More gunz will fix this.

It doesn't describe the prank that caused the incident; a long walk down a windy beach to a closed café.

Pranking strangers can be disguised bullying, where only the joker had any fun over their victim's confusion or distress.

Look mom the funny results: one man with health issues, another in jail -probably with mental issues- with a convicted felon future.

Given that the "prank" was not described, it could very well fall within the boundaries of assault. If so, Virginia does support the use of deadly force under their version of a "stand your ground" law which does not have a duty to retreat.

So, it seems this jackass learned a valuable lesson: don't fuck with random strangers and you won't get shot as a direct result of your stupidity.

Clearly , gun laws are out of control, they need to make it mandatory for unstable people to carry guns, and to fire them in random directions once a week. Its the only way we can hope to keep the bad guys with guns in check.

Also that prankster, man that face is quite the fist magnet.

BicycleRepairMan wrote on Apr 4, 2023, 23:34:
Clearly , gun laws are out of control, they need to make it mandatory for unstable people to carry guns, and to fire them in random directions once a week. Its the only way we can hope to keep the bad guys with guns in check.

Also that prankster, man that face is quite the fist magnet.

Some of the "pranks" that explosive poodle did listed
“Taking people’s groceries”
“Stealing Beds from Mattress Stores”
“Aggressively Sniffing in People’s Ears”
“Breaking Store Items (actually merchandise) in Front of Workers”
“Fake Vomiting on Uber Drivers”
“Fake Mall Security”

Most of the shit I see on his youtube channel is flat out assault and/or harassment

eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 04:01:

BicycleRepairMan wrote on Apr 4, 2023, 23:34:
Clearly , gun laws are out of control, they need to make it mandatory for unstable people to carry guns, and to fire them in random directions once a week. Its the only way we can hope to keep the bad guys with guns in check.

Also that prankster, man that face is quite the fist magnet.

Some of the "pranks" that explosive poodle did listed
“Taking people’s groceries”
“Stealing Beds from Mattress Stores”
“Aggressively Sniffing in People’s Ears”
“Breaking Store Items (actually merchandise) in Front of Workers”
“Fake Vomiting on Uber Drivers”
“Fake Mall Security”

Most of the shit I see on his youtube channel is flat out assault and/or harassment

Ooof! He was pulling that stuff as pranks? While in the US? It’s a wonder it took this long for him to get shot.

Interesting how the article doesn't describe the "prank." Or the assailant, for that matter. In today's atmosphere, with crazies and muggers running wild, it's no time to be "pranking" people you don't know. Maybe the whole thing is a "prank"--a publicity stunt. Very poorly written article, imo.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Apr 4, 2023, 21:55:
If so, Virginia does support the use of deadly force under their version of a "stand your ground" law which does not have a duty to retreat.

I read this as: Don't ever move to the United States, Virginia in particular.

VaranDragon wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 09:23:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Apr 4, 2023, 21:55:
If so, Virginia does support the use of deadly force under their version of a "stand your ground" law which does not have a duty to retreat.

I read this as: Don't ever move to the United States, Virginia in particular.

What part of “More gunz will fix this” don’t you understand.

The shooter, who was proudly practicing his Second Amendment rights, was arrested and booked on counts of aggravated malicious wounding, shooting in the commission of a felony, and discharging a firearm within an occupied building.

Can you imagine the faux outrage if the guy had been a TikTok’er instead of a YouTuber with less than 100k subscribers.

VaranDragon wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 09:23:
I read this as: Don't ever move to the United States, Virginia in particular.

If you think that's bad, try getting a speeding ticket in Virginia.

ZeroPike1 wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 06:05:

eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 04:01:

BicycleRepairMan wrote on Apr 4, 2023, 23:34:
Clearly , gun laws are out of control, they need to make it mandatory for unstable people to carry guns, and to fire them in random directions once a week. Its the only way we can hope to keep the bad guys with guns in check.

Also that prankster, man that face is quite the fist magnet.

Some of the "pranks" that explosive poodle did listed
“Taking people’s groceries”
“Stealing Beds from Mattress Stores”
“Aggressively Sniffing in People’s Ears”
“Breaking Store Items (actually merchandise) in Front of Workers”
“Fake Vomiting on Uber Drivers”
“Fake Mall Security”

Most of the shit I see on his youtube channel is flat out assault and/or harassment

Ooof! He was pulling that stuff as pranks? While in the US? It’s a wonder it took this long for him to get shot.

Yep, and hundred year old saying still applies - Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

VaranDragon wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 09:23:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Apr 4, 2023, 21:55:
If so, Virginia does support the use of deadly force under their version of a "stand your ground" law which does not have a duty to retreat.

I read this as: Don't ever move to the United States, Virginia in particular.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I wouldn't single out Virginia. 27 states currently have "stand your ground" laws on the books. Another 14 have "duty to retreat" laws on the books. However, even those 14 recognize that after you have retreated, and the threat is still forthcoming, you have the legal right to defend yourself up to and including lethal force.

As was pointed out upthread, some of the "pranks" this jackass decided to participate in would qualify as assault under the laws of the majority of those 27 states.

However, there is a very simple solution to this particular problem. Don't bother people. This jackass fucked around and found out.

Being arrested and charged is not the same as being convicted, of course. If the defendant has a competent attorney, they will cherry pick the videos that "prankster" posted of their own volition to show a history and pattern of previous assaults and argue that there was no way that the defendant could have known, or should have known, that he would not assault the defendant.

I am also not saying I would have shot the jackass. However, I am very much pro "leave people the fuck alone".

Burrito of Peace wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 10:31:

I am also not saying I would have shot the jackass. However, I am very much pro "leave people the fuck alone".

I'm assuming that means to subway crazies, right?
I think I know the answer for you, but I get a bit frustrated any time there's video of a crazy on the NYC Subway shouting racist things, or playing music loudly, or laying across multiple seats during rush hour, or whathaveyou, and everyone is all "why aren't the cowards saying anything or telling him to stop?!" For the most part, because we know that they're mentally ill due to their actions, or looking for a fight, or both, and it's easier to just keep your eyes forward than be a hero and get punched and/or stabbed. Unless the person is an immediate threat to someone, just eyes forward.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 10:31:
However, there is a very simple solution to this particular problem. Don't bother people. This jackass fucked around and found out.

That is a simple solution, but not an entirely effective one.

Last December, a maintenance worker named Cesar Montelongo was checking on frozen pipes at an apartment complex in Texas when he was shot through a window by a resident who mistook him for a burglar. The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide. I couldn't find any info on what happened with the case after that. Maybe the resident faced justice, maybe not. But when so many people have guns and feel empowered to use them in this way, innocent people die as a result. I imagine most of those deaths don't make the news.

Beamer wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 10:56:
I'm assuming that means to subway crazies, right?
I think I know the answer for you, but I get a bit frustrated any time there's video of a crazy on the NYC Subway shouting racist things, or playing music loudly, or laying across multiple seats during rush hour, or whathaveyou, and everyone is all "why aren't the cowards saying anything or telling him to stop?!" For the most part, because we know that they're mentally ill due to their actions, or looking for a fight, or both, and it's easier to just keep your eyes forward than be a hero and get punched and/or stabbed. Unless the person is an immediate threat to someone, just eyes forward.

You are correct, though I've never had the pleasure of witnessing the spectacle of NY subway crazies. The couple of times I was there, I never took the subway.

For me, the line is very clear. You, as an individual, have the natural right to defend yourself, your family, and your property up to and including lethal force if justified and if, and only if, you are under direct, immediate threat. However, you do not have the right to go on the offensive of your own volition. That falls in to "leave people the fuck alone". Yes, even if they are being annoying on the subway.

Tom wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 11:06:
Last December, a maintenance worker named Cesar Montelongo was checking on frozen pipes at an apartment complex in Texas when he was shot through a window by a resident who mistook him for a burglar. The medical examiner ruled the death a homicide. I couldn't find any info on what happened with the case after that. Maybe the resident faced justice, maybe not. But when so many people have guns and feel empowered to use them in this way, innocent people die as a result. I imagine most of those deaths don't make the news.

Read my above reply to Beamer. Personally, I would state that Castle Doctrine would not apply in that situation and that the individual who shot Montelongo, Sr. should face charges and prosecution. There was no direct, immediate threat to the resident and they were not defending themselves, their family, or their property as Montelongo Sr. was not within the interior confines of their apartment. Moreover, he was comporting his professional duties as the notification sent to all residents identified him as coming around to do.

I am guessing there is no further information about that incident in Grand Prairie because it has yet to go to trial.

I am a cynical, realistic pragmatist. I live in a country that has a culture drenched to the core in paranoia and violence. It is up to me to recognize that, understand that, and comport myself accordingly. I don't live my life in fear that I am going to be shot. Pearl clutching and panty bunching isn't going to change that. The "gun debate" is over. It doesn't matter what I want to believe or how I would like things to be. I must deal with the situation as it exists.

Being pragmatic, there are key points I know:

+ There are more firearms in the US than people.
+ The Supreme Court has shown a willingness and ability to rule that any state level constriction (not restriction) of the Second Amendment violates said Amendment and is unconstitutional.
+ Most of my fellow countrymen are fearful idiots.
+ There is a pervasive and ongoing campaign to propagate and continue class division and set people against one another. This brings with it a great many stressors which causes people to resort to their more primal "fight or flight" instinct much more rapidly than at previous points in history.
+ That confiscation is a non-starter and would be the death knell of any party that tried it, let alone a single politician that would attempt it, as it would be a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
+ That attempting to force registration would see an immediate legal challenge as a violation, in part, of both the Second and Fourth Amendments and would take decades to work out, if ever.

Ideally, if we as a country wanted to change, we would need to pass and ratify another Amendment that would limit and modernize the Second Amendment. However, that requires 2/3 of the states to ratify and that isn't going to happen. Certainly not in my lifetime.

Invariably in discussions such as this, someone will, with bright eyed ideology and ignorance, bring up examples of other countries. They fail to realize that those other countries do not share the same cultural background as the United States nor its legal framework. They usually bring up New Zealand and/or Australia. They also fail to realize that those countries had populations who as a whole were either amenable or indifferent to codified restrictions. That population does exist not within the United States. A significant portion of the population, and corporations and politicians, would fight any such restrictions tooth and nail for a variety of reasons.

If I understand your argument correctly, changing the law is pretty much impossible so the majority of Americans who want change should just shut up and accept that innocent people need to continue to die in this country to protect the profits of gun manufacturers and fearmongers. Is that right?

Tom wrote on Apr 5, 2023, 12:32:
If I understand your argument correctly, changing the law is pretty much impossible so the majority of Americans who want change should just shut up and accept that innocent people need to continue to die in this country to protect the profits of gun manufacturers and fearmongers. Is that right?

No. I don't have an argument, I have an understanding of how my country is in situ.

I am not arguing against trying, I am pointing out the extreme legal and cultural challenges that any person or group is going to face and the very high likelihood of failure.

You are looking at this emotionally. Case in point, word usage like "innocent" and "fearmongers".

I am not. You can't emote your way to getting an opposing party to come over to your side or, at the very least, compromise. You need to give them a valid reason that serves their own self-interest to do so.

Right now, as the culture and legal framework sits, I don't see a way that the people screaming "BAN ALL TEH GUNZ AND TAKE THEM AWAY" have to appeal to the self-interest of those screaming "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS! IT'S MUH RIGHTZ!"

You're right, I am looking at this emotionally. I should stop that. There are cold and calculating ways to go about solving this.

Thanks for the inspiration!