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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    9
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is such a bad ruling. Not only does that jackass get off with no punishment he is even being rewarded for his crimes! Setting the precedence for other pranksters to assault people more and more, and when they fuck around and find out, all they’ll be finding is more viewers and more money.

    Should dude had shot him? Thats not my place to say, but if he did indeed feel threatened, which the jury agreed, then he should not be punished for reacting to being assaulted like this.

    Its like some people online want the victim to get in trouble for simply owning and carrying a gun, its ridiculous! The victim was being assualted full stop! Not his fault for using what his legally own gun is meant for.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️
      link
      fedilink
      English
      18
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Uh… the guy who shot the YouTuber isn’t being punished; they found him not guilty. The YouTuber isn’t being punished because this case wasn’t about his actions, it was about the dude who shot him. He’s not being rewarded, though.

      The only weird part about the ruling is the jury wants to convict on the “gun charges” (that’s what the article referenced, doesn’t say what that means) but acquitted him on the shooting.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        131 year ago

        The victim is being punished! He is recieving a felony for protecting himself just because it took place in a building. And that dumb youtuber was rewarded by having his followers almost double after the fact, which equates to more money, while the victim is sitting in jail.

      • athos77
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        The only weird part about the ruling is the jury wants to convict on the “gun charges” (that’s what the article referenced, doesn’t say what that means) but acquitted him on the shooting.

        The original three charges (I don’t know if any were modified later) were “aggravated malicious wounding, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and discharging a firearm within a building”. In Virginia, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony acts as a multiplier charge for malicious wounding. My guess is that he was acquitted of malicious wounding and use of a firearm in commission of a felony, and convicted of discharging a firearm inside a building.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -11 year ago

      This is such a bad ruling.

      It’s not a ruling. That’s what judges do. This was a verdict, which is returned by a jury.