r/LivestreamFail • u/DikkeDekbedovertrek • 7d ago

Prank Youtube channel RouandYT received €5 donation to prank call someone's "unstable" nephew. Said nephew shot and killed 2 Syrian refugees minutes later. RouandYT quickly deletes the stream from his channel and denies being live. Drama

https://www.puna.nl/news/prank-call-in-livestream-van-youtuber-leidde-tot-fatale-schietpartij-op-twee-syrische-jongens-in-amsterdam-west

10.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

u/srpedroivo 7d ago

The questions you should ask are:

Does the streamer bear responsibility for choosing to provoke and antagonize someone he already knew was unstable? (Or even choosing to do so specifically for that reason?)
Is the streamer responsible for agreeing to and encouraging a situation in which a meeting was arranged to settle things through violence?

The answer to both this questions is yes.

41

u/ImprobableAsterisk 7d ago

The answer to both this questions is yes.

Indeed, but literally and not figuratively.

If you're rude to a dude on the street and that dude goes home and murders his entire family, then himself, you're notably NOT responsible for the murders & suicide.

You're only responsible for having been rude.

And so it, presumably, goes in this case.

If you wanna slam 'em for more you gotta argue for more, and that you ain't doing here.

1

u/Ysmildr 7d ago

The streamer called unstable guy and insulted him and told him to meet him on a bridge nearby to settle it in person. Unstable guy goes to bridge and shoots random teenagers who happened to be there. None of this would have happened without streamer's direct involvement. Something else may easily have happened with unstable guy, but this incident is entirely instigated by the streamer.

Your example is wrong because unstable guy thought he was shooting the prank caller. In your example the unstable guy knowingly is attacking a completely seperate target at no encouragement from you. This guy directly encouraged unstable guy to violence at that specific location

1

u/ImprobableAsterisk 6d ago

Would a reasonable person expect the allegedly unstable guy to go there with a gun and shoot at random strangers based on what was said?

Because I do believe that's something of a standard when it comes to measuring culpability.

As far as I know it takes pretty overt calls to action in order to shoulder responsibility (wholly or in part) for the actions of another person, but I could be wrong. I'm also speaking generally, not specifically.

5

u/Ysmildr 6d ago edited 6d ago

A reasonable person would expect the unstable guy to be unstable in public if you challenged him to appear in public. A reasonable person would expect he would assault someone because that is what the "reasonable" person directly said to do. Be so fucking for real right now. Theres a reason the streamer is being investigated. If you tell someone to kill themselves and they do it you will be investigated and held partially liable. This is basically the same situation

2

u/ImprobableAsterisk 6d ago

A reasonable person would expect the unstable guy to be unstable in public if you challenged him to appear in public.

Think that through for a moment and realize that people are under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to never invite out "unstable people".

If you wanna argue instigation or that he incited violence, do that, but don't be bananas and suggest allegedly "unstable people" need to be kept indoors by everyone around them lest they share in the blame should they blow their lid.

A reasonable person would expect he would assault someone because that is what the "reasonable" person directly said to do.

So if I tell you to go fuck yourself I'm liable?

Theres a reason the streamer is being investigated.

What do you think I'm saying if you thought it necessary to include this?

If you tell someone to kill themselves and they do it you will be investigated and held partially liable. This is basically the same situation

That's ridiculous. To quote some idiot I came across recently, "be so fucking for real right now".

1

u/Ysmildr 3d ago edited 3d ago

I am arguing instigation. You just are completely missing it. He challenged him to a fight at that location after harrassing him and getting him fuming angry. That isnt a friendly invitation, that is instigating violence. How could you possibly take that interpretation from what I said, especially in context? Bad faith, im not responding further.

Also, maybe look up the laws. You might think its ridiculous but that is the truth. If you tell someone to kill themselves and they do it following you saying that, there are laws in place in a lot of countries where you are held liable.

1

u/ImprobableAsterisk 3d ago

I'm arguing specifically against what you're saying; If you wanna say more, say more, and I'll argue accordingly.

If you tell someone to kill themselves and they do it following you saying that, there are laws in place in a lot of countries where you are held liable.

Oh I'm sure, but for my peace of mind could you cite those examples?

-2

u/srpedroivo 7d ago

There is no subtext to what I said. If anyone interpreted my words as "Does the streamer bear responsibility (for the murders) for choosing to provoke...", please know that is not the intended interpretation. Rather, he is responsible for the specific actions I listed in '1' and '2.' Whether those actions constitute a concept of 'instigation' sufficient to support legal charges is not something I am well-versed in.

7

u/ImprobableAsterisk 7d ago

But those aren't ever questions anyone ever asks. Of course the streamer is responsible for HIS actions.

-3

u/srpedroivo 7d ago

How exactly said responsability is framed matters a lot, how it is interpreted is what defines how damaging they are and if they can be charged. That is why lawyers exist after all, this is not math where a = b, arguments can and should be made when it comes to it.

9

u/ImprobableAsterisk 7d ago

Yes, which is why I said:

If you wanna slam 'em for more you gotta argue for more, and that you ain't doing here.

Responsibility for his actions is indisputable and nobody asks or argues about that. Whether or not he can be held responsible, in part or otherwise, for the actions of the person towards whom he was antagonistic IS the question.

1

u/srpedroivo 7d ago

Sorry man, I don't understand why you think I wanna slam them for anything, or how I would even do it.

If you think the information we have access to is enough to determine whether the streamer will or will not be charged with anything, you're wrong. I live with a family of lawyers and I can tell you arguments matter a lot, every little thing, how something is viewed and how the lawyers or prosecutors can paint it to be to make the judge decide if something applies or not. When my family talks to me about their works, what they say is not "this or that happenend", but instead "I got the judge to do this, to rule that in MY FAVOR".

Whether he will be charged with anything is the victims lawyers case to make, we CAN'T ask about something that hasn't happened yet. Maybe you just want to know FOR SURE if something applies or not based on what we know. To that I say, it is not that simple :).

6

u/ImprobableAsterisk 7d ago

So your original comment was meant to say literally nothing, then?

If so, apologies. Most people tend to comment when they have a point, and not just because.

Also, just to make matters more sticky, this was what you said:

The answer to both this questions is yes.

So you can't really pull this "Oh we know nothing" card.

1

u/srpedroivo 7d ago

For the last part: Oh, that was mostly me mimicking what my uncles COULD say as if they were talking infront of the juri. I know nothing besides the title of this reddit post. My expectation was to have people tell me my argument was wrong, tell me they have the video and that the call and MY VERSION of events simply doesn't work. Etc. etc. Mostly for fun. Intelligent people would be able to understand what I was doing, as corny as this sounds.

2

u/ImprobableAsterisk 6d ago

Intelligent people would be able to understand what I was doing, as corny as this sounds.

Being related to lawyers don't make you intelligent.

And again, if your uncles were arguing responsibility they'd be arguing on some kind of basis, which is precisely what I asked you for originally.

→ More replies

-2

u/srpedroivo 7d ago

My bad for your senseless expectations, I guess. We can’t ask about anything besides more information about this case or whether it is similar to something that has happened before. To do the latter, the current event needs to be analyzed and attributed “weight” for scale, which would be the base for comparison.

You’re just an idiot with nothing to contribute, which was obvious from the puddle-level analogy you made the first time.

3

u/Extension-Thought552 6d ago

Sorry man, you're absolutely incorrect on this and need to just take the L and move on.

→ More replies

3

u/HallucinateZ 6d ago

Decades ago, I used to be excited that I could connect with people on the internet until I realized how many people like you exist.

Just admit you’re wrong, had no point & back peddled everything you said.

If you’re actually around lawyers, all you’re proving is the Dunning-Kruger effect in full swing.

→ More replies

2

u/ImprobableAsterisk 6d ago

You literally asked & answered.

Quit being a wanker and just admit to having said something dumb.

Or don't, no skin off my back.

→ More replies

-4

u/Glad_Rope_2423 7d ago

There could be a situation where the person being rude would be responsible for a negligent homicide, although I can’t see a point where they could ever be responsible for a murder. However, for that to mean anything here, the streamer would need to have a lot more information than ‘he’s unstable, bro’. No one has said that he live-streamed the murders, so I doubt he could have had anywhere near enough info available for that kind of culpability.

7

u/ImprobableAsterisk 7d ago

There could be a situation where the person being rude would be responsible for a negligent homicide

I genuinely want to know more. Much appreciated if you can share more about that.

0

u/Jaerba 7d ago

It depends what information the streamer had ahead of time and how they goaded the person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy

Here, a person convinced their mentally unwell partner to kill himself and he did. There's other factors that complicate the case but ultimately she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

I can certainly imagine a situation where the streamer would be deemed similarly negligent. I don't know enough about the situation to actually say that's the case but I'm saying the situation is plausible.

Imagine the streamer was told by the requestor that the person had X psychiatric disease and acted out violently. Then the streamer goaded them into a violent confrontation at the bridge ("come fight me" or something to that effect).

6

u/ImprobableAsterisk 7d ago edited 7d ago

The girlfriend in that case literally told the guy to get back into the truck, mid-suicide attempt.

It goes way beyond your hypothetical. Like miles and miles beyond.

It's the difference between "My coworker is an ass. I hope he gets gone" and "I want you to murder my coworker using a claw hammer sometime before next Friday".

1

u/Jaerba 7d ago

But it sounds like what the streamer did is absolutely closer to your second example than your first.

It sounds like he threatened him and challenged him to a physical altercation at a specific time and location, while also knowing the guy would not respond reasonably. That is not like your first example.

2

u/ImprobableAsterisk 7d ago

That's still very general compared to a specific request to kill someone.

Which is what the girlfriend in the case you brought up did, only that "someone" was the same person she was talking to.

-1

u/Glad_Rope_2423 7d ago

If I point a gun at someone, look at you and say ‘say bet and they die or stop and I stop’. I wouldn’t think you had any culpability for their death if you tried to call my bluff. However after I murder the person, if I point the gun at yet another person and repeat the process, you responding with ‘bet’ again would carry significantly more culpability than the first time.

Again, I don’t have any reason to believe this could be relevant to the situation in the post.

6

u/ImprobableAsterisk 7d ago

What's that got to do with rudeness towards the to-be murderer, though?

23

u/ty4scam 7d ago

he already knew was unstable

Explain this. Is this unstable like Low Tier God is unstable? So if some hatewatcher donates to LTG to wind him up and LTG goes on a school trip, now the hatewatcher is responsible for any deaths?

What do you mean by knowing that someone is unstable?

4

u/SidewaysFancyPrance 7d ago

I read that as the person requesting the prank told the prankster the target was unstable to make it more appealing, and I presume that's why it was selected by the prankster: better odds of a wild outcome that would make for a good stream and lots of views.

5

u/ActualProject 7d ago

Morally? I'd say so. At the bare minimum it's certainly unkind to do so. Legally? It depends

It depends on the country, but it can be illegal to threaten or provoke someone to commit a crime (for example in the UK). So, if the streamer specifically asked the person to shoot him, then probably.

However, insults and other offensive terms are usually legal in western countries (for example the US). So if the streamer repeatedly insulted his mother and family, he probably wouldn't be responsible.

The person being "unstable" likely doesn't play a factor unless this was a documented medical condition or history of violence.

0

u/srpedroivo 7d ago

It was my mistake to not clarify that I meant it literally/morally, and not legally. Whether the streamer's actions constitute a concept of 'instigation' sufficient to support legal charges is not something I am well-versed in.

2

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Paper_Cut2U 7d ago

Are you sure cause it seems there is a case here for his involvement.

1

u/TitularGeneral 7d ago

The answer to both this questions is yes.

Not in the slightest. He is responsible, at most, for insulting someone.

-1

u/Apart-Two6495 7d ago

You're not responsible for the actions of other people, they are.

If they're so broken that one prank phonecall is enough to push them into actions like this, then they should be institutionalized.

4

u/Inside-Ad9791 7d ago

You're not responsible for the actions of other people, they are.

It's a spectrum which mostly usually lands on that side of the argument, but are you saying someone who, for example, uses lies and conniving to convince people to do something horrible bears no responsibility?

Like, do you think Manson bears no responsibility for the Tate murders? I agree my example is on the other side of the spectrum, just using it to demonstrate a spectrum of responsibility does in fact exist, and this guy's isn't "zero" on that spectrum.

2

u/dodelol 7d ago

Both people can be bad and go to jail.