Jury Finds Man Not Guilty After Shooting YouTube Prankster

[MechAg94]

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/09/jury-finds-man-not-guilty-after-shooting-youtube-prankster/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)

Hard to describe what they were doing in just a few lines.  The prankster and a number of friends were getting in his face and preventing him from leaving.  Of course the prosecutor didn't charge any of them.  There is still an illegal discharge of a firearm charge which the jury found him guilty.  There is a possibility that might get thrown out since they found him not guilty via self defense. 

What is the law that would apply to illegally detaining someone? 

[HankB]

Read that story too. If the account is accurate, the mob upgraded themselves from "nuisance" to "menace" when they prevented his departure three times.

[Ben]

I won't go so far as to say this guy needs killing, but he definitely needs a beat down every time he pulls one of these "pranks" until he gives them up.

As to the victim, I don't understand the not guilty of all the other charges except the firing the gun in the building. If he had reason to shoot in self-defense, as the jury apparently found, then you kinda have to shoot the gun to shoot the gun, yeah?

[Pb]

I agree with Ben.

[zxcvbob]

I won't go so far as to say this guy needs killing, but he definitely needs a beat down every time he pulls one of these "pranks" until he gives them up.

As to the victim, I don't understand the not guilty of all the other charges except the firing the gun in the building. If he had reason to shoot in self-defense, as the jury apparently found, then you kinda have to shoot the gun to shoot the gun, yeah?

I'll chalk that up to poor jury instructions by the judge.  The judge will pretty much have to throw out the firearm conviction (or an appeals court will.)  But it appears to me that the judge is pissed that the jury found him not guilty because she's not going to rule on the motion to set aside the verdict until next month, meanwhile the hero here sits in jail.

[dogmush]

From the article:

Cook is known to police and the surrounding community for his “pranks” that many consider harassment. He has told women that someone was following them and then had a friend stalk them through a parking lot late at night. In another incident, Cook pretended to throw up on an Uber driver.

That is a REALLY good way to get shot, maced, run over, or beaten to death by the male friends the woman calls.

Also from the article:

For his part, Cook is still making YouTube “prank” videos and has no plans to stop.

Next guy needs to aim higher I guess.

[Hawkmoon]

What is the law that would apply to illegally detaining someone?

False arrest. Kidnapping. False imprisonment.

Depends on the laws in the jurisdiction. I'm sure there are multiple charges available anywhere in the U.S. If they touched him, that's aggravated assault.

[JTHunter]

I won't go so far as to say this guy needs killing, but he definitely needs a beat down every time he pulls one of these "pranks" until he gives them up.

As to the victim, I don't understand the not guilty of all the other charges except the firing the gun in the building. If he had reason to shoot in self-defense, as the jury apparently found, then you kinda have to shoot the gun to shoot the gun, yeah?

I agree with both Ben and Pb.  After all, they were preventing their victim's retreat three separate times AND there was a "disparity of force" in that there were multiple "assistants" for the prankster.
The judge needs to be overruled as well. 

[zxcvbob]

I agree with both Ben and Pb.  After all, they were preventing their victim's retreat three separate times AND there was a "disparity of force" in that there were multiple "assistants" for the prankster.
The judge needs to be overruled as well. 

The jury probably had to find him guilty of *something* in order to reach a unanimous decision.  They found him guilty of the least charge that was available, and the one that the judge should have set aside immediately.  But she wants an innocent man to sit in jail for another month first, if she dismisses it at all.  IMHO even the prosecutor should have spoke up at that point in his defense.

[Bogie]

After watching one of burb boy's works of art, I'm mostly just disturbed that it was not lethal force.

[230RN]

I've watched a couple of those prankster programs just to gauge how stupid my fellow man can be.

With some of them I have to wonder if the prankee's cognitive evaluation that "this is a joke" would be faster than their "draw/shoot" reactions.

Sammy Davis Jr. was a fast draw pistolero, and I'm thinking of what might happen if a legally-armed victim with his reaction time got pranked.

[HankB]

I've watched a couple of those prankster programs just to gauge how stupid my fellow man can be.

With some of them I have to wonder if the prankee's cognitive evaluation that "this is a joke" be faster than their "draw/shoot" reactions.

Sammy Davis Jr. was a fast draw pistolero, and I'm thinking of what might happen if a legally-armed victim with his reaction time got pranked.

I'm sure most of the prank shows - particularly those on TV - are carefully rehearsed and scripted; I've seen more than one where I thought that if it was real, SOMEONE - most likely the prankster - would get hurt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IltP3la77EU

It sounds like some "new" pranksters are crossing the line for real.