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

  • Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am not a lawyer. So everything I say could be wrong and every state is different but generally I think there’s a five point test for claims of self defense: Avoidance, Innocence, Imminence, Proportionality, and Reasonableness.

    Avoidance is moot because I think this is Virginia and I think they have a no-retreat provision. Innocence is just that you didn’t willingly engage in a fight that got out of control. So that applies. Imminence applies because it happened in the moment. I just don’t see how Proportionality applies here. I just don’t see how holding a cell phone is proportional to a shooting. Emotionally I get it that the YouTuber is a major jerkwad and may have deserved a comeuppance. But I don’t think the jury followed the law.

    I’m not a lawyer. Everything I said there could be wrong

    • Can_you_change_your_username@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I kinda waver on reasonableness for cases like this but I generally think using a weapon against an unarmed aggressor is reasonable when there is a significant size disparity or a disability or something like that. In this case the “prankster” was significantly larger and had a group of friends with him so I don’t think it’s out of the question that the use of a gun for defense is reasonable in this situation.

    • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the defendant has been carrying a less lethal self defense measure, such as a taser, mace, or a baton, and had used that to defend himself, would you see that as more proportional?