ill hold out. i have seen a few “pranks” that had some egregious physical contact. im no fan of guns, and probably myslef wouldnt have hit him but im big enough that it would be difficult for him to harm me without a weapon, but a smaller, weaker guy(the sort that gets guns) who might have thought he was actively at…

I’m more than inclined to believe that there was no actual “prank” and it was likely just straight up harassment at the minimum.

The fact that he won’t say what the “prank” was leads to the possibility that it wasn’t just a simple “prank.”

I’d love to know what this so-called prank actually was. The only thing I’ve seen was one site said he had been right up in the guy’s face with his camera. It seems like they’ve been proud of previous times they’ve annoyed and harassed people enough they get angry, so I’m not completely surprised their “pranks”…

Between none of the reporting describing the “prank” and a cursory view of their channel, in addition to their statement that they’ll continue “pranking”, I’m more than inclined to believe that there was no actual “prank” and it was likely just straight up harassment at the minimum.

I’ve never gotten it... the whole “YouTube Prank” fad, even years ago in the early days of YouTube, they just felt really cringey and 99% of the time scripted if not blatantly malicious.

Yeah, if the “prank” was pulling a fake gun on someone or “joking” about bodily harm that might paint this in a different light.

Any reason none of these posts actually say what the nature of the “prank” was?

Any attempt at comment from the alleged shooter or their legal representation?  Forgive me if I don’t take Cook’s “simple practical joke” statement at face value.

Posting is his “passion,” he told the news station, so he’s intent to return to YouTube.

I agree. I don’t think it’s that weird to be expected to leave the house. However, I think a nice grandad would give them a slightly longer notice.

They are parsing the shit out of this to clear Clark.

yep, the double standard is pretty glaring.

At least Zack had the good sense to not try and explain the RAP. Too often I find myself reading Kotaku articles dealing with legal or business issues (like the FDIC stepping in to insure SVB depositors) and it becomes all too apparent that the author is out of the depth. 

An attempt was made. A failed fascist policy is still a fascist policy.

Holy shit, I can’t believe I’m seeing the Rule Against Perpetuities used in real life, and reported on in a Kotaku article no less! It was the bane of many a first-year property law student and has been abolished or replaced with something slightly less nonsensical in many jurisdictions. Nice to see it’s alive and…

You're right; the counselor may have union protection. The actress, not so much. 

Awful but lawful. Can you imagine if that was your brother and are finding out about this with everyone else and then that it all anyone thinks about when they think of you? Then your job fires you? I think they deserve compassion and not ostracization. 

None of the things listed on that page include “making us look bad by being related to a multiple murderer”... also, even if that was the case, as long as you’re not dumb enough to put it in writing or saying it out loud, proving wrongful termination of even people in protected classes is crazy difficult.

I’m gonna be so salty when time travel is finally invented and I can’t go anywhere.