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

  • @Candelestine
    link
    English
    31 year ago

    That an assumption that any putative aggressor actually is unarmed is flawed. That is not determinable in a short span of time, and an inappropriate assumption for a person to make.

    And yes, there will probably be a civil suit.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
      link
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s flawed because it’s possible it’s wrong.

      You don’t get to kill based on mere possibility. And you would not like living in a world where you could.

      The patron had plenty of room to retreat. Plenty of time to give a better warning, such as “stop or I’ll fucking kill you.” If a person keeps coming after that sort of warning, that’s a fact from which the inference a threat to life is more reasonable; a person with no fear of death.

      This dude had a phone in his hands. Didn’t take a swing at the guy. Didn’t persist with no apparent fear of death. The patron pulled out the gun and fired instantly after merely saying “stop” three times.

      I accept the jury was in the best position to decide the facts and apply the law. The dude was charged, stood trial, and was only partially aquitted. I rest my case.

      • @Candelestine
        link
        English
        21 year ago

        Possibility is irrelevant. Their instruction is to find beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all conceivable doubt. These would be two different things.