6 inches (15 centimeters) from Colie’s face. The phone broadcasts the phrase “Hey dips—-, quit thinking about my twinkle” multiple times through a Google Translate app.
On the video, Colie says “stop” three different times and tries to back away from Cook, who continues to advance. Colie tries to knock the phone away from his face before pulling out a gun and shooting Cook in the lower left chest.
Cook, 21, testified Tuesday that he tries to confuse the targets of his pranks for the amusement of his online audience. He said he doesn’t seek to elicit fear or anger, but acknowledged his targets often react that way.
Asked why he didn’t stop the prank despite Colie’s repeated requests, Cook said he “almost did” but not because he sensed fear or anger from Colie. He said Colie simply wasn’t exhibiting the type of reaction Cook was looking for.
“There was no reaction,” Cook said.
In opening statements, prosecutors urged jurors to set aside the off-putting nature of Cook’s pranks.
“It was stupid. It was silly. And you may even think it was offensive,” prosecutor Pamela Jones said. “But that’s all it was — a cellphone in the ear that got Tanner shot.”
Defense attorney Tabatha Blake said her client didn’t have the benefit of knowing he was a prank victim when he was confronted with Cook’s confusing behavior.
She said the prosecution’s account of the incident “diminishes how unsettling they were to Mr. Alan Colie at the time they occurred.”
In the video, before the encounter with Colie, Cook and his friends can be heard workshopping the phrase they want to play on the phone. One of the friends urges that it be “short, weird and awkward.”
Cook’s “Classified Goons” channel is replete with repellent stunts, like pretending to vomit on Uber drivers and following unsuspecting customers through department stores. At a preliminary hearing, sheriff’s deputies testified that they were well aware of Cook and have received calls about previous stunts. Cook acknowledged during cross-examination Tuesday that mall security had tossed him out the day prior to the shooting as he tried to record pranks and that he was trying to avoid security the day he targeted Colie.
Jury selection took an entire day Monday, largely because of publicity the case received in the area. At least one juror said during the selection process that she herself had been a victim of one of Cook’s videos.
Cook said he continues to make the videos and earns $2,000 or $3,000 a month. His subscriber base increased from 39,000 before the shooting to 55,000 after.
You must log in or register to comment.
Sooo many issues with this situation. So many.
I mean first off you’ve got a young fella who’s so entitled to think he has the right to subject members of the public to this sort of treatment. Then you’ve got the issue of gun control. The article hinted at people fleeing as they thought there was a mass shooter. That would never have happened if people werent just handed guns in the States. The guy would never have shot out as he’s not be carrying a gun in public, and wouldnt expect others to be doing so.
You’ve also got a country that treats mental illness like its dangerous to others. People might assume the YTer was ill. There is no help for these people in most countries, let alone the States. That again is surely going to add a level of concern.
Ultimately everybody loses, but the guy that could have avoided the whole situation is ultimately the YTer.
Does anybody know what is the legal option we have when having to put up with an asshole like this one?
Cook looms over Colie while holding a cellphone about 6 inches (15 centimeters) from Colie’s face. The phone broadcasts the phrase “Hey dips—-, quit thinking about my twinkle” multiple times through a Google Translate app.
On the video, Colie says “stop” three different times and tries to back away from Cook, who continues to advance. Colie tries to knock the phone away from his face before pulling out a gun and shooting Cook in the lower left chest.
This is just harassment since Cook wasn’t battering him. Perhaps assault (not battery). Lethal violence wasn’t warranted. You’d probably need to call the police. There isn’t a good answer for the “I’m not touching you.” level of harassment this asshat was exhibiting. You might have been justified for violence less-than-lethal but that’s probably going to be iffy in court. Lawsuit after the fact would be feasible as well.
Ah yes call the police while actively being threatened
He wasn’t being threatened. But as I said above, non-lethal violence probably would have landed him no charges or a lot less.
Giant dude approaching me doing my job on someone else’s property, shoving a phone in my face, I think I’d feel pretty damn threatened.
Yes he was.
His best option would have been to raise the muzzle a bit
That’s all rational, but all he needs is a psychiatrist to say that he was confused enough by the behavior that his rational brain shut down, he only saw aggression, fight or fight kicked in and he defended himself against a perceived threat of unknown severity, which prompted him to go for a defense he knew could protect him, his gun.
The real difference here is that the cops would have aimed center of made and put the kid down permanently… fewer lawsuits that way.
A doordash driver gets cornered by a large 6 foot 5 man who aggressively shoves a phone in his ear repeatedly calling them a dipshit who thinks about their “twinkle”, tries to get away but is followed, explicitly asks the man to leave him alone 3 times but is ignored, and tries to brush the phone away? Yeah that sounds like a situation a reasonable person might fear for their life in, and before anyone goes “well why didn’t they use a less lethal self defense method?”, the prankster is 6 foot 5 and the victim likely only had his fists or his gun for self defense, one of those two is going to get you out of that situation alive
Just based on the facts from what information we have, I fully agree. The story would have to change significantly in order to show anything other than exemplary display of good self-defence principles:
- avoid being in a shady location - check
- when getting in a sticky situation anyway, attempt to flee / defuse (good judgement on what to try first) - check
- if still in the threats phase: back off a bit to clearly demonstrate that you are not the aggressor, support that verbally - check
- If it is clear that the attacker ignores your pleas, do the minimum damage to STOP the attack safely. Based on that principle, he could have pulled & shot a lot sooner, but apparently wanted to be more defensive & nice than most would have been - check
You should not allow a verbally aggressive person to stay at a distance where they could land a punch or use a concealed knife at any time, especially after you backed off already. Try articulating near a cop’s face and see what (rightfully) happens.
I agree that Cook is the asshole here and deserves what he got, from a legal perspective though I have to disagree that shooting Cook was proportionate to the threat.
You describe Cook as the attacker, but there was no expressed threat of violence, only that he was big, and aggravated. Cook didn’t die but easily could have.
The issue with your claim of “no expressed threat of violence” is that you don’t have to express anything to attack someone from the stated distance before the victim can react.
The described actions are already quite aggressive, even with no “violent” expression. I’m honestly not sure you can claim a significant distinction between “aggresive” behavior and behavior that “expresses a threat of violence”. If you’ve never dealt with people who can flip that switch on a dime, I’m happy, but for most people that distinction is not a huge one.
You have someone you don’t know who is larger than you invade your personal space and start acting in an incomprehensible (and vaguely insulting) manner. You ask them to stop and attempt to distance yourself from them repeatedly but they continue. You attempt the least violent method of forcing them to stop but they continue.
This is an utter stranger. You don’t know their mental state, their level of sobriety or lack, if they’re mentally ill. You’ve tried everything that should be neccesary to stop a reasonable person.
At this point you can attempt to run (if you think you can get away from them fast enough, exacerbated by size difference), you can attempt to ignore them (despite all evidence that won’t work as asking them to stop did not)… you don’t know if any of these actions might flip a switch in them and change this from an uncomfortable invasion of space into a violent encounter.
You could call the police but if this turns violent you are potentially dead before they arrive.
Every second this continues is another second of not knowing if large aggressive crazy person is going to suddenly pull a knife or otherwise escalate further.
Or you can “make them” stop. Initiate violence yourself. Absolutely god awful terrible fucking idea, but easy to see how someone might think that’s the only option available to ensure their personal safety.
Real life isn’t DBZ, no one’s shouting “Ultra Shiv Technique!” or “Taste my ultimate sucker punch attack!”.
Is the expectation that everyone should be willing to allow themselves to be gut stabbed before they know for certain that they are in danger so they can then take self defensive action? Or is the issue that people don’t believe “gun” is a valid method of self defense due to the level of damage it so easily inflicts?
While I would hope someone would carry a less than lethal option, like mace or a tazer, I think this whole thing falls under “Fucked around and found out”
Or is the issue that people don’t believe “gun” is a valid method of self defense due to the level of damage it so easily inflicts?
A lot of the comments in here make me think these people would be happier if this guy would have pulled a knife and stabbed the prankster vs doing the safer thing for them and just backing away and shooting. If this had happened to a woman I feel like all these comments would be commending her for defending herself but because it’s a male they think he should have invited him to a boxing ring to settle it like gentleman.
Spot on. Real life isn’t like the internet, when you act the aggressor the victim isn’t going to down vote your behavior, they’re going to run away or defend themselves.
In summary, it’s a question of whether Colie’s response was proportionate to Cook’s threat. We’re going to disagree on that, in fact I suspect most American’s will disagree with most non-Americans on this. Ultimately the (American) court will decide.
Yeah, the prank was dumb.
But once the guy was irritated, he took out his gun and immediately shot the prankster. Without giving the time to run away scared.
He doesn’t seem like a responsible gun owner at all, so should have his guns taken away.
It sounds more like he was scared for his safety than merely irritated. Given that the “prankster” is 6’5" tall, it’s really easy to understand why his erratic and confrontational behavior would be scary.
I keep seeing YouTube shorts of dudes like this doing not just stupid shit, but DANGEROUS shit. I saw this one of this dude flashing gang signs in gang territory in LA. You DO NOT do that shit. Any time someone would get aggressive with him he’s go “it’s a prank there’s a camera!” One of these days he’s going to say that and it’s going to piss the dude he flashed signs at off even more and he is going to get shot.
Here’s hoping
According to Darwin, this is evolution - and not everyone makes it.
This was completely inevitable, I’ve seen one or two videos of ‘pranks’ and felt its only a matter of time before someone gets assaulted or shot, now the little shit has more viewers
I mean, people are legit insane these days, and basically everyone has a gun. Like, forget pranks for a sec, I was telling my wife that the cart narc guy is probably lucky to be alive and he’s playing Russian roulette and loading another every time…
Cart narcs fights the good fight though.
He’s a cunt too.
No, people who leave their carts out are the cunts that need to be made aware.
I’ve never heard of a single credible reason for a person to own a handgunI’ve only ever heard of one single reason to own a handgun
What you gonna do? Shoot me?
Said man who was shot.
It’s amazing how everyone is calling for the death of this guy when they have no idea what happened. You just hear “Youtuber” and “prankster” and have already plugged the electrical chair in. You’re all a bunch of old, boomer, whiny, unhinged, histrionic, virtue signaling fucking idiots.
Cook said he continues to make the videos and earns $2,000 or $3,000 a month. His subscriber base increased from 39,000 before the shooting to 55,000 after.
and thats everything thats wrong with society right here.
Him getting shot is just giving him more fame, more money and more excuses to continue doing this shit.
That could be short term. Oftentimes I hear about these people getting more followers, but then I don’t hear about them ever again. There are exceptions to that obviously, but I’m not entirely certain on how many retain that fame.
Subscribers is a big number for YouTubers, but if I’m not mistaken, views for videos is still more important. And I wonder how easy it will be to continue making this kind of content a) after suffering an injury like this which will put him out of commission for a while and likely prevent him from doing particular stunts, and b) with the general hesitancy to approach people that this altercation will hopefully instill. So he could be looking at paying actors (would go poorly) or making his pranks more tame (would go poorly).
Articles shouldn’t be blowing up his channel when covering this case, he makes a living harassing random strangers
Except around here you get two in the chest and one in the head.
I think it’s about not missing his final prank. 2 month later: idiot got shot again. Darwin wins
Damn, he missed.
He eliminated the threat. That I can agree with. Training says shot center of mass until the threat is gone.
Unlike you and all your upvoters, I’m glad the shit bag is still alive.
I’m glad the real victim didn’t so something stupid (but maybe understandable in a high-enough threat posture) of shooting again; that would have made his defense much more difficult.
One shot was all that was needed. Heck even if he had missed, that would likely have been all that was needed since I assume (a risk I know) fuck bag prankster has at least enough self-preservation brain cells to un-ass from the scene once the loud bangs start to happen.
I’m glad Cook didn’t die for Colie’s sake. Killing somebody is majorly traumatizing even in self defense.
c/fuckaroundandfindout
If you’re response to a prank is to pull out a gun and shoot someone, you belong in a psychiatric ward away from people bcz that mentality gets people killed.
First of all, it’s your* response.
Second of all, it depends of the prank. Did you not read the article? The “victim of the prank” doesn’t have the benefit of knowing it’s a prank while being pranked.
And this is not some silly string prank on your face. It’s some dude who’s taller than you, trying to put a phone on you. You don’t know what people have been going through to just bug them like that and expect no consequence. What if the person received a death threat that very morning, for example?
And the guy being pranked told the pranker to stop, multiple times.
And the guy being pranked tried to move away while the prankster continued to advance on him.
And the pranker had a mob of people with him.
So his options included getting attacked physically and loosing control over his firearm which could have them been used on him.
that’s s really big what if
Ok, but how would you know it was a prank? If you have someone who has suddenly entered into your personal space exhibiting erratic but persistent confrontational behavior, I think there’s some justification towards reacting with violence. I dont think most of us are conditioned or trained to react to threatening behavior in the most effective way, like cops and military are. So that means flight, freeze, or fight. You don’t have the benefit of knowing it was a prank, you just have a situation rapidly unfolding in front of you. Unfortunately in this situation Colie was armed, and responded with that measure. I think most of people would be ok if the response was just a phsyical fight without a gun, but then again how many people have the capability to “win” that way?
So throw a punch, or shove him. You seriously think shooting someone is an acceptable response?
Did you read the last sentence of the post you replied to?
So, if the person who is attacking you is much larger, or there are more of them, even if it’s a prank, you’re going to just throw a punch or shove them? What a privileged position you must be in to think you can simply punch or shove an attacker. Say that to the 100lb woman a 250lb guy is advancing on, she should just shove him, right?
Look, I don’t know if you’re ignorant or trolling, but if someone is acting like they’re going to attack someone and they have justifiable reason to fear for their life, then deadly force is a reasonable response. I’m not going to get the shit beat out of me, or killed, because “hey, it might just be a prank.”
That’s actually the last thing you want to do if you’re armed. You want to avoid physical confrontations, because it vastly increases the chances of them being able to take your weapon and use it against you. You want to keep them at a distance whenever possible, which is exactly what the shooter tried to do. They retreated and told the prankster to stop harassing them multiple times. It was only when the prankster followed them that they opened fire, because it became clear that he had no intention of stopping.
Whether or not the shooting is justified is up to a jury. But I just wanted to point out that your “just punch them” response is… Just wrong. Pretty much any concealed carry instructor will tell you that step 1 is to deescalate. Step 2 is to try and get away from the situation. Only after you’ve exhausted those should you consider lethal force. And that’s exactly what the shooter did.
Crazy idea, but you could just not bring a gun into a mall…
Crazy idea, but read the article. He’s a delivery driver there to pick up an order. Probably enters high crime areas on the regular and kept it on his person where it would be most needed.
Yep that’s what I was thinking, too. He’s probably seen and encountered some shit. Some gig work like Uber Eats allows customers to pay in cash so there’s a fair chance that he is a natural target for theft through armed robbery or assault. If I had to do this work, I would want to be armed as well. Nobody in their right mind wants to do this kind of shit work though.
I agree with you but find it funny you included cops in the “conditioned or trained to react to behavior in the most effective way.” An American cop would have also shot the prankster and would probably have emptied his whole clip into him as well.
Lol yeah had to throw them in, because I guess essentially they DO get the training. They prob get de-escalation training too, but why bother when as a cop you get a few free oopsies a year.
I haven’t watched the video, but I bet it’s fairly clear if the target of the prank felt threatened or just annoyed.
Either way, crazy gun owners exist. It’s one of the many reasons you should not try to prank or annoy strangers for fun and profit. You might get shot, and nobody is going to feel sorry for you.
deleted by creator
Sure, not saying what the prankster did was right. But pulling a gun on him is escalation beyond what a reasonable person would do.
*Flailing their little noodle arms at a guy who’s much bigger, with his buddies, and acting threatening and unpredictable is beyond what a reasonable person would do. Especially if they have any sort of weapon that would level the field.
Lmao, if you think my 120lb ass wouldn’t have seen the writing on the wall. I sure as shit would have gone so far as to pull it and if he didn’t stop in light of a gun (not in any way a certainty), we would have assessed our options, wouldn’t we? I’m not being handed a choice.
He has almost a foot on me, definitely more strength, way more backup than I do (they are each also individually stronger), relying on bystanders to help is less likely to pan out the more bystanders there are, and various people in this thread have explained very carefully they’re not trying to get murked. Yes, that would cross my mind, absolutely.
Hate to say it. Not a fan of guns and a huge number of those who are seem to think it’s a toy instead of a killing weapon. And he really shouldn’t have had one in a damn mall.
But he did have one, the situation would have come through to me as a very likely bodily threat, and I’m not terribly judgemental about the self-defense in that specific moment. He could have run. They just would have chased him down for the fun of it.
While I wouldn’t have been so quick to actually fire, this is also just sorta what happens when you continue to advance on people in a manner that’s meant to induce fearful uncertainty. You don’t know who has a weapon and the trauma to use it.
If your idea of a prank is to physically intimidate strangers by getting into their personal space and harassing them when they say to stop, then you are an asshole.
Sure, but it doesn’t warrant pulling out a gun.
On the video, Colie says “stop” three different times and tries to back away from Cook, who continues to advance. Colie tries to knock the phone away from his face before pulling out a gun and shooting Cook in the lower left chest.
Physically intimidating strangers and not stopping when told to seems like the exact situation that should lead to escalating force, and while something like mace would be better overall for society, using the tools that are available is understandable.
Exactly.
If you intimidate strangers for any reason full stop you’re a thug. The guise of “pranks” doesn’t excuse menacing behavior
If your day consists of pranking unsuspecting people, knowingly causing anger and anxiety, then you belong in a psychiatric ward away from people because that mentality gets people killed.
This is exactly what 'Public Disturbance" charge is for.
Why are they not being charged with it?
It’s not like he realized it’s a prank and then shot the person…
He had no idea what was going on and a large man was shoving a phone into his face and following him…
No one thinks a shooting is justified for “a prank” but when all a person knows is someone is shoving something in your face and acting aggressive…
It’s not hard to imagine they panic.
The “pranker” is literally trying to make a person panic.
And when people panic, sometimes they do dumb shit
How does a functional adult not understand that?
No one thinks a shooting is justified for “a prank”
Nah there’s definitely people saying that.
No, but I am seeing lots of idiots that think everyone that’s harassed for a “prank” somehow know it’s just a prank…
I think it’s an empathy thing, you idiots are putting yourselves in the shoes of the “pranker” and since that means you’d know it’s a prank, you think everyone would.
Usually people get passed that line of thinking around 8 or 9 years old, but it seems to be taking lots of people longer recently.
All the shooter knew was a large man ran up, shoved a phone that was blaring confusing curse words directly in his face, and kept doing it when asked to stop and advancing when he tried to back away
That is what he got shot for.
He didn’t say “oh. I’m being pranked, I should just cap this idiot”.
Usually people get passed that line of thinking around 8 or 9 years old, but it seems to be taking lots of people longer recently.
That’s called “theory of mind” and, if I recall correctly, it typically develops around age four.
Who the hell is “you idiots”? I don’t condone what Cook did.
Everyone sucks here.
The prankster is harassing and intimidating people in public to make money. I hope he learned a lesson.
The shooter probably did have good cause to use physical force to defend himself. Had he punched the prankster or used pepper spray, I’d call it 100% justified. He used a gun though, and this harassment didn’t justify deadly force.
You cannot know how scared he was when a much larger man kept advancing on him.
I’m not a fan of American gun culture, but in this particular case the prankster got a big cup of fuck-around-and-find-out.
Legal, and I think moral justification is not based on how emotionally scared he was. Legal justification for deadly force requires a belief based on evidence and logic that the defender was about to be maimed or killed, or become the victim of a short list of felonies.
His lawyer will likely try to make that case to the jury, but a size disparity and weird behavior without an explicit threat or actual physical harm is going to be a tough sell for deadly force.
The purpose of the prank was to confuse the victim. While he is confused, he is, by the prankster’s intention, stuck in a situation he has never been in before. New situations are hard to assert properly. He was shoved a phone to his face, multiple times, aggressively, not sure why or whats coming next.
You know there are drugs with which its enough to inhale just a few grains of their powder to be affected and controlled? What if the phone was laced with such a drug? What if the words from the phone sounded like a threat?
So many different thoughts run through the head in an intentionally confusing situation that is also aggressive and threatenning. I dont blame the shooter here.
Weird behavior? Try “overtly aggressive” behavior
I don’t know American law, and frankly I don’t care because the justice system is shit. But despite that, the jury is urged to put themselves in the shoes of the shooter and use his intent to decide his level of guilt.
Logically and morally, in today’s world the shooter is likely justified in his action but the law hasn’t got there yet. Not that it will with gun culture the way that it is.
Do I think he should have shot someone? No. Do I still think the YouTuber got what he deserved? Yes. Both of these things can be true at the same time.
Yeah, the tricky part about the “this didn’t justify lethal force” argument is that it’s impossible to truly justify lethal force unless you wait for them to use lethal force first. You could be getting attacked by an 8’ tall 380 pound giant, but if the attacker is unarmed there will still be someone in the comments going “why not use pepper spray or a taser instead? Getting punched doesn’t justify lethal force.” The goalposts are constantly moving, to the point that you basically need to wait for an attacker to stab/shoot you before you respond.
That’s why the courts don’t use public opinion. The self defense laws are (at least in Stand Your Ground states) written in a way that the victim simply needs to fear for their life, or for the life of another. As long as they can justify that fear to a jury, they’ll be fine. And the jury will constantly be reminded that as long as they believe the shooter feared for their life, the shooter should be allowed to walk.
Agreed, and I do not think that the shooter should have shot the YouTuber, just that the YouTuber (and those like him) are pressing so many buttons that someone is bound to react unexpectedly. Add American gun culture to that and it creates this kind of shit storm.
In the world that has been created in the USA, the shooters reaction was within “reason” and there is a good chance the jurors will agree. That doesn’t mean anyone thinks that anyone deserved to be shot necessarily, just that the shooter was in reasonable fear and that the YouTuber merely faced the consequences of his own actions.
I tried punching an attacker once and ended up with brain damage as a result of losing the fight. Now I carry a weapon and I’m not going back to fists with all the uncertainty their use entails.
this harassment didn’t justify deadly force
Ehhh, it depends.
Alan asked Tanner to stop and retreated several times, but Tanner just kept advancing on him. Alan was just doing his job and was presumably alone, but Tanner was with a group of friends. Tanner was taller than Alan and is a pretty big guy, so it would be reasonable for Alan to feel threatened. Throwing a punch against a bigger guy who’s with his friends wouldn’t be a great move. I watched Tanner’s “I got shot!” video and he was wearing fairly loose clothing; if he were dressed similarly for this prank, it would have been easy for him to conceal a weapon of his own. Even if he didn’t have a weapon, his friends might have had one. So now, even if Alan had pepper spray, it’s not a great option since he could end up getting ganged up on. The text that Tanner’s phone was reading could have been construed as being homophobic (I assume you know what a “twink” is), particularly without the benefit of tone to judge, and even if Alan isn’t gay, he still reasonably could have believed that Tanner thought he was and was targeting him for this. And finally, Tanner’s behavior was probably very suspicious - beyond just what’s described in the article. First of all, he’s trespassing, having been thrown out by security the day prior, and was trying to avoid security. Secondly, in his “I got shot!” video he does this thing where he stares at you slack-jawed. It’s off putting in the video and I’m sure it’s worse in person. It would be reasonable for Alan to believe Tanner was on meth, coke, heroin, etc., and was trying to shake him down for drug money. Note that “twinkie” is - according to UrbanDictionary, at least - slang for a bag of drugs worth a certain amount of money ($20 back in 2005).
On the other hand, Tanner didn’t have a weapon out, nor did his friends; he didn’t touch Alan; and this all happened in a public place.
But if Alan believed that Tanner was on drugs, their being in public doesn’t matter. We know security wasn’t around and drug addicts have a reputation for illogical behavior, so he could have very well feared they might kill him in front of a group of people. And since Alan had reason to believe Tanner or his friends might be carrying, pulling his gun and giving them a chance to respond - possibly pulling their own guns and shooting him - wouldn’t have made sense, either.
I can totally see how one would be freaked out by a larger man acting erratically. Without knowing it was a prank it sounds rather like he was drugged or something. Depending on what drugs he was he could be dangerous.
When you set your boundaries clearly and the person doesn’t respond to it, and continue harassing you while acting erratically… sounds like self-defense to me.
Isn’t that why the amis walk around with guns anyway?
A gun is the only thing that makes 4’9 Gertrude able to defend herself against a 6’11 Hafthor with malicious intent.
deleted by creator
Would that have been legal?
deleted by creator
replace “pistol whipped” with “used whatever means available to neutralize the threat” and the answer would be “yes, legal”
I don’t know if there are laws that say striking someone in self-defense with a hunk of metal fashioned into a gun is less allowable than the nearest heavy object. But I could be wrong, maybe there really is a weird law that says you can’t legally hit someone with your gun when you could have otherwise legally hit them with something else in self-defense.
“but they had a gun, how threatened could they have felt?” would fail to recognize the scenario when someone is clearly being threatened and then has a choice to pull their weapon and fire or swing. But I also think that’s just so much hollywood, pulling out your gun and then pistol whipping someone with it. That would also go against any gun training.
deleted by creator
haha [shrug] yeah I dunno. it was an interesting diversion I guess. But really the problem is pistol whipping means staying close to the target; it puts you at risk of losing your weapon to your attacker. It is, to put it bluntly, counter to good advice and training. If you pull your weapon you’re escalating the situation. You pull it, you better be prepared to use it. And you better put distance between yourself and the target to avoid them grappling and putting you at risk of being shot. You simply do not pull a gun out with the intent to swing it at the threat. It isn’t a baseball bat.
If we’re talking “ideal” situations here, an argument could be made to pull your weapon while backing away and warning your attacker to stay back. The problem is that requires a LOT of training to stay calm enough to do that. For most people it’s just going to be, “fuck fuck fuck fuck BANG fuck fuck fuck fuck” and assuming the threat was reasonable (I’m talking generally now and not debating this situation) then it would be understandable and defensible. Someone turning around in your driveway is NOT “fuck fuck fuck fuck” defensible in my own personal opinion. If someone’s THAT scared of the world, they don’t need a gun, they need therapy.
deleted by creator
[shrug] I guess not. Then again, you can be shot in many parts of the body, recover, and live normally. But a solid crack(s) to the head can fuck you up for life, or just kill you. Same for stabbing. Get suck in the right place, “ouch”, get stuck in the wrong place and you bleed out in pretty easy. Read up on the stabs to the abdominal descending aorta. Or don’t, you might be more freaked out hahaha
Bottom line, I’ll pass on them all thank you very much
If a situation calls for a gun being pulled, then stepping closer to your threat and offering the possibility of losing control of your weapon are both things that you don’t do.
I understand what you mean, but pistol whipping is never the right option. If it’s needed then the gun shouldn’t be pulled.
This story sums up America. Stupidity and guns.
Yeah that was my first thought, too. Both sides of this are peak america really.
The pranks in America are lame. Over in Europe you can literally threaten someone with a giant hammer (as a prank of course) and get away with it.
No, they’re not. You also can’t speak for every person, in every city, in every country in Europe. Don’t be a moron. People are killed in Europe all the time.
I think there are maybe two times in my life I’ve been pro-second amendment, and watching that video just now is one of them.
That guy, threatening multiple people with what anyone with eyes would see as an extremely open murder threat? Often with a fake body to demonstrate their life actually is actively at stake in this moment? You can shoot that guy.
People who are into these intense pranks probably went extinct in America.
That clown-thing is one of the worst ‘pranks’ I’ve ever seen in my life. Someone could easily get PTSD from that, or someone else could easily assault the clown with lethal force because of the threat implied.
Good pranks are along the lines of the Just for Laughs / Gags series, not these dumbass American vigilante pranks, or that miserable ‘clown’ prank above.
It’s sad that this article reads like advertising for a shit head to attract other shit heads (how many times did they call out his show?). He’ll come out of this better off financially.
Right? Why the fuck even mention his channel name or subscribers?
Because they are just reporting on facts that give context the entire situation.
Oh come on, the news hasn’t actually cared about that since they ditched the broadcast regulations by switching to cable.
Because only success matters.
