psssst. I'm leaving this comment from a meeting. Don't tell anyone. Have a great day! PS. If you missed yesterday's show catch it here: th-cam.com/video/zjENaa_WOFg/w-d-xo.html
I'm surprised anyone cares what gun the guy used to defend himself. If your life is threatened, you use whatever force is necessary to ensure your own survival. I don't care if he was using an AK47 in one hand, a P90 in the other and manipulating a rocket launcher with his toes. He was defending himself and his home: end of debate.
I'm not a super advocate of either side of the gun safety debate, but if there are people breaking into your home with intent to rob you and/or harm you, you definitely have a right to defend yourself. No one should have to sit there with three masked robbers in a dark house and just let them have their way; you don't know how old they are, what their plans are (beyond robbing you), and what kind of weapons they have. All you really know is how many of them are right in front of you, and in that situation, you have to assume that they'd likely put you down just as quickly to keep you from calling the police. It's definitely unfortunate that things ended the way they did, but even burglars must have some understanding of the possible consequences of their actions in this day and age.
Emily Kohl lol ricegum handled it pretty well considering gabbie harassed him, wouldn't you rather have him destroy her phone rather than him hitting her? #teamricegum
I don't care for either TH-camr, but if your boy is known for making roast/bash videos that essentially harass other TH-camrs but can't take what he dishes out himself, then he needs to change the content of his channel lol That's why you rarely hear about comedians who have beef with each other physically fight each other because they can both dish out insults as well as take insults directed at them. All in all, this RiceGum guy getting provoked to the point of taking someone else's phone and breaking it breaks this hardcore, roasting persona he wants to portray on TH-cam and makes him look like not only a walking hypocrite, but even more pathetic.
Lamusicful we don't know what really happen, none us were really there. Maybe ricegum wasn't feeling well, maybe he was drunk and tired, we weren't there. We can't say anything.
Wendy B. but he has the right to throw someone's phone? no... I don't understand why people still defend him.. don't care if ricegum isn't feeling well. he shouldn't react agressively like that to anyone. to make situations worse, he continues to make a music video about this whole situation, making money off of this drama and bragging about it. i feel like there's something missing in his mental ability to process his actions. maybe he hasn't fully matured yet.
So if one of those boys were you son, would you still be celebrationg? All lives matter and they were young and might have changed if they had got the chance. I'm not saying he shouldn't have defended himself and I wasn't there, it must have been frightning but three dead human beings are not a positive thing, no matter what.
I agree, there is no positive side to this story. But I would also ask, if the boy who defended himself were your son do you think he should be punished? If you are willing to make this choice, to break into someone elses home, then you need to be prepared for the consequences of your actions.
The girl getaway driver won't be convicted of the felony murder. The DA will charge her with it to make her potential sentence all the more scary, which will make her more likely to accept whatever plea deal they offer. When people are charged now days the system throws the book at them which means a majority of cases never go to trial but get resolved in plea deals. This is one of many aspects of the justice system that need serious reform.
I'm from Oklahoma, I actually knew one of the kids in the break-in. While I am sad that these three teens were killed, it would be foolish to demonize the defendant. I actually feel worse for the kid that had to do it. Imagine know that you've killed three people, especially at his age. I know it's completely justified, but I know I couldn't deal with that.
BLACKman1776 let alone that if he had know these kids in passing or what not. I hate to say that the get away driver is being charged with 3 counts of murder but she made the choice with the 3 others to break in to a house and it ended up with 3 friends killed. Bad choices can lead to bad consequences. I hope that she gets off the 3 counts of murder but still. If things go the way they are she'll be a convicted felon for life. There lives won't be the same and I feel honestly worse for the parents that lost their kids because they made bad choices.
sesshomaru68 I agree that the get away driver should not be convicted for murder, I do think she should be punished however. I feel like the defendant is going through so much guilt,people are demonizing this kid to the ground. It must be traumatizing to kill another human, let alone all of the hate he is receiving. When you mention the parents, I agree that they also must feel horrible for their loss. But these kids were above the age of 16, old enough to know better. The kid that I knew had a great family and friends, I believe he just got into a wrong group of people. All differences aside, I think everyone can agree that what happened was unfortunate for both sides.
there was no need to kill tho. places like knee caps, shoulders etc exist and could have stopped them without killing. then the cops could have arrested them and given due justice.
Artworld Kid have you ever shot a gun? At something that was moving? trying to hit a kneecap or something small like that is so hard to do. Even police are taught to shoot what is called center mass. the middle of the biggest part of the body. because it is hard to hit anything that is moving, targets/animals/people. Everyone says "Why didn't he just shoot to disable them?" until they are put in the same situation and only have seconds to react.
The son definitely had the right to shoot those intruders. You are spot on about how much misinformation there is among anti-gun people surrounding the AR-15. Personally I don't think that the getaway driver should be charged with three counts of felony first degree murder seeing as the murders were not premeditated. She did not plan to kill anyone or for any of her accomplices to be killed in the burglary. I am not familiar with this case, but I think that they probably charged her with three counts of manslaughter in the first degree and not first degree murder. Manslaughter charges will be charged instead of murder charges, because manslaughter is used when specific imminently dangerous actions are committed without a design to effect death, claim the life of another person. Here she participated in a burglary which is a dangerous action, but she did not intent to have someone die as a result. The internet privacy regulations were nothing more than "privacy theater" as I like to say. They sound good and make you think that you have privacy, but you have already signed away your privacy with everything you do online. Google knows everything you do/say online and sells your information to advertisers. Google knows more about you than that girl you have been dating for a year now. How is what Google does any different than what ISPs could potentially do? Sure Google provides you a free service, but that isn't out of generosity, it is because they can use your information to make them money by selling it, they has been able to get millions of people to give their personal info, likes/dislikes, search history to them without much complaining. Sure I don't want ISPs to invade my privacy, but I know that I have no privacy online because of Google, so what privacy is my ISP going to take away that Google hasn't already converted into cash? ISPs aren't going to store or sell the information that is sensitive such as bank numbers, credit card numbers, SSN numbers. The Institute for Information Security & Privacy at Georgia Tech released a working paper entitled “Online Privacy and ISPs” after the regulations were first instituted. I recommend reading the paper, but the gist is that now over 70% of internet traffic is on domains using https encryption technology. The encryption on https domains makes it so the ISP can see only the domain URL that you are on, they can not see the contents of the pages. My point is that it is important to look at the actual things that take away your privacy rather than taking part in this "privacy theater" game that does nothing once you think of how Google already knows every detail about who you really are.
I don't get what the big deal is, with this kid defending himself from intruders. If you don't wanna get shot, don't break in to other people's houses and steal shit. Get a fucking job like a normal human being, they've out their selves into that situation and had the audacity to traumatize this kid in his house minding his own fucking business. Good riddance, less pieces of shit in this world.
Dave McClintock I agree with you about "privacy theater" being a thing and people are just passing along. Our information has been being tracked and sold to advertisers and other companies for a long time. I suppose having it be "okay" in federal law makes it feel more legitimate to those who find out their information is being tracked and sold, as well as making it easier for ISPs to profit (please lower internet rates). The https kinda means your private, but it's not a super hard encryption to break. Also, those secure sites can still gather information from their own site, so you've never really been safe. I'm not very familiar with that law to completely understand why the getaway driver would get charged with 3 counts of first degree murder. Manslaughter is more reasonable, but if the teenager meant to eliminate the threats by killing, wouldn't that be intent to kill? Being charged with murder is a bit of a stretch if you ask me, but I understand. Now, everyone wants justice or revenge for the deaths of their loved ones.. that may be why this law is in effect, especially since they were only teenagers, as well as the fact that it sets an example and is a deterrent for more crimes like this. Just like you, I haven't studied this case much.
Dave McClintock I agree with you about "privacy theater" being a thing and people are just passing along. Our information has been being tracked and sold to advertisers and other companies for a long time. I suppose having it be "okay" in federal law makes it feel more legitimate to those who find out their information is being tracked and sold, as well as making it easier for ISPs to profit (please lower internet rates). The https kinda means your private, but it's not a super hard encryption to break. Also, those secure sites can still gather information from their own site, so you've never really been safe. I'm not very familiar with that law to completely understand why the getaway driver would get charged with 3 counts of first degree murder. Manslaughter is more reasonable, but if the teenager meant to eliminate the threats by killing, wouldn't that be intent to kill? Being charged with murder is a bit of a stretch if you ask me, but I understand. Now, everyone wants justice or revenge for the deaths of their loved ones.. that may be why this law is in effect, especially since they were only teenagers, as well as the fact that it sets an example and is a deterrent for more crimes like this. Just like you, I haven't studied this case much.
+Becca Bergquist "Premeditation to kill" is generally a requirement for first degree murder and an "intent to kill" is generally a requirement for second degree murder. First and second degree felony manslaughter does not require that the murder be premeditated or intentional, that's why it's called manslaughter instead of murder.
it's not illegal bc it's Snapchat. Only certain people can see Snapchat, it's not public technically, so there is no legal ground there. People can sue because TH-cam is public and they make money off it.
I love this comment and everyone should see it. Rice Gum is a horrible human being and the situation should be as clear and simple as explained in your comment
The getaway driver deserves the charges. She's 21, they were younger kids. She knew what they were doing and the exceptional difference in danger between her role and the other three.
Fletch Stacey not first degree murder. first degree murder is you intended for your action to cause death. maybe manslaughter or maybe 2nd degree. but definitely not 1st degree murder
Fletch Stacey I agree. I think it makes total sense that she was charged with this. I'm skeptical that it will stick in court if she decides to challenge it and lands a half competent lawyer, though.
I recently went through a Walking Dead like attraction where people will jump out and try to grab and scare you. And when that first guy in this attraction jumped out and was bee-lining straight towards me, I didn't realize it, but my arm was up and my hand outstretched, ready to grab the guy by the throat to defend myself. I don't even remember raising it! Just that it was up and positioned that had he continued his charge, it was in the right position to grab him there. I'm just so glad he stopped just short, though he was probably trained for that! Knowing the instinct response from a theme park attraction that I paid for to go through and yet found myself ready to react in defense against an "Attacker", this kid was staring down 3 armed intruders in his home. It was dark, they had ski masks on to obscure how old they were. They had weapons on them with brass knuckles and knives and they might have even had guns on them! People seem to look at the looted corpse of someone and say, "Whelp! No gun on him! Guess this guy was brutally murdered!" But the sheer fact they might have had a gun, especially since they were threatening someone's place, it was dark, and they did indeed have weapons on their body, the shooter definitely acted in self-defense. As for the woman who was driving the get-away car. According to the law, she was indeed in the process of committing a felony. She was the oldest there. She was likely the one WHO DROVE THE 3 TEENS TO THAT HOUSE WHERE THEY WERE SHOT!! From the law and the situation, she should be held accountable that she caused the death of these 3 teens. And with the weapons the teens brought with them into the house, one could make the argument they were premeditatedly prepared to murder anyone who got in their way into that house. Premeditation, of course, being the defining factor of 1st degree murder. So it seems that they were prepared ahead of time to have the capability of murdering someone, and the fact that 3 people died from this, the 3 counts of 1st degree murder should absolutely be brought to this woman, even by just the most technical aspects of the law.
why is it that we respect soldiers, police, etc. for protecting us from criminals but punish homeowners for doing the same thing. It's unfortunate that it lead to the death of 3 criminals but it could have also resulted in the death of 1 or more innocent people. (had he not been home alone).
i bet that if it was a woman that shot the three guys. they would be calling her a hero. I'm all for shooting people that break into your home. i also think that the get away driver , should not be charged for murder. its fucking stupid. the other charges though, she should be charged with.
I feel like any time there's a self defense shooting you'll get people who aren't in touch with reality saying "Why didn't they just (insert something that only happens in movies)" Things like "shoot them in the legs" or "use the gun to disarm/intimidate them." Anything other than aiming center mass isn't realistically viable, and people shouldn't be expected to take that risk in a matter of life and death (which in the case of armed home invasion, it arguably was)
Lyle McDouchebag Very true.When you have 3 people invading your home with intent to steal,you don't have time to think about the ways to save your family while also not killing them.You think "These people are to hurt and steal from me and my family."That is the sensible way to think in that scenario.Also what do you think about the getaway driver being charger with the killing of these three?I think it stretches it but I'm interested in your opinion.By the way I love your channel.Ive watched you for about 2 years now I think possibly more.Keep up the good work also I love your Ex-stream series.
The situation becomes very scary and real when it actually happens. A lot of people will be putting in their "anti-gun two cents" without ever understanding how it would feel.
My issue with it with my limited understanding of the law is: If you shoot someone in the leg and they survive, you're liable to get sued. I don't feel like paying my own money because I protected myself and family on my own property from a burglar/robber/killer that I only wounded. There have been a limited few cases that I've read/heard of people breaking into homes, getting injured, and got compensation from the home owner. It's ridiculous.
It's illegal to intentionally shoot people in the legs because if you don't shoot to kill then the argument becomes "you obviously weren't in fear for your life". Then you are liable to get charged for just shooting at someone who maybe wasn't threatening you that much. If you think your life is in danger shoot to kill. It's horrible, and scary, but that's the point. The law is set up (at least where I am) that it's only legal to shoot someone if you believe that your life, or someone else's life is in imminent danger. And if that's the case, why wouldn't you shoot to kill? I don't understand "shoot them in the legs, killing is bad" fuck yeah killing is bad, but it's better to kill someone who might be trying to kill you than to be like "killing is bad so I guess I'll let someone kill me."
ricegum peeps on here are like "shes so annoying like omg" but he roasts people and does all this other shit but when it's done to him you wanna throw gabbie down for it? thats like a serial killer who has killed 30 people back to back and once somebody tries killing him they defend the serial killer. like what y'all make no sense.
+e she's using an extreme analogy but she's saying that they're pretty much just as annoying as each other - which I agree with lmao. If Ricegum can't own up to his trash talks without using physical means then he's nothing but an annoying troll himself. EDIT: Also, it seems that Gabbie has made some mature response videos about this drama on her channel whereas Ricegum just made a "diss track" body shaming her etc, so I give Gabbie a little bit more props.
Anyone that breaks into someone's home should know that they are taking a chance of getting killed. People shouldn't have to worry about catching a charge because you want to protect what is rightly theirs.
I think the homeowner's son had every right to defend their property. It sucks they died, but that is the risk you take when breaking into someone's house to rob them. Stupid kids making a horrible decision. The driver of the car is in for some hurt. It sucks, but that is also the risk of participating in an armed robbery. We have laws to deter people from performing these acts. Sadly, they weren't smart enough to think about what they were doing. I think a life sentence would be a little much for the driver (due to age and participation) but a hefty sentence is a no brainer. Hard to say how you feel about something but I still side with the people defending themselves and their home. Don't break into someone's house and you won't get shot by them in the process.
urmaker Personally, I'd like to know more. She was older, what if she coerced the boys into the robbery? If that's the case... All I'm going to say is that capital punishment is legal in that state (I think) for a reason. It's entirely possible, on the other hand, that she was coerced into this. If so, she shouldn't be blamed. Personally, I think that I want to know a bit more about what happened before I decide what I think she deserves.
Wow, Philip you just proved to the world that you might be the most rational person on the internet. It's something when a TH-camr chooses to respond to your questions rather than other "drama channels" because they trust you to present information in an objective and non-sensational manner. Because you reach out to the content creators affected by the story directly and allow them the opportunity to explain themselves, you've become a reliable intermediary. Good for you, man.
For the Gabbie and Rice thing, I'm for sure on Gabbie's side. Her story has always stuck, She shows her phone was CLEARLY shattered, also him sending money proves he did do it. Romeo even says himself as an eye witness that Rice was overly aggressive and they were "playing tug-o-war" with Gabbie's phone. Rice has had many statements on the situation, but doesn't keep a story straight. "I don't ave nails to scratch" - yet he scratched himself to show how someone could potentially do it to themselves and the marks will show up just the same. He also talks about it in a very childish, defensive way. I agree Gabbie was wrong to continue to take videos when asked to stop, but Rice extremely overreacted towards it. Him also making a diss track instead of having a serious things about it shows how immature he is handling the WHOLE thing, and again dishing something out he can't take himself and hiding behind a screen.
@@andreak3975 Nah, he said different stories. He once said that he quickly swiped her phone and smashed it immediately but has also said that he had to fight over the phone (i.e. tug of war). He can't keep his story straight.
EpicSoren but in retrospect , if the burglars had killed the homeowners son, you would bet she would be charged and convicted of murder with them. It's a very Interesting case to say the least
EpicSoren She is a part of why they where murdered, she was the getaway driver, who's to say she didn't drive them there in the first place. She could've simply said no and took them home or called the police. Murder avoided if they went anyway she is not accountable.
doesn't seem ridiculous to me, she was willing to drive them away with the loot and whatever they may have had to do (wearing masks etc I will assume they were there to do damage to humans as well as take stuff) so she should be held to the highest extent the law allows for her inclusion in the crime.
TheGabbieShow & Ricegum - 0:00 Today In Awesome (IT, Destiny 2, Louis CK, Vlog) - 4:23 Teen Sells Virginity - 5:47 Oklahoma Robbery Ends In Death Of Intruders - 7:52 Internet Privacy Rules - 10:20 Trump Executive Order On Climate Change - 11:10 Trump vs NYT - 11:54
It sounds like Ricegum can't take what he dishes out... if you want to insult people on a public platform then you should expect an equal backlash, even in person. Escalating to aggressive actions is never the answer if someone is just insulting you. You always have the option to get up and walk away. She pushed the situation just by confronting him like that, but that in no way gave him the right to Assault her and Destroy HER Property. Assault is when someone physically touches you in a manner that makes you feel threatened. No one should advocate his actions even if she was annoying and insulting him.
I usually don't comment, but let me just say this - If instead of the homeowner's son, it was the homeowner's daughter whom was trying to defend herself from three men/boys who had just broken in, would there still be this controversy? Because, no, there wouldn't. It's ridiculous. They broke in (not to mention they were armed), they are no longer victims. He had a right to defend himself. The driver on the other hand? I don't think she needs to get charged for the murder...but I could be convinced otherwise with a good argument. (Also I love you, your crew, and all your vids. Good luck with new office!)
If it was a girl it would be the same discussion. Why? Because there is nothing in the report of it being 'defense'. All the report there is is "Three teenagers broke in a house, they were shot and killed", nothing in the report says that they attacked someone, that they threatened someone, that they showed their weapons, that they even talked (besides after they were shot and one of the burglers was talking, probably in pain and scared out of his mind that his two friends were dead). The discussion is pure and simply, did the guy just shot the burglers before they even knew that they were being pointed a gun/could drop their weapons and surrender, and if yes, is that murder instead of self defense?
+godshades No offense, but having three people with weapons break into your house is a threat to you and anyone else in that home, plain and simple. That makes it self defense. Now had they not had weapons id be on the fence a little bit about this, but they had weapons so they were a clear and present danger.
koooo34 I guess I could have worded myself better? Because I agree with your point! It was self defense, the three broke in with ill intent (they were planning on robbing the place, after all) and he was fully justified in defending himself. I was just trying to point out that I think the media wouldn't have tried to paint him as the villian in this case if he was female.
godshades Maybe I'm too violent myself, but if 3 armed masked men broke into my home, yes, I would shoot first and with extreme prejudice. I'm not sure about you, but I sure can't tell people's ages if they have ski masks on, nor would I stop and ask them what their intentions were when they broke into my house. But maybe that's just me. Maybe they didn't wave weapons around and scream out threats, but they broke into this kid's home with ill intent and he reacted to defend himself. Am I glad they are dead? No, life is precious and they were young and stupid. Is the other kid at fault for defending himself? Imo? no.
my biggest problem with information being sold is that in a few weeks maybe even a few days second laws going to pass excluding congressman and other government officials from having their information sold
I think the worst part of the OK story is that the shooter will now have to live the rest of this life knowing he killed children. He is already getting hate from the public, and the family of the perps probably hate him. These situations can easily cause lasting psychological damage. He had no choice in those wrong-doers robbing him. The rest of his life we likely be negatively impacted by these three people. That makes me even more sad than the loss of life.
Also, I am 100% okay with the driver being charged. She was part of crime (if not knowingly, there would probably be enough evidence to have charges dropped/reduced, but I doubt she didn't know what was happening). Maybe the 3 teens would not have committed the crime if they didn't have a ride (or maybe the defender would have been asleep and unable to shoot if they had to walk to the house) - they might still be alive if she was not involved.
Seemingly putting off the blame to the driver is wrong. If someone wants to commit a crime they will commit a crime. I highly doubt the driver thought they were all going to an extremely aggressive pinata party with those brass knuckles and knives.
I didn't think I was putting off blame, as I said I was 100% okay with her getting charged. But innocent until proven guilty, there was a chance she didn't know they even had those things with them. I don't think that is what happened in this case (articles state she was actually the one who planned the robbery), but brass knuckles and knives are easily concealable. As for the other comment, I don't really support the stance that trying to rob someone immediately makes someone an 'adult' regardless of age. Especially if what I have read is correct in that fact that a few minors (under 18) were led into this by a legally defined adult (over 18). I don't understand exactly how it is determined to charge them as adults or not, I assume it has to do with how well the minors could understand the consequences of their actions. Which again could be skewed by someone years older than them. (Though, I know of people much older who can't understand that actions have consequences still >.
I'm just wondering how much of a role she played in the creation of this attempted break-in. If she was one of the main factors as to why they decided to do this (convincing them to go through with it). I'd be kinda inclined to feel like she was a murderer, essentially sending them to their death. But I know that may be reaching, just a thought.
She could have been the "brain" behind the whole robbery. She should be charged with the death of the three criminals. They homeowners son should be free and clear.
1. Just because something is "the law" doesn't mean it is right lmfao. It's "the law" that corporations are allowed to give politicians money to influence their decisions, it's extremely stupid and corrupt but what we should just get over it because it's "the law"? No, don't be dumb. 2. Exactly. I think it completely depends on her involvement, if she convinced them to do it/if she planned the whole thing out then sure charge her with murder. But if they were the ones who talked her into it/they planned it out and just convinced her to help I don't think the murder charges should apply.
AtaxiaPlays Wouldn't she still get time for manslaughter plus her other charges? The reason I don't think she should be charged with murder because she probably didn't expect the robbers to get killed. If it was the kid then I would agree she should be charged. She would of had the knowledge and accepted that there would possibly be victims.
Ya I thought a lesser charge, but something like "negligence leading to death" should be applied. Something where you see a few years in jail, but don't have your entire life taken away.
I agree with you that it should at least be relegated to 3rd degree or perhaps manslaughter. She is still responsible for her own actions in taking part, though, and she deserves whatever punishment comes her way for it.
@AtaxiaPlays "It was her idea" It does not matter who's fucking idea it was, they still decided "Hey! Let's go rob a home with weapons!" They were not forced into the situation. They could have easily said "That is a stupid idea, no." But they robbed the home anyway. Sorry to say, but if you truly did know those kids and were friends with them, you were friends with the wrong crowd. People like that will end up one of two ways, and that's dead or in jail. (PS, as said above, the girl would still get prison time for her other charges + manslaughter instead of murder.) For the topic of the OP, I agree. I think that manslaughter would be a more reasonable charge.
also just imagine how extra awkward itll be since she's selling herself to a total (much older) stranger. Good on her to make 1.6m for like 10 minutes of work. Guy was so stupid for paying for that.
He broke her phone. Obviously. He paid the damages. How did he break her phone if he didn't put a hand on her? Sooooooo? He made this physical. Yes- Gabbie started it, Gabbie was in the wrong, she should have not done that- buuuuut he shouldn't have escalated that situation. Simple.
she recorded him WITHOUT consent why dont ppl realise the problem with this. If someone stranger comes up starts recoding u dosen't stop when told to u would break their device too. I sure would
You come in my house without permission with the intention of robbing me or harming my family? One of us is not leaving that house alive, that's all I'll say.
*100%* think the son defending the home is in the right. I'm behind deeper background checks and everything, but this kind of thing is _exactly_ why I'm pro-gun. Where I live, I'm reasonably certain I won't need one, but if I moved somewhere else, I'd be on one like wet on water.
100% he was in his rights to shoot. A person with a knife can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. Anything 21 feet and under, he's in his legal rights to shoot
Alberto hernandez I've heard this before, and while this was proven in one study, it's also never been corroborated by another study. But still, a guy with a knife can be pretty damn fast.
Would you explain to me how RiceGum is able to post what he posts. In Colorado at least Cyber Bullying is a crime. RiceGum has a channel that has videos which would fall under the criteria of cyber bullying. How does TH-cam authorize this videos? I am sure they get flagged, so why are they not taken down? If a student in my district were to post a video on line in order to demean another student, not only would they be suspended but authorities would be called. How do creators like RiceGum get away with doing it?
Probably because the people he is mocking are public figures (and as you can see by SNL and other comedy shows mocking public figures is considered "social commentary" and not "bullying" and because he doesn't focus on just one person, it's a general thing. It's not cyber bullying, and anyone who thinks so is a snowflake and needs to grow a backbone.
^ true. Also, a lot of youtubers that do such type of content often disclaim in their videos in one way or another that they're just "joking around" and that they don't actually mean what they're saying in the videos. A lot of the time that's a lie, but it's an effective disclaimer nonetheless.
Elijah Arnold and then you'll realize that its just a family member who was out late and tried to sneak back home. Maybe this wont happen to you, but its not unlikely.
burgerkillsyou agreed. Who doesn't know what their family members look like? Why would THEY have a weapon? If you know that other people live in your house and youre home, why would you not expect company? Amd why would you respond to it WITH A FUCKING GUN!? If you're dumb enough to blindly shoot at anything that moves without assessing the situation, you know, like a responsible gun owner would do, you don't need to have a gun.
Phil, the attempted burglary happened one mile away from where I live. I 100% agree with your opinion that the son had every right to use that gun. My pregnant wife stays at home with our 3 year old son, and I've always had a small fear of someone trying to break in while I'm at work. I'm glad this is big news, because it acts as a deterrent from other people in my area trying to break in to our homes, and I somewhat feel safer. It''s very unfortunate that those 3 kids died, and the girl will be in jail for maybe the rest of her life, but they ultimately gave up their right not to be shot when they broke into that house.
I was always told that if I had to shoot someone in my home due to them trying to rob the place, legally it's better to have shot and killed them then to maim them because they can always turn around and sue you. I can say with confidence that if anyone tried to rob my house and they were armed and I couldn't talk them down, I would shoot to kill if I felt threatened enough that that is my only option. It's sad these kids had to lose their lives but they only have themselves to blame.
The get away driver shouldn't be responsible for murder. As far as I'm concerned the homeowner's son solved the majority of the justice with his gun. The woman should be charged with intent to steal and nothing else. Enough lives were ruined.
she's an adult and they were kids. seems pretty simple what should have happened when she was approached to be the getaway driver. If it was her idea, she knowingly put them at risk and stayed in the car, making it, in my opinion, first degree murder. If it was the 3 young fellows idea she should have said it was a dumb idea that could get them killed making her responsible for man slaughter
Him killing the burglars was justified as self defence, he shouldn't receive hate because are you saying 3 people who had intention to steal and harm are worth more than an innocent young man? They put theirselves in that situation and sorry but they deserved it. It sounds far right but seriously if your gonna put yourself in such and ILLEGAL situation realise all the risks including death.
OwlLegend but would you rather have your house broken into or be shot to death, I'm not saying they should have broken into his house but that doesn't give him the right to kill them
But you'd think after the first two got shot the third would surrender. These were teens so at some point after maybe only seeing one of them get shot and bleeding that they would most likely given in or give up. Maybe they did maybe they didn't and I totally admit he had a right to protect himself but to what end? I just wanna know whether or not there was a way to avoid the others dying and whether those deaths were honestly self defense or did the man kill them in a rage after seeing them break in.
Vorlocks fucking word dude, you deserve what you get when you threaten someone's safety in their own home. I wish there were more murders against robbers, these scum steal other people's hard earned money and belongings, it's the most disgusting thing to do to a person. And you deserve everything that happens to you
Vorlocks as a liberal. I have to say, people have the right to do whatever in order to protect their own home, especially if the attackers had wepons. I understand people being angry if he shot them after they already surrendered. (like an execution). but that's not what happened, he shot them while protecting his own house.
While I'm saddened that three young men died and who knows what they could have eventually become; but this kid is absolutely in the right. Not his fault for defending himself from an armed home invasion, but the driver should not also be charged with murder imo
I totally agree with you here, the getaway driver isn't the one that decided to get the other 3 killed, so she should only be charged with burglary, not murder.
Now, I'll try my hardest not to sound biased, but I'll give a recap on the drama. In terms of the broken phone, Rice did own up by paying Gabbie back (In case of the extra thousand dollars, Gabbie sent it back) Gabbie was at a TH-cam party, having fun, chatting, social things. Then, she found RiceGum, the guy she prefers as "the guy who made a video about me" and walks up to him, and challenges him to a freestyle. Rice was joking around, refusing her challenge. They continued joking around until Gabbie makes a joke about Rice's ghostwriter, and then that's when Rice got up and started trying to snatch the phone as Gabbie was snapchatting. Romeo explains in his Twitter video that Rice and Gabbie were pulling the phone like "tug-of-war" and then Rice twists Gabbies arm, being aggressive, but definitely not hitting her. Rice finally aquires the phone and threw it on the floor then smashed it. Technically destruction of property (A.K.A. vandalism) and an illegal act, but Gabbie was lenient. Gabbie didn't want to post any of this, but she had to. She responded with two thought out and mature videos. But Rice responds immaturely with a diss track (terrible, by the way) and spits rude lyrics; body shaming her, calling her a "fucking bitch," and picking on her appearance. Gabbies fans disliked the video but were greatly outnumbered by mindless children who don't even understand the situation. Even Gabbies response videos were plastered with immature and mindless children, attacking the people who support Gabbie and the ones who hate RiceGum.
Don't forget harassment and unwanted recording on private property is illegal. If you're unbiased you should at least try to give ricegum credit. Unless there is none of course.
Vynoth looks to me like you're biased towards Gabbie At least edit your comment to add things you forgot so people won't also disregard the info you missed
Infinitely Inspirit 1. Rice doesn't really have much evidence to support himself since he responded with two immature videos regarding the situation. And 2. I said I'll try my hardest, not I'm completely biased.
T-Bone I wish I could say the same. I watched him for a short time lol. Looking back, he's unfunny and a pretty bad person. There's that video of him laughing at a rape victim and asking her if it felt good.
i watched one of his videos. the one he cried about not being in the youtube rewind because he ''deserves to be in it since he got 5m sub in only a year and smaller youtubers were in it''. smaller youtubers that do videos for the last 5-6-7 and more years.no he doesn't deserve the attention.
In my Stress and Coping class, we talked about how men and women deal with stress differently. Obviously Gabbie thought it was a good idea seeking social support through social media sites after the encounter, because women tend to do that, "Tend & Befriend" theory. And men stick to the traditional "Fight or Flight," which Rice did, in a rather violent way from Gabby's point of view. He used direct problem-focused methods to deal with his stressor (Gabbie and her Snapchatting), which are getting rid of the phone and leaving the scene after that. As a neutral third party hearing both sides of the story, I understand that both have some preconceived impressions of the other party before meeting in person. Those impressions definitely affected how they handled the actual in-person encounter (got off the wrong foot). It was not a very ideal setting for them to meet in-person for the first time. From the video at the party, Rice seems to be under the influence. He was impatient, and just wanted to extricate himself from the Gabbie situation. Gabbie on the other hand, just wanted a casual, fun first in-person encounter with this guy who talked shit about her. She had good intentions, but they were not delivered to Rice. Rice thought Gabbie was mal-intended. I believe it truly was a case of miscommunication (what the "kid" said to Gabbie through text). Let us consider how each side tells their story after the incident. Gabbie stressed on the violent behaviors of Rice, in the process of him trying to get her phone. Rice stressed that all he did was grabbed her phone and smashed it, then left. Both are in fact telling the truth. However, telling the story from their point of view, they may have left out some details on purpose or unintentionally, because feelings come before logic. Gabbie wanted us to know that she was upset, then told us why. Rice also wanted to tell us that he was upset, and reasons for that. I want you guys to know that I am a woman, and if I was Gabbie I would have done shit ton worse than how she handled, and acted and felt more upset, AND way more dramatic. I summed up the points above from knawledge I learned from class and real life experience, mostly fighting with my boyfriend. It isn't hard for us to see the truth as an outsider, but it is hard to listen to the other side and let ideas get across before denying their words. This is a lot of what's going on in political views and social factions. People get so triggered so easily over nothing, getting offensive/defensive when logic fails on their side. Please be sensible and educated, by listening to others and what they have to say. We are modern and civilized people. Communication is key.
I would like to see the contract that they drew up for that girls virginity because what he just owns it now and if he decided not to actually sleep with her and she is contractually obligated to never sleep with anyone else because her virginity belongs to him and what if he decides to resell it this shit seems like a contract nightmare
There have been bunches of these types of deals before and a few were pretty public, they have a "use by date" in the terms. If she voids it by not making herself available she loses the money and probably has to pay a penalty for defaulting on the contracts. On the otherhand if it's Mr.Hong Kong who's a no show, he forfeits some or all of the payment and she's free pursue other buyers for her service.
As far as people condemning the use of guns to defend ones home from armed attackers goes, I am very curious as to what alternative solution the condemning parties would offer.
pretty much what bob said I guess, I am someone that believes a person has the right to defend themselves from harm "at any cost". So if I was in this boy's shoes...I woulda emptied the chamber
the armed people breaking into your home have a vested interest in stopping you from calling the police and their only available means is force. Assuming you can get to the phone and call however, you're back you square one for the next ten minutes or so and my question still stands.
kek, I live out in the middle of nowhere. If I call the police they'll arrive at my place in a half hour if I'm lucky, home invasions are common in my area for this very reason. No thanks, I'll stick to my guns (literally).
I completely agree with Phil's opinion on the robbery victim who killed the robbers because in my opinion there is nothing wrong with a person defending them-self. And to the people believe that it was unfair for the man to kill the robbers because he had a gun and they only had weapons that is ridiculous because if someone was charging at you with a knife and you had a gun you would probably use it.
gabbie had every right to be rude. ricegum making fun of her and publicly bullying her should have the consequence of Gabbie being rude whenever she sees him. It's not like he ever apologized to her about that unprovoked bashing video.
And its illegal to record and post someone online without their consent and she did it anyway when he said no. He broke her phone and literally not even 10 minutes after shes posting on snapchat about what happened and lying about being abused even though she said she didnt want to make it a bigger problem, ricegum said sorry and paid for her phone.
Loi-boy he never apologized to her for the roast video he made on her for no fucking reason. He earned thousands of dollars making a video degrading her appearance for millions of views and never once apologized for that. He's a bully and a bitch ass. So the consequence of being a bitch ass shit talker who's only tough behind a screen is that when the people you talk shit about meet you in real life they don't have kind words for you. Ricegum showed what a snowflake he is by responding in that way.
1. That's CRAZY that they are even thinking about charging the home owners son. It was a 3 v 1 and they had weapons. I would of done the same thing as the son. They broke into a house carrying weapons, meaning that they had the intent of harming or threatening someone with said weapons if it came down to it. I think about this sometimes when I hear stories like this; I don't know which to fear more- The fact that someone has broken into my house with weapons and may try to harm me OR if I cause harm to them/kill them I could get charged with something even though I was defending myself and possibly trying to protect my family. Isn't that awful? For someone to not want to protect themselves because they know they might get charged with something. Absolutely ridiculous. 2. I do think that charging the get away driver with is very over the top. She didn't kill anyone, so why be charged? It isn't necessary, or is it..? The law that is stated at 9:36 intrigued me because, just repeating what DeFranco said, even though you didn't kill anyone, if someone dies while committing a felony and you're involved, you can get charged with murder. Like I said, that law does seem over the top but in my opinion it seems very necessary. First of all, it does have a scare factor to it. If I were a get away driver and I heard that law, no way would I go through with it if I had a chance of being brought up on murder charges. Secondly, if a group of people come up with a plan to commit illegal acts, and some of them die, I do agree that everyone involved should be brought up with severe charges. They shouldn't of been plotting to do illegal things in the first place, and since they came up with a plan that got people involved killed, they should be held responsible. They plotted illegal things and got people killed, so yes in my opinion it's extreme, but it's fair.
but its not fair that she will be charged with 3 murders all she thought will happen is that those 3 boys will steal tv or sth it's to harsh and that guy who shot them could have just killed one of them the other two will run for sure and also he could aim at there legs he went to far and now he will leave with the fact he killed 3 kids because they just wanted to steal his tv or sth
I agree with this comment for the most part. I enjoy watching videos about murder and other dark subjects, and it makes me think a lot about what I'd do if someone threatened me. Of course I'd choose to defend myself, and while I wouldn't find it easy killing someone, especially where I'm from (most people don't own guns here), but if it comes down to it, I'll do it to protect myself and/or my family as best as I can. As for the getaway driver, while I get it seems unfair to charge her, she should have considered every possible scenario that could occur during the robbery. Someone else stated that the three who were killed were 16-18, but she was 21. I'm not sure if that was factually correct, but it does add to the perspective.
All she thought would happen? So it's okay for people to do illegal things because all they are doing is stealing a tv or something? She plotted something out and in the end it got people killed. And what if they were charging him? Do you know how hard it is for someone to aim for a persons legs, arms or head? Especially if they are being charged at, if they are nervous or if they are scared? I'm sure the last thing on someones mind when 3 armed men are breaking into their house is "let me shoot them in the legs, or maybe let me just shoot one of them". No. All they will be thinking is "how can I defend myself in this situation".
I've been assaulted by an ex at a party and you'd be surprised by how people really don't know what to do. Doesn't mean they're bad people, but it can be jarring and in the moment, sometimes you don't act like the hero you may think is inside of you.
Joey it was an armed robbery, and he defended himself. It's unlikely that he meant to kill them, but they threatened him and broke into his home. Self defense.
Joey Ok the death penalty was not for theft, the death penalty was for the threat they posed to killing the home owners son and other family members that were present. Maybe they didn't have any intentions of killing a person in the house that night, but the homeowners didn't know that.
Do we know they threatened him? If he had shot off some warning shots, isnt it likely that three young people with just knives would have backed down? "It's unlikely that he meant to kill them".. Come on, you might kill one of them by accident but certainly not all of them.
oh and shoutout to that dude for killing those burgulars. he should be praised for defending against dangerous criminals, not shamed for protecting himself
I think he was completely in the right for killing the three. If anyone came into my home, especially holding weapons, they are dead. I don't care who they are or what they are there for, they are dead. Kid was brave for taking action. I do feel bad for him though. This experience will most likely haunt him.
Was she in his face and annoying? Probably. That's kind of who she strikes me to be. Does that give him any reason to do anything to her? Nope. His multiple payments, and more than the phone is worth to boot, looks pretty incriminating to me.
Lindsay Mead Defend only if they are truely a threat to someone. Killing them while they are escaping is murder since they were no threat and claiming self defense would be untrue.
Lindsay Mead I'm with you all these people posting about he wasn't in danger lol like first of all they broke into this dudes house they were armed and were all ski masked out like really people just go to sleep lol
You're LUCKY if 3 armed men break into your home to "only" rob you. Man with ski mask is the description of like 90% of serial rapists. Having a calm discussion about how they want to brutally murder you shouldn't have to take place before you defend yourself.
Agreed. If someone is breaking into my house, I will assume that they are there to do something evil. I've never heard of people breaking into homes to help with the dishes, so I'm not sure why I should assume that they aren't there to hurt me and those I love.
THAT IS NOT TRUE AT ALL! Like 90% of all "men with ski masks are serial rapists" What?! Hahahaha! That is a HUGE exaggeration and just a lie. Do not spread a bullshit lie so blindly like that. I would like to know what source even says that, let alone if the source could provide evidence of that statement. I hate to say it but you are woman and that is kinda of typical t be over dramatic and blast that "ski mask" shit out of proportion. Trust me. If someone is mugging you or breaking in to your home, it is not to hurt you! 99% of the time it is to steal something. People who steal DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT, set out to kill or rape someone. Think about it. Stealing and breaking and entering are much less punishable by law than if they were to commit murder or rape. If someone attempting to steal is carrying a weapon is nearly always for intimidation. I still cant believe you actually commented that 90% of men with ski masks are serial rapists... That is so unfuckingbelievably stupid...
If someone comes in my home, armed and wearing mask I have the right to protect myself and do what ever I can to survive. The girl should be charged because if she said no non of that would of happen. The guy that shot the 3 teenager should not be charged for anything because he did nothing wrong.
Hunter Killer i believe you should get punished in accordance to your intentions and your actions. if they tripped an alarm or some shit and the police arrested them all she would have done nothing different, but her punishment would be far less severe. her actions do not warrant her punishment
You don't break into someone's house with masks and weapons without the intent that you would hurt someone if you had too so ye they had it coming it is as simple as that
koooo34 but they still intend too use the weapons as an end too a means and if you woke up in the night too three guys with nucks and a knife your first thought isn't going too be I wonder if they intend too cause me harm with those weapons or are they just for show
If he A.) GRABBED her phone B.) SMASHED her phone, and C.) Venmo'd her money for the broken phone (an admission of guilt) then RICEGUM IS GUILTY. It is NEVER ok to hit or push around a girl.
I think what iPwanage literally said is that he agrees with Phil that guns should be used primarily (by citizens) for home defense. What the shit do you think he said? Everyone should be armed in public?
I disagree, she (as he put it) allowed the whole thing to occur in a sense, if those guys had gone in there and killed that kid it would also be on her head, just as this is on her head. Instead of backing out, or calling the cops she joined in, and now 3 people are dead.
The Croaker TBH, it is a difficult idea and I go back/forth on my thoughts on it. I believe most states automatically charge felony murders as first degree murders, although they might not necessarily be "intentional". I don't believe she drove the car for the break-in hoping the boys get murdered but she definitely intended to support the burglary. However, breaking into a home in OK (where a large portion of the population own guns) is pretty dumb in general imo. To charge her three times with felony first degree murder (which could probably get her the death penalty in OK) seems absurd. The boys also knew what they were getting themselves into and clearly went prepared to fight the homeowner(s). I would love to know more of the context of the situation. Why was a 21yo girl hanging out with 17/18yo boys? Was she the ring leader? Was she being manipulated and didn't really want to do it in the first place? Would love to hear updates on this
While I do agree that the getaway driver should be charged for the 3 deaths, I question the 1st degree murder aspect. Yes, the robbery was premeditated, but it's not like she planned that they would die in the process. I realize they probably expect her to take a plea for lesser charges, but I feel that manslaughter or negligent homicide makes more sense.
Kimberly Izor In the location where the commited the crime if someone dies during a robbery or other premeditated crime the blood is on criminal hands she got her buddies killed and while it isnt always tight in this case they broke in with the intent to steal and possibly harm they died she was the get away driver and the blood is on her hands
I understand that, and I agree that the blood is on her hands. I'm just saying from a legal standpoint, 1st Degree Murder is a premeditated intent to kill, which would be a difficult point to argue let alone prove in this case.
Yeah and how I feel aligned with James. When they decided to break into this guys house they agreed with the possible risks, and that could have included harm or murder of the homeowner, and the risk of harm or murder of themselves. So I do think 1st degree murder charges are fine. I mean, what did they expect?
Lemme get this straight Ricegum makes fun of kids, famous people to grow his channel, made fun of a rape victim to her face, made fun of models he'd get on his twitch for views, but he can't handle someone mentioning his ghost writter??? 😂😂😂
![KRK - ชนิสรา Ft.WanMai , N/A [Official MV] Prod. By Sakarin](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/C-WMwwYobcU/mqdefault.jpg)
psssst. I'm leaving this comment from a meeting. Don't tell anyone. Have a great day!
PS. If you missed yesterday's show catch it here: th-cam.com/video/zjENaa_WOFg/w-d-xo.html
notice me phil
nice one Phil. PAY ATTENTION DURING MEETINGS DAMNIT
Philip DeFranco Bromeo, Bromeo. I love you no homeo.
get back to work Phil your drunk on stress
I LOVE YOU PAPIIIIIIIII
Someday, I want Phil to do a show wearing a different color of plaid after every jump cut.
Fajen Thygia yes Philly please do this
Fajen Thygia This would make me so happy
Fajen Thygia lmfao, i might have a seizure
well april first is around the corner
You think the jump cuts are panned?
I'm surprised anyone cares what gun the guy used to defend himself. If your life is threatened, you use whatever force is necessary to ensure your own survival. I don't care if he was using an AK47 in one hand, a P90 in the other and manipulating a rocket launcher with his toes. He was defending himself and his home: end of debate.
I'd be more interested in how the hell he'd handle a rocket launcher with his toes
It would be rather unwise to fire a rocket launcher indoors but it'd do a hell of a job at taking out the intruders.
Kaitlyn Peterson amen! I agree w/u 100 %! also Ur comment was funny! 😄😄😄
Philly D Show > Fox, NBC, ABC, Univision, Telemundo, etc
replace cnn with fox they dont deserve the hate for reporting facts
They both deserve to be called out on their bullshit
Telemundo es bueno
Nothing Matters no, no es, ay hijo, o no
Bahaha you really think fox is real news?... Dude theyve even admitted to fabricating their stories... Wake up dude
"laptop gansta" LMAO
XxUnraveledGamerxX I read that right when he said that lol
Fuck TH-cam drama, Club Penguin is shutting down tonight!
Foo-Foo Cuddlypoops Oh shit for real?!!!!
Who fucking cares? It's a stupid game ffs.
really!? Oh no
Foo-Foo Cuddlypoops Is it really?!
Cthulhoop I don't think you understand how a meme works
I'm not a super advocate of either side of the gun safety debate, but if there are people breaking into your home with intent to rob you and/or harm you, you definitely have a right to defend yourself. No one should have to sit there with three masked robbers in a dark house and just let them have their way; you don't know how old they are, what their plans are (beyond robbing you), and what kind of weapons they have. All you really know is how many of them are right in front of you, and in that situation, you have to assume that they'd likely put you down just as quickly to keep you from calling the police. It's definitely unfortunate that things ended the way they did, but even burglars must have some understanding of the possible consequences of their actions in this day and age.
MisterB absolutely.
If you break someone else's phone or even your own phone out of anger, you need to reevaluate how you handle life.
Emily Kohl lol ricegum handled it pretty well considering gabbie harassed him, wouldn't you rather have him destroy her phone rather than him hitting her? #teamricegum
I don't care for either TH-camr, but if your boy is known for making roast/bash videos that essentially harass other TH-camrs but can't take what he dishes out himself, then he needs to change the content of his channel lol That's why you rarely hear about comedians who have beef with each other physically fight each other because they can both dish out insults as well as take insults directed at them. All in all, this RiceGum guy getting provoked to the point of taking someone else's phone and breaking it breaks this hardcore, roasting persona he wants to portray on TH-cam and makes him look like not only a walking hypocrite, but even more pathetic.
Lamusicful we don't know what really happen, none us were really there. Maybe ricegum wasn't feeling well, maybe he was drunk and tired, we weren't there. We can't say anything.
Wendy B. but he has the right to throw someone's phone? no... I don't understand why people still defend him.. don't care if ricegum isn't feeling well. he shouldn't react agressively like that to anyone. to make situations worse, he continues to make a music video about this whole situation, making money off of this drama and bragging about it. i feel like there's something missing in his mental ability to process his actions. maybe he hasn't fully matured yet.
DozyProductions lmao yesss😂😂
ricegum can dish it out but he can't take it.
"Laptop Gangster" put that on a t-shirt
Seconded
Juan Alvarado yes. I want that
That would be the best
Juan Alvarado I would totally buy that 🙌
"Laptop Gangster"
I think this needs to be a shirt 🤣
jenn bradley agreed
jenn bradley yes please
jenn bradley yes 👌😏
Now I want a Philip De Franco shirt saying "I'm a laptop gangster"...
Yessss! I'd totally buy that shirt!
Zoee Whitee make this happen!!!!!😂
Yaaaaasssss
Zoee Whitee yes
Zoee Whitee Yes!
I feel bad for that kid. He has to live the rest of his life knowing he killed 3 people. Can you even imagine?
I've killed a dozen or so, at least. I sleep just fine at night.
jordan turner video games don't count sugartits
Plus worrying about whether or not he'll be criminalized for his actions..
So if one of those boys were you son, would you still be celebrationg? All lives matter and they were young and might have changed if they had got the chance. I'm not saying he shouldn't have defended himself and I wasn't there, it must have been frightning but three dead human beings are not a positive thing, no matter what.
I agree, there is no positive side to this story. But I would also ask, if the boy who defended himself were your son do you think he should be punished? If you are willing to make this choice, to break into someone elses home, then you need to be prepared for the consequences of your actions.
The girl getaway driver won't be convicted of the felony murder. The DA will charge her with it to make her potential sentence all the more scary, which will make her more likely to accept whatever plea deal they offer.
When people are charged now days the system throws the book at them which means a majority of cases never go to trial but get resolved in plea deals. This is one of many aspects of the justice system that need serious reform.
hit, grab or scratch it doesn't matter it's all assault.
Sahana Ann Rao it's all assault, but there is definitely a difference. I don't care about either of those TH-camrs, I'm just saying
gizmobirdman but legally there isn't a difference tho :/ assault is assault
Sahana Ann Rao yes I've been saying that since the start. I love gabble and there is so much evidence that ricegum can't deny it
Sahana Ann Rao OMG Finally someone is making sense!!!! I mean who the fuck would be on rice gums side. He has admitted to ASSAULT!!! ASSAULT!!!
ricegum didn't hit grab or scratch so he did not assault anyone
I'm from Oklahoma, I actually knew one of the kids in the break-in. While I am sad that these three teens were killed, it would be foolish to demonize the defendant. I actually feel worse for the kid that had to do it. Imagine know that you've killed three people, especially at his age. I know it's completely justified, but I know I couldn't deal with that.
BLACKman1776 let alone that if he had know these kids in passing or what not. I hate to say that the get away driver is being charged with 3 counts of murder but she made the choice with the 3 others to break in to a house and it ended up with 3 friends killed. Bad choices can lead to bad consequences. I hope that she gets off the 3 counts of murder but still. If things go the way they are she'll be a convicted felon for life. There lives won't be the same and I feel honestly worse for the parents that lost their kids because they made bad choices.
sesshomaru68 I agree that the get away driver should not be convicted for murder, I do think she should be punished however. I feel like the defendant is going through so much guilt,people are demonizing this kid to the ground. It must be traumatizing to kill another human, let alone all of the hate he is receiving. When you mention the parents, I agree that they also must feel horrible for their loss. But these kids were above the age of 16, old enough to know better. The kid that I knew had a great family and friends, I believe he just got into a wrong group of people. All differences aside, I think everyone can agree that what happened was unfortunate for both sides.
there was no need to kill tho. places like knee caps, shoulders etc exist and could have stopped them without killing. then the cops could have arrested them and given due justice.
Artworld Kid that would be much more difficult to do than you think especially in the heat of the moment
Artworld Kid have you ever shot a gun? At something that was moving? trying to hit a kneecap or something small like that is so hard to do. Even police are taught to shoot what is called center mass. the middle of the biggest part of the body. because it is hard to hit anything that is moving, targets/animals/people. Everyone says "Why didn't he just shoot to disable them?" until they are put in the same situation and only have seconds to react.
The homeowner should not get in trouble for simply defending their home.
The son definitely had the right to shoot those intruders. You are spot on about how much misinformation there is among anti-gun people surrounding the AR-15. Personally I don't think that the getaway driver should be charged with three counts of felony first degree murder seeing as the murders were not premeditated. She did not plan to kill anyone or for any of her accomplices to be killed in the burglary. I am not familiar with this case, but I think that they probably charged her with three counts of manslaughter in the first degree and not first degree murder. Manslaughter charges will be charged instead of murder charges, because manslaughter is used when specific imminently dangerous actions are committed without a design to effect death, claim the life of another person. Here she participated in a burglary which is a dangerous action, but she did not intent to have someone die as a result.
The internet privacy regulations were nothing more than "privacy theater" as I like to say. They sound good and make you think that you have privacy, but you have already signed away your privacy with everything you do online. Google knows everything you do/say online and sells your information to advertisers. Google knows more about you than that girl you have been dating for a year now. How is what Google does any different than what ISPs could potentially do? Sure Google provides you a free service, but that isn't out of generosity, it is because they can use your information to make them money by selling it, they has been able to get millions of people to give their personal info, likes/dislikes, search history to them without much complaining. Sure I don't want ISPs to invade my privacy, but I know that I have no privacy online because of Google, so what privacy is my ISP going to take away that Google hasn't already converted into cash? ISPs aren't going to store or sell the information that is sensitive such as bank numbers, credit card numbers, SSN numbers. The Institute for Information Security & Privacy at Georgia Tech released a working paper entitled “Online Privacy and ISPs” after the regulations were first instituted. I recommend reading the paper, but the gist is that now over 70% of internet traffic is on domains using https encryption technology. The encryption on https domains makes it so the ISP can see only the domain URL that you are on, they can not see the contents of the pages. My point is that it is important to look at the actual things that take away your privacy rather than taking part in this "privacy theater" game that does nothing once you think of how Google already knows every detail about who you really are.
In most felony murder cases, an intent to kill isn't a requirement.
I don't get what the big deal is, with this kid defending himself from intruders. If you don't wanna get shot, don't break in to other people's houses and steal shit. Get a fucking job like a normal human being, they've out their selves into that situation and had the audacity to traumatize this kid in his house minding his own fucking business. Good riddance, less pieces of shit in this world.
Dave McClintock I agree with you about "privacy theater" being a thing and people are just passing along. Our information has been being tracked and sold to advertisers and other companies for a long time. I suppose having it be "okay" in federal law makes it feel more legitimate to those who find out their information is being tracked and sold, as well as making it easier for ISPs to profit (please lower internet rates). The https kinda means your private, but it's not a super hard encryption to break. Also, those secure sites can still gather information from their own site, so you've never really been safe.
I'm not very familiar with that law to completely understand why the getaway driver would get charged with 3 counts of first degree murder. Manslaughter is more reasonable, but if the teenager meant to eliminate the threats by killing, wouldn't that be intent to kill? Being charged with murder is a bit of a stretch if you ask me, but I understand. Now, everyone wants justice or revenge for the deaths of their loved ones.. that may be why this law is in effect, especially since they were only teenagers, as well as the fact that it sets an example and is a deterrent for more crimes like this. Just like you, I haven't studied this case much.
Dave McClintock I agree with you about "privacy theater" being a thing and people are just passing along. Our information has been being tracked and sold to advertisers and other companies for a long time. I suppose having it be "okay" in federal law makes it feel more legitimate to those who find out their information is being tracked and sold, as well as making it easier for ISPs to profit (please lower internet rates). The https kinda means your private, but it's not a super hard encryption to break. Also, those secure sites can still gather information from their own site, so you've never really been safe.
I'm not very familiar with that law to completely understand why the getaway driver would get charged with 3 counts of first degree murder. Manslaughter is more reasonable, but if the teenager meant to eliminate the threats by killing, wouldn't that be intent to kill? Being charged with murder is a bit of a stretch if you ask me, but I understand. Now, everyone wants justice or revenge for the deaths of their loved ones.. that may be why this law is in effect, especially since they were only teenagers, as well as the fact that it sets an example and is a deterrent for more crimes like this. Just like you, I haven't studied this case much.
+Becca Bergquist "Premeditation to kill" is generally a requirement for first degree murder and an "intent to kill" is generally a requirement for second degree murder. First and second degree felony manslaughter does not require that the murder be premeditated or intentional, that's why it's called manslaughter instead of murder.
Gabbie did provoke him BUT what ricegum did was ILLEGAL. If we're going with the LAW Gabby could sue him. Ricegum was in the wrong simple.
Gabbie illegally recorded Ricegum and put it online even after he told her not too.
it's not illegal bc it's Snapchat. Only certain people can see Snapchat, it's not public technically, so there is no legal ground there. People can sue because TH-cam is public and they make money off it.
I love this comment and everyone should see it. Rice Gum is a horrible human being and the situation should be as clear and simple as explained in your comment
he could of cover his face and just get up and walk away
well the video is now public after him saying not to record him. Not saying he did was okay btw
The getaway driver deserves the charges.
She's 21, they were younger kids. She knew what they were doing and the exceptional difference in danger between her role and the other three.
Interesting perspective. Hadn't considered that.
Fletch Stacey not first degree murder. first degree murder is you intended for your action to cause death. maybe manslaughter or maybe 2nd degree. but definitely not 1st degree murder
Fletch Stacey I agree. I think it makes total sense that she was charged with this. I'm skeptical that it will stick in court if she decides to challenge it and lands a half competent lawyer, though.
I recently went through a Walking Dead like attraction where people will jump out and try to grab and scare you. And when that first guy in this attraction jumped out and was bee-lining straight towards me, I didn't realize it, but my arm was up and my hand outstretched, ready to grab the guy by the throat to defend myself. I don't even remember raising it! Just that it was up and positioned that had he continued his charge, it was in the right position to grab him there. I'm just so glad he stopped just short, though he was probably trained for that!
Knowing the instinct response from a theme park attraction that I paid for to go through and yet found myself ready to react in defense against an "Attacker", this kid was staring down 3 armed intruders in his home. It was dark, they had ski masks on to obscure how old they were. They had weapons on them with brass knuckles and knives and they might have even had guns on them! People seem to look at the looted corpse of someone and say, "Whelp! No gun on him! Guess this guy was brutally murdered!" But the sheer fact they might have had a gun, especially since they were threatening someone's place, it was dark, and they did indeed have weapons on their body, the shooter definitely acted in self-defense.
As for the woman who was driving the get-away car. According to the law, she was indeed in the process of committing a felony. She was the oldest there. She was likely the one WHO DROVE THE 3 TEENS TO THAT HOUSE WHERE THEY WERE SHOT!! From the law and the situation, she should be held accountable that she caused the death of these 3 teens. And with the weapons the teens brought with them into the house, one could make the argument they were premeditatedly prepared to murder anyone who got in their way into that house. Premeditation, of course, being the defining factor of 1st degree murder. So it seems that they were prepared ahead of time to have the capability of murdering someone, and the fact that 3 people died from this, the 3 counts of 1st degree murder should absolutely be brought to this woman, even by just the most technical aspects of the law.
I agree to a certain level. Idk if it should be felony first degree but she should be held accountable
why is it that we respect soldiers, police, etc. for protecting us from criminals but punish homeowners for doing the same thing. It's unfortunate that it lead to the death of 3 criminals but it could have also resulted in the death of 1 or more innocent people. (had he not been home alone).
He was there with his dad
tech kid he wasn't home alone. His father was also in the house.
Charlie Ward you need to read the story and see WHY she was charged. good riddance to all the thieves 🤗
Charlie Ward because she was partially responsible and involved. That's how it works in Oklahoma
i bet that if it was a woman that shot the three guys. they would be calling her a hero. I'm all for shooting people that break into your home. i also think that the get away driver , should not be charged for murder. its fucking stupid. the other charges though, she should be charged with.
I feel like any time there's a self defense shooting you'll get people who aren't in touch with reality saying "Why didn't they just (insert something that only happens in movies)" Things like "shoot them in the legs" or "use the gun to disarm/intimidate them." Anything other than aiming center mass isn't realistically viable, and people shouldn't be expected to take that risk in a matter of life and death (which in the case of armed home invasion, it arguably was)
Prime example of "easier said than done"
Lyle McDouchebag Very true.When you have 3 people invading your home with intent to steal,you don't have time to think about the ways to save your family while also not killing them.You think "These people are to hurt and steal from me and my family."That is the sensible way to think in that scenario.Also what do you think about the getaway driver being charger with the killing of these three?I think it stretches it but I'm interested in your opinion.By the way I love your channel.Ive watched you for about 2 years now I think possibly more.Keep up the good work also I love your Ex-stream series.
The situation becomes very scary and real when it actually happens. A lot of people will be putting in their "anti-gun two cents" without ever understanding how it would feel.
My issue with it with my limited understanding of the law is: If you shoot someone in the leg and they survive, you're liable to get sued. I don't feel like paying my own money because I protected myself and family on my own property from a burglar/robber/killer that I only wounded. There have been a limited few cases that I've read/heard of people breaking into homes, getting injured, and got compensation from the home owner. It's ridiculous.
It's illegal to intentionally shoot people in the legs because if you don't shoot to kill then the argument becomes "you obviously weren't in fear for your life". Then you are liable to get charged for just shooting at someone who maybe wasn't threatening you that much. If you think your life is in danger shoot to kill. It's horrible, and scary, but that's the point. The law is set up (at least where I am) that it's only legal to shoot someone if you believe that your life, or someone else's life is in imminent danger. And if that's the case, why wouldn't you shoot to kill? I don't understand "shoot them in the legs, killing is bad" fuck yeah killing is bad, but it's better to kill someone who might be trying to kill you than to be like "killing is bad so I guess I'll let someone kill me."
ricegum peeps on here are like "shes so annoying like omg" but he roasts people and does all this other shit but when it's done to him you wanna throw gabbie down for it? thats like a serial killer who has killed 30 people back to back and once somebody tries killing him they defend the serial killer. like what y'all make no sense.
64 Bit Gamer THANK YOU! You make complete sense. People just don't think about other side of the story sometimes
+e she's using an extreme analogy but she's saying that they're pretty much just as annoying as each other - which I agree with lmao. If Ricegum can't own up to his trash talks without using physical means then he's nothing but an annoying troll himself. EDIT: Also, it seems that Gabbie has made some mature response videos about this drama on her channel whereas Ricegum just made a "diss track" body shaming her etc, so I give Gabbie a little bit more props.
Bad Weird Gamer did u seriously compare TH-cam drama to a murder incident?!
This is bullshit, I did naht hit her, I did naaahhht. Oh hi Phil.
Borat Sagdiyev the computer business is very competitive
Tommy Riceau.
Borat Sagdiyev True LOL
Hey, Maaarrrk!
Borat Sagdiyev YOUR TEARING ME APART GABBIE!
PDS: the most trusted name in TH-cam News.
He's also pretty fair and balanced in his coverage.
RAF Leader Ikr, Scarce and Keemstar are so fucking biased when they report on something.
RAF Leader agreed 1000000000%
RAF Leader Philly D is my most trusted name in news in general
Wrong. Keemstar is most trusted.
Anyone that breaks into someone's home should know that they are taking a chance of getting killed. People shouldn't have to worry about catching a charge because you want to protect what is rightly theirs.
For people saying she "deserved it" what about ricegum? He talks shit all the time so does that mean the people should strike back physically?
Kitty Kins Ricegum is a moronic loser
I think the homeowner's son had every right to defend their property. It sucks they died, but that is the risk you take when breaking into someone's house to rob them. Stupid kids making a horrible decision. The driver of the car is in for some hurt. It sucks, but that is also the risk of participating in an armed robbery. We have laws to deter people from performing these acts. Sadly, they weren't smart enough to think about what they were doing. I think a life sentence would be a little much for the driver (due to age and participation) but a hefty sentence is a no brainer. Hard to say how you feel about something but I still side with the people defending themselves and their home. Don't break into someone's house and you won't get shot by them in the process.
Dude! Nice to see you here!
urmaker Personally, I'd like to know more. She was older, what if she coerced the boys into the robbery? If that's the case... All I'm going to say is that capital punishment is legal in that state (I think) for a reason. It's entirely possible, on the other hand, that she was coerced into this. If so, she shouldn't be blamed. Personally, I think that I want to know a bit more about what happened before I decide what I think she deserves.
I dont think she should be charged with murder. Burglary? Yes, definitely
urmaker YO ay urmaker
I was pro-gun before listening to your stories (and several others), but now I'm there's-no-way-in-hell-I'm-leaving-my-house-without-one pro-gun. XD
Wow, Philip you just proved to the world that you might be the most rational person on the internet. It's something when a TH-camr chooses to respond to your questions rather than other "drama channels" because they trust you to present information in an objective and non-sensational manner. Because you reach out to the content creators affected by the story directly and allow them the opportunity to explain themselves, you've become a reliable intermediary. Good for you, man.
not worth it
Did those burglars just assume my stance on gun control? Nope, they're dead.
LUL
For the Gabbie and Rice thing, I'm for sure on Gabbie's side. Her story has always stuck, She shows her phone was CLEARLY shattered, also him sending money proves he did do it. Romeo even says himself as an eye witness that Rice was overly aggressive and they were "playing tug-o-war" with Gabbie's phone. Rice has had many statements on the situation, but doesn't keep a story straight. "I don't ave nails to scratch" - yet he scratched himself to show how someone could potentially do it to themselves and the marks will show up just the same. He also talks about it in a very childish, defensive way. I agree Gabbie was wrong to continue to take videos when asked to stop, but Rice extremely overreacted towards it. Him also making a diss track instead of having a serious things about it shows how immature he is handling the WHOLE thing, and again dishing something out he can't take himself and hiding behind a screen.
Maybe he smacked the phone to get it out his face and she lost grip of it and it fell and cracked. So he felt bad and paid for it.
Michael Gomez Just wanting to let you know, they have both said that it was a tug of war to get the phone.
@@andreak3975 Nah, he said different stories. He once said that he quickly swiped her phone and smashed it immediately but has also said that he had to fight over the phone (i.e. tug of war). He can't keep his story straight.
I 100% agree with your opinion on the home defense, as for the getaway driver, that just seems ridiculous to charge her with that.
EpicSoren but in retrospect , if the burglars had killed the homeowners son, you would bet she would be charged and convicted of murder with them.
It's a very Interesting case to say the least
EpicSoren She is a part of why they where murdered, she was the getaway driver, who's to say she didn't drive them there in the first place. She could've simply said no and took them home or called the police. Murder avoided if they went anyway she is not accountable.
doesn't seem ridiculous to me, she was willing to drive them away with the loot and whatever they may have had to do (wearing masks etc I will assume they were there to do damage to humans as well as take stuff) so she should be held to the highest extent the law allows for her inclusion in the crime.
I have a feeling the defending attorney will get the charge down to something lower.
when you're reading comments and press read more and realize it's a freaking essay
Ikr 😂
Text to speech. Make a bot read it for you.
DameFuegoAmor Yeah I prefer the Twitter way.
Hahaha yeah I hate that shit.
TheGabbieShow & Ricegum - 0:00
Today In Awesome (IT, Destiny 2, Louis CK, Vlog) - 4:23
Teen Sells Virginity - 5:47
Oklahoma Robbery Ends In Death Of Intruders - 7:52
Internet Privacy Rules - 10:20
Trump Executive Order On Climate Change - 11:10
Trump vs NYT - 11:54
Fred071202 Thank you
Thank you! I couldn't care less about the TH-cam drama
haha thanks
Fred071202 i didnt know i needed this until now
Fred071202 100th like :) thanks for this
It sounds like Ricegum can't take what he dishes out... if you want to insult people on a public platform then you should expect an equal backlash, even in person. Escalating to aggressive actions is never the answer if someone is just insulting you. You always have the option to get up and walk away.
She pushed the situation just by confronting him like that, but that in no way gave him the right to Assault her and Destroy HER Property. Assault is when someone physically touches you in a manner that makes you feel threatened. No one should advocate his actions even if she was annoying and insulting him.
I usually don't comment, but let me just say this - If instead of the homeowner's son, it was the homeowner's daughter whom was trying to defend herself from three men/boys who had just broken in, would there still be this controversy? Because, no, there wouldn't. It's ridiculous. They broke in (not to mention they were armed), they are no longer victims. He had a right to defend himself.
The driver on the other hand? I don't think she needs to get charged for the murder...but I could be convinced otherwise with a good argument.
(Also I love you, your crew, and all your vids. Good luck with new office!)
The person's ability to defend him/herself is a factor. In this case, it being a male or female makes no difference.
If it was a girl it would be the same discussion. Why? Because there is nothing in the report of it being 'defense'. All the report there is is "Three teenagers broke in a house, they were shot and killed", nothing in the report says that they attacked someone, that they threatened someone, that they showed their weapons, that they even talked (besides after they were shot and one of the burglers was talking, probably in pain and scared out of his mind that his two friends were dead).
The discussion is pure and simply, did the guy just shot the burglers before they even knew that they were being pointed a gun/could drop their weapons and surrender, and if yes, is that murder instead of self defense?
+godshades No offense, but having three people with weapons break into your house is a threat to you and anyone else in that home, plain and simple. That makes it self defense. Now had they not had weapons id be on the fence a little bit about this, but they had weapons so they were a clear and present danger.
koooo34 I guess I could have worded myself better? Because I agree with your point! It was self defense, the three broke in with ill intent (they were planning on robbing the place, after all) and he was fully justified in defending himself.
I was just trying to point out that I think the media wouldn't have tried to paint him as the villian in this case if he was female.
godshades Maybe I'm too violent myself, but if 3 armed masked men broke into my home, yes, I would shoot first and with extreme prejudice. I'm not sure about you, but I sure can't tell people's ages if they have ski masks on, nor would I stop and ask them what their intentions were when they broke into my house. But maybe that's just me. Maybe they didn't wave weapons around and scream out threats, but they broke into this kid's home with ill intent and he reacted to defend himself. Am I glad they are dead? No, life is precious and they were young and stupid. Is the other kid at fault for defending himself? Imo? no.
my biggest problem with information being sold is that in a few weeks maybe even a few days second laws going to pass excluding congressman and other government officials from having their information sold
That's one of my biggest fear from this law
exactly! i was just thinking that "why are they passing this? they know they're not exempt, right?" so ofc they would probably want out of it
I'm a firm believer in if you don't start shit there won't be shit.
someone so if your mom jokes around that you are like really dumb, you can hit her? you are really stupid
+Far Asap was that english.
Far Asap wtf are you talking about??xD
Far Asap don't act stupid, stupid.
Far Asap I've noticed figuratively anytime someone starts a sentence with "so" that strawman the fuck out of a comment.
I think the worst part of the OK story is that the shooter will now have to live the rest of this life knowing he killed children. He is already getting hate from the public, and the family of the perps probably hate him. These situations can easily cause lasting psychological damage. He had no choice in those wrong-doers robbing him. The rest of his life we likely be negatively impacted by these three people. That makes me even more sad than the loss of life.
Also, I am 100% okay with the driver being charged. She was part of crime (if not knowingly, there would probably be enough evidence to have charges dropped/reduced, but I doubt she didn't know what was happening). Maybe the 3 teens would not have committed the crime if they didn't have a ride (or maybe the defender would have been asleep and unable to shoot if they had to walk to the house) - they might still be alive if she was not involved.
Also they aren't children. They acted as an adult when they decided to all take a field trip and attempt to rob someone.
Seemingly putting off the blame to the driver is wrong. If someone wants
to commit a crime they will commit a crime. I highly doubt the driver
thought they were all going to an extremely aggressive pinata party with
those brass knuckles and knives.
I didn't think I was putting off blame, as I said I was 100% okay with her getting charged. But innocent until proven guilty, there was a chance she didn't know they even had those things with them. I don't think that is what happened in this case (articles state she was actually the one who planned the robbery), but brass knuckles and knives are easily concealable.
As for the other comment, I don't really support the stance that trying to rob someone immediately makes someone an 'adult' regardless of age. Especially if what I have read is correct in that fact that a few minors (under 18) were led into this by a legally defined adult (over 18). I don't understand exactly how it is determined to charge them as adults or not, I assume it has to do with how well the minors could understand the consequences of their actions. Which again could be skewed by someone years older than them. (Though, I know of people much older who can't understand that actions have consequences still >.
I think they're referring to the murder charge. if she wasn't aware that they were armed then she is innocent until proven guilty
"IT'S NOT A SLAM, JUST GOOD ECONOMIC ADVICE."
Homeowner was in the right; driver isn't a murderer.
WillfulVisions that's the law
I'm just wondering how much of a role she played in the creation of this attempted break-in. If she was one of the main factors as to why they decided to do this (convincing them to go through with it). I'd be kinda inclined to feel like she was a murderer, essentially sending them to their death. But I know that may be reaching, just a thought.
She could have been the "brain" behind the whole robbery. She should be charged with the death of the three criminals. They homeowners son should be free and clear.
1. Just because something is "the law" doesn't mean it is right lmfao. It's "the law" that corporations are allowed to give politicians money to influence their decisions, it's extremely stupid and corrupt but what we should just get over it because it's "the law"? No, don't be dumb.
2. Exactly. I think it completely depends on her involvement, if she convinced them to do it/if she planned the whole thing out then sure charge her with murder. But if they were the ones who talked her into it/they planned it out and just convinced her to help I don't think the murder charges should apply.
WillfulVisions the shooter was clearly in the right. The driver should face manslaughter charges at least.
Did he just pay her 2000$? I don't know how these rich people things do.
SimplyCanadian yeah, he doubled the payment (which is weird) but, she sent back the extra $1100
Luke van der Burg .. I see. I will let anyone break my phone hell, even punch my face for 2000$.
Spread the word.
First degree murder seems like a stretch. There was no intent. Involuntary manslaughter makes more sense
I don't think she should be charged with murder. Manslaughter maybe, but not murder.
True Stoopidity she deserves prison it was her idea and now my friends are dead
AtaxiaPlays Wouldn't she still get time for manslaughter plus her other charges? The reason I don't think she should be charged with murder because she probably didn't expect the robbers to get killed. If it was the kid then I would agree she should be charged. She would of had the knowledge and accepted that there would possibly be victims.
Ya I thought a lesser charge, but something like "negligence leading to death" should be applied. Something where you see a few years in jail, but don't have your entire life taken away.
I agree with you that it should at least be relegated to 3rd degree or perhaps manslaughter. She is still responsible for her own actions in taking part, though, and she deserves whatever punishment comes her way for it.
@AtaxiaPlays "It was her idea" It does not matter who's fucking idea it was, they still decided "Hey! Let's go rob a home with weapons!"
They were not forced into the situation. They could have easily said "That is a stupid idea, no." But they robbed the home anyway.
Sorry to say, but if you truly did know those kids and were friends with them, you were friends with the wrong crowd. People like that will end up one of two ways, and that's dead or in jail.
(PS, as said above, the girl would still get prison time for her other charges + manslaughter instead of murder.)
For the topic of the OP, I agree. I think that manslaughter would be a more reasonable charge.
If you don't make a Laptop Gangster shirt I will be so sad.
Tyler Crowl I would buy so many of those
HOLD UP HOLD UP. A dude paid 2 million pounds for awkward shitty first time sex! WHAT??!?
also just imagine how extra awkward itll be since she's selling herself to a total (much older) stranger. Good on her to make 1.6m for like 10 minutes of work. Guy was so stupid for paying for that.
He broke her phone. Obviously. He paid the damages. How did he break her phone if he didn't put a hand on her? Sooooooo? He made this physical. Yes- Gabbie started it, Gabbie was in the wrong, she should have not done that- buuuuut he shouldn't have escalated that situation. Simple.
the only person I've seen act as ricegum did with gabbies phone was my 6-year-old sister when she didnt get the toy she wanted lol
Ricegum straight up dissed her and she made just a little joke and apparently she started it! Wtf
she recorded him WITHOUT consent why dont ppl realise the problem with this. If someone stranger comes up starts recoding u dosen't stop when told to u would break their device too. I sure would
Chiro99 Gp He is a public figure and was in a public place, so technically no consent needed to film.
Greg Sid dude rice didn't diss her he criticised her for stealing jokes
You come in my house without permission with the intention of robbing me or harming my family? One of us is not leaving that house alive, that's all I'll say.
Hunter Mirr much agree if I had a gun and someone was in my house I would most likely shoot them. In the leg at least
Hunter Mirr Good man.
Hunter Mirr That's the American way.
Great now you have a ghost in your house......but question? Would you still live there or would you move
Hunter Mirr shoot the ghost
*100%* think the son defending the home is in the right. I'm behind deeper background checks and everything, but this kind of thing is _exactly_ why I'm pro-gun. Where I live, I'm reasonably certain I won't need one, but if I moved somewhere else, I'd be on one like wet on water.
100% he was in his rights to shoot. A person with a knife can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. Anything 21 feet and under, he's in his legal rights to shoot
Alberto hernandez lock her ass up and throw away the key.
Alberto hernandez I am from Oklahoma and one of them had a gun the news isn't reporting. I believe he did what he had to to protect himself
JollyGreenGinger regardless, he should be in the right.
Alberto hernandez I've heard this before, and while this was proven in one study, it's also never been corroborated by another study. But still, a guy with a knife can be pretty damn fast.
christian sullivan I agree
Would you explain to me how RiceGum is able to post what he posts. In Colorado at least Cyber Bullying is a crime. RiceGum has a channel that has videos which would fall under the criteria of cyber bullying. How does TH-cam authorize this videos? I am sure they get flagged, so why are they not taken down? If a student in my district were to post a video on line in order to demean another student, not only would they be suspended but authorities would be called. How do creators like RiceGum get away with doing it?
Probably because the people he is mocking are public figures (and as you can see by SNL and other comedy shows mocking public figures is considered "social commentary" and not "bullying" and because he doesn't focus on just one person, it's a general thing. It's not cyber bullying, and anyone who thinks so is a snowflake and needs to grow a backbone.
^ true. Also, a lot of youtubers that do such type of content often disclaim in their videos in one way or another that they're just "joking around" and that they don't actually mean what they're saying in the videos. A lot of the time that's a lie, but it's an effective disclaimer nonetheless.
If someone walks into my house with a weapon and tries to rob me, and I have a gun, you best believe I'm pulling the trigger.
Elijah Arnold and then you'll realize that its just a family member who was out late and tried to sneak back home. Maybe this wont happen to you, but its not unlikely.
Explosive Mayhem such a laughable argument.
burgerkillsyou agreed. Who doesn't know what their family members look like? Why would THEY have a weapon? If you know that other people live in your house and youre home, why would you not expect company? Amd why would you respond to it WITH A FUCKING GUN!? If you're dumb enough to blindly shoot at anything that moves without assessing the situation, you know, like a responsible gun owner would do, you don't need to have a gun.
Phil, the attempted burglary happened one mile away from where I live. I 100% agree with your opinion that the son had every right to use that gun. My pregnant wife stays at home with our 3 year old son, and I've always had a small fear of someone trying to break in while I'm at work. I'm glad this is big news, because it acts as a deterrent from other people in my area trying to break in to our homes, and I somewhat feel safer. It''s very unfortunate that those 3 kids died, and the girl will be in jail for maybe the rest of her life, but they ultimately gave up their right not to be shot when they broke into that house.
I was always told that if I had to shoot someone in my home due to them trying to rob the place, legally it's better to have shot and killed them then to maim them because they can always turn around and sue you. I can say with confidence that if anyone tried to rob my house and they were armed and I couldn't talk them down, I would shoot to kill if I felt threatened enough that that is my only option. It's sad these kids had to lose their lives but they only have themselves to blame.
The get away driver shouldn't be responsible for murder. As far as I'm concerned the homeowner's son solved the majority of the justice with his gun.
The woman should be charged with intent to steal and nothing else. Enough lives were ruined.
xJadeWolfxx I agree 100%
xJadeWolfxx i disagree, she should be accounted for their deaths because she was on board with the burglary.
she's an adult and they were kids. seems pretty simple what should have happened when she was approached to be the getaway driver. If it was her idea, she knowingly put them at risk and stayed in the car, making it, in my opinion, first degree murder. If it was the 3 young fellows idea she should have said it was a dumb idea that could get them killed making her responsible for man slaughter
Him killing the burglars was justified as self defence, he shouldn't receive hate because are you saying 3 people who had intention to steal and harm are worth more than an innocent young man? They put theirselves in that situation and sorry but they deserved it. It sounds far right but seriously if your gonna put yourself in such and ILLEGAL situation realise all the risks including death.
Pink-fluffy-unicorns Dancing-on-rainbows they still didn't deserve to die
Jane Shapiro And the kid didn't deserve to get his house broken into.
OwlLegend but would you rather have your house broken into or be shot to death, I'm not saying they should have broken into his house but that doesn't give him the right to kill them
It actually literally does...
But you'd think after the first two got shot the third would surrender. These were teens so at some point after maybe only seeing one of them get shot and bleeding that they would most likely given in or give up. Maybe they did maybe they didn't and I totally admit he had a right to protect himself but to what end? I just wanna know whether or not there was a way to avoid the others dying and whether those deaths were honestly self defense or did the man kill them in a rage after seeing them break in.
Don't break into a castle and be surprised when the king gets pissed.
Word.
check yourself before you Shrek yourself
don't break into a castle with a weapon and expect the guards not to kill you
Vorlocks fucking word dude, you deserve what you get when you threaten someone's safety in their own home. I wish there were more murders against robbers, these scum steal other people's hard earned money and belongings, it's the most disgusting thing to do to a person. And you deserve everything that happens to you
Vorlocks
as a liberal. I have to say, people have the right to do whatever in order to protect their own home, especially if the attackers had wepons.
I understand people being angry if he shot them after they already surrendered. (like an execution). but that's not what happened, he shot them while protecting his own house.
Tommy Wiseau "I DID NOT HIT HER SHE IS LYING I DID NOT. OH HAI MARK"
Lawgamer411 PEWDIEPIEEE
Lawgamer411 YOU'RE TEARING ME APART GABBIE
pewdiepie made a video basically praising The Room as a joke :)
While I'm saddened that three young men died and who knows what they could have eventually become; but this kid is absolutely in the right. Not his fault for defending himself from an armed home invasion, but the driver should not also be charged with murder imo
Rick Harris You sir fail to see he potential of three kids if they were educated properly
They were 16-18 years. It seems to me like that time had passed. Shitty parents? Maybe...
FollowMeInfantry Or just a shitty education or no one would hire them at the time or they may have just been four stupid teenagers
I totally agree with you here, the getaway driver isn't the one that decided to get the other 3 killed, so she should only be charged with burglary, not murder.
in my country burglar like that will just get beaten up in public if caught so i'm surprised there are people who actually feels sorry for criminals
Now, I'll try my hardest not to sound biased, but I'll give a recap on the drama. In terms of the broken phone, Rice did own up by paying Gabbie back (In case of the extra thousand dollars, Gabbie sent it back) Gabbie was at a TH-cam party, having fun, chatting, social things. Then, she found RiceGum, the guy she prefers as "the guy who made a video about me" and walks up to him, and challenges him to a freestyle. Rice was joking around, refusing her challenge. They continued joking around until Gabbie makes a joke about Rice's ghostwriter, and then that's when Rice got up and started trying to snatch the phone as Gabbie was snapchatting.
Romeo explains in his Twitter video that Rice and Gabbie were pulling the phone like "tug-of-war" and then Rice twists Gabbies arm, being aggressive, but definitely not hitting her. Rice finally aquires the phone and threw it on the floor then smashed it. Technically destruction of property (A.K.A. vandalism) and an illegal act, but Gabbie was lenient. Gabbie didn't want to post any of this, but she had to. She responded with two thought out and mature videos. But Rice responds immaturely with a diss track (terrible, by the way) and spits rude lyrics; body shaming her, calling her a "fucking bitch," and picking on her appearance. Gabbies fans disliked the video but were greatly outnumbered by mindless children who don't even understand the situation. Even Gabbies response videos were plastered with immature and mindless children, attacking the people who support Gabbie and the ones who hate RiceGum.
Benjamin Lam There are some things I forget. Sorry.
Don't forget harassment and unwanted recording on private property is illegal. If you're unbiased you should at least try to give ricegum credit. Unless there is none of course.
Vynoth looks to me like you're biased towards Gabbie
At least edit your comment to add things you forgot so people won't also disregard the info you missed
Infinitely Inspirit 1. Rice doesn't really have much evidence to support himself since he responded with two immature videos regarding the situation. And 2. I said I'll try my hardest, not I'm completely biased.
Infinitely Inspirit Also, his tweets really show how badly he dealt with this.
RiceGum is one of those successful TH-camrs that I can safely say, I've not seen a single video of.
T-Bone
I wish I could say the same. I watched him for a short time lol. Looking back, he's unfunny and a pretty bad person. There's that video of him laughing at a rape victim and asking her if it felt good.
T-Bone yeap
i watched one of his videos. the one he cried about not being in the youtube rewind because he ''deserves to be in it since he got 5m sub in only a year and smaller youtubers were in it''. smaller youtubers that do videos for the last 5-6-7 and more years.no he doesn't deserve the attention.
Same here. Actually, up until this video, I've never even heard his voice.
T-Bone me too!😂
I 100% agree with you on the kid defending himself and his home.
Here's the thing: her story has stayed completely solid it hasn't change. But his has. In every interview Ricegum has done his story has changed
Casper Alexander queen of ending rice gum
How. How does privacy rules get this far being appealed. Trump NEEDS to use his power here to veto this. This is not good.
In my Stress and Coping class, we talked about how men and women deal with stress differently. Obviously Gabbie thought it was a good idea seeking social support through social media sites after the encounter, because women tend to do that, "Tend & Befriend" theory. And men stick to the traditional "Fight or Flight," which Rice did, in a rather violent way from Gabby's point of view. He used direct problem-focused methods to deal with his stressor (Gabbie and her Snapchatting), which are getting rid of the phone and leaving the scene after that.
As a neutral third party hearing both sides of the story, I understand that both have some preconceived impressions of the other party before meeting in person. Those impressions definitely affected how they handled the actual in-person encounter (got off the wrong foot). It was not a very ideal setting for them to meet in-person for the first time. From the video at the party, Rice seems to be under the influence. He was impatient, and just wanted to extricate himself from the Gabbie situation. Gabbie on the other hand, just wanted a casual, fun first in-person encounter with this guy who talked shit about her. She had good intentions, but they were not delivered to Rice. Rice thought Gabbie was mal-intended. I believe it truly was a case of miscommunication (what the "kid" said to Gabbie through text).
Let us consider how each side tells their story after the incident. Gabbie stressed on the violent behaviors of Rice, in the process of him trying to get her phone. Rice stressed that all he did was grabbed her phone and smashed it, then left. Both are in fact telling the truth. However, telling the story from their point of view, they may have left out some details on purpose or unintentionally, because feelings come before logic. Gabbie wanted us to know that she was upset, then told us why. Rice also wanted to tell us that he was upset, and reasons for that.
I want you guys to know that I am a woman, and if I was Gabbie I would have done shit ton worse than how she handled, and acted and felt more upset, AND way more dramatic. I summed up the points above from knawledge I learned from class and real life experience, mostly fighting with my boyfriend. It isn't hard for us to see the truth as an outsider, but it is hard to listen to the other side and let ideas get across before denying their words. This is a lot of what's going on in political views and social factions. People get so triggered so easily over nothing, getting offensive/defensive when logic fails on their side. Please be sensible and educated, by listening to others and what they have to say. We are modern and civilized people. Communication is key.
Damn, maybe I should sell my virginity. Student loans are no joke.
Tyler Gray its so easy to sell body one of my friend escorts and makes $3000 a week and more
How DARE you sir. This is the flower of my womanhood! Im not getting out of (or better yet into) bed for less than $10,000.
Sexual transmitted disease. is it worth the price?
I HATE TH-cam DRAMA! It takes up WAY too much space on this site!
Lol there's hundreds of hours of videos posted every minute
John O'Malley How much of that could it possibly be taking up
I would like to see the contract that they drew up for that girls virginity because what he just owns it now and if he decided not to actually sleep with her and she is contractually obligated to never sleep with anyone else because her virginity belongs to him and what if he decides to resell it this shit seems like a contract nightmare
What an interesting perspective! Never thought of it that way, thanks for the comment!
Chris Cisneros I would never have thought about it that way
Oh wow. Now THERE'S a fascinating thought...wonder if SHE actually thought that far ahead.
There have been bunches of these types of deals before and a few were pretty public, they have a "use by date" in the terms. If she voids it by not making herself available she loses the money and probably has to pay a penalty for defaulting on the contracts. On the otherhand if it's Mr.Hong Kong who's a no show, he forfeits some or all of the payment and she's free pursue other buyers for her service.
contracts usually expire
Finally I found someone on TH-cam that is actually not stupid, thank God for putting you on this earth Philip!
As far as people condemning the use of guns to defend ones home from armed attackers goes, I am very curious as to what alternative solution the condemning parties would offer.
They would have you place yourself at the mercy of armed intruders.
pretty much what bob said I guess, I am someone that believes a person has the right to defend themselves from harm "at any cost". So if I was in this boy's shoes...I woulda emptied the chamber
eric foster Call the police.
the armed people breaking into your home have a vested interest in stopping you from calling the police and their only available means is force. Assuming you can get to the phone and call however, you're back you square one for the next ten minutes or so and my question still stands.
kek, I live out in the middle of nowhere. If I call the police they'll arrive at my place in a half hour if I'm lucky, home invasions are common in my area for this very reason. No thanks, I'll stick to my guns (literally).
If someone breaks in to my house and i'm home, they dead.
The kid did the right thing.
I live in the UK and I still think they are dead even tho our gun where stolen, my grandfather still has a shotgun tho.
I completely agree with Phil's opinion on the robbery victim who killed the robbers because in my opinion there is nothing wrong with a person defending them-self. And to the people believe that it was unfair for the man to kill the robbers because he had a gun and they only had weapons that is ridiculous because if someone was charging at you with a knife and you had a gun you would probably use it.
A J exactaly. if a cop had a dude charging him win a knife that guy is dead period.
gabbie was super rude. rice gum flipped out. that being said, her behavior does not justify his actions at all.
gabbie had every right to be rude. ricegum making fun of her and publicly bullying her should have the consequence of Gabbie being rude whenever she sees him. It's not like he ever apologized to her about that unprovoked bashing video.
He did apologize. Didn't you watch the video?
And its illegal to record and post someone online without their consent and she did it anyway when he said no. He broke her phone and literally not even 10 minutes after shes posting on snapchat about what happened and lying about being abused even though she said she didnt want to make it a bigger problem, ricegum said sorry and paid for her phone.
NewKastJ Recording on Snapchat is not illegal, please fact check.
Loi-boy he never apologized to her for the roast video he made on her for no fucking reason. He earned thousands of dollars making a video degrading her appearance for millions of views and never once apologized for that. He's a bully and a bitch ass. So the consequence of being a bitch ass shit talker who's only tough behind a screen is that when the people you talk shit about meet you in real life they don't have kind words for you. Ricegum showed what a snowflake he is by responding in that way.
Please Phil for the love of God make a Laptop Gangster shirt. Because I need it. For reasons. #laptopgangster
If you don't want to get shot don't break into houses.
This man knows whats up
The shooter be living the fantasy "Yes, I finally got to shoot me some dumb motherfuckers."
@Sarujinie Uras Dark, but hilarious, I love it.
well.....sounds like a solid strategy.
If your fantasy involves killing people in a manner that lets you get away with it, you might just be an awful person.
1. That's CRAZY that they are even thinking about charging the home owners son. It was a 3 v 1 and they had weapons. I would of done the same thing as the son. They broke into a house carrying weapons, meaning that they had the intent of harming or threatening someone with said weapons if it came down to it. I think about this sometimes when I hear stories like this; I don't know which to fear more- The fact that someone has broken into my house with weapons and may try to harm me OR if I cause harm to them/kill them I could get charged with something even though I was defending myself and possibly trying to protect my family. Isn't that awful? For someone to not want to protect themselves because they know they might get charged with something. Absolutely ridiculous.
2. I do think that charging the get away driver with is very over the top. She didn't kill anyone, so why be charged? It isn't necessary, or is it..? The law that is stated at 9:36 intrigued me because, just repeating what DeFranco said, even though you didn't kill anyone, if someone dies while committing a felony and you're involved, you can get charged with murder. Like I said, that law does seem over the top but in my opinion it seems very necessary.
First of all, it does have a scare factor to it. If I were a get away driver and I heard that law, no way would I go through with it if I had a chance of being brought up on murder charges.
Secondly, if a group of people come up with a plan to commit illegal acts, and some of them die, I do agree that everyone involved should be brought up with severe charges. They shouldn't of been plotting to do illegal things in the first place, and since they came up with a plan that got people involved killed, they should be held responsible. They plotted illegal things and got people killed, so yes in my opinion it's extreme, but it's fair.
not the mention the kid probably has PTSD now from killing 3 minors
but its not fair that she will be charged with 3 murders all she thought will happen is that those 3 boys will steal tv or sth it's to harsh and that guy who shot them could have just killed one of them the other two will run for sure and also he could aim at there legs he went to far and now he will leave with the fact he killed 3 kids because they just wanted to steal his tv or sth
I agree with this comment for the most part. I enjoy watching videos about murder and other dark subjects, and it makes me think a lot about what I'd do if someone threatened me. Of course I'd choose to defend myself, and while I wouldn't find it easy killing someone, especially where I'm from (most people don't own guns here), but if it comes down to it, I'll do it to protect myself and/or my family as best as I can.
As for the getaway driver, while I get it seems unfair to charge her, she should have considered every possible scenario that could occur during the robbery. Someone else stated that the three who were killed were 16-18, but she was 21. I'm not sure if that was factually correct, but it does add to the perspective.
yea and most likely the charges will be downgraded to manslaughter
All she thought would happen? So it's okay for people to do illegal things because all they are doing is stealing a tv or something? She plotted something out and in the end it got people killed. And what if they were charging him? Do you know how hard it is for someone to aim for a persons legs, arms or head? Especially if they are being charged at, if they are nervous or if they are scared? I'm sure the last thing on someones mind when 3 armed men are breaking into their house is "let me shoot them in the legs, or maybe let me just shoot one of them". No. All they will be thinking is "how can I defend myself in this situation".
Why did TH-cam recommend this to me? Its been 7 years
Me too, who knows.
He did this in front of everyone at the party and nobody did anything? WTF? How strange I must say.
imonetwistedtech Almost seems implausible
imonetwistedtech people playfully fight sometimes so maybe that's what people thought was happening
imonetwistedtech Maybe she lied 0_o or exaggerated what really happened.
I've been assaulted by an ex at a party and you'd be surprised by how people really don't know what to do. Doesn't mean they're bad people, but it can be jarring and in the moment, sometimes you don't act like the hero you may think is inside of you.
imonetwistedtech you're obviously under educated in human psychology
Perfectly legitimate use of a firearm in self defense. Quality shit too got all 3.
Triple kill!!
Sometimes I forget how pretty PhilyD is.
brewski118sempire If only his virginity was for sale
That "factory-fresh vehicle" line was brutal. Goddamn, I love it.
If you are dumb enough to go rob someone whatever happens is your problem you never had to be there
Yeah the blame is ultimately on you, but it hardly justifies killing somebody. The death penalty for theft?
Joey it was an armed robbery, and he defended himself. It's unlikely that he meant to kill them, but they threatened him and broke into his home. Self defense.
Joey Ok the death penalty was not for theft, the death penalty was for the threat they posed to killing the home owners son and other family members that were present. Maybe they didn't have any intentions of killing a person in the house that night, but the homeowners didn't know that.
Do we know they threatened him? If he had shot off some warning shots, isnt it likely that three young people with just knives would have backed down?
"It's unlikely that he meant to kill them".. Come on, you might kill one of them by accident but certainly not all of them.
warning shots get you arrested for negligent discharge and reckless use of a firearm. dead bodies don't file assault charges.
Rip Club Penguin
oh and shoutout to that dude for killing those burgulars. he should be praised for defending against dangerous criminals, not shamed for protecting himself
Excuse me..... I am 17, saw the trailer from "IT" and am now emotionally scarred.......
Ricegum be like
I did not hit her! it's not true.
I did not! Hey Mark
Innocent Gentleman LMAO
Eris Brigedon I'm sure everyone felt the same xD
Becky XP
I did not hit her! I did NAAHT.. Oh hai mark
Innocent Gentleman HAHAHAHA. nice.
Who else gets their news from Philip DeFranco
Pickdroppers everyone subscribed here
Better question: who the hell doesn't
The ONLY REAL NEWS on TH-cam.
keeeeeemstar
No one watching this video gets their news from Philip DeFranco.... dumbass
Where can I go to see what the vote on the Internet privacy was? I'm curious to see how my representatives voted.
www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202
Ryan Rutherford and surprisingly 0 democracts voted for this shit.
To that business man 2,000,000 is probably equivalent to me buying a t-shirt at Ross.
I think he was completely in the right for killing the three. If anyone came into my home, especially holding weapons, they are dead. I don't care who they are or what they are there for, they are dead. Kid was brave for taking action. I do feel bad for him though. This experience will most likely haunt him.
BILLBILLBILLBILL if i had a gun i would of done the same thing, but i don't.
Was she in his face and annoying? Probably. That's kind of who she strikes me to be. Does that give him any reason to do anything to her? Nope. His multiple payments, and more than the phone is worth to boot, looks pretty incriminating to me.
If you break into my home, all bets are off. I will defend myself, my family, and my dogs by any means necessary.
Lindsay Mead Defend only if they are truely a threat to someone. Killing them while they are escaping is murder since they were no threat and claiming self defense would be untrue.
Lindsay Mead I'm with you all these people posting about he wasn't in danger lol like first of all they broke into this dudes house they were armed and were all ski masked out like really people just go to sleep lol
You're LUCKY if 3 armed men break into your home to "only" rob you. Man with ski mask is the description of like 90% of serial rapists. Having a calm discussion about how they want to brutally murder you shouldn't have to take place before you defend yourself.
Agreed. If someone is breaking into my house, I will assume that they are there to do something evil. I've never heard of people breaking into homes to help with the dishes, so I'm not sure why I should assume that they aren't there to hurt me and those I love.
THAT IS NOT TRUE AT ALL! Like 90% of all "men with ski masks are serial rapists" What?! Hahahaha! That is a HUGE exaggeration and just a lie. Do not spread a bullshit lie so blindly like that. I would like to know what source even says that, let alone if the source could provide evidence of that statement. I hate to say it but you are woman and that is kinda of typical t be over dramatic and blast that "ski mask" shit out of proportion.
Trust me. If someone is mugging you or breaking in to your home, it is not to hurt you! 99% of the time it is to steal something. People who steal DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT, set out to kill or rape someone. Think about it. Stealing and breaking and entering are much less punishable by law than if they were to commit murder or rape. If someone attempting to steal is carrying a weapon is nearly always for intimidation.
I still cant believe you actually commented that 90% of men with ski masks are serial rapists... That is so unfuckingbelievably stupid...
I think the getaway driver shouldn't be held accountable for a kid trying to protect his home.
I wish I knew I could have had someone pay for my virginity. It would have made these impending student loans so much easier
Claudia James you have to be hot for it to work sorry
Claudia James giiirrrlllll me too
I would but I just don't have the guts. I'll just be in debt from university forever :(
mikeandnike123 Not necessarily.
Claudia James ;)
If someone comes in my home, armed and wearing mask I have the right to protect myself and do what ever I can to survive. The girl should be charged because if she said no non of that would of happen. The guy that shot the 3 teenager should not be charged for anything because he did nothing wrong.
Hunter Killer yes thank you, your logic is on point!🐐
Hunter Killer she should be charged with murder?! i disagree
Hunter Killer I think that they would just get someone else, but I agree.
Hunter Killer the castle doctrine is hopefully whatll get him off.
Hunter Killer i believe you should get punished in accordance to your intentions and your actions. if they tripped an alarm or some shit and the police arrested them all she would have done nothing different, but her punishment would be far less severe. her actions do not warrant her punishment
You don't break into someone's house with masks and weapons without the intent that you would hurt someone if you had too so ye they had it coming it is as simple as that
Disagree. They could have intended to use the weapons to scare someone into doing what they wanted, rather than intending to use them.
+koooo34 So not actually intending to use a weapon against someone excuses making them believe that you're going to?
koooo34 but they still intend too use the weapons as an end too a means and if you woke up in the night too three guys with nucks and a knife your first thought isn't going too be I wonder if they intend too cause me harm with those weapons or are they just for show
If he A.) GRABBED her phone B.) SMASHED her phone, and C.) Venmo'd her money for the broken phone (an admission of guilt) then RICEGUM IS GUILTY. It is NEVER ok to hit or push around a girl.
I absolutely agree with you Phil and I am super liberal, guns are meant for self defense and that is what he used it for.
iPwnageZz So the way to solve school shooters is to mowed them down with more guns?
Don Joaqu1n no now you just ruined my school shooting plan
Don Joaqu1n ? are you asking if we should stop school shooters by taking them out before they take our children out ?
Yup.
I think what iPwanage literally said is that he agrees with Phil that guns should be used primarily (by citizens) for home defense.
What the shit do you think he said? Everyone should be armed in public?
Don't break into my house and I won't shoot you.
also, get away driver shouldn't get charged with murder, that's BS. The other charges, sure.
I disagree, she (as he put it) allowed the whole thing to occur in a sense, if those guys had gone in there and killed that kid it would also be on her head, just as this is on her head. Instead of backing out, or calling the cops she joined in, and now 3 people are dead.
Vegetarians Taste Better amen
The Croaker TBH, it is a difficult idea and I go back/forth on my thoughts on it.
I believe most states automatically charge felony murders as first degree murders, although they might not necessarily be "intentional".
I don't believe she drove the car for the break-in hoping the boys get murdered but she definitely intended to support the burglary. However, breaking into a home in OK (where a large portion of the population own guns) is pretty dumb in general imo.
To charge her three times with felony first degree murder (which could probably get her the death penalty in OK) seems absurd. The boys also knew what they were getting themselves into and clearly went prepared to fight the homeowner(s).
I would love to know more of the context of the situation. Why was a 21yo girl hanging out with 17/18yo boys? Was she the ring leader? Was she being manipulated and didn't really want to do it in the first place?
Would love to hear updates on this
While I do agree that the getaway driver should be charged for the 3 deaths, I question the 1st degree murder aspect. Yes, the robbery was premeditated, but it's not like she planned that they would die in the process. I realize they probably expect her to take a plea for lesser charges, but I feel that manslaughter or negligent homicide makes more sense.
Kimberly Izor In the location where the commited the crime if someone dies during a robbery or other premeditated crime the blood is on criminal hands she got her buddies killed and while it isnt always tight in this case they broke in with the intent to steal and possibly harm they died she was the get away driver and the blood is on her hands
I understand that, and I agree that the blood is on her hands. I'm just saying from a legal standpoint, 1st Degree Murder is a premeditated intent to kill, which would be a difficult point to argue let alone prove in this case.
Kimberly Izor Its a premeditated crime they died so in that case the law says its first degree murder
If that's how it is written, that is fine. I am only saying how I FEEL. Not saying who is right or wrong.
Yeah and how I feel aligned with James. When they decided to break into this guys house they agreed with the possible risks, and that could have included harm or murder of the homeowner, and the risk of harm or murder of themselves. So I do think 1st degree murder charges are fine. I mean, what did they expect?
Lemme get this straight
Ricegum makes fun of kids, famous people to grow his channel, made fun of a rape victim to her face, made fun of models he'd get on his twitch for views, but he can't handle someone mentioning his ghost writter??? 😂😂😂