A few weeks ago, both Miguel and I covered the story of Tanner Cook.

Cook is a YouTuber who pulls pranks on people.

He harassed the wrong guy in a threatening way and was rewarded with a bullet to the chest.

His shooter was found not guilty.  As he should have been.

One would think that would signal to other social media pranksters that doing shit like that might be a bad idea.



This punk got drawn on.

It gets worse that he decided to mouth off to the old man who, very kindly, gave him a verbal warning instead of just shooting his punk ass.

Dumping what appears to be gasoline on someone is absolutely a lethal threat.

It should (I would say “would,” but IANAL) be grounds for a justified shoot almost anywhere.

Chasing someone with a gas can threatening to douse them is definitely a lethal threat.

It doesn’t matter that it’s water.

If you try to rob someone with a rubber knife or Airsoft gun, the victim doesn’t have to determine that your threat is real before acting on the threat.

If this little shit gets ventilated, it’s his own fault.

I’m just glad these guys record it, it makes it easier to exonerate the shooters.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

8 thoughts on “Another social media prankster is going to find out”
  1. And since he seems to be targeting older white men, you know when he ends up getting ventilated, it’s going to turn into a race issue.

  2. Pranks should be between people who know each other, or have some kind of relationship. Could be a business relationship, but whatever. A taxi driver could pull a funny one on a passenger for example. As long as it is harmless. Not random strangers in a parking lot.
    Secondly, pranks should be harmless. Seriously, pouring water on a car pretending it is gasoline is an act of violence. Pouring anything on someone’s car is potentially an act of violence. Does not matter what it is, the person driving the car has no idea it is harmless.
    These tiktokers/youtubers are playing with fire. One found out, this idiot almost found out. Why are they playing with fire, because of the two things above. It is not harmless, and you are pranking total strangers with a potentially dangerous item.
    This is a prank:
    It is safe because the person they are “attacking” is in on it. The point is the reactions of the observers.

    1. “Know each other” is a good rule. Relationship, for example business? Maybe if it rises to the level where the parties know each other. I don’t think your example of a cabbie pranking the passenger is a good example; how is the passenger supposed to know the cabbie isn’t some sort of dangerous lunatic?

  3. Colorado specifically addresses arson and the use of deadly force:

    Colorado Revised Statutes 18-1-705, in part:

    “However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson.”

  4. The outcome of a shooting in such a situation will depend FAR more on the political agenda of the local prosecutor than it will on the actual facts. In most places infested by these ground apes the legal system
    gives them preferential treatment. Know this…your future freedom depends on it.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.