Youtube prankster shot

LionAquaLooper · October 2023

I would've had more sympathy for the prankster if he'd even hinted that he'd learned his lesson. But his behaviour in that interview outside the court house (pulling faces while his mum was being interviewed and saying he's gonna carry on pranking) just made me wish more harm on him in the future.

Philly_Q · October 2023

LionAquaLooper said:

I would've had more sympathy for the prankster if he'd even hinted that he'd learned his lesson. But his behaviour in that interview outside the court house (pulling faces while his mum was being interviewed and saying he's gonna carry on pranking) just made me wish more harm on him in the future.

I think your wish may come true, one way or another.

Sassafras · October 2023

munckee said:

Sassafras said:

Frankly, I'd shoot all these unfunny, bratty pranksters.
In fact, I'd go further, I'd shoot all their brain dead followers.
Maybe not fatally but enough to cause them excruciating pain, the wankers.

In fact America should bring in a law making it illegal not to shoot pranksters who harass you.

At last, the voice of sanity!

sev112 · October 2023

We could do with a law which says that sharing over digital media, including social media, a clip of someone being pranked without their signed consent to do so is a criminal offence.

RaymondLin · October 2023

sev112 said:

We could do with a law which says that sharing over digital media, including social media, a clip of someone being pranked without their signed consent to do so is a criminal offence.

I'd sign that petition.

LionAquaLooper · October 2023

sev112 said:

We could do with a law which says that sharing over digital media, including social media, a clip of someone being pranked without their signed consent to do so is a criminal offence.

Doesn't even need to be a prank. Any clip of someone without their consent should be against the law. In fact - I thought that already WAS a law??

Stratavarious · October 2023

Watch the video… he’s making a packet off them

LionAquaLooper · October 2023

Stratavarious said:

Watch the video… he’s making a packet off them

And contribute even more to his pay day?? No thanks.

BillDL · October 2023

From the "shooter's" perspective, let's assume this was a real situation and not a "prank", which is how he would have perceived being followed around the arcade and then confronted as he was. The confrontation was threatening. If anybody says otherwise they have either not watched the video or have never been confronted like that before. Was he about to be robbed of his takings by two people while another videod it all? That's not an inconceivable scenario. People video themselves attacking and robbing others frequently in broad daylight and in public places these days. Was he about to be beaten senseless? Would any Good Samaritans risk their own safety by coming to his assistance if such a scenario ensued? I doubt it, unless there happened to be a couple of off-duty Marines to grapple with the assailants or another gun-toting citizen was in the vicinity to threaten them off him. In the same situation I would have felt very threatened regardless of the fact that I am the same size as the "prankster".

I commiserate with the "accused" in this case because he is in a country and state that not only allows citizens to buy and carry guns without having to go through any training at all, but almost encourages it. When he pushed the "prankster's" hand away and made a positive attempt to walk away while still trying to watch him, the prankster followed with the same demeanour at close quarters. That's the point an experienced door steward or martial artist has learned to recognise as the time to act. It's a pity gun culture in America is such that he had a gun available and accessible for immediate use, but what if it had been a real confrontation about to turn ugly at that point?

None of us know how we would react in the same situation.

AK99 · October 2023

BillDL said:

From the "shooter's" perspective, let's assume this was a real situation and not a "prank", which is how he would have perceived being followed around the arcade and then confronted as he was. The confrontation was threatening. If anybody says otherwise they have either not watched the video or have never been confronted like that before. Was he about to be robbed of his takings by two people while another videod it all? That's not an inconceivable scenario. People video themselves attacking and robbing others frequently in broad daylight and in public places these days. Was he about to be beaten senseless? Would any Good Samaritans risk their own safety by coming to his assistance if such a scenario ensued? I doubt it, unless there happened to be a couple of off-duty Marines to grapple with the assailants or another gun-toting citizen was in the vicinity to threaten them off him. In the same situation I would have felt very threatened regardless of the fact that I am the same size as the "prankster".
...

Totally agree.

Anybody who wouldn't feel threatened after being followed around a shopping mall by those two, and then having them shove their faces into yours would be a bit lacking.

I don't know what the legal definition of assault is over there in the US, but if you take the Oxford dictionary version below, then Numbnuts no.1 and no 2 there are clearly guilty of assault never mind anything else.

"Assault is generally defined as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact."

RaymondLin · October 2023

BillDL said:

From the "shooter's" perspective, let's assume this was a real situation and not a "prank", which is how he would have perceived being followed around the arcade and then confronted as he was. The confrontation was threatening. If anybody says otherwise they have either not watched the video or have never been confronted like that before. Was he about to be robbed of his takings by two people while another videod it all? That's not an inconceivable scenario. People video themselves attacking and robbing others frequently in broad daylight and in public places these days. Was he about to be beaten senseless? Would any Good Samaritans risk their own safety by coming to his assistance if such a scenario ensued? I doubt it, unless there happened to be a couple of off-duty Marines to grapple with the assailants or another gun-toting citizen was in the vicinity to threaten them off him. In the same situation I would have felt very threatened regardless of the fact that I am the same size as the "prankster".

I commiserate with the "accused" in this case because he is in a country and state that not only allows citizens to buy and carry guns without having to go through any training at all, but almost encourages it. When he pushed the "prankster's" hand away and made a positive attempt to walk away while still trying to watch him, the prankster followed with the same demeanour at close quarters. That's the point an experienced door steward or martial artist has learned to recognise as the time to act. It's a pity gun culture in America is such that he had a gun available and accessible for immediate use, but what if it had been a real confrontation about to turn ugly at that point?

None of us know how we would react in the same situation.

That’s a good point there, we only know it’s a prank now, in the moment…he wouldn’t know, he is confronted by 2 guys with a 3rd nearby. He tried to walk away from the situation, without success. I mean he could push them back to make them go back but there are 2 of them. If the pushing constitutes as an “first punch” landed then he is going to get his ass handed to him by 3 guys. He is out numbered, perhaps he has been in previous situations before hence he felt the need to have the gun and also gone through the legal process to have it legally. So this time he thought it was like before and he ended the fight.

It’s only a prank to the people making the video, to everyone else, it is a threatening situation.

TeleMaster · October 2023

LionAquaLooper said:
Doesn't even need to be a prank. Any clip of someone without their consent should be against the law. In fact - I thought that already WAS a law??

Of course it's not and of course it shouldn't be. Your images are captured without consent all day long by companies, shops etc and the authorities.

People take pictures and videos on their holidays and trips all day long and put it on Facebook, YouTube for friends and families. People can set up a camera and film whatever they want in a public place (some exceptions apply) and they don't need consent because it's a public place.

You can't expect people to go around asking for consent of every person captured when they are just taking a video on holiday, nor can you expect no one to ever take pictures in public again.

You can't expect complete privacy in a public place and nor should you.

LionAquaLooper · October 2023

TeleMaster said:

LionAquaLooper said:
Doesn't even need to be a prank. Any clip of someone without their consent should be against the law. In fact - I thought that already WAS a law??

Of course it's not and of course it shouldn't be. You are captured without consent all day by companies, shops etc and the authorities. People take pictures and videos on their holidays and trips all day long and put it on Facebook, YouTube for friends and families.

You can't expect people to go around asking for consent of every person captured when they are just taking a video on holiday, nor can you expect no one to ever take pictures in public again.

You can't expect complete privacy in a public place and nor should you.

If you actually read the post i replied to, the context of the conversation was "footage released on social media" . Everyone already knows companies, shops and authorities film people everyday - but they don't release the footage on YouTube or TikTok

Teetonetal · October 2023

You shouldn't be able to post a video of the principle subject of the video without consent.

We are not talk about backgrounds, this prank is designed to humiliate a stranger on the Internet.. if that person doesn't want it published, it should be their right.

TeleMaster · October 2023

LionAquaLooper said:

TeleMaster said:

LionAquaLooper said:
Doesn't even need to be a prank. Any clip of someone without their consent should be against the law. In fact - I thought that already WAS a law??

Of course it's not and of course it shouldn't be. You are captured without consent all day by companies, shops etc and the authorities. People take pictures and videos on their holidays and trips all day long and put it on Facebook, YouTube for friends and families.

You can't expect people to go around asking for consent of every person captured when they are just taking a video on holiday, nor can you expect no one to ever take pictures in public again.

You can't expect complete privacy in a public place and nor should you.

If you actually read the post i replied to, the context of the conversation was "footage released on social media" . Everyone already knows companies, shops and authorities film people everyday - but they don't release the footage on YouTube or TikTok

I read the post mate. You said a 'clip'. That's a vague term and the context is vague and can have many applications.

For example, If I take a 'clip' on my holiday of my wife walking on the pier and put it on my YouTube or TikTok channel do you really think I should be asking for consent of every person I pass? And do you think they'll take it down just because you saw yourself walk by?

What about all those concert videos, Glastonbury of all those people, people in demonstrations, masses of people, all those clips are all on Youtube? Live feeds or various places live streamed online? It's a public place, you can't expect privacy so of course it's not against the law and nor should it be unless it is considered harassment or endangerment or privacy is expected, like in your home or the toilet or something.

But I do agree that something needs to be done to stop these idiots from potentially ruining people's lives, humiliating people for their own benefit.

TeleMaster · October 2023

Teetonetal said:

You shouldn't be able to post a video of the principle subject of the video without consent.

We are not talk about backgrounds, this prank is designed to humiliate a stranger on the Internet.. if that person doesn't want it published, it should be their right.

This I agree with, to a certain point. What about politicians or public figures who just don't want their idiotic statement to be put online? It can be a slippery slope without the right application.

sev112 · October 2023

And those points are why I said sharing on social media for likes, views or money, of a prank rather than any video.

Society’s laws need to evolve.

FelineGuitars · October 2023

Having watched a couple of clips on the guys channel - he is a "grade A" prick .

It’s not like some clever “candid Camera” or Trigger Happy TV “ type thing - there is no art or merit to his activities.

It is constantly being obnoxious and in peoples faces - either intimidating or antagonising people.

I’m almost surprised he didn’t get an extreme reaction from someone prior to this.

Philly_Q · October 2023

Whilst I can't summon up any sympathy for the idiot lummox who gets shot, the fact remains he could have been killed.

Ultimately it's yet another example of the sheer insanity of allowing any Tom, Dick or Harry to freely own and carry a gun. If the video showed the delivery man pulling out a large knife and stabbing the kid, we'd all be going what the fuck, what the hell is he doing carrying that knife? Yet a gun is infinitely more dangerous.

Sassafras · October 2023

merlin said:

Talk first, shoot later.

I'm sure pulling out the handgun and saying "Get the fuck away from me", would have been a better thing to do.
I'm pretty sure that the little prankster, the second little prankster and the camera person would have shat their keks and headed for the hills......or maybe the Burger King.

Trouble is this is Murica, there's a strong possibility the other guy's got an even bigger gun.

Teetonetal · October 2023

TeleMaster said:

Teetonetal said:

You shouldn't be able to post a video of the principle subject of the video without consent.

We are not talk about backgrounds, this prank is designed to humiliate a stranger on the Internet.. if that person doesn't want it published, it should be their right.

This I agree with, to a certain point. What about politicians or public figures who just don't want their idiotic statement to be put online? It can be a slippery slope without the right application.

Would agree, like most things there would be a hell of a lot of grey area to contend with, but I do think a line can be drawn at prank & exploitation videos of members of the public. How far can a prank go before it is pure bullying, harassment & intimidation? At least with concent, you know that the subject is OK with it...and I think it would discourage the more extreme side.

Pretty sure that the broadcast of film of private individuals in public spaces without consent from both individual and state is illegal over here in Switzerland...

CavemanGrogg · October 2023

Teetonetal said:

TeleMaster said:

Teetonetal said:

You shouldn't be able to post a video of the principle subject of the video without consent.

We are not talk about backgrounds, this prank is designed to humiliate a stranger on the Internet.. if that person doesn't want it published, it should be their right.

This I agree with, to a certain point. What about politicians or public figures who just don't want their idiotic statement to be put online? It can be a slippery slope without the right application.

Would agree, like most things there would be a hell of a lot of grey area to contend with, but I do think a line can be drawn at prank & exploitation videos of members of the public. How far can a prank go before it is pure bullying, harassment & intimidation? At least with concent, you know that the subject is OK with it...and I think it would discourage the more extreme side.

Pretty sure that the broadcast of film of private individuals in public spaces without consent from both individual and state is illegal over here in Switzerland...

It's also illegal in the UK, just look at all the people who have been taken to court for their Amazon Ring Doorbells or simply had the police turn up and threaten them with arrest if they don't have them removed.

Tannin · October 2023

In most countries it is perfectly legal to film in any public space. You can also freely publish the result, provided that you are not doing so for commercial gain.

Suppose I film you walking along the street. Other people are in the background. I have the right to do that, and I have the right to use the film in any way I wish, so long as it is not for profit. (Some other restrictions apply, for example I can't film up your skirt, but set those aside, they are usually not relevant.)

Now suppose that I want to use that film I took to advertise toothpaste. Can I use it? No. Not unless I have permission from you, and also from any identifiable person in the background. Typically, I would get that permission by offering you money.

That is the law here in Australia and I'm pretty sure it's more-or-less the same in the United States and indeed in most other countries.

If so, the You-tube pranking arsehole can't publish for profit without getting permission from his victims - and if he's making money from his videos, then someone needs to sue him. Maybe that would get his attention.

euan · October 2023

CavemanGrogg said:

Teetonetal said:

TeleMaster said:

Teetonetal said:

You shouldn't be able to post a video of the principle subject of the video without consent.

We are not talk about backgrounds, this prank is designed to humiliate a stranger on the Internet.. if that person doesn't want it published, it should be their right.

This I agree with, to a certain point. What about politicians or public figures who just don't want their idiotic statement to be put online? It can be a slippery slope without the right application.

Would agree, like most things there would be a hell of a lot of grey area to contend with, but I do think a line can be drawn at prank & exploitation videos of members of the public. How far can a prank go before it is pure bullying, harassment & intimidation? At least with concent, you know that the subject is OK with it...and I think it would discourage the more extreme side.

Pretty sure that the broadcast of film of private individuals in public spaces without consent from both individual and state is illegal over here in Switzerland...

It's also illegal in the UK, just look at all the people who have been taken to court for their Amazon Ring Doorbells or simply had the police turn up and threaten them with arrest if they don't have them removed.

No that’s not true. It’s the misuse of those devices that result in people being taken to court.

CavemanGrogg · October 2023

euan said:

CavemanGrogg said:

Teetonetal said:

TeleMaster said:

Teetonetal said:

You shouldn't be able to post a video of the principle subject of the video without consent.

We are not talk about backgrounds, this prank is designed to humiliate a stranger on the Internet.. if that person doesn't want it published, it should be their right.

This I agree with, to a certain point. What about politicians or public figures who just don't want their idiotic statement to be put online? It can be a slippery slope without the right application.

Would agree, like most things there would be a hell of a lot of grey area to contend with, but I do think a line can be drawn at prank & exploitation videos of members of the public. How far can a prank go before it is pure bullying, harassment & intimidation? At least with concent, you know that the subject is OK with it...and I think it would discourage the more extreme side.

Pretty sure that the broadcast of film of private individuals in public spaces without consent from both individual and state is illegal over here in Switzerland...

It's also illegal in the UK, just look at all the people who have been taken to court for their Amazon Ring Doorbells or simply had the police turn up and threaten them with arrest if they don't have them removed.

No that’s not true. It’s the misuse of those devices that result in people being taken to court.

You might want to do some research on that, it's why I went with the Yale smart locks for my exterior and vestibule doors, Amazon where actually advertising that they would cover UK users legal costs resulting from the use of their Ring Doorbells, when I was doing my house, and why I went for the same system in the house I bought for my cousin to live in, and the other properties I bought.

Tannin · October 2023

euan said:

CavemanGrogg said:

Teetonetal said:

Pretty sure that the broadcast of film of private individuals in public spaces without consent from both individual and state is illegal over here in Switzerland...

It's also illegal in the UK, just look at all the people who have been taken to court for their Amazon Ring Doorbells or simply had the police turn up and threaten them with arrest if they don't have them removed.

No that’s not true. It’s the misuse of those devices that result in people being taken to court.

The issue occurs where the camera is recording in other people's private spaces. It is one thing to have a camera monitoring your own front door, however where your neighbour's front door is close to it and you are also recording all your neighbour's visitors, that is another thing entirely.

CavemanGrogg · October 2023

Tannin said:

euan said:

CavemanGrogg said:

Teetonetal said:

Pretty sure that the broadcast of film of private individuals in public spaces without consent from both individual and state is illegal over here in Switzerland...

It's also illegal in the UK, just look at all the people who have been taken to court for their Amazon Ring Doorbells or simply had the police turn up and threaten them with arrest if they don't have them removed.

No that’s not true. It’s the misuse of those devices that result in people being taken to court.

The issue occurs where the camera is recording in other people's private spaces. It is one thing to have a camera monitoring your own front door, however where your neighbour's front door is close to it and you are also recording all your neighbour's visitors, that is another thing entirely.

Exactly, and why a number of people in the UK have either been taken to court to force the removal of the Ring Doorbells or have been threatened with arrest by the police if they are not removed. All it takes is for one person to complain, they don't even need to be visible to your Ring camera,nor does their property. Amazon made a huge deal about it with their offer to pay legal costs for UK users if they where taken to court due to the use of their products.

Sassafras · October 2023

"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".

Seems unlikely the moron'll stop his pathetic pranks.

boogieman · October 2023

Kittyfrisk said:

Personally, I don't think 'pranks & pranksters' are really appropriate terms to describe what took place in the shooting episode & other such events that have been mentioned here.
The people perpetrating such behaviors are just spoilt, mean spirited, nasty selfish cunts, videoing the victims of their bullying for 'lolz', 'shits & giggles' & likes from other like minded moronic twats.

Indeed. This incident isn’t pranking, it’s pure bullying and intimidation. It’s not even vaguely funny, I don’t understand what this arsehole’s subscribers would get out of watching it?

ToneControl · October 2023

RaymondLin said:

In our standard this side of the pond, he cannot shoot someone. In the UK he would have been charged with a lot more and be found guilty. The reaction was not proportional to the "attack".

In America...both legally and morally, he was in the right to defend himself. Different country, different standard. He had a permit to carry and he was found Not Guilty. So whilst my own morals and education would say he should not have fired, but there is a part of me that thinks the prankster got what was coming considering where he is.

I do not feel bad for the prankster being shot...had he been killed my tune might have changed but as it stands, I don't feel bad for feeling this way.

In the back of my mind, there is this lingering thought of the Thin Skull Rule, or the Egg Shell rule in the states, where you cannot go around hitting someone in the head no matter how lightly because you never know who has a "thin skull", I know this probably isn't applicable in this scenario but the logic in that "you just never know who is going to snap", apply.

We can't apply our own European laws and morals to Americans but the standard there is different, so I have to look through that lens when analysing this.

The eggshell rule is in UK Law too
What is the "eggshell skull" rule and how does it work? | MyTutor

defendant must "take the victim as he finds them". This means that particular vulnerabilities or frailties of a victim cannot be considered when determining the liability of the defendant. For example, if the defendant's action of punching the victim leads to death because of a rare bone disease that the victim has (whereas it would usually only cause mild injury) the defendant cannot rely on this as a defence, even if he was unaware of the victim's condition. In summary, where the full extent of the damage was unforeseeable due to the victim's particular vulnerability or characteristic, the defendant will still be liable for the full extent of the damage. This principle is important in tort and criminal law.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Youtube prankster shot

Comments