back to article Web prank horror: Man shot dead while pretending to rob someone at knife-point for a YouTube video

Nashville Metropolitan Police in Tennessee said on Saturday that detectives are investigating the shooting death of Timothy Wilks, 20. The incident occurred during the filming of a video for the internet in the parking lot of Urban Air Trampoline and Adventure Park, a family entertainment business. The police in a statement …

  1. sreynolds

    This is why they should be banned.

    Video sharing sites like youtube, of course. Gun's don't kill people.People kill people. Sheesh.

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: This is why they should be banned.

      Careful or you will get flamed for breaking Poe's law.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: This is why they should be banned.

        "Poe's law" is not really a law, it's an adage. You can't break an adage, all you can do is demonstrate it.

        1. sreynolds

          Re: This is why they should be banned.

          Sorry, I was too busy shaving with Occam's razor. Pfff, bring on the flames. I say there are two kinds of people in this world, those that say there are two kinds of people in this world and the others.

          1. Michael

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            I always believed that there were 10 types of people in the world too. Those that understand binary and those that don't.

            1. KittenHuffer Silver badge

              Re: This is why they should be banned.

              I thought there were three kinds of people in this world. Those that can count, and those that can't!

              1. KittenHuffer Silver badge

                Re: This is why they should be banned.

                There are also two kinds of people in this world. Those that can extrapolate from incomplete information.

                1. KittenHuffer Silver badge

                  Re: This is why they should be banned.

                  There are certainly two types of commentard in this forum. Those that will reply to their own posts, and those that have yet to.

                2. Tim 11

                  Re: This is why they should be banned.

                  There's only one type of person in this world - the ones that think there are 2 types of people in the world. They're all wrong.

                  1. Symon Silver badge
                    Coat

                    Re: This is why they should be banned.

                    Well, back to the story, "There are two kinds of people in this world. Those with loaded guns and those who dig."

                    https://youtu.be/s2w9X_tHU7k

              2. RegGuy1 Silver badge

                Re: This is why they should be banned.

                BTW, a girl I know once told me that she loves double entendres, so I gave her one.

            2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

              Re: This is why they should be banned.

              There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-1 errors

            3. Billy Whiz
              Happy

              Re: This is why they should be banned.

              Actually there are 11 types of people in the world. Those who understand Gray code and those who don't

            4. JJKing
              Coat

              Re: This is why they should be banned.

              Actually there are 11. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who don't bloody care.

        2. The Aussie Paradox

          Re: This is why they should be banned.

          Should be be "Poes' Razor" then?

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            "Should be be "Poes' Razor" then?"

            Does it come with its own pit?

            1. Haynomonous

              Re: This is why they should be banned.

              Be still, my beating heart.

            2. Mooseman Silver badge

              Re: This is why they should be banned.

              "Does it come with its own pit?"

              It used to, but nevermore....

        3. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    2. iron Silver badge

      Re: This is why they should be banned.

      Because you really need to take your gun with you to an Urban Air Trampoline and Adventure Park! WTF? Not to defend the YouTube idiots but why take your gun to a trampoline park? Expecting to fight some pinko Democrat commies in the queue for the bouncy castle?

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: This is why they should be banned.

        I think the Second Amendment specifically mentions trampolines when discussing the need for militias…

      2. David Neil

        Re: This is why they should be banned.

        Playing devils advocate, but maybe he was worried abut some tit with a knife trying to rob him?

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. AdamWill

          Re: This is why they should be banned.

          Yeah, I mean, you can both believe that access to guns should be more restricted *and* recognize that, while it *isn't*, it's probably a bad idea to go around with real knives "prank" robbing people...

          1. rcxb Silver badge

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            it's probably a bad idea to go around with real knives "prank" robbing people

            True whether guns are restricted, or not... The guy carrying a tire iron will end you almost as quickly as one carrying a gun.

            1. veti Silver badge

              Re: This is why they should be banned.

              Number of homicides using handguns in the USA in 2019: 6368.

              Number using blunt objects: 397.

              Source. You're welcome.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: This is why they should be banned.

                Number of homicides using handguns in the USA in 2019: 6368. Number using blunt objects: 397.

                Not exactly. The number of homicides using handguns is AT LEAST 6368. Could be as high as 9331, but probably somewhat less than the higher figure.

                I'm a left pondian, thought it sounded low. Oh, and, you're welcome.

                Handguns are by far the most common murder weapon used in the United States, accounting for 6,368 homicides in 2019. This is followed by firearms of an unstated type, with 2,963 cases in that year. When combined, murders with guns comprised around 73.6 percent of the 13,927 total homicide victims recorded by the FBI in 2019.

                1. RegGuy1 Silver badge

                  Re: This is why they should be banned.

                  accounting for AT LEAST 6,368 homicides in 2019.

                  TFTFY -- you're welcome

              2. zuckzuckgo Bronze badge

                Re: This is why they should be banned.

                I think the guys faking the robbery could be considered as blunt objects.

              3. rcxb Silver badge

                Re: This is why they should be banned.

                We've established that guns are common in the US, and so are expected to account for a large number of deaths. If they weren't, it isn't likely the homicide rate would go down much.

                Certainly, Canadians have plenty of guns, but they are just as happy to stab you as shoot you:

                https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-gun-facts-crime-accidental-shootings-suicides-1.4803378

      3. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: This is why they should be banned.

        @iron

        "Not to defend the YouTube idiots but why take your gun to a trampoline park?"

        While it is saddening to hear how hard some people will work for a Darwin award this incident shows the not always realised positives of carrying for protection. In this case it was a prank, yet look at what they achieved-

        Carrying weapons, to threaten a group of people, with the stated aim of robbing them (although its a prank). Had this not been a prank this would have been a real self defence of a serious situation.

        1. PghMike

          Re: This is why they should be banned.

          Well, you can call it a prank, but the idiots did commit assault with knives (using the legal definition of assault: "putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact"). The difference between a prank and a robbery was unobservable to the victims, which is why one of the pranksters is dead.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            @PghMike

            "The difference between a prank and a robbery was unobservable to the victims, which is why one of the pranksters is dead."

            I totally agree.

        2. ShadowDragon8685

          Re: This is why they should be banned.

          It *was* a self-defense situation.

          Asshole and his homeboy decided to violently victimize some folk here. That their intention was psychological violence using the perceived threat of physical violence, and their intended profit factor was YouTube views rather than the money of their victims, are largely secondary concerns.

          The victim in this case entirely-properly drew a firearm carried for self-defense and used it for that purpose. He had no way of knowing that the attacker's intended goal was not to bestow physical harm upon him, as he had every reason to believe that was the case.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            @ShadowDragon8685

            "It *was* a self-defense situation."

            I think my comment is misunderstood. Hell yeah the guy did the right thing. While it actually turned out to be a prank, in the situation the victim (gunman) had no way of knowing and protected himself, his friends and the people around. This was a self defence situation and in no way am I trying to say otherwise.

            1. ShadowDragon8685

              Re: This is why they should be banned.

              Yeah, it seems your comment was misunderstood - but it was easy to read in the way that "as the YouTuber did not intend physical violence, this was not a real self-defense situation." But yeah, I gotcha now.

      4. sed gawk Silver badge

        Re: This is why they should be banned.

        Because you live in the kind of country where armed nutters break into government buildings.

        Because you live in the kind of country where armed nutters "prank" the public, which totally had some safety constraint, and had no danger to the intended victim.

        1. not.known@this.address Silver badge

          Re: This is why they should be banned.

          "...no danger to the intended victim."

          And the intended victim would know this how, exactly? I see someone coming at me with a knife, I don't think "Oh, he's making a youTube video, how nice", I think "How can I stop this criminal threatening me with a deadly weapon before kills me?"

          Or is it legal to go around waving lethal weapons at random strangers in public places where you live?

          1. sed gawk Silver badge

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            poe's adage strikes again.

          2. very angry man

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            In Australia it is NOT legal to defend yourself and would be charged by police upon arrival.

            1. ShadowDragon8685

              Re: This is why they should be banned.

              Then Australia is a shitty place to live.

            2. MonkeyCee

              Re: This is why they should be banned.

              Is this a particular state in Oz?

              s 10.4(2) of the Criminal Code 1994 (Cth):

              A person carries out conduct in self-defence if, and only if, he or she believes the conduct is necessary:

              to defend himself or herself or another person; or

              to prevent or terminate the unlawful imprisonment of himself or herself or another person; or

              to protect property from unlawful appropriation, destruction, damage or interference; or

              to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises; or

              to remove from any land or premises a person who is committing criminal trespass.

        2. Jeffrey Nonken

          Re: This is why they should be banned.

          "Because you live in the kind of country where..."

          But nobody else will take me. I bet England wouldn't even let me in. Also, I don't speak the language.

          1. sed gawk Silver badge

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            I'm on the side of the shooter, If I lived in a place with lots of nutters with easy access to weaponry, I think it would be prudent to have a nice big dog at home, and acquire a gun permit and some target practise.

            .

            Sorry but I'm a fan of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress solution to people with poor manners.

      5. not.known@this.address Silver badge

        Re: This is why they should be banned.

        "Why take your gun to a trampoline park?"

        Because your job requires it? Maybe the group of "normal" citizens these clowns approached were VIPs out for a relaxing time at the local park, or maybe someone had made threats against them?

        Pranking your friends is one thing, pranking anyone else like that is stupid. What if one of the "targets" had a heart attack? Would you accept "Oh it's a shame they died, we was just having a laugh" as a valid defence, if you were on the jury?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: This is why they should be banned.

          I went to visit friends a while back. Alice was in her kitchen, and told me Bob was in his shed. I eyed some firework bangers of Bob's in their kitchen, and asked Alice about Bob's sense of humour - would he take it in good spirit if I took one of his bangers and let it off just outside his shed. She confirmed my instinct that any grown man in possession of bangers is fair game for having bangers set off near him without warning.

          I looked through the window to make sure he wasn't balanced on a chair changing a lightbulb ( or similar), lit the banger and waited for his reaction. Disappointingly he merely looked a bit bemused and walked towards his fuse box.

          1. ShadowDragon8685

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            So what you're saying is you could've let one off to draw him to the fuse box, then lit the entire string off in sequence under the fuse-box to make him brown his trousers and think his house just survived the mother of all electrical surges?

      6. Imhotep Silver badge

        Re: This is why they should be banned.

        In this case to protect yourself from knife wielding robbers.

      7. Joe 59

        Re: This is why they should be banned.

        It's none of your business why someone chooses to exercise a civil right. You don't get to question their motivation, just because you lack imagination, doesn't mean they have no reason to carry. The 2nd amendment is called that in the United States, but it's a civil right that all people have, even if their current government denies it.

        If someone approaches you with a knife, it's entirely reasonable to assume you are going to die from stab wounds. If TWO people approach you with knives, you must assume evil intent and defend yourself and those around you who are not capable of defense or retreat. That is your moral obligation. Failing to do so, which you obviously would, is your problem to solve, or suffer the consequences. Even with a handgun, a knife is a deadly weapon, and even shooting the assailant is no guarantee against bleeding to death.

        1. cNova

          Re: This is why they should be banned.

          So you're saying if one were to see Gordon Ramsay with a knife, it would be their moral obligation to shoot him?

          1. Qumefox

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            If I see Gordon Ramsay charging at me with a knife in a parking lot, i'm damn well going to shoot him.

          2. WolfFan Silver badge

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            Yes, before he perpetuates another culinary crime against humanity.

          3. ShadowDragon8685

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            Fuck yes!

            That man knows HOW to handle a goddamn knife. If he's aggressively wielding one in my direction, I must assume my life is forfeit in the next five seconds unless I END him in the next FOUR!

            An automatic combat shotgun would not be an inappropriate escalation to a professional chef or butcher wielding cutlery and apparently having decided to cut you apart.

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: This is why they should be banned.

              Because as we all know, everybody has an automatic combat shotgun light enough for every day carry at hand just in case of an odd-ball, once in a lifetime emergency.

              1. Symon Silver badge
                Terminator

                Re: This is why they should be banned.

                Maybe use a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range?

                1. ShadowDragon8685

                  Re: This is why they should be banned.

                  A "phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range" might tickle someone a little.

                  If I had a disruptor pistol or something, though, again, it would not be an inappropriate amount of force to use to stop a professional chef or butcher coming at you with murderous intent or the appearance thereof.

              2. Sherrie Ludwig

                Re: This is why they should be banned.

                Because as we all know, everybody has an automatic combat shotgun light enough for every day carry at hand just in case of an odd-ball, once in a lifetime emergency.

                Well, yes, in the USA I have seen people toting them in the supermarket. I think it's looney, and I laugh at them, but in this case, it was useful. Sort of like we all might look askance at a guy toting an oversized teddy bear around for his comfort (really, these oversized guns are the same thing). but in confronting a knife-wielding attacker, the teddy would be great as a shield.

                1. jake Silver badge

                  Re: This is why they should be banned.

                  No, you have not seen that, for the simple reason that such a tool doesn't exist. "Automatic combat shotguns" cannot be made light enough and small enough for everyday carry.

              3. ShadowDragon8685

                Re: This is why they should be banned.

                I didn't say the prospective victim of the aggrieved cutlery professional HAD an automatic combat shotgun to-hand, I just said that if they did, it would be an entirely appropriate amount of force to resort to.

          4. Sherrie Ludwig

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            So you're saying if one were to see Gordon Ramsay with a knife, it would be their moral obligation to shoot him?

            If he's waving it menacingly at me and my friends in a car park, and any weapon was at hand to defend us with, damn straight, that bloke's a seriously dangerous short fuse.

        2. ShadowDragon8685

          Re: This is why they should be banned.

          Point of pedantry: the assailants were armed with butcher's knives, which I take to mean cleavers, rather than chef's knives.

          The victims could have expected to die from CHOPPING wounds, not stabbing wounds.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            As a guy who butchers most of his own meat, I can assure you that I rarely, almost never, use a cleaver and do in fact often use a chef's knife.

            The victims probably could have expected both stabbing and slashing wounds, with the latter doing most of the damage. Butcher's knives are rarely heavy enough for chopping.

            My current favorite is a cheap and cheerful Victorinox Forschner Fibrox 8" Breaking Knife. Four of them, actually, so I always have a fresh edge. The chef's knife I use most often is the 8" version of the above knife, mostly for larger poultry, and a good set of shears. Smaller birds get the 6" chef's knife.

            I use a band saw where some people might use a cleaver when taking apart larger critters (chine bones, mostly).

            But whatever. It matters not. He brought a knife to a gun fight.

            1. ShadowDragon8685

              Re: This is why they should be banned.

              Ooooh. That does indeed look like a swanky piece of steel. For myself, I never paid much attention to the knife in my hand until I got my hand on a santoku. Thereafter I used it at every opportunity, even when it wasn't really the appropriate tool for the job - it just felt right to me. Sadly, it is not my knife but my cousin's, so the opportunity to use it is rare.

              Either way, the important part is that the article describes the knives being used as "butcher's knives." This is a news article, written by the same sort of person who breathlessly extols the menacing dangers of "bolt-action assault rifles!" So when they use the words "butcher's knife," we must presume they are writing for the lowest-common denominator rather than (a) having educated themselves on the wide variety of cutlery used by professional butchers, (b) thereafter going to the time and trouble of ascertaining exactly what make and model of knife the asshats were wielding when they brought their cutlery to a gunfight, and (c) thereafter providing specific but not specific-enough verbiage to the news-reading public, assuming that all and sundry will be intimately familiar with the wide wide world of cutlery.

              I think it's far more probably that, in the field of kitchen cutlery, they're going to narrow everything down to one of four options:

              The trope image of a butcher's cleaver, which everyone is familiar with from cartoons and movies, a big triangular chef's knife, which most folks will have in their kitchens, a steak knife and a butter knife, and will ascribe to any specific news article whichever of those is closest to the knife in question.

              Also, this was a prank gone wrong, so presumably the assailants had chosen the most memorable, flashy, attention-grabbing knives they could, which means probably the big butcher's cleavers familiar to everyone from those movies.

          2. Sherrie Ludwig

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            Point of pedantry: the assailants were armed with butcher's knives, which I take to mean cleavers, rather than chef's knives.

            The victims could have expected to die from CHOPPING wounds, not stabbing wounds.

            Point of pedantry - nope, what is colloquially called a butcher's knife is very different from a cleaver - it is technically a chef's knife, a long pointed knife with a stiff spine which could stab one - a la Michael Myers in the Halloween movie series.

      8. ShadowDragon8685

        Re: This is why they should be banned.

        I think this article is demonstration about exactly WHY he took a firearm to Urban Air Trampoline and Adventure Park:

        If he had not had a firearm, he would have been faced with the prospect of entering melee bare-handed against superior numbers of knife-wielding opponents.

        "God made Mankind: Samuel Colt made them equal."

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This is why they should be banned.

      Low and behold, the NRAhead among us... C'mon, loop the loop and tell us you need to carry a gun to defend yourself against the abuses of the State...

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: This is why they should be banned.

        Well if someone shot the guy doing the POTUS stunt we would be better off

        1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

          1. Mooseman Silver badge

            Re: This is why they should be banned.

            Still laughing at the idea that America has an "extreme left" in politics. You lot are so funny.

            You, Jake, are not, however. Care to justify your sexist, racist stance?

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: This is why they should be banned.

              If you think that there is no extreme left in American politics, you quite simply refuse to open your eyes to it. More fool you.

              Truth is not racist, nor is it sexist.

              However, it is quite cowardly (and evil!) to demand concepts that scare you be removed from the view of everybody. You're sliding down the wrong side of the slippery slope, Mooseman, becoming the very thing you decry.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: This is why they should be banned.

                If you think that there is no extreme left in American politics, you quite simply refuse to open your eyes to it. More fool you.

                Oh, puh-leeze, Bernie Sanders and AOC are BARELY left-centrist. The USA is a fascist "Proud boy"'s wet dream.

              2. Mooseman Silver badge

                Re: This is why they should be banned.

                "If you think that there is no extreme left in American politics, you quite simply refuse to open your eyes to it. More fool you."

                Can you give a single example of extreme left politics in the USA? Free healthcare and gun control do not count as "extreme left", by the way. I notice you are still refusing to justify your sexist and racist comments, relying instead on vague references about "removing things that scare you". Interesting and illuminating.

                1. Pirate Dave
                  Pirate

                  Re: This is why they should be banned.

                  "Free healthcare and gun control do not count as "extreme left", by the way. "

                  Just because YOU say they don't count, doesn't mean they don't count. They DO count. Very much so.

                  1. Mooseman Silver badge

                    Re: This is why they should be banned.

                    " They DO count. Very much so."

                    In what way DO they count as "extreme left" ? By your definition most of the rest of the world is "extreme left", then? In the UK we have very strict gun control and free at the point of service healthcare (until our current right wing, sorry, "extreme left" government sells it off), Germany has strict gun control and free at the piont of service healthcare, as do the Netherlands, France, Scandinavia, etc etc. All clearly hard left communists, right?

                    And no, we don't have rampant gun crime, we don't have the levels of general violent crime that you do in the US, and nobody is financially ruined in order to pay for their healthcare. But please, do explain how I'm wrong.

                    1. Pirate Dave
                      Pirate

                      Re: This is why they should be banned.

                      "By your definition most of the rest of the world is "extreme left", then?" Correct!

                      How are you wrong? Amazingly, the USA managed to survive for 230+ years with its citizens taking care of their own healthcare needs, before the government saw fit to take an even larger role in that. Not only survive, but thrive and grow to become one of the great world leaders. Oh, and all the while, owning nearly as many firearms as all of the world's armies combined, yet we somehow managed to not shoot ourselves out of existence. So no, none of your points are really valid, because I say so.

                      1. Mooseman Silver badge

                        Re: This is why they should be banned.

                        "the USA managed to survive for 230+ years with its citizens taking care of their own healthcare needs"

                        Yes, as did the rest of the world until we evolved past the point of having to merely survive, and decided to actually take care of our societies. You, however, are stuck in the mindset that taking care of others is somehow "communist" and are quite happy for people to die or go broke in order to fix medical issues that the rest of the planet manages to to deal with for free.

                        And you're proud of this, are you?

                        Firearms? Lots of countries have guns, not a single one of them outside the more lawless states in Africa and South America has a gun death rate approaching yours. There have been studies on the general levels of violent crime in the USA and equivalent countries in the West, and the USA comes first by quite a large margin (studies in the USA itself I might add). No other country has your obsession with guns, nor the apparent inability to handle them responsibly.

                        Grow up.

                        1. Pirate Dave
                          Pirate

                          Re: This is why they should be banned.

                          "You, however, are stuck in the mindset that taking care of others is somehow "communist""

                          Correct.

                          "Yes, as did the rest of the world until we evolved past the point of having to merely survive, and decided to actually take care of our societies. "

                          Bravo!

                          "happy for people to die or go broke in order to fix medical issues that the rest of the planet manages to to deal with for free."

                          Last I checked, we still had airplanes and ships that could take people who can't take care of their own shit to one of your Utopian countries where they can live the life of leisure and not burden the rest of us who are taking care of our own shit. Or they could learn how to take care of their own shit.

                          "And you're proud of this, are you?"

                          No, not at all. It is quite sad that we have a sizeable portion of our population that can't take care of their own shit for whatever reason, in spite of the trillions of tax dollars we've spent in the past 90 years on our social security experiment.

                          "No other country has your obsession with guns, nor the apparent inability to handle them responsibly."

                          Yet somehow, our population continues to grow. We must be really poor shots over here, otherwise you'd think our 20 million civilian-owned ARs would have caused a decrease in the general population.

                          "Grow up."

                          Lol. Fuck no. Why would I want to do that? It's not like I'll get to skip the check-out line at the end just because I was "grown up".

                2. jake Silver badge

                  Re: This is why they should be banned.

                  I can not open your eyes to the extreme left in US politics if you refuse to see that it exists, and life's too short to argue with the myopic.

                  I made no racist or sexist comment. I made a statement concerning one individual's rise to political power. I did not state that ethnicity or gender should be a litmus test for political office. In fact, my comment was a somewhat different, though related, point ... that it WAS used as a litmus test by the electorate in this particular person's case, all through her political career.

                  She was chosen for her current position in large part because of her gender and race ... if a white male had been chosen to fill that particular roll at this particular time, many votes would have been lost, quite possibly losing the election. Political expediency based on sex or race is, by it's very nature, sexist or racist. Pointing out that it occurred is neither.

                  1. Mooseman Silver badge

                    Re: This is why they should be banned.

                    "I can not open your eyes to the extreme left in US politics if you refuse to see that it exists, and life's too short to argue with the myopic."

                    So that's, "No, I can't then", is it?

                    Sitting there smugly dispensing vague insults is not a convincing argument, sorry. I can't be bothered to point out the inherent contradictions in your comments re Harris, and you clearly have no evidence of "the extreme left", so I'll let you bathe in your own self-congratulatory soup, telling yourself you have "won".

                    1. jake Silver badge

                      Re: This is why they should be banned.

                      No, it's not "I can't", it's "You won't".

                      As for me smugly dispensing insults (etc.), I strongly suggest you look up the meaning of projection.

                      There is no winner or loser. There is just reality.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This is why they should be banned.

      No, as pointed out by the model of policing detective Sledge Hammer, "bullets kill people".

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: This is why they should be banned.

        > "bullets kill people"

        That's explains the Democratic strategy. Buy all the guns you want. But we're going to put extreme limitations on how many bullets manufacturers can make per month. And most retailers - even of the sporting/hunting variety - are having difficulty keeping bullets on the shelf.

        The 2nd amendment of the constitution says nothing about bullets, just the 'right to bare arms'. Or 'bear arms'. Something like that. Nothing about munitions for said arms, but back then it was expected that you'd roll your own.

        Since it's not explicitly written down, I expect would be a state's right issue, and not a federal issue, unless amended. And there's F-all chance that the constituents of the US can agree on anything - the reason why the founding fathers were against parties in the first place - they knew that it might paralyze the country.

        IANAL, but I welcome education from those folks in the know.

  2. Snake Silver badge

    OMG

    You didn't set the prank up BEFORE you started this??! You just cold-walked up to a stranger and "prank" robbed them, expecting everything to go just peachy for your YT clicks??!!

    This is a tragedy beyond comprehension, someone has lost their life over this stupidity. Same thing with the 20-year old who committed suicide, believing that he owed $700,000+ to Robinhood thanks to stupid system mistakes. This kind of thing really needs to stop.

    1. FILE_ID.DIZ

      Re: OMG

      This is a tragedy beyond comprehension, someone has lost their life over this stupidity.

      Hopefully you're talking about the person who shot the faux robber in the tragedy. He's going to have to live with that memory for the rest of his life. That's the tragedy here. He did nothing wrong but rightfully defend himself and the group he was in from a knife-wielding robber.

      According to some crude internet searches, in 2019 there were about 650K active carry licenses out of a population of out of 6.8M people. If you take out those who can't legally carry a gun (18?), that leaves you about 4.2M people, that's about 15 percent. In other words three out of every 20 people likely have a gun on their person. Going after a group of people greatly increases the likelihood that one is armed. Seems like a really dangerous state to faux rob someone with knifes. (Insert bringing a sword to a gunfight.)

      If this happens again to the guy, hopefully he won't hesitate because of this event. It likely will be for real the next time, since only idiots with cameras and adoring "internet fans" faux rob people. Everyone else is doing it for real.

      1. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

        Re: OMG

        The shooter did nothing wrong. And even if the alleged pranksters had guns and the victims didn't, they could expect to be met with enthusiastic opposition by a larger group and, if it's the case, mixed company. I myself probably couldn't do much in that situation and it isn't my skill set, but such as it is, my strategy would be to put one of the attackers flat on the pavement and then bang his head against it until he stopped struggling or somebody told me to stop. And if my antagonist told me during this that they were joking, I would be very sceptical. So they might end up not able to tell their story against mine.

        That is if they're adults: if it's children, I'd interpose myself between them and anyone I considered vulnerable, and loudly and firmly say, "No." Of course, I might not live to regret it.

        1. Oh Matron! Silver badge

          Re: OMG

          He was carrying a gun. Kinda makes you so wrong, pineapple on a pizza is right

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Boffin

            @Oh Matron! Re: OMG

            He was carrying a gun. Kinda makes you so wrong, pineapple on a pizza is right

            Uhm... not sure where you are going with your statement.

            (Pineapple / Ham aka Hawaiian Pizza is great if done right!)

            There are two types of people who have guns.

            Criminals and Law abiding citizens.

            The difference:

            Law Abiding Citizens, including LEOs have gone thru training and have been certified to carry.

            Meaning that they understand the law and the situations where they are legally allowed to draw and use the weapon. They carry to protect themselves and others.

            Criminals carry so that they may cause harm to others. They have had no training and since they are already breaking the law by carrying... they are more likely to shoot you and/or others while the CCW permit holder isn't.

            One of the first lessons they teach you in CCW... if you carry, you had better have CCW insurance and a lawyer on retainer and speed dial on your phone.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @Oh Matron! OMG

              "Law Abiding Citizens, including LEOs have gone thru training and have been certified to carry."

              Bullshit. All you need is to be over 18 years old. Any bloody idiot can buy a gun at a gun show with no record.

              1. Falmari Bronze badge

                Re: @Oh Matron! OMG

                The clue is "Law Abiding Citizens". Carrying without a permit would be illegal so not a law abiding citizen. Therefore a law abiding citizen that is carrying will have a certificate to carry and have gone through training.

                So where is the bullshit?

                BTW I am not pro gun at all and happy I live in the UK were gun ownership is heavily regulated.

                1. Blur

                  Re: @Oh Matron! OMG

                  I attended a concealed carry course in the U.S. many years ago with a friend. $25, three hours in a classroom focused on the legalities and protocols to be observed while carrying, and no practical training whatsoever. My concealed carry permit arrived via post within a couple of weeks. I contacted the state afterward to ask how to go about declining or otherwise cancelling my permit and was told to simply discard it.

                  Now, I'm confident the degree of effort required to obtain a permit varies from state to state; there may be others where you are required to undergo training and demonstrate proficiency in the use of a firearm before you're granted a permit to carry one about on your person. But it seems clear from my experience that this is not true in all states.

                  1. Falmari Bronze badge

                    Re: @Oh Matron! OMG

                    Cheers Blur if the AC had used your argument as the basis of their bullshit comment I could agree that in some states being certified to carry may not require training.

                    But “All you need is to be over 18 years old” does not justify the bullshit claim.

            2. Pirate Dave
              Pirate

              Re: @Oh Matron! OMG

              Your premise is incorrect. In many states, training is not needed to carry, only to carry concealed. If you want to walk around with a 6-shooter hanging low on your hip, that's perfectly fine in most states south of the Mason-Dixon. It's stupid to advertise like that, but that's why we have the Darwin Award.

              As well, in some states, there is not even a training requirement to get a concealed-carry permit. You show up at the Probate court, fill out the form, have your picture and fingerprints taken, and, provided you don't have a criminal background, you'll get your shiny new Weapons Carry Permit in a month or two.

          2. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

            Re: OMG

            "He was carrying a gun. Kinda makes you so wrong, pineapple on a pizza is right"

            In the U.S. a gun is man jewellery. You wear it to look good. Shooting people is an occasional bonus.

            I repeat, even without having guns, if your group is attacked by numerically inferior antagonists with knives then resistance with force is an option to consider at least.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Boffin

        @File_id.diz Re: OMG

        In the US...

        You must be a US Citizen who hasn't lost their rights to legally own a gun.

        You have to be at least 18 to purchase a long gun (rifle / shotgun).

        You must be 21 to purchase a handgun.

        You must have a valid CCW permit to conceal carry. Note that there are a couple of states which allow residents (must live in the state) to conceal carry. Permitting is done at the state level. IL requires anyone who wants to be in possession of a gun or ammo must have an IL FOID card.

        You are absolutely right.

        The guy who was forced to defend his family will have to deal with the aftermath.

        Taking a human life isn't normal.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @File_id.diz OMG

          "The guy who was forced to defend his family will have to deal with the aftermath."

          You are correct about that. Even though he did the right thing given the information available, it can't be easy for him. If it is, he had no business carrying a firearm in the first place.

          In at least some states (including mine), the laws regarding possession of a loaded handgun make no reference to concealment or visibility. I use that as a handy reference. If someone in my state starts talking about a concealed weapons permit, I know they're poorly informed. If they talk about a "permit to carry" they're more likely to know what they're talking about.

          It's always interesting to see international perspectives when guns come up. I grew up in a part of the world where guns were something that normal, law-abiding people owned and sometimes shot. It's easy for me to forget that many people only see or hear about guns on TV or movies.

          1. Claptrap314 Silver badge

            Re: @File_id.diz OMG

            I grew up on the farm in the middle of Western Kansas. And a loaded shotgun hung over the steps to the downstairs. While the prairie had been long plowed under, there were lots of coyotes, and you don't necessarily have the time to load.

            Note that hanging over the steps also was an effective child-proof lock. I knew all about that shotgun when I was three. My dad took me out with a .410 when I was four. I could not reach the one over the steps until I was thirteen or so. Of course, I had plenty of training and experience with other guns long before that.

            Guns are an effective tool for dealing with vermin. Sadly, that sometimes includes the two-legged kind.

            1. Azamino

              Re: @File_id.diz OMG

              No time to load yet time to disengage a childproof lock ... are you sure about that?

              My only shooting experiences have been in the cadets and then the odd clay pigeon shoot with work, but at no point did we ever leave weapons loaded. I was under the impression that after pointing it at someone, leaving it loaded was the next worst behaviour.

              1. jake Silver badge

                Re: @File_id.diz OMG

                "No time to load yet time to disengage a childproof lock ... are you sure about that?"

                Re-read what he wrote. The very placement of the gun (over the steps) was the lock. It was out of reach of curious small children, and being over the steps there would be no easy way to stand on a chair, etc. My family used a similar mechanism for the always loaded varmint guns.

                Yes, always loaded. Seconds count, and if they hear you chamber a round they are gone. If you have never had a varmint problem, you might not be able to fully understand. Count your blessings.

                1. MonkeyCee

                  Re: @File_id.diz OMG

                  I grew up in the UK countryside. There were plenty of work guns around on farms, and you never messed with them. I'm not sure exactly how it was spelled out, but you got to use them in a controlled setting, you didn't just help yourself to them. Like power tools, or a vehicle. Shooting rats is quite fun for kids :D

                  Both of those places have pretty tame wildlife. You can leave your dogs outside.

                  There are plenty of places in the US where, as I understand it, the local wildlife is a little more testy. In general, I'm inclined to listen to the people who live on a farm on how best to deal with it. Be that on firearm safety or child labour :)

              2. Claptrap314 Silver badge

                Re: @File_id.diz OMG

                You might have forgotten the first rule of firearms safety.

                RULE #1: Unless your finger is currently inside the chamber, the gun is loaded.

                Hanging not just out of reach, but in a place which would require construction far beyond the capacity of a young child, is your child lock. Disabled by being more than five feet tall.

            2. DJ

              Re: @File_id.diz OMG

              @Claptrap314 - say hello to Ness County for me.

              1. Claptrap314 Silver badge

                Re: @File_id.diz OMG

                We had a field we worked for my great grand uncle in Ness! We were in Pawnee County, however.

        2. FILE_ID.DIZ
          Happy

          Re: @Mike the FlyingRat OMG

          You must be 21 to purchase a handgun.

          I've leveled up (read:old) enough that age restrictions aren't something that I care much about anymore (at least until I reach retirement age or something), so thanks for refreshing my memory on that.

          The same thing happened last year when I saw some cops busting kids for pot smoking in the parking garage... I was thinking to myself, "hey, it's legal here, wtf". Spoke with a colleague later and they mentioned that you have to be 21 to smoke pot.

          That hasn't been a problem for a long time... for either.

    2. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: OMG

      "This is a tragedy beyond comprehension"

      No, this is stupidity beyond comprehension. Pretending to hold somebody at gunpoint, pretending to rob somebody with a butcher's knife... Those aren't "pranks", they're putting unsuspecting people into situations when they fear for their lives.

      I don't believe in guns, I don't live in a country where people carry, but I'm just not able to think of the shooter as anything other than the victim here.

      As for the deceased, well, when one is dumb enough to threaten somebody with a lethal weapon for a joke, it would behove one to be damn certain the person they're targeting doesn't have either a weak heart or a better weapon. This guy being shot is entirely a consequence of his actions.

      The guy that shot him? He's the victim here.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: OMG

        Apparently boys die young and stupid from all kinds of insane behaviour more frequently than girls. Those who survive become "heroes" and inspire more insanity. So much so that statistically one dead 20-year old wipes a year off the life expectancy of 60 80-year olds. That partly explains our lower life expectancy.

        Put the other way round, if you're a man beyond your crazy age, your life expectancy is actually higher than the official number.

  3. jake Silver badge

    Born idiots. All of 'em.

    The only thing alpha-tube changes is that the audience laughing at their stupidity, and crying when an innocent gets hurt or killed, is larger. Perhaps putting the sentencing phase of their trial on the same anti-social media where they broadcast the commission of the crime would minimize other idiots from attempting to emulate them?

    Throw the book at them using existing law! No need to make new laws. It's already illegal to carjack somebody, or attempt strong-arm robbery armed with a knife, or to shoot somebody with a firearm. It is not a "prank" when the victim truly believes he's being carjacked or robbed or shot. Being on youtube (or whatever) doesn't change this. Make an example of them. And do it in Internet time, don't drag it through the courts for years.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Born idiots. All of 'em.

      N. Ireland in the 1980s there was a spate of hoax bomb scares from people who thought it would be fun to get an afternoon off when their factory was evacuated. It was quickly pointed out that people are just as terrified by a fake bomb as by a real one, and those phoning in such calls were prosecuted just as if the threat had been real. That stopped the "pranks" very quickly.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Born idiots. All of 'em.

        And yet the guy who did the same at Doncaster airport got all sorts of public sympathy and eventually, IIRC, got off or maybe had his sentenced reduced.

        1. teebie

          Re: Born idiots. All of 'em.

          The twitter joke trial? He didn't do the same, he made a stupid tweet that nobody involved considered to be a credible threat.

        2. Mooseman Silver badge

          Re: Born idiots. All of 'em.

          "And yet the guy who did the same at Doncaster airport got all sorts of public sympathy and eventually, IIRC, got off or maybe had his sentenced reduced."

          He didn't actually make a bomb threat - he made a stupid twitter comment; "Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"

          Clearly not a credible bomb threat, he was fined £385 plus a £15 "victim surcharge" (plus £600 costs), and after an appeal was left with an additional £2600 costs, although this was later overturned in the high court and the case dismissed as it was obviously a joke (if in poor taste) and he hadn't bothered to hide his identity.

          So not really the same thing at all.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Born idiots. All of 'em.

      I'd take any amount of idiots over you, pal, as long as they're honest idiots. A know it all who presumes knowledge he doesn't really have.

      You must be a laugh to your grandkids.

      1. Evil Auditor Silver badge

        Re: Born idiots. All of 'em.

        @AC: "born idiots", did it touch a nerve?

    3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Born idiots. All of 'em.

      I generally agree with you but also think that there should be some space for pranks as part of the need for society to hold a mirror to itself. But, in a country that lets people carry guns for self-defence, staging a robbery is particularly dangerous stunt to pull.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Born idiots. All of 'em.

        It wasn't a prank to the victim, it was an instant life-or-death situation. Ha ha. Very funny.

        We need to stop calling this kind of thing a "prank". Call it a stunt instead. Particularly egregious ones should be known as cunning stunts.

      2. doublelayer Silver badge

        Re: Born idiots. All of 'em.

        Pranks are dangerous, especially when the victim doesn't know what you're going to do. Pranks between friends work because, if a friend doesn't like the prank system, they'll either make this clear and their friends will respect it or stop being part of that friendship. Most others are irritating. Some are like this one and are criminal. There should never be a defense that the crime was meant as a prank; if all involved are happy about it, then no charges will be brought. Otherwise, it was a crime and should be treated as such.

  4. 759b954e-617b-408b-a2b1-f5a42c3688d4
    Trollface

    Wait for it...

    Latest Darwin Award candidates right here, folks.

    1. FILE_ID.DIZ
      Devil

      Re: Wait for it...

      The decedent was 20 and this is Tennessee. Back in 2018 (cursory internet search), Tennessee tied with New Mexico and Texas for seventh place in the US for teen pregnancy.

      He could have a progeny already.

    2. naive

      Re: Wait for it...

      They should indeed be candidates for a Darwin award.

      Tennessee allows concealed carry, so they could have known that there could be a serious risk that somebody was armed.

      The US is not Europe where the victim of a crime gets jailed for defending his life, people in the US are protected by the Second Amendment in situations where they have to defend their life against criminals and a tyrannical government.

      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Re: Wait for it...

        The US is not Europe where the victim of a crime gets jailed for defending his life, people in the US are protected by the Second Amendment in situations where they have to defend their life against criminals and a tyrannical government.

        In the UK and EU, we do have a right to self-defence, including killing an attacker. Providing that's as a reasonable use of force. So knocking out an attacker, wrapping them in duct tape, hauling them to the top of a tall building and throwing them off wouldn't be considered reasonable. Main difference is we're much more restricted about articles that could be used for self-defence.

        But such is politics. Here, it seems a person used a firearm to defeat two knife wielding attackers threatening the person & their family. Luckily they didn't kill or wound any bystanders, which is an issue for using firearms in self defence in public spaces. Kinda why training is important.

        But the US seems positioned to overtake the UK & EU with firearms regulation, if this Bill passes-

        https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/127/text

        “(D) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(4) shall be fined not less than $75,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, or both, except that if the transferee of the firearm possess or uses the firearm during or in relation to a crime, an unintentional shooting, or suicide, the transferor shall be fined not less than $100,000 and not more than $150,000, imprisoned not less than 25 years and not more than 40 years, or both.

        Which is a rather.. extreme risk if you let a friend borrow a firearm. Or there's some anti-civil war era restrictions-

        “(dd) (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.

        “(11) (A) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(dd)(1) shall be fined not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years, or both.

        Which seems a bit harsh, but will stop any potential Jubal Earlys. Collectors of .58 caliber Minié and other musket balls beware. Personally, I kind of agree with registration along the lines of the UK's Firearms Act, being a former FAC holder. But this Bill seems a tad.. extreme. I'm guessing a lot of it will be walked back, and if it passes, will be overruled by some states.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Boffin

          @Jellied Eel... Re: Wait for it...

          If you remember the story about the kid from Antioch, IL shooting the protesters in WI?

          He was 17 and it turned out a 'friend' had purchased the gun for him and was holding it in WI for him.

          That friend faces a felony gun charge. (When I lived in Chicago, I'd pass thru Antioch on my way to Bristol to go shooting at the range there...)

          Unless you're at a range... you never, ever... lend out your gun. Even to a family member.

          (There are some exceptions to that rule)

          With respect to C&R weapons... that depends on the weapon and if its still functioning.

          While my mother-in-law has her father's .38 Special Police revolver, I disabled it so it can't be fired.

          (I disengaged the trigger spring Its in a case w his badge and photo. ) AFAIK it would be considered a C&R because it was manufactured in 1909. I did test fire it... based on experience... should not be used again for safety reasons.

          BTW, .55 cal musket balls wouldn't qualify. There's more to the law than just the caliber of the round. The law is framed around the idea of a .50BMG. Not a Desert Eagle 50AE.

          Which is why laws like these need help being written. And I don't believe it will pass.

          1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Re: @Jellied Eel... Wait for it...

            Unless you're at a range... you never, ever... lend out your gun. Even to a family member.

            (There are some exceptions to that rule)

            That's usually the problem with legislation, and given the size of the fines and mandatory minimum jail time, discovering those exceptions could be painful. But some years ago, I was invited to visit a friend in Alaska. Which prompted landscape envy. But we went to hunt some sheep, which meant I borrowed a rifle. Then had the rules explained to me & how to spot a full-curl horn on said sheep. Getting that wrong would mean a felony, which could then invoke those sanctions.

            Instead we got to make a great mutton curry.

            BTW, .55 cal musket balls wouldn't qualify. There's more to the law than just the caliber of the round. The law is framed around the idea of a .50BMG. Not a Desert Eagle 50AE.

            But the wording is .50 caliber ammunition, or greater. Which would be .50BMG, .50AE, .600S&W and any muskets.. Which could then get into wrangling over what counts as ammunition, an assembled round, or the ball fired out of a musket.

            Apparently Jackson-Lee's pitched this bill, or similarly worded bills in the past, which went nowhere. But with the Dems in control and Biden being anti-gun, who knows what'll happen this time. There's an amusing video of her somewhere on YT where she gets asked to define an 'assault rifle', and fails badly.

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: @Jellied Eel... Wait for it...

              "But with the Dems in control and Biden being anti-gun, who knows what'll happen this time."

              There are some things that the Dems are not quite in control of. Remember, Trump stacked the Supreme Court. As a result, guns will be a fact of life in these here parts for a long, long time to come.

              I rather suspect that guns would have been around even if Trump hadn't stacked the Court ... So-called "liberal" courts have upheld the Constitution on this matter in the past. It is quite clear what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote, all hair-splitting is modern invention.

              As a side-note, the Dems spouting the Gun Control creed know SCotUS isn;t going to disallow guns here in the US. They are just catering to the people who put them into power. Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many of the Dems in the House and Senate hold CCW permits?

        2. naive

          Re: Wait for it...

          Democrats in the US will of course try to void the Second Amendment, that is what all socialist governments do as a first, disarm the citizens so they are robbed of tools to effectively oppose suppression, legalized theft, poverty and tyranny. Every socialist regime in the world did this after they came to power, be it in 30's Germany, Russia after the revolution and China.

          It is a good thing that states in the USA are quite independent.

          In the fashion of true socialism, in Europe ones individual life is just reduced to a statistic since access to weapons is denied to most, and thus when confronted with knife wielding robbers, rapists or jealous ex boyfriends most will be unable to put up any effective resistance.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: Wait for it...

            SCotUS will never allow the banning of guns. And the Dems in power know it. They just can't admit it and still get voted back in.

            1. Pirate Dave
              Pirate

              Re: Wait for it...

              "SCotUS will never allow the banning of guns."

              They didn't have much problem allowing it in 1994, and I don't trust John Roberts if it comes down to the wire. And that's assuming the SCotUS would even decide to hear any cases about it. HB 127 is a horrible thing in whole and in part, and could set in motion a wide range of repercussions that will take us years to untangle and free ourselves from, not to mention the irreversible damage it will cause to the small-scale firearms industry.

              Besides, if there's one thing the current panic has taught us - all they have to ban is primers (or the evil chemical substances therein), and the whole industry will collapse on itself within 2-3 years. It's only been a year so far, and look how bad things are - ammo selling 2 to 4 times normal price, guns selling at twice normal price, the parts supply is all but dried up except for the $$ boutique stuff, and reloading components are just a pleasant memory with no concrete promise of when they'll come back. And that's without any sort of actual "ban" to make things harder to get.

          2. ecofeco Silver badge

            Re: Wait for it...

            Please stop watching Murdoch news.

          3. Mooseman Silver badge

            Re: Wait for it...

            Naive - what a good name you have! I havent seen so much garbage written out on a page in years. Well done. Unfortunately for you and your strange little world, nazi germany was not "socialist" for a start. In European countries we dont cower in terror of criminals - try looking up violent crime in the US and comparing it to any Western european country, you'll find that violent crime of all kinds is much higher in the US. Studies done in the USA confirm that the expectation of someone carrying a firearm leads to much higher levels of gun use in criminal acts.

            To you, not being able to carry a gun (penis extension) is the mark of socialism (I'm laughing at the idea that you consider Democrats to be socialist but never mind) - in the civilised world we consider free healthcare, high standards of living, good education etc the mark of a social democracy. Socialism is not communism. Try reading a book or two.

          4. Falmari Bronze badge

            Re: Wait for it...

            UK laws on firearms can hardly just be attributed to only socialist governments

            Pistols Act 1903 Conservative

            Firearms Act 1920 Liberal lead coalition

            Firearms Act 1937 Conservative lead national government

            Firearms Act 1968 Labour

            Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 Conservative

            Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1997 First Conservative second Labour

        3. tekHedd

          "Luckily"

          "Luckily they didn't kill or wound any bystanders..."

          He hit his target and no one else. That's not luck, that's "practice."

      2. rg287 Silver badge

        Re: Wait for it...

        The US is not Europe where the victim of a crime gets jailed for defending his life

        Go on... name a case. We won't hold our breath - you might be a while. It is totally legal to shoot a burglar in Europe and even in the UK - in one case we got the stonking statement from Judge Michael Pert QC that:

        "I make it plain that, in my judgment, being shot is not mitigation. If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it."

        (And just to head you off at the pass: No, Tony Martin does not count, for the same reason that Markus Kaarma was convicted of deliberate homicide despite Montana's Castle Doctrine laws - because it wasn't actually self defence).

        1. Jesrad
          Facepalm

          Re: Wait for it...

          Have you even tried searching ? A quick Google session will net you plenty of cases where European citizens got jailed for shooting a burglar in clear self-defence. Here's a sample selection from my minute of searching:

          https://www.dhnet.be/regions/charleroi/37-mois-de-prison-avec-sursis-pour-avoir-abattu-un-cambrioleur-5acdc3e7cd702f0c1ad422be 37 months of jailtime for shooting a knife-wielding burglar (Belgium)

          https://www.evasionfm.com/actualite-53704-etinehem-un-homme-condamne-apres-avoir-abattu-un-cambrioleur.html Sentenced for murder after shooting a burglar (France)

          https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2018/11/06/2901417-herault-homme-avait-abattu-cambrioleur-libere-apres-an-prison.html One year spent in jail for shooting one of 2 menacing burglars who were assaulting him and his wife (France)

          https://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/30392/jail-for-man-83-who-killed-violent-burglar 2 and half years of jail for shooting the burglar assaulting his wife and sister-in-law (Spain)

          https://www.bfmtv.com/police-justice/7-ans-de-prison-pour-le-buraliste-d-albi-qui-avait-tue-un-cambrioleur_AN-201504020081.html 7 years of jail for the shopkeeper who shot a burglar (France)

          1. Mooseman Silver badge

            Re: Wait for it...

            Have you actually looked into those cases? For example the French man who was detained for a year after shooting a burglar was held under suspicion of actually organising the robbery himself.

            the "self defence" plea for the man who shot a supposed burglar 3 times was dismissed by the court

            The guy who was jailed for 7 years? He set up a trap and waited for four days for the robbers after he was alerted to the bars on the window of his BUSINESS had been sawn through. He even set up a fishing wire trap as well. Premeditated murder, not self defence.

            Spanish man sentenced for killing a burglar appealed

            37 months of jail time (your first "example")? If you read the report it was a 37 month SUSPENDED jail term as they were not convinced it was self defence but could not prove murder, going instead for "provoked" murder. A suspended sentence is not the same as going to prison.

            Must try harder 2/10

            1. Jesrad
              Thumb Down

              Re: Wait for it...

              Stop moving the goalpost. You are just making my point that self-defence is nowhere near granted by courts when you shoot a burglar invading your home, not even when they start punching and kicking you or threatening you with knives. You will be facing the full burden of proof if you do, same as the criminals.

              Save for a few countries, Europe tends against anything like a Castle Doctrine, the authorities' official advice is all too often that you are expected to hide and run from attackers no matter the circumstances, and to never stand your ground - or you will get sentenced.

              1. Mooseman Silver badge

                Re: Wait for it...

                "moving the goalpost"

                Nope, no moving required. You posted a bunch of links that "proved" your claim that in Europe we are not allowed to defend ourselves - I simply read the actual cases and pointed out that not a single one of them backed your claim. Now you are crying that it was somehow unfair.

                In the UK for example (as stated clearly above by another poster) we are allowed to defend ourselves using reasonable force, so if you break into my house I can grab anything to hand and clobber you with it. In the case of the man who was tied up along with his family by thieves, late breaking free and pursuing them down the road with a cricket bat and pummelling one of them, his actions while quite understandable were deemed not to be reasonable force, as the threat had ended. SO yes, we can tell the difference. Now were this the USA, the burglars would assume you were armed, arm themselves and quite likely shoot you.

    3. TVU Silver badge

      Re: Wait for it...

      "Latest Darwin Award candidates right here, folks."

      In an age where terrorism, fundamentalism and militancy can be found on all continents bar Antarctica, it is completely insane to even think about pulling a stunt like this.

  5. Jamie Jones Silver badge

    A lot of these "pranks" involve someone on camera being a jerk to someone to get a reaction, or, as in the article, commit a crime.

    These people don't know the meaning of the word "prank".

    If you're a jerk being videoed, you're not a prankster, you're a jerk with a camera. Nothing more.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Nothing more? I beg to differ. I believe in these examples, that would be a criminal with a camera, not just a jerk.

      1. MrMerrymaker Silver badge

        You beg to differ just for something to say. Wind it in.

        1. JetSetJim Silver badge

          Sometimes it seems that way, although pehaps Jake just has a different world view to some folks. In this case I agree, they're criminals with a camera (even if they are also jerks for not recognising that they are criminals, or recognising and not caring).

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            "not recognising that they are criminals, or recognising and not caring"

            And that not recognising or caring is what makes them Darwin award candidates.

        2. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

          Re: Wind it in.

          Why? jake makes a valid point here. This "prank" crossed the line to "crime" by a fucking country mile. If you want to refute the statement, please do so. If you want to be abusive to the participants, please go forth and multiply to 4chan.

          1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

            Re: Wind it in.

            Oh, I agree they are criminals. I meant "nothing more" as related to their supposed "youtube status"

        3. sed gawk Silver badge

          Why do you get a view but he doesn't?

          Why don't you wind your neck in. Running at people whilst armed, causing reasonable fear of harm.

          There is nothing to excuse about it, and I'm not moved to sympathy.

          The entitlement on display is breathtaking, I hope the shooter is okay.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Why do you get a view but he doesn't?

            Sorry to throw water on the incident, but I'd also like to inquire on the race of the shooter and the deceased. Sorry to say, but if they mismatch, someone's bound to play the race card and start accusations of it being a race-charged incident being covered up to look like a justifiable homicide.

            1. Postscript
              FAIL

              Re: Why do you get a view but he doesn't?

              The youtuber was white and known for going to black neighborhoods for his 'pranks.' He's on youtube under 'Tommy G McGee'

            2. Mooseman Silver badge

              Re: Why do you get a view but he doesn't?

              " someone's bound to play the race card and start accusations of it being a race-charged incident being covered up to look like a justifiable homicide."

              Wow. It's incredible how terrified you seem to be of actual equality. What's next, some nice juicy misogyny to add a little extra on top?

      2. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Oh, I agree they are criminals. I meant "nothing more" in their supposed "youtube status"

  6. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    Think of it as evolution in action

    See title.

    1. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Re: Think of it as evolution in action

      Average human intelligence went up a fraction of a percent.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Think of it as evolution in action

        I'd like to think so but PT Barnum's dictum applies.

    2. MisterHappy

      Re: Think of it as evolution in action

      IIRC - Oath Of fealty but Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle

      1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

        Re: Think of it as evolution in action

        Yep.

  7. 45RPM Silver badge

    Given most people’s tendency to act first and think later, this is exactly why guns should be strictly controlled. Not to mention butchers knives. Everyone acted stupidly, and now someone is dead.

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      @45RPM

      "Given most people’s tendency to act first and think later, this is exactly why guns should be strictly controlled. Not to mention butchers knives. Everyone acted stupidly, and now someone is dead."

      No amount of anal retentive regulation will stop people killing themselves. They will always find a way to do something so stupid as to wipe them from the gene pool. We could wrap everyone in bubble wrap for their own safety but then we all suffocate.

    2. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

      Some people acted stupidly. Others acted in perfectly justifiable self defence. If someone is dumb enough to pull a real knife on someone as a prank, the consequences are entirely deserved.

      Banning guns and butcher knives won't prevent things like this. Attempted robbery is already banned since it's, you know, a crime. Didn't stop this happening. Might as well bad stupid.

    3. sed gawk Silver badge

      Wasn't stupid.

      Guy sees pair of armed people running at him, chooses to preserves his own life, over the fairly remote chances these are just a pair of chuckleheads rather than say nutters running at him with a knife.

      Sorry but unless you have something to add to that, you are being unreasonable, and he did the right thing.

      1. 45RPM Silver badge

        Re: Wasn't stupid.

        Even if you accept that it is reasonable for someone to be able to walk around, armed, in a civilised society (and I don’t), it isn’t reasonable that you shoot to kill. Shoot to warn. Shoot to injure - or, better yet, get the hell out of the area in which you are endangered (run like hell).

        It’s worth noting that in countries where firearms are strictly controlled, there are fewer violent deaths and injuries (whether in the course of committing another crime or not). The argument that a gun can provide personal safety just doesn’t hold water for society as a whole.

        1. AndyS

          Re: Wasn't stupid.

          US gun laws are a tad odd, but hard to discuss without getting dragged into the cesspit of their politics (which are also... a bit odd).

          Fact is though, in this situation, the fellow with the gun acted entirely reasonably and correctly.

          The wider discussion about gun laws is largely irrelevant to this situation.

        2. KittenHuffer Silver badge

          Re: Wasn't stupid.

          Shooting to injure is not easy at all. Aiming to hit arms or legs, and then actually hitting them is actually quite difficult. Shooters are trained to shoot 'centre mass' for a very good reason. If you need to stop someone then this is where to shoot as it gives you the best chance of doing what you're trying to do.

          I'm not a left-pondian. I live in a no gun country (where only criminals [and police]) have guns. I am anti-gun. Yet I agree 100% with what was done, and I would hold the two idiots pulling the 'prank' as 100% responsible for the consequences.

          1. rg287 Silver badge

            Re: Wasn't stupid.

            I'm not a left-pondian. I live in a no gun country (where only criminals [and police]) have guns. I am anti-gun.

            Japan?

            You can't be in the UK. There's millions of gun-owners here. Albeit we don't make a habit of carrying in public (a 5kg target rifle is not particularly convenient to holster even if it were legal).

        3. WolfFan Silver badge

          Re: Wasn't stupid.

          Basic firearms safety rules:

          1 it’s always loaded. Even if it’s in pieces, it’s loaded.

          2 don’t point it at someone unless you mean to shoot.

          3 don’t shoot at someone unless you mean to kill

          4 aim for the centre of mass.

          5 keep shooting until the target goes down or you run out of ammunition.

          You do not just wave the gun around, guns are not magic ‘I’m the boss’ weapons which force people to bend to your will, and ‘brandishing’ is illegal in most jurisdictions. You do not fire ‘warning shots’, that kind of thing is illegal in most jurisdictions precisely because the bullet has to go _somewhere_ and you will be responsible for what it hits. You do not ‘shoot to wound’, if you do you are risking angering the other guy. The one, in this case, with the butcher knife who is closing on you. That’s a good way to get stabbed. Besides, either you were justified in shooting or you weren’t. If you’re justified, shooting to kill is legal. If you’re not, then _you_ just committed assault… and the prosecutor will have an easy time convicting you, as by _your own admission_ you were not justified in shooting.

          The shooter brought a legal firearm and used it legally. If the site was posted ‘no weapons’, that would be different. However, in Tennessee a site posted no weapons would be cutting out a significant number of possible customers. People carry guns to _church_ in Tennessee. And West Virginia. And Kentucky. And Alabama. And Georgia. And Florida. And Texas.

          The YT idiot really should have considered the possibility that the victims of the prank, or one or more bystanders, would have been armed. And then there would have been security at the site, who definitely would have been armed, plus the odds that there might have been a cop or two in the area. Hell, the security might have been off-duty cops. The Publix supermarket up the road from me used to have off-duty State Police, in uniform, standing around until they hired private security. The state cops had their issue firearms. The private security does, too. And a lot of the customers carry, you can often see the pistols holstered or in a handbag. (Yes, girls carry, too, it’s not a guy thing despite what some say) If you try to ‘prank’ in there you _will_ get shot.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Wasn't stupid.

          "Even if you accept that it is reasonable for someone to be able to walk around, armed, in a civilised society (and I don’t), it isn’t reasonable that you shoot to kill."

          The most basic rule of firearm use is you "Shoot to DOWN." The situation is not considered under control until the target is down, and sometimes not even then. As others have noted, aiming for the limbs raises the risk of missing or not getting a hit clean enough to stop the assailant. Unfortunately, the best place to hit the target (the torso, where the center of mass is) just happens to raise the possibility of a fatal hit. It just comes with the territory.

        5. sed gawk Silver badge

          Re: Wasn't stupid.

          If you are sufficiently skilled to handle the problem in less lethal way fantastic, If you need to shoot someone, you should shoot to stop them.

          If you don't need to stop them, perhaps you don't need the gun.

        6. Chris G Silver badge

          Re: Wasn't stupid.

          @45RPM

          From the House of Commons library; In the year ending March 2020, there were around 46,000 (selected) offences involving a knife or sharp instrument in England and Wales.

          So yeah banning those guns really reduced violence, in the period '19 to '20 in England and Wales there were, in spite of there being no guns allowed some 1.950 gun crime offences, as for other violence I am sure there was enough of it though I can't be bothered to look it up.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Wasn't stupid.

            And there would have been far more if they wern't banned. What's your point?

            Americans often come out with comments on Londons knife crime in topics on gun control. What they stupidly don't realise is that knife crime is worse in the USA - you just don't hear about it because gun crime dwarfs it.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Wasn't stupid.

              Downvoters scared of facts?

              "Knife murders are also higher stateside: there were 4.96 homicides “due to knives or cutting instruments” in the US for every million of population in 2016.

              In Britain there were 3.26 homicides involving a sharp instrument per million people in the year from April 2016 to March 2017."

              https://www.euronews.com/2018/05/05/trump-s-knife-crime-claim-how-do-the-us-and-uk-compare-

              1. Mooseman Silver badge

                Re: Wasn't stupid.

                "In Britain there were 3.26 homicides involving a sharp instrument per million people in the year from April 2016 to March 2017"

                And 4.96 per million in the USA, land of the gun.

                While in this particular case I can't muster a great deal of sympathy for the idiot who died, I can say that statistics do tell us that the idea that guns keep you safe is nonsense.

            2. rg287 Silver badge

              Re: Wasn't stupid.

              And there would have been far more if they wern't banned. What's your point?

              Ignoring the poster's rhetoric, there's no actual evidence to support your statement.

              The UK has the lowest rate of gun ownership in Europe. We do not have the lowest rates of homicide.

              As we saw following the prohibitions in 1997, once you have a reasonably stringent licensing regime, the white- and black-markets diverge entirely.

              Gun crime was rising prior to 1997 and continued to rise at basically the same rate after the handgun prohibition (because 99% of gun crime was black-market smuggled guns, which were entirely unaffected by legal guns being prohibited). It wasn't until 2004 that Operation Trident kicked in (i.e. actually enforcing laws) and gun crime fell - through the disruption of organised criminal groups.

              Gun crime in the UK goes up and down entirely in sync with efficacy of enforcement - it has never correlated to rates of lawful gun ownership. Right now it's quite high - because of austerity cuts to Policing since 2010. Even now when there are millions of legal shotguns in circulation which could be stolen and sawn down, criminals find it easier to manufacture their own.

              The inconvenient fact is that we could re-align ourselves with our European neighbours (and the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland & Channel Islands) and allow target shooters to own pistols (for target shooting, in the auspices of Approved Clubs) and our crime rates would not move.

              The US doesn't have high rates of gun crime because they have lots of guns. They have lots of violent crime because they're a second-world society where people are bankrupted by hospital bills. That manifests as gun crime because they have no meaningful licensing.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Wasn't stupid.

                Oh come on! Sure, if every America was a utopia, or gun owners in America was like some of our American friends here, there would be no gun crime, but you can't deny gun availability corollation with gun crime!

                1. rg287 Silver badge

                  Re: Wasn't stupid.

                  you can't deny gun availability corollation with gun crime!

                  Ah well, define availability.

                  If "availability" means you can walk into a shop and buy a gun with a cursory background check (or even skip that for personal sales) with no registration of firearms then clearly that's open to abuse (as in much of the US).

                  If "availability" is referring to the range of firearms that a law-abiding person can own in a country with some sort of meaningful licensing (e.g. all of Europe), then no - whether you take a UK approach (shotguns, some rifles, no pistols) or a Czech approach (everything including machine guns - with the right paperwork) makes literally no difference to violent crime (the Czech Republic has half the homicide rate of the UK despite much higher per capita firearms ownership. Similarly Germany has a comparable rate of homicide to the UK despite gun ownership running 3x higher).

              2. Mooseman Silver badge

                Re: Wasn't stupid.

                "The inconvenient fact is that we could re-align ourselves with our European neighbours (and the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland & Channel Islands) and allow target shooters to own pistols (for target shooting, in the auspices of Approved Clubs) and our crime rates would not move."

                No, the inconvenient fact is that since hand guns were banned in the UK, we have had not one single solitary school shooting. Daily shootings involving 2 or more people are entirely unknown here, unlike the USA.

                You can licence all you like, but all it takes is one person to go off the rails with access to firearms and you end up with Dunblane.

                1. rg287 Silver badge

                  Re: Wasn't stupid.

                  No, the inconvenient fact is that since hand guns were banned in the UK, we have had not one single solitary school shooting. Daily shootings involving 2 or more people are entirely unknown here, unlike the USA.

                  Remind us how many school shootings there were in the 100+ years of private pistol ownership prior to Dunblane.

                  Then - as we're all intelligent people here - explain what the statistical significance of a singular, point event is and how you can extrapolate a causal link between the prohibition and "no more school shootings", despite a century of no-school-shootings prior to the prohibition. Why aren't these shootings common in Spain, Italy or any of the other 30 European nations where people are allowed to own such firearms for target shooting?

                  You haven't given this much thought have you. Just gone "US bad, UK good. UK system must work". Which of course it doesn't - our homicide rate is decidedly mediocre compared to our European neighbours.

                  Daily shootings involving 2 or more people are entirely unknown here, unlike the USA.

                  They're also unknown across Europe - where pistols are available (licensed). What does the US have to do with anything? They're a violent society with no social security, healthcare or firearm licensing - of course they have lots of shootings. Explain why the Danish or Manx models of licensing wouldn't work on mainland UK.

                  Any fool can draw a straight line between two points. Comparing the US and UK does not show any meaningful correlation, much less causation - especially once you add some extra data points in (like the entirety of Europe).

                  1. Mooseman Silver badge

                    Re: Wasn't stupid.

                    "Any fool can draw a straight line between two points. Comparing the US and UK does not show any meaningful correlation"

                    It does, actually. as the gun lobby in the US (by which I mean those who cannot see beyond the 2nd amendment, not merely the NRA etc) use their devotion to the gun to justify why carrying the things is vital to keep themselves safe, frequently using false data (such as knife crime) from the UK to support their notions. Pointing out that mass shootings (2 or more dead) in the US, land of massive civilian gun ownership, are so commonplace they barely make the news and comparing it to an example I know well - the place I live - is not foolish or unthinking, despite your attempts to sound superior and throw little insults at me - how old are you for gods sake?

                    But lets look at your assertion that the UK and it relative homicide rate in Europe - in 2015 the UK had 1.1 murders per 100000 people. France had 1.31/100000, Sweden 1.08/100000, Hungary 1.61/100000, etc etc. So, on the surface, your claim that licenced gun ownership doesn't much affect murder rates looks reasonable. Now lets look at gun related deaths, shall we? The UK had 0.02 gun homicides per 100000 people in 2015, Denmark (since you brought it up) had 0.18/100000 (that's nine times higher than the UK) Belgium 0.25/100000 (12.5 times higher), France 0.12/100000 (6 times), etc etc.

                    Amazingly, it appears that limiting public access to guns DOES severely limit the number of gun related deaths. Who would have thought it?

                    You are just another sad apologist for gun ownership, sorry. Yes, mass shootings in the UK (ignoring the psychos in NI) have always been relatively rare, thankfully, yet they did happen. What Dunblane did was create a massive public revulsion for handguns, and as a consequence that kind of thing hasnt happened since. You miss pointing your handgun at a target that much? I used to shoot pistols too, I dont miss them that much - archery has debatably more skill in any case.

                    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

                      Re: Wasn't stupid.

                      "I used to shoot pistols too, I dont miss them that much - archery has debatably more skill in any case."

                      That's you, though. Now consider the average American...or rather, the average American heartlander, which is more rural and frontier than your average European and thus has a more independent streak. Also, do you take Switzerland and other countries with different gun ownership policies into consideration?

                      What the argument can get to is that it may just boil down to attitude, which isn't something that's easy to boil down in numbers.

                    2. rg287 Silver badge

                      Re: Wasn't stupid.

                      and comparing it to an example I know well - the place I live - is not foolish or unthinking

                      It is if you don't take counter-examples. Smugly saying "the place I know well is better than the US" is wilfully ignorant if you choose not to acknowledge that "Oh, but we also perform worse than Denmark/Italy/Czechia".

                      That's bad science. It's lying by omission. It's dogmatic, and ultimately it does not lead to making good, informed policy.

                      But lets look at your assertion that the UK and it relative homicide rate in Europe - in 2015 the UK had 1.1 murders per 100000 people. France had 1.31/100000, Sweden 1.08/100000, Hungary 1.61/100000, etc etc. So, on the surface, your claim that licenced gun ownership doesn't much affect murder rates looks reasonable. Now lets look at gun related deaths, shall we? The UK had 0.02 gun homicides per 100000 people in 2015, Denmark (since you brought it up) had 0.18/100000 (that's nine times higher than the UK) Belgium 0.25/100000 (12.5 times higher), France 0.12/100000 (6 times), etc etc.

                      I note you ignored Czechia and Italy (both ~0.6/100k homicides) - not just better than the UK, but much better. And with gun ownership 3-10x higher than the UK.

                      But out of interest, do you think it's significantly more painful or somehow worse to get shot to death than stabbed or bludgeoned? Yes, availability of firearms does affect the number of firearm homicides, but as you note, has little meaningful impact on overall homicides. Does anybody care whether you were shot or stabbed when they're at your funeral?

                      I'm a simple soul and can't help but think that the society in which fewer people end up dead is the one worth looking at.

                      You are just another sad apologist for gun ownership, sorry.

                      Ah, into the ad hominems. Last refuge of the desperate.

                      I am not an apologist, merely an enthusiast of evidence-led policy who despairs when a policy is written off as "Oh but America" to the total exclusion of 30+ counter-examples across Europe (because we refuse to read research in any language other than English).

          2. Mooseman Silver badge

            Re: Wasn't stupid.

            "From the House of Commons library; In the year ending March 2020, there were around 46,000 (selected) offences involving a knife or sharp instrument in England and Wales."

            And of course you have neatly ignored that merely carrying a knife (which sadly a lot of youths do in some of the less nice areas) is a crime and adds to the statistics. What you are doing is quoting headline stats without bothering to define them. That's the equivalent of stating that the USA had 39,773 gun deaths in 2017 without breaking the figures down into suicide (around 23,000). You will of course claim that carrying a gun makes you safer, fudging statistics to prove your point, while ignoring the elephant in the room. For comparison, the UK had around 60 gun related murders in that period, and 285 knife deaths. Lets compare populations - the UK has about 65 million people, the USA has around 330 million. You would expect, given that guns make you safe, that gun deaths would be proportionately lower in the USA, and knife crime would be virtually non-existent, right? Yet the USA has around 1400 knife deaths annually, which is virtually the same rate of knife deaths proportionately as the UK. Some studies put the figure higher still.

            Short version? Don't quote poor stats as an excuse.

        7. rg287 Silver badge

          Re: Wasn't stupid.

          Even if you accept that it is reasonable for someone to be able to walk around, armed, in a civilised society (and I don’t), it isn’t reasonable that you shoot to kill. Shoot to warn. Shoot to injure -

          As others have said, that lowers the bar to discharging your firearm.

          There is one (and only one) scenario in which it is reasonable to shoot someone - if they pose an immediate threat to life. If the use of lethal force is not appropriate, then shooting the subject is not appropiate.

          And if they pose an immediate threat to life, then the purpose of shooting them is to put them on the floor and eliminate the threat as fast as possible. Suggesting that "shoot to wound" is reasonable then opens the door to a slippery slope of "oh, well I shot them to incapacitate them because I thought they might go on to be a threat". But shooting someone in the leg can kill them if you sever an artery.

          Discharging a firearm is a (probably) lethal action which requires that the bar for lethal force be passed.

          You'd look like a bit of a tool if someone got stabbed because you were trying to shoot the perpetrator in the leg.

    4. 759b954e-617b-408b-a2b1-f5a42c3688d4
      Stop

      "Everyone acted stupidly, and now someone is dead."

      No. A thousand times no.

      Taking gun policy out of the picture (because it's actually irrelevant here), the guy who retaliated did so in defence of his life (and presumably his companions' lives).

      His actions were not stupid. They just happened to be more lethal (can something be "more" lethal? But you know what I mean) because he lives in a country where you can carry a gun, and he happened to have one.

      If someone came at me with a knife, I'd try to defend myself as strongly and emphatically as possible. I'd be doing it without a gun because I can't carry one where I live (and I'm fine with that), but if my actions somehow killed the attacker, I would have a clean conscience.

      1. 45RPM Silver badge

        Surely your first course of action would be to run like hell? The possession of a weapon causes an aggressive action, possibly lethal, to become the easier option (than running) and therefore increase the likelihood of serious injury or death. If the only recourse is to self defence then yes, do what you need to.

        There is no doubt that the primary culprit is the idiot with the knife (and what a stupid idea for a Youtube video - I only hope that it would have been taken down). I’d say that threatening someone at all, whether with a real weapon or even with a toy, is a stupid thing to do. But shooting someone? Nope. Two wrongs don’t make a right - and both of them were armed in a public space.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Quote: "Surely your first course of action would be to run like hell?"

          Nope! Can't comment for other folks, but If this happened to me, no way I'd run. I'm in my 50s, and if I was being faced off by two 20 somethings with knives, last thing I'd want to do is turn my back on them!

          Even if I did did run, assuming they followed after, I doubt I'd be able to get away for two 20 year olds.

          I'd rather take my chances in a confrontation. I've had similar issue in the past (not many, and this is the last couple over 15 years or so), one guy just wanted to start a fight on a night out, someone else tried to mug me, both of them backed down and ran off when I stared them down and made it obvious I wasn't going to capitulate.

        2. EvilDrSmith Silver badge

          If you view 'self defence' selfishly, as just yourself, then yup, running should be the first thought (though as others have said, if your old-ish and they aren't, it's quite possible to conclude that you can't out-run your attackers, and therefore that running away is not a credible option).

          But self defence, as I understand it, also applies to defence of others: so could the people the shooter was with out-run the attackers? What about the Mum and children that are just getting out of their car, and haven't even seen them?

          The people with knives were an immediate threat to life to everyone in the area.

          I think I would feel pretty shitty if I ran away and then heard that two knife-wielding lunatics had stabbed half a dozen people before the police turned up and dealt with them, if I had had the chance to stop them before any innocents got hurt.

          A knife is a lethal weapon, If you threaten someone with a lethal weapon, then it's not unreasonable if you get a lethal response.

        3. heyrick Silver badge

          "Surely your first course of action would be to run like hell?"

          As has been mentioned, it would be stupid to turn your back on somebody with a large knife, especially if you had any reason to believe they could outrun you.

          Note, also, that they approached a group of people. So not just you alone. Would you be okay if you ran away and your brother, best mate, or girlfriend got a knife in the stomach instead? I can imagine you'd spend the rest of your life revisiting that moment and that decision.

    5. Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells

      The man who fired the gun, as far as he was reasonably aware, potentially saved the lives of his friends and prevented an armed mugging.

      He should be congratulated for having the bravery not to stand at the back of the group hoping he didn't get noticed.

      1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

        OK, you've crossed my limit with that one. As much as the knife-guy had it coming, the other guy bought a gun to a childrens park - problem one - then fired it, presumably while under a great deal of stress and after making a decision in a fraction of a second. What if he'd missed? Winged some kids, maybe? Would that be OK because he was standing his ground?

        No one gets congratulated here. This is not a good outcome. A good outcome would be that there was no gun and no knife, in a country that made taking either to a childrens' playground illegal. As it was one lethal weapon was brandished for clicks on a website, another because a significant proportion of that blighted country think guns are something to be loved rather than loathed.

        A trampoline park for fucks sake. My kids love going to trampoline parks. How could anyone think that discharging a gun there is something to be proud of? Try and visualize being there with your kids for a minute, it's enough to make you weep.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          @Androgynous Cupboard

          "What if he'd missed? Winged some kids, maybe? Would that be OK because he was standing his ground?"

          What if the knife wielder was the more likely dangerous/criminal? What if the guy did nothing only to have adults and children stabbed, sliced and probably killed?

          "A good outcome would be that there was no gun and no knife"

          Ideal utopia which unfortunately doesnt exist anywhere. A lot of violent crime in states with stricter gun laws, stabbings in the western world in general from nutter and religious nutters. Hell a gang of kids (youngest 13) have just had blades including machete removed from them recently in the UK!

          "in a country that made taking either to a childrens' playground illegal"

          So only the knife wielder would be armed. Or as also happens gun free zones being shot up. Vs this responsible person potentially saving lives.

          "A trampoline park for fucks sake. My kids love going to trampoline parks. How could anyone think that discharging a gun there is something to be proud of? Try and visualize being there with your kids for a minute, it's enough to make you weep."

          And be grateful there was someone to stop the knife attacker. Imagine being defenceless with your child at the mercy of some nutter with a blade.

          In the end it seems there was little to fear but stupidity but in the moment I can only imagine the relief that someone could do something.

        2. Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells

          Perhaps you should be more upset about somebody attacking people with knives at a children's park rather than somebody exercising his legal right to defend himself

        3. heyrick Silver badge

          "the other guy bought a gun to a childrens park"

          While the so-called pranksters were brandishing butcher's knives in a children's park...

        4. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

          17 downvotes and counting. And you wonder why Americans have school shootings.

  8. Mike 137 Silver badge

    Darwinian Natural Selection

    This is merely the latest manifestation of Life's tendency to wipe out the incompetent. Previous incarnations included "planking", cycling off cliffs (I forget the official term), blindly following the satnav wherever it leads and posting on Farcebook while burgling houses. I guess it's all based on desperate attempts to get noticed without having any attributes really worthy of attention.

  9. Aaiieeee
    Paris Hilton

    hmm

    Presumably if I take a video camera on my next robbery and it goes wrong (and I don't die), I can say it was going to be a prank for Youtube?

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: hmm

      Worked for 'Heat'

    2. FILE_ID.DIZ
      Trollface

      Re: hmm

      Maybe that'd be a good defence for those charged during the insurrection and raid of the Capitol Building last month. Most made it out and for whatever reason, all seemed to video themselves committing federal crimes.

  10. Sanguma Bronze badge

    Safe bet

    that he won't die of AIDS or rabies or COVID-19 ... what a dim-wit!

    Some mothers do 'ave 'em!

  11. DJO Silver badge

    Darwin strikes again

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Only in America

    1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

      On the contrary

      Stupid and grossly irresponsible everywhere, only in America, suicidal.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: On the contrary

        @Francis Boyle

        "only in America, suicidal."

        Unfortunately we have our own vastly intelligent-

        https://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/bright-star-oxford-student-died-after-accidentally-stepping-off-cliff-241186/

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: On the contrary

          Her parents think the council should do something to prevent this happening. They did. They built railings. Sometimes I despair.

        2. Mooseman Silver badge

          Re: On the contrary

          Oh, the girl who climbed over a railing not realising there was a sheer drop on the far side? Yeah, that's really a good example....

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: On the contrary

            @Mooseman

            "Yeah, that's really a good example...."

            So far I have read that 4 times with entirely different interpretations. I have no idea if you think that is a good example or not.

            1. Mooseman Silver badge

              Re: On the contrary

              "I have no idea if you think that is a good example or not."

              Sorry if i was unclear - its a terrible example.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: On the contrary

                @Mooseman

                "Sorry if i was unclear - its a terrible example."

                Cheers for clearing that up. Is there a reason you think its a bad example? I was responding to someone suggesting (probably with some tongue in cheek) that only in America irresponsible to the point of suicide.

                With some tongue in cheek I offered the story of an Oxford student climbing railings to fall over a cliff. Doctor Syntax clearly stated the amusement of the article. So whats up?

                1. Mooseman Silver badge

                  Re: On the contrary

                  @codejunky

                  Its a bad example because someone vaulting a fence, unaware that there was a sizeable drop the other side (in the dark) is not comparable to some prat deciding to do a "prank" involving pretending to assault someone else in front of children.

  13. Christoph

    It's OK to traumatise adults?

    Youtube has decided to ban videos "that create serious emotional distress in minors."

    Implying that they are perfectly OK with videos that create serious emotional distress in adults?

    Adults who might already be suffering problems, who might be severely traumatised by such treatment.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's OK to traumatise adults?

      Youtube has decided to ban videos "that create serious emotional distress in minors."

      Bugger, that's Bambi gone.

      1. WolfFan Silver badge

        Re: It's OK to traumatise adults?

        And ‘The Lion King’. And ‘Dumbo’.

        1. heyrick Silver badge

          Re: It's OK to traumatise adults?

          Watership Down.

  14. Christoph

    It doesn't even need a gun

    Quite beside the number of USAians who never go anywhere without a gun, there are lots of military veterans around.

    Would anyone fancy trying this kind of prank on a US Marine who has just returned from active deployment?

    1. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Re: It doesn't even need a gun

      I remember a story about 4 guys trying to rob a 70yo pensioner. Who was retired from spending 20 years teaching unarmed combat in the SAS. I think they identified most of the bits.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It doesn't even need a gun

        Back in the 1990s, before recorded history, there was a report of an attempted mugging in The Independent. A British tourist on holiday in Florida was threatened with a knife by a man who demanded his wallet. As far as I remember, the newspaper article contained the lines:

        "The 6'2" 17.5 stone former Royal Marine (reigning Welsh amateur super-heavyweight boxing champion) described what happened next. 'I hit him. He went down.'"

        1. Diodelogic

          Re: It doesn't even need a gun

          'Way back in the mid-1970's a newspaper in Florida reported a story about a man who had been stopped in (IIRC) Miami by a mugger armed with a knife. The victim reached inside his jacket and produced a hand grenade, pulled the pin, and screamed, "Not again! This is the last time!"

          The grenade was inactive, but the mugger didn't wait around to make that discovery.

        2. heyrick Silver badge

          Re: It doesn't even need a gun

          'I hit him. He went down.'

          Not quite as epic, but it's a similar story...from yesterday: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-55995738

        3. Mooseman Silver badge

          Re: It doesn't even need a gun

          'I hit him. He went down.'"

          This happened to a friend of mine - not ex military or boxing champ, just built like a brick out house. He arrived late at the pub one evening, and apologised, explaining he had been mugged - some idiot had pulled a knife, demanding his wallet, so he hit him. Very hard.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It doesn't even need a gun

        i work for a small defence contractor, lots of ex-Navy and marines here and a few ex SBS. We had a new starter in Jan but he came in for a while before Xmas so I asked my boss when he was starting, "he's currently still serving, so is up in Bournemouth (home of the SBS)" ok what does he do (guessing he was SBS) "kills people with a pencil" You'd never guess looking at the bloke.

      3. Danny 2 Silver badge

        Re: It doesn't even need a gun

        15 years ago I organised a film screening of an anti war film, then cancelled it because pseudo-anarchists threatened to attack it. One of the people I'd invited, Col. Clive Fairweather, insisted it went ahead and he'd provide the security. Right enough, it was him and another pensioner and nobody dared mess. SAS to the grave.

  15. StephenTompsett

    Darwin prize candidate?

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Winner. He was a winner. He was no longer a candidate.

  16. AIBailey

    aimed to prove a book could stop a .50 caliber bullet.

    I love the oxymoron of the US using a decimal fraction against an imperial unit of measurement.

  17. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    Pretty much had to happen some day

    It is unfortunate that the numbskull decided to try a "prank" robbery against a guy with a gun, but given the amount of weapons that exist in the US, the only thing that surprises me is that it took this long.

    That said, there are two things that bother me (aside from the whole death thing, obviously). One, this happened in what is supposed to be recreation park. The guy brought a gun to a recreation park ? WTF ? What is wrong with him ?

    And two, and this is worse IMO, he just pulled out his gun and fired ? Couldn't he have drawn his gun and say something like "I suggest you GTFO" ? You know, give the guy a chance to reconsider ? But no, he just rambo'd it and got trigger-happy.

    Somebody commented that he would have to live with that for the rest of his life. I'm not convinced that that will be a problem for him.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Pretty much had to happen some day

      I think the reality, were it not a prank, would have been either he fired or got stabbed with no intermediate options.

    2. Christoph

      Re: Pretty much had to happen some day

      If two people are coming at you and several other people with butcher knives, you don't pause and say "Excuse me, would you perhaps like to reconsider?" Apart from all other considerations, it gives them time to hide behind a hostage. All sorts of things could go wrong. You can't give consideration of their lives over and above the lives of the people they are attacking without cause.

    3. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: Pretty much had to happen some day

      @Pascal Monett

      "The guy brought a gun to a recreation park ? WTF ? What is wrong with him ?"

      Obviously nothing. He and his friends were set upon by knife wielding attackers. Sounds like the kind of place it makes sense to be carrying.

      "Couldn't he have drawn his gun and say something like "I suggest you GTFO" ? You know, give the guy a chance to reconsider ? But no, he just rambo'd it and got trigger-happy."

      Did he? Its easy from the cool position of behind a keyboard in a comfy chair but unexpectedly his situation changed from friendly outing to instant lethal threat. Maybe he didnt have chance, maybe there wasnt time, maybe based on the available information and situation he did the right thing.

      "Somebody commented that he would have to live with that for the rest of his life. I'm not convinced that that will be a problem for him."

      Why is the victim assumes to be some blood hungry nutter? We would have no difficulty thinking the knife attacker killing a group of people doesnt have a problem with killing, but someone protecting themselves is just another person. Some average Joe. And after having to save his and his friends lives he suddenly finds out it wasnt a lethal attack but a naive innocent trying to make entertainment.

      Sounds pretty screwed up to me and easily traumatising.

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: Pretty much had to happen some day

        "but a naive innocent trying to make entertainment"

        Not sure I agree with that assessment given the "running around with deadly weapons" part of the so-called entertainment.

        I mean, you are aware I hope that one of jihad's favoured methods is a large knife and an instant unwanted anatomy lesson, right? So two people with big knives who look threatening should be assumed to be threatening. That it was being recorded doesn't matter in the slightest if no such notification was given. Do you expect somebody to just shrug and figure "oh it's just a prank" rather than the beginning of some sort of deranged massacre?

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Pretty much had to happen some day

          @heyrick

          "Not sure I agree with that assessment given the "running around with deadly weapons" part of the so-called entertainment."

          Trying to make entertainment and achieving being very different. Thats why I say naive, they thought that would be entertaining ffs (I still cant wrap my head around how dumb that is).

          "I mean, you are aware I hope that one of jihad's favoured methods is a large knife and an instant unwanted anatomy lesson, right?"

          Hell yeah. I think I mentioned that in one of my other comments. I have also commented that some people try so damned hard to win a darwin award. These pranksters didnt have much life left in them with this stunt.

          "That it was being recorded doesn't matter in the slightest if no such notification was given"

          To be honest I would assume it was recorded for a propaganda video. None of this seemed a smart idea.

          "Do you expect somebody to just shrug and figure "oh it's just a prank" rather than the beginning of some sort of deranged massacre?"

          Hell no and sorry if you thought I was saying that. Hell even if he didnt get killed as he did and pulled off the prank I would expect them to have the hell kicked out of them for doing it. I feel sorry for the person who fired the gun and has to live with this.

    4. DarkwavePunk

      Re: Pretty much had to happen some day

      I do sort of understand the sentiment. It's not clear from article how far away they were before waving butcher's knives at unsuspecting people.

      However, I was always taught never to brandish a weapon at someone unless you are actually willing to to use it.

    5. Kernel

      Re: Pretty much had to happen some day

      "Couldn't he have drawn his gun and say something like "I suggest you GTFO" ? You know, give the guy a chance to reconsider ? "

      I'm not from the US, but I'm pretty sure that I've read that in most states where you are allowed to carry a gun in public this would be considered illegal, on the basis that you obviously weren't sufficiently threatened to justify drawing the weapon.

      It's not a difficult concept.

    6. ShadowDragon8685

      Re: Pretty much had to happen some day

      > One, this happened in what is supposed to be recreation park. The guy brought a gun to a recreation park ? WTF ? What is wrong with him ?

      Nothing is wrong with him. Had a couple of morons not drawn cutlery and advanced upon him and his party menacingly, that firearm would have stayed where it was, presumably in a holster, all day, and nobody would have been any the wiser. Nothing at all is wrong with him, he had a concealed weapon for self-defense and no purpose but that, and he used it appropriately therefore.

      A firearm safely stored in a lockbox at home does you as much good as four cars of cops parked at a donut shop across town when a pair of freaky guys pull knives and advance upon you.

      > And two, and this is worse IMO, he just pulled out his gun and fired ? Couldn't he have drawn his gun and say something like "I suggest you GTFO" ? You know, give the guy a chance to reconsider ? But no, he just rambo'd it and got trigger-happy.

      Spoken with all the self-assured confidence of someone who has never once in his life taken advice from someone who has had to actually defend themselves! IE, spoken out of the wrong hole, the stinky hole.

      WHEN you draw a weapon to defend yourself, and you are NOT police, there is no time nor any reasonable obligation to attempt to "chase off" or "apprehend" the target. Especially not with knife-wielders at close range - in the time it takes your monkey brain to realize that the other guy is lunging to attack you, disengage your mouth and engage your trigger finger - oh, that's your throat he just cleaved out with the knife.

      It's not your place for any asinine heroics like trying to "chase off" the guy (who may go somewhere else and attack someone less prepared than you in any event) or to attempt some asinine citizen's arrest. You are, as a civilian non-law-enforcement officer, NOT to use the weapon for any purposes of intimidation. You draw the weapon for one reason and one reason only: to discharge it until the reason for defending yourself is no longer a threat.

  18. x 7

    Darwin always wins

    see title

  19. Zebo-the-Fat

    I never understood the need for guns to available to the general public, but given that they are legal in the USA and the idiot making the video knew that, I have very little sympathy for him

  20. A. Coatsworth

    Youtube' responsibility?

    In the end, the "prankster" asshole [1] was not performing his borderline criminal stunts just for sh*ts and giggles. Youtube was making money out of the videos and paying him for them.

    So, can Youtube/Google/Alphabet be considered at least partially responsible for this incident?

    I would expect the standard social media defense, namely that they only provide a platform for the people, won't fly if there is an exchange of money in the middle.

    [1] never agreed with this saying of "respect the dead". The guy was clearly an idiot when he was alive, and I don't see how his death changes it.

  21. Brad16800

    I'm against guns but seriously why would you (prank) rob someone in America of all places if they weren't in on it.

    I actually feel sorry for the guy with the gun, he shot and killed someone for no reason than their idiotic behavior.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't understand the rationale behind "concealed carry". If you carry a weapon because you are scared that somebody might attack you then carry the weapon openly and nobody will risk attacking you. If the weapon is visible, you will never need to use it. If it is concealed then there is a very small change that you might need to use it.

    1. jake Silver badge

      The concealed bit is so you don't scare people who are afraid of their own shadows, sending them off to make a nuisance call to the local police department. (Yes, I have carry permits. No, I never actually carry off my own land, unless I'm hunting or target shooting or the like.)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The concealed bit is so as to not advertise that you are carrying a weapon, which can make you a target in some situations.

  23. Jonjonz

    God I love it when morons like this meet their Darwin end.

  24. Dr Paul Taylor

    Sickening

    I don't do "social media", so maybe I'm just a snowflake, but never before reading a page of comments on El Reg have I been so sickened by the views expressed. Judging by the votes, apparently these are the majority.

    In civilised parts of the world, people don't get a constitutional right to carry guns.

    Maybe I'll get a hundred down-votes for that. If so, I will revel in it.

    1. bonkers

      Re: Sickening

      Which particular views did you find sickening?

      Sure, a lot of commentards are agreeing that a harsh justice was served - which is never a good thing generally. Beware of those who seek harsh punishment was a Greek Philosopher's maxim, or Roman, wasn't it?

      However, this could have been the beginning of a "London Bridge" type killing spree, indistinguishable. Such cases of legitimate fatal self-defence are rare, and are, like it or not, a fair argument in support of gun carrying - a well-trained, vetted, un-angry citizen protecting his family against immediate lethal threat. It ought to be possible to make gun law in the US so that it is more of this type, with training, licensing, vetting...

      So, give the pro-gun lobby their day in the sun, you have to understand their reasonable argument in this case.

      I agree with your conclusion that overall, guns are a bad thing, a very bad thing, with vastly more costs than benefits, but I refuse to be sickened by "evidence for" - evidence that runs counter to my conclusion.

    2. A. Coatsworth

      Re: Sickening

      The gun discussion is a red herring. There are many scenarios in which this stuns could have gone south: the people could have had knives of their own or wrestled it from him or beaten him within an inch of his life, or a trigger-happy cop could have shot before he had a chance to scream "it's just a prank, bro!"

      What we should be discussing is why so many morons think it is fun and profitable to perform and film their crimes, and disguise them as "pranks"

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021