- 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.
All the times I’ve seen people say “Try that and you’ll get shot someday” finally came true.
It totally amazes me how stupid this kid is. Scaring people in a country that is known for gun owners shooting people for low-level reasons is not a good survival trait.
Yeah, the US is a shithole where you can get shot for minding your own business.
So you think this pramkster was minding his own business?
This. We live in a crazy timeline right now. People are stressed, angry, afraid, and it just seems to be getting worse. Couple that with a culture that promotes gun ownership so heavily, and it’s a recipe for what we see in this case. “It was just a prank, bro” is no defense, especially when someone has asked you to stop and is backing away from you. He’s engaging in risky behavior by acting like a creep. He wants to make people uncomfortable to illicit a reaction? Well, bub, you got a reaction.
Speaking of survival, that made me remember a Brazilian prankster who liked to scare people in the middle of the night. In one such prank, where he was dressed like a killer clown and basically jump scared people in a dimly lit alley, the 4th victim stepped back and immediately drew a gun, forcing the prankster to get on his knees, receive some slaps to the head and hear all sort of cussin’.
This guy should consider himself lucky. He could easily have ended dead in a ditch…
Well he got more subscribers after being shot, and is still doing it. He probably thinks it was worth it.
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.
DoorDash driver 🥲
How much do you think the poor guy makes? And now he has to pay for a lawyer, lose the job, and probably go to jail. Only so this dipshit can get the right “reaction”.
And the shooting would’ve been completely justified for a cop.
“The poor guy” pulled out a gun and shot a stranger on the street. Why is everybody defending him? Do people so vehemently hate prank YouTubers that they would rather just see them executed at this point? This thread is wild.
Delivery rep work is pretty dangerous, same with Uber drivers and other gig workers. Since you are not an employee, companies have no incentive to ensure your safety. You go to unsafe neighborhoods all the time, and risk of getting jumped in always present. And as I said, cops get leeway for far more egregious shooting, so why should this guy be hanged dry?
And I’d invite you to watch a few “prankster” videos on YT. Most of these are spoiled brats who are always trying to up the ante video-over-video. There is a deliberate attempt to intimidate and confuse their victims. So yeah, they had it coming.
Take your meds
Anyone who wasn’t 6’5 would have gotten their asses beat the first or second time they pulled this shit.
Exactly.
The only reason he got shot is because he was physically imposing enough to skip the normal defensive responses that might have come his way (and/or he specifically (or intentionally) chose victims he knew would be physically threatened by him).
I don’t think shooting someone disqualifies you as a door dash driver.
Being the subject of a public court case might. I wouldn’t be surprised if they terminate his account just to distance themselves from the proceedings.
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
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.
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
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.
Wait, has it been illegal to shoot YouTubers this entire time?
Always has been.
(I wouldn’t mind kicking them in the nuts if they threaten me and don’t leave me alone.)
Always has been.
🌎👨🚀🔫👨🚀
I’m not a proponent of violence, but I think these dipshits need to get their asses beaten every time they do that shit. Maybe, if more of them got beaten or shot, then they would stop being ass fucks.
I shouldn’t have to be forced to figure out whether someone is a crazy, drug induced murderer, or just some stupid “prankster” every time I go out in public. Rule number 1 in a society is “don’t fuck with strangers”.
Hey, this is skirting pretty close to actually being a proponent of violence. Yeah, we all hate internet pranksters who annoy people for views, but that’s not a crime that deserves a death sentence.
The dumbass didn’t die. Shoving a phone that’s playing some dumbass confusing phrase, 6 inches from someone’s face, who is just trying to do his job, is assault. Most counties allow you to defend yourself if someone is assaulting you. Most states provide worker protections that provide extra penalties for harassing or assaulting employees. But I guess Uber Eats drivers don’t get those protections since they’re technically not employees. Weeee.
You’re right, he didn’t die. But if “more of them got beaten or shot” someone would. There has to be a better way to force asshole pranksters to stop besides shooting them.
Look, I’m not defending this idiot, he makes a living out of being a complete wanker to strangers, and this was a predictable outcome. I just don’t wish him dead for it. Much rather see him taken to court and deprived of his ability to make a living doing this shit.
This has come up a lot for me when talking to Americans about murder via gun. They (in these instances) have asked me things like “so someone breaks into your house and takes your TV, you just let them?” And they seem apoplectic when I say “yes, and I phone the cops.”
There’s a cultural inclination towards shooting people for crime, regardless of severity.
As an American… yeah, we’re kinda fucked up that way. No TV is worth someone’s life.
The difference here is this isn’t someone stealing a TV, and this isn’t someone being shot / almost killed just for a prank. You have the order of operations and perspective wrong. Colie and what he intended literally doesn’t matter.
What matters is this was someone who felt threatened by a 6’5" menace who approached him, engaged him in an aggressive manner, who didn’t stop when asked, and who continued to pursue when backed away from. Result: the threatened person did what they needed to eliminate the threat. If they intended to kill they could have shot again, but didn’t. If they didn’t have a gun they would have been equally justified in beating the shit out of the attacker until they felt safe. How easy that might be for most of the “prank” victims against a 6’5" male is an open question.
Someone stealing my TV isn’t a direct threat, and so no of course I wouldn’t shot them for that. Take the TV and leave. But that’s a false narrative. It isn’t someone stealing my TV. It’s someone who has broken into my house, is in the act of committing a crime, and who I have no idea how they are going to react now that they’ve been caught. They may very well see me as a juicier target. And for that reason I would feel the need to neutralize the threat by whatever means necessary.
For the record, I do NOT own a gun, and I do believe in gun control. So let’s not bring up any gun-fetish/revenge-fantasy retorts. I’m not saying there aren’t people that have those, but right here right now they are a distraction from an honest assessment of what is going on when a person feels legitimately threatened to a “reasonable person” standard. Also, no, someone turning around in my driveway isn’t a reasonable reason to feel threatened either.
I’m not a proponent of violence, but I am a proponent of violence toward “these dipshits”
I’m not really interested in taking a side here, but if you can’t at least recognize the cognitive dissonance in this statement, there’s nothing anybody can say to you.
You can drop the “not a proponent of violence” charade.
You can think that violence is abhorrent and also understand that it might be the quickest, simplest way to settle a matter. Adults can think two things at once. Crazy, I know.
The latter implies being a proponent. Let’s not move goal posts because we think we’re the “good guy”. Hint: you’re not.
Pull your head out of your ass
“Violence is abhorrent, except when it’s against people I don’t like”, got it.
Correction, when it’s against others willing to commit violence, it’s often the only answer.
Example: Neville Chamberlain, and Winston Churchill
That’s not what he said.
That’s actually exactly what was said. I don’t condone violence except when I condone violence based on my definition of when I condone violence.
And you’re all lapping it up. Bravo.
Edit: and for the record my original comment didn’t even criticize the latter part (the condition or when its condoned). What I am very loudly questioning is the opening statement. Violence is being condoned. The OP is a proponent of violence. Just own it. Don’t be pussies.
Here, I won’t be a pussy.
Violence is never the answer, until it is.
Some people don’t know when to stop. What boundaries are. The prankster here found this guy’s boundaries. The victim felt fear, and reacted in his way. Do I get to draw the line in the sand where violence is the right answer? No. Judges, Juries, and lawmakers do.
Do I feel personally that this gentleman defended himself correctly? It’s a thin line, but yes. As I said in another comment the guy probably ended up in high crime areas on a regular basis and a gun might have been necessary for those situations. So that’s the defense he had on him. It’s not like we all carry a selection of weapons and deterrents that we can choose from depending on where we are at any given time. We carry what works for the worst situation we encounter.
As a delivery driver myself I sympathize because I have a feeling this wasn’t this guys first bad interaction with another individual. If he continues driving, it most certainly won’t be his last.
Try the second paragraph again
Adults can think two things at once. Crazy, I know.
We used to call that doublethink. Now we call it the right-wing.
You may call it right wing, the rest of the world calls it intelligence.
If you cannot view an issue from multiple perspectives, then I’d start worrying less about right vs left and start reading more.
The original post was proposing a hypocritical view. I.e. saying violence as bad while also endorsing it.
Doublethink is hypocrisy. And as long as you acknowledge that, then fine. Whatever. Sometimes it’s necessary to be a hypocrite. But if you’re always a hypocrite, you’re probably right-wing. Which was my point.
Holding contradictory views is not intelligence. It’s a learned skill to discard the cognitive dissonance inherent in hypocrisy.
Violence is not preferable, but it’s the appropriate response at times.
In this case, it’s very understandable the guy reacted the way he did. Not preferable, but understandable. He was being harassed, and had stated that the person needed to stop. They didn’t. They actively pursued him. He also was approached from behind by someone else involved. He made an accurate non-lethal shot with a lethal weapon. Good on him. Maybe now he’ll carry some pepper spray, too, so he has more options.
Dogmatic much?
This doesn’t actually say anything. You just don’t like what was said.
No, we all think you’re dumb for dragging idiotic politics into this.
Some of us think with a rational mind and know it’s not all black and white out there.
Speaking in absolutes in this world is the worst thing you can do.
Speaking in absolutes in this world is the worst thing you can do.
This is the dumbest fucking thing I’ve heard all day. Congrats. I don’t even have to point out how ironic it is for calling me dumb and then saying this. Bravo.
No, it’s called nuance lol
americans are so scared, shoot first and think later
Yeah, we live in a scary country. It’s not unfounded.
Whenever I’m in America I have to remind myself that it’s possible that people around me have guns in public. Scary country indeed.
What’s scary is you thinking people in whatever your country is don’t have them! There’s not a country on the planet where criminals that want guns don’t have them.
I find it really interesting how quick Americans are to shoot. Like any minor inconvenience and you all justify shooting and killing someone. I understand self-defense, but shooting someone for something like this I find it so ridiculous. Especially when seeing comments in other news like the guy who killed a black guy for knocking on his door, or the guy who shot teenagers who were at the wrong house, then it’s all “we have such a gun problem” but here it’s a circlejerk of “he was coming at him WITH A PHONE and was TALLER THAN HIM, what was he supposed to do, NOT SHOOT HIM??”
@sholomo @Lightor I think you’re wrong but It’s an interesting argument. Why is this shooting seen by many as more reasonable than the guy who show the kid knocking on his door. For my money it’s the justifiable confusion. A kid knocks on your door and your first response is to shoot doesn’t make sense. You had room and barriers to make decisions. In this case the dude was in his face and wouldn’t back off. IMO they’re incomparably different. But yeah guns are a problem in both cases.
it’s true that the events are not truly comparable, but this also happened in a food court where there’s people around, not in a dark alley
@sholomo That’s a perfectly fair point. Now while I do not support how he reacted and it’s one of the many reasons, I don’t think people should be allowed to have guns willy-nilly, I will maintain that. There is a huge difference between something unexpected showing up in your doorstep and a man intensely yelling at you in your personal space. Extremely close doing things you are not able to comprehend who refuses to back away after repeated attempts to step back.
Let’s not paint a massive country with a single brush stroke. Not everyone is shooting everyone over getting cut in line.
“Live and let live” are words I live by yet I see the vast majority of people don’t, and the worst of us get fame and money out of it. Humanity sucks.
This video is a textbook example of someone knowing appropriate force when defending themselves, and knowing when to stop. Unfortunately.
I’m always surprised this doesn’t happen much more often - especially on shows like ‘just for laughs - gags’
Like. Impersonating a police officer. How the fuck aren’t these assholes in jail ?
The professional shows are staged. The contestants might not know the exact prank that will be played on them but they usually are aware that something will happen. They sometimes give a rough time frame of “in the next few days” or even an exact time.
Source?
I’ve heard it discussed in a few interviews as well. The thought process is that the larger networks are not willing to deal with the legal liability of being sued for someones distress by taping.
You can really tell if you pay attention because none of those pranks ever end violently or harshly. Contrast that with MTV’s punkd for example.
Lol Zach from scrubs almost beat up some kid who was a punkd crew member before they did the reveal.
"Asker: When you got punk’d, did you punch that kid for painting on your car? Because I’m pretty good friends with him and when he tells the story he said you were (very reasonably) pissed.
Zach Braff: I punched him in the stomach (as I recall). Who amongst you wouldn’t have? They edited it out though. You’re not allowed to punch little kids on MTV. Lame."
Always heard Zach Braff was a bit of a prick but i agree with him. You can’t relentlessly bother someone to their face, invade their personal space, offer no apology, and be surprised when they feel like they are backed into a corner then lash out like an animal.
I may have reacted differently, but he was probably in the right.
Yeah I heard he’s a bit of a prick anyways but I was torn when I first heard that cause I’m like justified anger but at the same time if my kid was one the punched id have beat the shit out of Zach. Detain them, fine, call the police to report it, okay. Arbitrarily lash out at a kid with physical violence over a non life threatening event? Ehhhhhh…
Yeah, JFL gags has had a few segments where they make it look like a blind person or child fell into a sewer full of water. Somewhat predictably, some reactions were to jump into the water to save them. That situation has legal liability for drowning stamped all over it unless it, like the pranks themselves, aren’t what they seem.
ULPT: In places where self-defence is banned, you can do literally anything to someone else smaller than you without fear of consequences, well not until the cops arrive… in 10 minutes, or if at all.
Would you list these mythical places?
deleted by creator
If I was on that jury, I’d nullify the shit out of those charges. Shooting him might have been an overreaction to the situation, but it was the overreaction we needed.
Is it even nullification? I’d just call it legitimate self-defense.
I wouldn’t be sad if the cameraman was shot too.
“It’s just a prank bro” taken way too far, huh?
deleted by creator
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.
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
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
Hey guys, can we quit with the calls for the deaths of assholes? Lemmy.world’s server rules include this:
- No links to content supporting, featuring, or promoting hate movements, terrorism, mass violence, or calls to violence.
I’ve seen that interpreted as including comments that call for someone’s death, and I don’t want to see this shit get out of hand and draw admin attention.
This particular piece of shit, Tanner Cook, deserves to have his channels shut down, deserves some prison time, and deserves some kind of court order preventing him from pulling stupid “pranks” on anyone ever again. Maybe then he can do something productive with his life, instead of… whatever the fuck it is he’s doing right now.
But he can’t do that if he’s dead.
Being an asshole isn’t a capital offense, worthy of summary execution. And the judge in this case apparently agrees.
So just tone it down a little, OK?
But he can’t do that if he’s dead.
Can’t antagonize people going about their lives, either.
Is that really what you want? A world where being an asshole is a death sentence? No opportunities to turn yourself around?
I don’t want to live in a world like that, even if I find this guy an absolute tool.
Is that really what you want? A world where being an asshole is a death sentence? No opportunities to turn yourself around?
Well that’s not at all what I said, is it? Stop extrapolating to get mad.
Being a habitual asshole like that? I think it might be warranted. Nothing of value is lost by those people not being part of society any longer.
I’d rather at least try to rehabilitate a guy like him into a valuable member of society.
deleted by creator
In the US prison system? Not arguing for the prankster be killed, rather, I think it’d be better if that person be put away until they can be trusted to be mingling with other people again, for as long as it takes. I just doubt they’d be rehabilitated while in the US prison system.
That’s even ignoring how pranking fellow inmates would not go over as well as that prankster’s YouTube career has gone.
Edit: I forgot a crucial word in my last paragraph.
Nevertheless, it’s not unreasonable to want someone to understand that menacing and threatening someone for the lolz can potentially be hazardous to the health of the lolzer. And not always from the the lolzee, there’s that video from I think the UK where they are fake robbing someone, and a bystander punched the YouTuber in the head and split open his face.
Sure, no argument there.
He wasn’t “being an asshole;” he committed an assault. The victim was entirely justified in defending himself.
Also, holy shit, self-defense against an active threat is nothing whatsoever like “summary execution!” There’s a huge difference between being forced to make a split-second decision when your own life is perceived to be in danger, and the state deliberately weighing the moral question of whether to kill someone after the situation has passed.
This case is very local to me so I have been following a lot of the discussion about it.
Way too many people are too quick to call for this guy’s death or saying that he deserved to get shot. And I just can’t disagree more. But I do also get why people are sympathetic to the shooter though, cause he very much is also a victim in all this as well.
This guy though absolutely deserves consequences for these stupid “pranks” and he absolutely should not be earning any kind of money from this. Seriously fuck that guy.
Seems like he did suffer some consequences for his stupid pranks
100% agreement. Fuck that guy.
That’s understandable but now a poor man is going to be left financially ruined and will serve jail time for defending himself.
Agreed, it sucks all around.
What makes you think I share the same non-violent values as you do, or this sub, or this instance, or these commentators?
Sub rules are not cops. I don’t give a shit what some side-bar says.
Life on this rock isn’t precious. It’s not special. And if you do dumb things that put that little worthless streak of existence your parents blessed you with at risk, that’s not my problem and it’s not my fault if you don’t protect it.
PS: Downvotes make me horny. Violent and horny.
Okay, let me be more blunt: Since I don’t want this community, which I mod, to be endangered by becoming a cesspool of support for violence, I will wield the ban-hammer for the very first time to prevent that from happening if I have to.
I don’t want to, and so far, I don’t think I need to, because just reminding people about Lemmy.world’s rules seems like enough. I intend to mod very lightly, and limit myself to stepping in with reminders and warnings (like this one) as much as possible. This is a fun, light-hearted community, and I want to keep it that way.
But it’s not the sidebar saying this now, it’s me, the guy who volunteered to mod here and wants this community to thrive: Please don’t push on this. Keep it fun.
deleted by creator
Okay-dokay. That’s fine. Fuck mods and all that. But you are on world, when you’re using this community. Which is hosted on world.
You’ve said your piece, I’ve said mine. No reason we can’t part as friends here, as long as you’re not espousing violence.
Life on this rock isn’t precious. It’s not special. And if you do dumb things that put that little worthless streak of existence your parents blessed you with at risk, that’s not my problem and it’s not my fault if you don’t protect it.
What? How is being born a blessing if being alive is worthless and not worth viewing as precious? You just are, you aren’t blessed/gifted with existence.
deleted by creator
“Being an asshole isn’t a capital offense, worthy of summary execution” 😔
Tragic, I know.
Being an asshole to the point where someone fears for their safety is an offense, and in many circumstances can justify defense of one’s person with violence.
He is giving testimony in a trial about the nature of the encounter; he obviously wasn’t executed, or his testimony would be decidedly less wordy.
What you gonna do? Shoot me?
Said man who was shot.
Not a US resident, but I’m not sure that the jury has a very difficult decision. The US has a strong pro gun culture and you could predict that victims of pranks would be scared and that the prankster would be shot eventually.
