Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "" video.

Yes, pranks are things like what you'd see on Candid Camera or Just for Laughs. They're things that are actually rather clever and just result in people being somewhat bemused and confused about what they're seeing. Also, I'm pretty sure that they get releases from anybody that does get featured as part of the segment. If YouTube would even just require a waiver from the people featured in the videos it would put a significant damper on the most dangerous "pranks."
8
@jpoeng From what I've heard, it came down to the size difference of the parties involved and the refusal of the "prankster" to stop after being asked twice. The dude is large enough to have inflicted grievous bodily harm just with his hands. The fact that there were at least two other people participating in it would just make the fear more justifiable and from what I can tell, the juror recognized that there was a reasonable fear involved. This whole situation is part of why I learned how to use my words more effectively and be aware of where threats are likely to come from. It's not perfect, but you never know who's packing these days. Dude is damn lucky that the guy wasn't better with the pistol, as if I had been pulling the gun, I would have been shooting him in the chest until I ran out of bullets the way that any sensible person would. If it's a big enough threat to pull the gun and fire it, then it's a big enough threat to keep shooting until the threat is neutralized.
4
@user-dx2dm8oq8g They do typically, I don't know that it's legally required as long as they're in a public place doing the filming, but it does formalize the terms that the footage is being used for. Plus, I doubt that there's a shortage of people being willing to sign the waiver to be on TV we just see the cherry-picked reactions that best fit with the show they want, you don't typically see the people that didn't fall for it or who didn't look like they were falling for it. The key thing though is that the pranks are harmless and funny. I don't think people are typically watching those shows and thinking about how dumb the people on it are the way that they do with a lot of these "prank" videos.
3
I think that's a detail that a lot of people are missing. I'm nowhere near as large as the "prankster" in this case, but I could knock that dude out in one punch. I can only imagine how much damage I could do if I were another 6" taller and significantly more muscular. Just falling over if you hit your head that can be potentially fatal, or just serious brain damage. The jury made mostly the right call, although I expect the discharge conviction to be overturned just because it was a discharge while engaged in self-defense.
2
Yes, apart from not unloading enough rounds in to the "prankster" to do the job, (If you're going to shoot somebody, do it in the chest and pretty much empty the gun as you shouldn't be shooting somebody without the intent to finish them off. ) there's nothing that I see in the video that shows him messing up. It's more or less textbook, he gave dude a chance to back off and when that didn't work, he used legal force to protect himself. I hope he files a lawsuit for the various injuries that he's suffered as a result of being put in that position in the first place.
1