The incident occurred Monday in South Los Angeles as kids were heading home from school, and authorities have not given out any information except that it was a homicide.

The teenager was walking away when a guy sucker-punched him, and the group piled on as soon as he fell.

Yesterday, multiple kids jumped a teenager in Los Angeles, and the kid who got attacked fatally shot one of the attackers.

The incident occurred Monday in South Los Angeles as kids were heading home from school, and authorities have not given out any information except that it… pic.twitter.com/jMvErb52QS

— LetsTalkDefensiveGunUse (@LetsTalkDGU) April 16, 2024

You can hear three shots, and if you look at individual frames, you can see that the kid who got attacked had a gun.

If this was an adult and they did not initiate the attack, it would most likely be justified, resulting in charges not being filed.

Since this kid was under 18 and illegally had a firearm, where do they go from here?

One-on-one fights are no longer the norm for settling disputes. This is where “disparity of force” comes into the equation, and it MIGHT be justification for using deadly force to stop the attack. I used the word might because every scenario is unique.

Unconfirmed information puts the deceased and the shooter under 18. Remember, initial reports are sometimes inaccurate.

Ability: Can They Do It?

The first thing in deciding if using deadly force is justified for self-defense is the other person’s ability to cause you harm. Ability refers to the other person’s capability to cause you serious bodily injury or death. The person’s ability involves different factors, like their physical strength and whether they have a weapon. That weapon could be anything from a baseball bat to a gun.

Are there multiple attackers? If there are, this brings in a term called “disparity of force.” Five against one isn’t fair odds, which tips the scale towards the attackers.

Opportunity: Is the Threat Imminent?

Okay, let’s say the individual has the ability to harm you. Now, you must decide if they have the opportunity and if the threat is imminent.

The second factor to consider when deciding if you can use deadly force is whether they have the opportunity to carry out the threat. Opportunity is the immediate and proximate circumstances in which the threat unfolds. It involves assessing whether the assailant can harm you imminently.

If the attacker has a knife but has a few vehicles in the way, you need to decide if the other guy can cause immediate harm. If the guy has a gun pointed at you and is a few vehicles away, that’s different, and the opportunity factor might be there.

Understanding the concept of opportunity helps you gauge the immediacy of the threat and whether using deadly force is the only workable option to prevent harm. Sometimes, the best choice is to get out of there while you can and live to fight another day.

However, if they are charging at you with a raised weapon, that’s a different story.

Intent: Do They Mean Harm?

The third and final thing to consider is the assailant’s intent. Intent relates to the other person’s purpose or state of mind about hurting you. Are they showing clear signs they intend to cause you harm? There must be a “reasonable belief” that the assailant wants to cause you serious bodily harm or death to justify using deadly force.

Deciding intent can be tricky because it involves assessing the other person’s actions, words, and demeanor. It comes down to reading someone’s body language and verbal cues.

A person who explicitly threatens you with harm or shows aggressive behavior may give you strong evidence of intent. However, remember that you need to evaluate intent objectively based on the information available to them. Some people just want to act like a bad *ss and cause trouble, like in the case of this YouTuber who recently got shot.

What if someone is armed with a holstered gun and talking to you without making any aggressive moves? In that case, he probably isn’t out to harm you.

Once that person starts yelling threats, waving around a gun or knife, or displaying signs of aggression, it’s more likely they intend to harm you.

Wrap-Up – Deadly Force for Self-Defense

Remember, the rules and laws governing the use of deadly force can vary from place to place. You need to familiarize yourself with the specific laws in your area and seek advice from legal experts.

Deciding if you can use deadly force for self-protection involves determining if ability, opportunity, and intent exist. Understanding these three factors can help you make informed decisions in high-stress situations and, hopefully, keep you and those around you safe.

ALL of these three things combined are what you base your decision on. You have to understand the intricacies of these components so you can make informed decisions if sh*t ever hits the fan.

Following the guidelines about the legal use of deadly force is vital for your safety and to keep yourself out of jail because you made a bad decision.

Always remember information in an article like this is not legal advice. Please consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.

The case gained widespread attention not because of a shooting but because the YouTuber in question was a prankster with a large following.

Currently, the YouTuber has about 50k fans and makes $2k to $3k monthly from his videos, which he calls pranks or “comedy content.”

In his “pranks,” he pretends to puke on Uber drivers and stalks unsuspecting shoppers through department stores. Deputies from the sheriff’s office said they knew Cook and had gotten calls about his other stunts.

What happened

Alan Colie, 31, a DoorDash driver, was picking up an order in a food court of a Virginia mall. Tanner Cook, a 21-year-old YouTuber, leaps in front of Colie’s and shoves a phone in his face. Cook’s phone is constantly playing “Hey dips**t, quit thinking about my twinkle” via a Google Translate app. Two people were following the driver, and a third was recording it.

Colie’s defense attorney, Adam Pouilliard, said that Colie was concerned about the threats that delivery drivers confront when interacting with the public and that Colie has a concealed carry license. Colie is still in jail and is scheduled to appear in court on October 19.

Charges

They arrested the driver in April and charged him with aggravated malicious wounding, felony use of a firearm, and discharging a handgun within a building.

The jury had to determine that Colie acted maliciously to find him guilty of aggravated malicious wounding and malicious discharge of a firearm.

If the jury decided Colie was reacting to something that would make a reasonable person afraid or angry, then there was no malice according to the law.

Prosecution

Prosecutor Eden Holmes says the facts do not support a self-defense claim. According to the law, Colie must have a reasonable fear of bodily harm and use no more force than is necessary. According to the prosecutor, the YouTuber’s prank was bizarre but not threatening.

The prosecutor said the contact between the two men lasted only approximately 20 seconds. The prosecutor tried to cast doubt on his testimony through her line of questioning.

“In those 20 seconds, you felt the only option was to take out your gun?” Holmes asked.

“Those were my thoughts,” Colie replied.

The defense of disparity of force

During Thursday’s final arguments, the driver’s lawyer said that his client felt threatened by the 6-foot-5 YouTuber during the confrontation, which was set up to provoke a reaction and get more people to watch the YouTuber’s videos.

His attorney claims that the shooting in the food court was self-defense, and after hearing about other delivery workers being robbed, he carried a gun to protect himself.

It showed the incident between the driver and the YouTuber to the jury. In the video, Cook goes up to Colie as he picks up a food order. The YouTuber is considerably bigger than Colie, holding his mobile phone within a few inches of the delivery driver’s face. The phone repeatedly plays the message “Hey dipsh*t, quit thinking about my twinkle” using a Google Translate app.

Cook didn’t stop and, along with the second guy, continued moving towards Colie even though he was trying to get away. Colie repeatedly told them to “stop” and said he would call the police as he shoved the phone back. Colie tries to knock the phone out of Cook’s hand before pulling out a gun and shooting Cook in the lower left chest.

Colie said he felt confused by the phrase Cook was playing and told the jury the two looked “really cold and angry.”

“In my mind, I registered that he was a threat to me, and he was going to harm me,” Colie told the jury. “I saw his left hand down in his left pocket. I didn’t know if he was concealing a weapon. For my safety, I took out the gun from my right pocket and shot him in the stomach. At that time, I was fearful that my life was in danger.”

His attorneys asked why he didn’t try to fight Cook or run away. Colie explained he felt surprised and scared, and he didn’t think he could escape or fight back against Cook. Additionally, he wasn’t certain if Cook was armed.

The defense attorney had Brian O’Donnell, a threat assessment and de-escalation expert, testify. He explained how the size of an individual and how close they are, along with no way to escape, someone could be considered a threat.

He talked about how someone’s reasoning skills and problem-solving capabilities are affected by stress.

Using O’Donnell’s testimony, the defense tried to show that the defendant’s stress affected his perceptions and his “ability to see alternative courses of action in the moment.”

The defense attorney said the YouTuber “is trying to confuse people to post videos. He’s not worried that he’s scaring people. He keeps doing this.”

Deliberation and verdict

After deliberating for about three hours during the trial, the jury sent a note to the judge. The jury’s message said it is “divided in terms of whether the defendant acted in self-defense.”

The jury found Alan Colie not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding or the use of a firearm for aggravated malicious wounding. However, they did find him guilty of firing a gun inside the mall. They set aside the guilty verdict until a hearing to discuss it on October 19.

The YouTuber plans to continue making his prank videos.