• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What do you do when someone pranks you?

MRC_Hans said:
And is shooting people acceptable in such cases, do you think?
Click to expand...

I think that provoking a violent reaction tends to reduce or eliminate the liability incurred by the victim of the provocation when they react.

So yes, I do think that depending on the specific details of the provocation and its context, shooting a "prankster" can indeed be acceptable.

Is being free to threaten or harass or assault people with impunity acceptable in such cases, do you think?
 
Last edited:
"Deserve" can mean different things, ranging from "God's judgment upon you for your actions" to "effects follow causes". I'd say pranking people to unfortunate reactions falls in the middle of that range.
 
When some varmints prank me, I stampede their herd, set fire to their barn, kidnap their dog, and call 'em out onto Main Street at high noon. First, though, I take out my gee-tar and sing 'em a little song. I have been prosecuted for that there last 'un, though.
 
TragicMonkey said:
"Deserve" can mean different things, ranging from "God's judgment upon you for your actions" to "effects follow causes". I'd say pranking people to unfortunate reactions falls in the middle of that range.
Click to expand...

I prefer to think about it in the somewhat less judgmental way of, "they call this the logical results."
 
Pixel42 said:
I've always considered practical jokes a form of sadism, in that the prankster gets pleasure from causing and observing someone else's pain and distress. And yes, being deliberately humiliated can be as painful as being physically hurt. It sure as hell isn't funny.
Click to expand...
I can't see the point in personal ones. Workplace ones can get particularly cruel and dangerous.
 
theprestige said:
Slapstick comedy caught on because all the participants were consenting participants in the show.



Can you explain your thought process, resulting in this bizarre attempt at equating a voluntary spectacle with abusing someone against their will for your amusement?
Click to expand...
The Three Stooges literally suffered permanent serious injuries.
 
The prank I always remember.
On a childhood visit to the Kiva cinema in Phoenix, Steven Spielberg and his pals mixed Parmesan cheese, milk, corn and peas in a bag, dropping the mixture off a balcony while making faux vomiting sounds. The resulting chaos caused the film to be halted. And the film in question was Irwin Allen’s 1960 version of The Lost World. Spot Light Report dot net link
Click to expand...

I once read an interview with Spielberg where he recounted that prank. I think it was in Playboy. He said he and his pals were convulsed with laughter afterwards. On the more serious side, it vividly demonstrated to Spielberg, how 'special effects' can fool an audience. The trick is to 'make them believe it's real.'

Eta - The Parmesan cheese really sold it. Bet that was Spielberg's idea. Even at a young age, the man was a genius. :eek:
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
Fake job interviews (which is what an audition amounts to) are a particularly low thing to do to someone. Getting someone's hopes up for an opportunity just so you can laugh when they find you've been wasting their time is ********. Particularly if they are currently unemployed, but also if they are employed and took leave time to go to a fake interview.
Click to expand...

It can be actually worse, especially if then it's on TV or YouTube. When your company knows you're actively looking for another job, they'll sort you closer to the top of the pile when the next round of layoffs comes around. Or just when they find someone doing roughly the same job for less. It's really the same reason as why you don't actually go tell your boss you're looking for a new job, or why you don't take a counter-offer when resigning for another job. They know you're about to leave, you'll get replaced soon.

So yeah, it's the kind of "prank" where you get someone fired (soon.) Ha ha, very funny. Not.
 
newyorkguy said:
The prank I always remember.


I once read an interview with Spielberg where he recounted that prank. I think it was in Playboy. He said he and his pals were convulsed with laughter afterwards. On the more serious side, it vividly demonstrated to Spielberg, how 'special effects' can fool an audience. The trick is to 'make them believe it's real.'

Eta - The Parmesan cheese really sold it. Bet that was Spielberg's idea. Even at a young age, the man was a genius. :eek:
Click to expand...


It definitely smells right. I hate it when restaurants ruin a good minestrone with the stuff, but some people seem to like it. And yet they wonder how cats and dogs can eat vomit.
 
Bumping mainly because there's been something of a resolution to this case. Tanner Cook's shooter was found not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding but was found guilty of another gun charge.

I found the video of the shooting here. (starts around 1min in)

I'm a little confused by the jury's decision here, I don't know if the situation truly rises to a self-defence situation. I think what might have happened is that they jury felt like he shouldn't be found guilty of the wounding charge but he still needed to be found guilty of something thus the second charge.
 
Wildy said:
Bumping mainly because there's been something of a resolution to this case. Tanner Cook's shooter was found not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding but was found guilty of another gun charge.

I found the video of the shooting here. (starts around 1min in)

I'm a little confused by the jury's decision here, I don't know if the situation truly rises to a self-defence situation. I think what might have happened is that they jury felt like he shouldn't be found guilty of the wounding charge but he still needed to be found guilty of something thus the second charge.
Click to expand...

Apparently his defense is going to appeal on the basis of the contradictory verdicts.
 
Wildy said:
Bumping mainly because there's been something of a resolution to this case. Tanner Cook's shooter was found not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding but was found guilty of another gun charge.

I found the video of the shooting here. (starts around 1min in)

I'm a little confused by the jury's decision here, I don't know if the situation truly rises to a self-defence situation. I think what might have happened is that they jury felt like he shouldn't be found guilty of the wounding charge but he still needed to be found guilty of something thus the second charge.
Click to expand...

Seems like more or less a jury nullification verdict. Based on the video of the incident, shooting this "prankster" was clearly not consistent with the letter of the law concerning using deadly force. But the victim was so unsympathetic and obviously culpable in provoking the response that the jury said to hell with the law and found him not guilty.

It seems like an incoherent verdict because it is, but I would argue it's closer to being just than a guilty verdict would be. I've seen some speculation that the lesser gun charge may be successfully appealed, as it's not consistent with law to find someone guilty of an aggravating charge absent the conviction for the underlying criminal act itself.

Seems like a good example why anyone carrying a gun should also carry pepper spray. This is the exact kind of situation where non lethal self defense is more than justified, but pulling a gun is not.

More shame should be directed towards the social media companies that are allowing these "pranksters" to monetize this blatantly anti-social behavior. I hope that gunshot wound to the gut is a source of pain and discomfort for this ghoul for the rest of his miserable life, he truly earned it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom