this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
559 points (98.9% liked)

News

23014 readers
17 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 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.