Yeah that’s true. Self defense isn’t a perfect remedy. The law abhors self help. Your family has a remedy in wrongful death, when things don’t work out.
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.
He wasn’t giving me material for my viewers, so I kept annoying him until he shot me! Why is this my fault?!
This is terrible, and nobody deserves this. As a millennial that has ben constantly screwed by boomers and their collective decisions, I can’t help but to think that “you rip what you saw. Maybe they should try to make the coffee at home to save money, instead of going to Starbucks. Also, they’ll be fine if they stop eating so many expensive avocados.”
I have no doubt you are well trained and safety conscious. Despite living in a none right to bear arms country I’ve also had some training on safe handling of firearms through cadets. I think we agree that safety training for handling firearms is a good thing.
However this obviously isn’t a mandatory requirement in the states as evidenced by the number of children who have been killed because firearms have not been securely stored. The US does seem unwilling to have any regulation to improve firearm safety lest it be seen as an infringement on a universal “right”.
If you’re too crazy for North Korea to use as some sort of confirmation someone hates America, then you are too damn crazy. I hope he doesn’t return worse than when he left. NK is now not a country you can’t be extradited from.
The person who shot did it directly, without actually showing what was he carrying. Just showing the gun would have had a better effect with no injuries and no arrest, and that already is going over the top.
You are an asshole for defending getting hurt for this. I want to assume you would not be so eager to go against the kid if it was your family member.
Just showing the gun is called brandishing and is illegal. You don’t announce you have a weapon before you shoot someone because you could get shot if you do.
Are you kidding? Showing the gun to an attacker who is far larger than you is a ridiculous idea. They will just wrestle the gun away. This poor driver got scared out of his wits by a total human trash can who refused to stop when asked. That’s basically rape—of the mind.
He was attacked. And he defended himself. The YouTuber should be in jail for harassment.
And in what backwards world are you living where someone had to risk his life for this. The prankster should be punished for harassment, but doesn’t leave the fact that someone SHOT HIM FOR THAT. Nobody should be shot in a situation like this, period.
No body should have put the shooter IN this position.
Don’t go up to people and play loud noises and shove things in their face and keep going even when asked to stop. The YouTuber started it. They should pull his videos, give him community service, and ban him from producing online content for 10 years.
The driver, the real victim, works a dangerous job and thought he was being attacked. The YouTuber said himself that the videos are designed to confuse and disorient his victims to see how they will react. Well, he found out the hard way what he’s doing is immoral.
I’m guessing your main problem is the gun itself. I mean, I’m definitely a proponent of gun laws, but I’m smart enough to see who the started it, and who the real victim is.
I can see that completely too. In fact you nailed my problem and that is with the usage of the gun, nothing else.
The prankster did absolutely wrong, I never tried to reduce that. But at the same time, was there really no other way to manage the situation? I want to wish there was, but at the same time also cannot know and very likely wasn’t. Still, it won’t remove me from being disappointed that it had to end in injury.
No, there is no other way to manage the situation. You cannot ask a victim to pause step back and kindly ask their attacker to stop. tell me, honestly, would you ask a female rape victim to kindly ask their much larger male attacker to stop? Yes, it is the same thing.
No doubt at that too. But I was aiming at a security person being nearby, or the food shop this happened nearby. This possible being unreliable if another thing.
If there was really no other choice as i am being made very clear, I of course cannot say anything and would agree.
Also in the example you just did I can say the same, cannot say anything and won’t if no other safe option was available.
The “prankster” was kicked out by security the day before and was actively avoiding areas with security on the day of the event. It’s unreasonable to expect someone being attacked not to defend themselves. It’s victim blaming to even imply the shooter did anything wrong here.
The right to use self defense doesn’t mean you get to just jump to lethal force.
The dude did nothing wrong? Why was he arrested and on trial for criminal attempt* homicide and gun use charges*? Seems at least the prosecution and I disagree with you.
It seems like a guy who keeps trying to talk about his legal credentials would realize it’s going to be really hard to convict someone of homicide when the person who got shot is still alive.
And for present purposes, whether there is culpability doesn’t depend on whether the person died. Deadly force is either authorized or not, the only difference when is manslaughter or murder.
Nobody was risking their life, the “prankster” was threatening someone in public. I normally am entirely anti-gun, but this was a completely logical use of force to stop someone who you believe is attacking you.
There was absolutely threats. Coming at someone, shoving a phone in their face and aggressively speaking in an unfamiliar language absolutely is a threat.
Not a threat to your fragility, a threat to your life. An imminent one. Here’s a primer written for I don’t know like thrid graders or something that goes into whether the common law recognizes a reasonable apprehension of immiment harm.
The victim must have a reasonable apprehension of imminent injury or offensive contact. This element is established if the act would produce apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. Apprehension is not the same as fear. Apprehension means awareness that an injury or offensive contact is imminent.
Whether an act would create apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person varies depending upon the circumstances. For example, it may take less to create apprehension in the mind of a child than an adult. Moreover, if a victim is unaware of the threat of harm, no assault has occurred. For example, an assailant who points a gun at a sleeping person most likely has not committed an assault. Finally, the threat must be imminent, meaning impending or about to occur. Threatening to kill someone at a later date would not constitute an assault.
If you aren’t a victim of common law assault, you have no valid, legal justification to use ANY force in self defense. The dude’s conduct was offensive and aggressive, no doubt.
But what fact gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of serious, imminent threat to life? The dude was unarmed.
You say phone, approaching, foreign language. Sounds like you want to be able to shoot foreigners who walk up to you. How do you know the person isn’t asking for help?
In America where everyone is possibly armed there would absolutely be a threat of imminent harm. Delivery drivers are more likely to be shot than cops. It’s not that hard to make the connection that he was fearing for his life
No the threat has to be imminent, not imaginary. The person did not have a gun. That a person might be a threat to you isn’t an imminent threat. Otherwise, you could just shoot anyone you want as long as they were walking toward you.
Holy crap, are you a social media “prankster” or something? I don’t know how you can feel so vehemently the wrong way about something unless you’re actually doing it.
I’m controlling my emotions and relying on my ability to reason things out. Try imagining if everyone shot everyone who walked up to them babbling incoherently. You’re letting your lizard brain control you.
You’re not a reasonable person though, a reasonable person would be afraid of someone approaching babbling incoherently, would back off and tell them to get away, then react with a fight or flight response if they continued to advance. That’s what someone relying on their ability to reason things out would do. That’s what this guy did. He had a gun, the attacker wouldn’t stop advancing when he retreated. He shot. Self defense.
I’m with you until your last two sentence fragments.
Self defense excuses reasonable force. Reasonable force is certainly that which is merely reciprocal, equal. Did the dude shout for help? Did the dude warn him to get back or else? Did the dude have more room to retreat?
It’s one thing if you’ve said “get back or I’ll fucking kill you,” and dude keeps coming; there, the inference of intent to cause serious harm is reasonable. It’s one thing if your backed into a corner and winded.
It’s another thing to be annoyed and not in the mood for bullshit at the food court, so you try to kill an idiot. And it’s a thing called culpable homicide.
That is imminent. Aggressively coming at someone and refusing to step away after being repeatedly asked to, as well as the victim trying to move away is absolutely threatening. Just because you’re some “big man” who doesn’t get scared doesn’t mean that others don’t have valid feelings about what is happening to them.
As a minority if someone, especially a large white man with a camera, comes up to me yelling and aggressively shoving a phone in my face playing offensive statements from google translate then I’m 99% sure I’m about to be the victim of a hate crime. That’s the world we live in. Where anyone can be armed and fighting back is gambling with your life.
I don’t carry, nor would I feel safer doing so, but this is a legitimate use of a weapon in self defense.
The aspect of the threat that is not imminent is the lethality.
Person hasn’t touched you. Has not brandished a weapon. Has not said they were going to harm you.
There is no jurisdiction in America where you don’t get charged with culpable homicide, be it murder or at best manslaughter. I don’t need to be some “big man” that not scared as you suggest. I can be scared. I possibly may even get killed.
Possibility is not probability, let alone imminent probability.
He believed his life was in danger, which is a valid assumption based on the unhinged, aggressive behavior of the YouTuber and the mob behind him. There was absolutely an imminent danger to his life.
There’s no crime here. It’s textbook self defense.
Your very own quote applies here, the guy kept approaching a fleeing individual, that’s a “reasonable apprehension of imminent injury or offensive contact”. Someone much bigger than you running you down is not “safe”.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you’re unaware of violent crime that does not involve guns? Lets put the gun aside for a moment and analyze whether or not the guy felt afraid. If someone walks up to you in the manner this guy did, you get afraid. It’s WHAT THE PERPETRATOR WANTED THE GUY TO DO! He even said that he kept approaching because the guy wasn’t reacting the way he wanted. He was escalating the threat to get a reaction. If the guy didn’t have a gun he would have swung instead of shooting when backing away clearly wasn’t working. Fight or Flight is called a “reaction” for a reason. It’s not a fully conscious process. This “prankster” only did what he did because he was so large and intimidating that he knew he didn’t have to fear physical reprisal for his obvious assaults.
Just showing the gun is legally perilous. It’s a felony called brandishing and diminishes a self defense case. According to the laws and court rulings you are supposed to to keep it holstered until you need it.
This sounds like a bunch of kids that thought it would be cool to yell things they shouldn’t and a coach that let them do it, more so than a team that’s actually super racist.
If it happened once, you’d be right. Sometimes kids have the wrong idea of what is appropriate, and when they err it’s important to set them straight immediately.
But doing that for most of the half? Yeah, that coach knew it. And we shouldn’t let the fact that they’re kids let any of them “it’s just a joke, bro” out of it.
It seems like setting the kids straight is what’s happening. The Beachwood administration is happy with the response so far from the Brooklyn school. The adult that should have stopped or prevented it is gone, hopefully assistants are too.
It’s not about pretending to be racist. It’s about understanding that high school kids don’t understand racism beyond a surface level. Yelling bad thing gets them angry, is probably as far as most the team understood it. Writing off the team as just racist ass holes is just going to push them that way.
They’re teenagers, not toddlers, they knew the significance of what they were doing, otherwise they wouldn’t have done it. And how does calling them out push them to become racist?
And how does calling them out push them to become racist?
“Doing [X] is actually only going to have the opposite effect” is the tired refrain of idiots pushing agendas. In this case, the agenda appears to be downplaying racism and antisemitism… And that person is bending over backwards to do so.
Your description sounds to me like a team that’s actually super racist, but I disagree with you.
They used “Nazi” as a playcall against a team consisting primarily of Jewish kids. That means that, even if it was a student’s idea, the coaches knew about it beforehand, approved the idea, and shared the call with all of the players. And that’s the most generous possible assumption. Every player on the field in the play needs to know what the playcall means. It’s not just something people shout out in the middle of a game. More likely it came from the coaches, but you’re right that we don’t know that for sure.
The “don’t be so sensitive, it’s only a joke” thing is how a lot of people start off as racists. When you minimize those things the step to full blown KKK is an easier one.
I find it hard to believe every player was ok with it. How many kids do you think were told “No, no, no, we are calling Not Z. Using Nazi would be wrong.”
I still think they should end the season for the whole team as a way to say this crap is inconceivable.
How do we know they didn't try anything to stop it? They might have raised objections to the coach and got shot down. If you aren't the coach or a majority voice, you have no power to actually change the call being used.
I hear what you’re saying, and were it a college or professional team I probably would agree, but for high schoolers that’s harder. At that age, their very identity and self-worth are dependent on peer acceptance. Not to mention any shy kids who might have felt powerless to speak up. We also don’t know that they didn’t try; one or some may have tried and been shut down by peer pressure. My guess is one idiot thought it’d be funny, convinced a few more, and pressured the rest. “It’s just a prank bro” or somesuch.
That the coach didn’t put an immediate stop to it is definitely an issue.
I find it hard to believe every player was ok with it. How many kids do you think were told “No, no, no, we are calling Not Z. Using Nazi would be wrong.”
I'm not sure, but I'd have to think that if the kids were told that and believed it, theyre either super incurious or not very bright. I would think that even the slowest among us that isn't a shit head would be able to see that 'not z' and 'nazi' are too close to use without being misunderstood and assumed to be a shit head by using that.
I think you may be right if the kids were younger.
My father was in the RAF in WWII. He was literally bombed by the Germans.
We moved to the States when I was six and I started school here in 1969. In second or third grade some friends and I learned how to draw swastikas. We sorta maybe knew they were the emblem of the German military, but beyond that we were ignorant. I got out my crayons and drew them in many colors all over my school notebook.
I took that notebook home to show my parents this cool thing I had learned. Neither of them said a thing, but my mother bought me a brand new notebook.
I look back on that with so much shame. Even without knowing the depth of meaning to that symbol, I had not put together that this was the symbol of a military that had done its best to kill my father, his family, and had succeeded in killing thousands and thousands of his countrymen.
Now, knowing full-well what that symbol means, the shame is deeper.
All that said, I was eight or nine so my ignorance might be excusable. I’m unsure that it is for high schoolers.
I think the biggest thing isn't even your age. It's that when you realized it was wrong and why, you changed. These kids obviously knew better because the school had received this type of bullying before and the kids keep using hate speech after being told not to.
You might be shocked to find out that when this kind of thing is brought to attention the people involved have been doing the same hateful stuff for years prior. They are never caught the first time.
It’s a high school football team, years ago at least half the kids weren’t on it. Or is it acceptable now to deem the entire area the school is from as all racists?
A football team can have terrible behavior for years while there is turnover in the same way that any group can. The new players are influenced by the older students as they come in in addition to the coaches, frequently filtering out the ones who don't want to conform to a culture of racism.
Although I didn't say it, the community where the school is located being racist would be consistent with their high school football team exhibiting racism on the field. It isn't like high school kids and coaches and those that attend the game aren't part of the community.
That of course isn't to say every single person in the community is racist, but those that are participating or watching high school football and are letting this behavior happen are racists or at the minimum complicit.
I wonder if you'd have the same opinion if the opposing team was black and the team in question were shouting plays using KKK or confederate shit.
They clearly are a racist team, considering the article explicitly states that players kept being racist little shits after they stopped using the Nazi call:
However, several Brooklyn players continued to direct racial slurs at Beachwood players during the game, the statement read.
Clearly those players just wanted to have fun saying inappropriate things and are just trying to be inflammatory /s
A good way to get them to understand that that shit is not funny is to punish them for it. Maybe make all of them do reports in the Holocaust and/or visit a synagogue.
Also, it’s generally the coaching staff that makes the play calls.
Even though I am a stanch proponent of eliminating CEOs as a ruling class.
If you cheer on the killer before getting the whole picture, then you and me ain't friends.
The Suspect pleaded guilty to a first-degree sex offense charge in 2015, and was sentenced to 30 years in prison with all but 14 years suspended. Denied parole, he was released in October 2022 on good-time credits, according to parole commission Chairman David R. Blumberg. According to court records, The Suspect previously pleaded guilty to first-degree assault in December 2009 and second-degree assault in June 2011
he was released on Oct. 5, 2022 and is listed as “non-compliant,” though it was unclear why.
“This individual will kill and he will rape,”
Only reason this is getting attention is because the person killed was a CEO. Though, this is also another case of the law letting a dangerous criminal out early for good behavior, when he was clearly not being his best self.
It was a company of 30 people, not some massive corporation. I think it’s important to differentiate between small companies and huge, faceless conglomerates.
Aw, here I was ready to make a joke and the truth of the story was a bummer. Thanks for pointing this out ASAP.
That said, I’ll be standing by for when there’s a story “CEO who earned a fortune in blood diamonds and animal cruelty accidentally commits suicide when strangling self during masturbation.”
Noticing a lot of people on Lemmy scoffing at this development, which I suppose is their right. But you know what? I see this as a real win; Trump Org no longer being able to operate in NY is a big fucking deal.
Yes, he’ll likely make up the difference through donations from his rabid base. No, they won’t know about it because the right wing disinfo machine won’t tell them.
So what? It’s a fucking win, nonetheless. It ain’t shooting him and his ill gotten gains into the sun, but it is very well the first of a series of deathblows.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good, and all that.
It’s the start of accountability (at to least some degree) and it should definitely be celebrated imo. I feel like the people dismissing it are the same people complaining that trump needs to be held accountable. This is a good start!
I get it though. I want to see him barred from running for president for insurrecting and in cuffs and a jumpsuit for his myriad crimes about as much as anyone. However, if that means death by 1000 cuts rather than an immediate removal from society, I’ll take it.
One thing worth noting is it is easier to fire something out of the solar system than it is to fire it into the Sun. In fact firing something into the Sun might actually be impossible with our current technology!
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.