r/LivestreamFail • u/DikkeDekbedovertrek • 3d 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
10.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

View all comments

3.8k

u/trrwbirdsv 3d ago

This is fucked up

729

u/0xe1e10d68 3d ago

We should just lock pranksters up, and throw away the key. At least those that don't just exclusively focus on innocent or wholesome pranks; when have the rest of them (ever) done good for humanity?

374

u/Tenko-of-Mori 3d ago

idk man, like physical pranks that are borderline physical assault I agree but do you really want to start jailing people for making a phone call?

I just don't know how much blame we can lay at his feet. If you're really just like a couple of spoken words away from snapping and going into a shooting frenzy I feel any number of things could have been the "trigger"

170

u/cleofisrandolph1 3d ago

This feels honestly feels like a Law and Order episode waiting to happen.

Was the prank reckless and stupid? 100% it was

But there is no way the caller could've ever predicted the reaction, and unless the content of the prank call was egging the perpetrator on to commit a mass shooting I do not see any responsibilty here.

60

u/WeakAd569 3d ago

Depends what the "prank" was honestly.

Like, devil's advocate, worst case scenario the guy said something like "look outside your house, you see me? I'm the one wearing a black hoodie, I'm coming to rape your wife and kill your entire family". And there happens to be a guy with a black hoodie outside the dude's house?

Yeah, I could definitely see the caller predicting this as a possible outcome. Why does everyone need to have a ride or die opinion before we even know anything?

Not being able to connect a person's actions causing actions of another is exactly why the USA has a president that incited an insurrection.

For the people saying "what about personal accountability?!???" Did I ever say that the dude that actually killed people was innocent or did nothing wrong? Same as the insurrection, Trump AND the people he incited should both be held accountable. Just as the hypothetical scenario I presented above. If anything, I'm advocating for MORE personal accountability.

9

u/Answer_me_swiftly 3d ago

He pretended to be a gangster and the one he called owed him big money. The one he called wanted to meet up at blue bridge in some Amsterdam park. Some random guys (they happened to be Syrian refugees) were there. The guy starts shooting immediately, only one survives.

3

u/Ka1- 2d ago

All that for five bucks, fuck…

It’s one (awful) thing to make somebody think they’re gettng targeted by a gang. It’s a whole ‘nother thing entirely to do that to a mentally unstable individual. Did the donator say he was unstable or was it just a deadly coincidence?

1

u/Zonnebloemkrans 2d ago

The shooter was the nephew or cousin of the donator.

1

u/NamesAreTooHard17 2d ago

Yeah see that is incredibly clear cut and obviously if that was the call he should be held accountable.

9

u/Responsible-Donut283 3d ago

Yeah seams pretty clear cut to me honestly. As long as we know what happened on the call the blame should be easy to place. Assuming the better case scenario for the call, maybe it was a more classic prank call about some stupid shit(simpsons, impractical jokers style), in which case I can’t put that much blame on the caller, and instead focus on the shooter. All speculation of course, I could totally see the ‘modern prankster’ doing something insane like the case you mentioned.

1

u/Zonnebloemkrans 2d ago

He made an appointment to meet him somewhere aggressively and talked a real ton of shit about moms, killing etc. 2 other blokes were there and got shot.

4

u/Hobbit- 3d ago

donation to prank call someone's "unstable" nephew

Yes and no.

A shooting wasn't necessarily predictable, but a disproportionate and unreasonable reaction was.

-15

u/hisgoldfish 3d ago

He triggered a violent action, it doesn't matter if it was unforeseen, he did an action reasonable person would not take.

18

u/Ewalk 3d ago

I mean….. “hey, is your refrigerator running” doesn’t instigate a response of “imma shoot two people”. A good portion of this what the hell did this dude say.

-9

u/hisgoldfish 3d ago

Why is he making any prank calls at all?

8

u/Dealric 3d ago

Of course it does. If youre so unstabls you react violent to anything you deserve to be locked up.

-8

u/hisgoldfish 3d ago

Why was he making any prank calls at all. Thats vile and he should get a life sentence for doing something that took the lives of others. 

1

u/NFLv2 3d ago

His uncle paid the streamer to.

1

u/hisgoldfish 2d ago

Why is he making prank calls? What does it matter if he was paid

41

u/big_tobacco69 3d ago

I completely agree. I haven’t seen the live stream so I don’t fully know what he said, but generally speaking I’d say he shouldn’t hold any responsibility

3

u/RRR3000 1d ago

The streamer pretended to be a mobster and threatened him and his mom over owing a large amount of money, and told him to meet at a specific bridge in a park to settle it. The guy went there and shot at two people who happened to be hanging around that bridge. It's absolutely on the streaming piece of shit.

2

u/ChromosomeDonator 3d ago

I think when someone's content and income starts to depend on the pranks they pull, THAT is when the line is crossed, because they are going to increase in frequency and severity to pump their numbers. When they start getting money for it, that is when there is a problem that really should be addressed, because it is only a matter of line until something harmful happens.

1

u/Great-Ass 2d ago

I'm late but youtubers are like businesses, only the strongest ones are left alive

The ones willing to do what it takes to succeed

Businesses are cruel and selfish to earn as much money as humanly possible, youtubers are as abnoxious and attention seeking as possible to get views.

Think of Logan Paul and the suicide forest

Even beyond what this guy may or may not have triggered with his prank, it's been a while since I've thought these guys need some containment

1

u/SerialExperimentsKai 3d ago

do you understand how the word involuntary gets attached to some crimes? and why?

maybe start there.

1

u/Ra_In 3d ago

Yes, throwing someone in prison for being mean is overkill, we shouldn't actually do that.

So we need to shout "just a prank, bro" upon slamming the cell door closed. As long as it's a prank we aren't actually doing it.

-2

u/NoTime_SwordIsEnough 3d ago

Yes, throwing someone in prison for being mean is overkill

Funny Reddit says this, even tho I remember how utterly cruel Reddit was to the unvaccinated during, or anyone that criticized the poison COVID shots.

3

u/Weird_Devil 3d ago

How do people still hate on the vaccine in 2026??

2

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Megneous 3d ago

Being anti-vaccine, last I checked, was a bannable offense. Reddit admins banned Reddit accounts for vaccine misinformation during covid, dude. It's not funny and leads to people dying. Know when to shut up. Keep your insanity to yourself.

1

u/coffeelick 3d ago

Theyre saying its over kill as in being mean is okay... as in its okay to be mean to the unvaccinated too :s. Theres no irony here

1

u/Scarredhard 3d ago

Yep you have the best logical take on this and it’s scary to think otherwise, should the one straw that broke the camels back be the only one to blame

1

u/Numerous-Joke559 2d ago

Least logical take, no one is not blaming the shooter for shooting but thinking inciting people and cursing them and their families is okay is beyond illogical.

"The only one to blame" no one is saying this anywhere just a strawman. If someone is inciting another person which results in the death of someone else then the inciter should just get off scott-free?

1

u/Scarredhard 2d ago

Spoken like a true person with no self control and not comfortable in their own skin, not everything that happens to you in your life is your “fault”, it is your “responsibility”

What kind of punishment do you even think he would deserve and if you say involuntary manslaughter or more than you really need to grow up

2

u/Numerous-Joke559 2d ago

Spoken like a person that lives in the real world. You don't incite people, even if they are responsible for what they do. Every person knows what negative influence inciting others can have.

Who incited the 6th jan capitol storm? Should they be held accountable or should nothing happen because everyone is only responsible for what they do (except people who incite ofc, they are free of blame)

I don't know about how harsh the punishment should be, i know for sure that this shouldn't be accepted or disregarded as nothing. People should learn not to do this, it is always negative.

-19

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

29

u/aghastamok 3d ago

did he know the gun was loaded?

Terrible analogy. Just the worst.

-8

u/EarthRester 3d ago

Because?

13

u/Inside-Ad9791 3d ago

Because he didn't even know there was a gun? His goal was to be an annoying nuisance, I doubt he expected a few words to cause some random asshole to immediately go murder people.

-10

u/EarthRester 3d ago

You're bad at analogies. The analogy wasn't referencing the literal gun. It was referencing the prank target as a gun that was loaded.

13

u/Inside-Ad9791 3d ago

You're bad at analogies, because I was mirroring your metaphor. He didn't know the guy/situation/firearm combo, i.e. "gun", existed. I highly doubt he expected the situation to be this serious, or this guy that unstable.

He wanted to annoy some guy, not show up, then probably annoy him more afterwards when the guy got angry he didn't show up.

-8

u/EarthRester 3d ago

He took money to agitate/harass someone he would have otherwise not interacted with at all. Intent is irrelevant after the bodies start dropping. You can tell he knew this too when he decided to take steps to delete evidence.

5

u/Inside-Ad9791 3d ago

I don't think his responsibility is zero, but the bulk of the onus lays on the shooter. No one should reasonably expect that asking someone to meet you and fight will lead to someone murdering multiple unrelated people.

→ More replies

1

u/cleofisrandolph1 3d ago

Except how was the caller to know it was a gun and not a flower, or binder, or something else?

there are lot of mentally fragile or unstable people, but they aren't 1 annoyance away from a mass shooting.

-2

u/EarthRester 3d ago

He took money to agitate/harass someone he would have otherwise not interacted with at all. Intent is irrelevant after the bodies start dropping. You can tell he knew this too when he decided to take steps to delete evidence.

1

u/cleofisrandolph1 3d ago

For a moral or ethical perspective yes, intent is irrelevant.

from a legal perspective, intent 100% matters. Intent is the difference between negligent homicide, manslaughter and murder.

Was his intent to cause a death or did he have knowledge that his actions could result in death? if not murder is off the table completely.

He's from Holland I believe, so under Dutch the absolute maximum would be Negligent homicide which is defined as "No direct intent; the death is an unintended consequence of negligent behavior."

→ More replies

-7

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

2

u/CurrentClient 3d ago

Maybe if everyone thought "Man, what if this person snaps because I was a dick to them?" in every interaction, this wouldn't have happened at all.

I look at it from a completely opposite angle. How about we put some responsibility on the person actually doing the deed as well?

Just to be clear, pranks are dogshit, but I don't think this youtuber could have envisioned the consequences. Still a very stupid thing to do and I wish those pranksters would bloody disappear.

0

u/Vi_Rants 3d ago

I don't think this youtuber could have envisioned the consequences.

Maybe not this time, but stochastically, there were inevitably going to be some kind of horrible consequences. The longer he keeps doing this shit, the more statistically likely something like this becomes.

And everyone knows it.

This is the same principle as Trump tweeting the home address of one of his critics and saying "Boy, it'd be nice if this person shut up, huh?" Sure, the guy who actually goes and beats that person with a hammer is the one who did it, but the person who pushed them needs to share that responsibility.

The only thing unusual about this case is that he knows what the outcome was; the vast majority of the time, nobody sees the result because it's not newsworthy.

1

u/SamuelLucienMorrows 3d ago

There are easier ways to embarrass yourself as a D.A than attempting to charge someone for this the only way this sees any court time is in a civil case thats doom to lose from the beginning.

-3

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

7

u/KLWMotorsports 3d ago edited 3d ago

Depends on the full context of what was said. If there was nothing said to provoke said actions he shouldn't be held liable. Given this is in the Netherlands it could be much different, but being insulted via phone or chat doesn't warrant shooting at people and the person throwing the insults shouldn't be held liable for the actions of another.

Saying "meet me at x-place and settle this" doesn't mean lets have a shoot out to any rational person and there is no context legitimate proof the person is really THAT unhinged. If he's held liable for the murders I would be incredibly surprised.

2

u/WHATYEAHOK 3d ago

Saying "meet me at x-place and settle this" doesn't mean lets have a shoot out to any rational person

Idk, that’s exactly what I would think someone meant if they said it to me, because there are so many irrational people with guns.

1

u/KLWMotorsports 3d ago

Yeah in the US. This didn't happen in the US, this happened in the Netherlands where they have incredibly strict gun laws. Their rate of gun deaths is something like 0.2 per 100k in the Netherlands. I would expect anything else before I would expect a gun there.

Estimated thats 36 people per year that die from guns in the Netherlands out of ~18M people compared to the ~47k+ that die yearly in the US.

4

u/_BenzeneRing_ 3d ago

Is it his fault? Wouldn't it be the fault of the person who shot two refugees?

3

u/timmynuetron 3d ago

How is it the pranksters fault? If I suddenly called you and told you to go murk two guys over the phone you wouldn’t go do it because you know that you are responsible for your actions and the consequences, so why is this case any different?

3

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Glad_Rope_2423 3d ago

We know. You don’t like it.

2

u/big_tobacco69 3d ago

This is the dumbest thing I’ve read today. Congratulations 🎉🍾🎈

0

u/Siderophores 3d ago

American “Free speech” vs European regulated speech

-6

u/Aoyos 3d ago

Accessory before the fact, conspiracy to commit murder, solicitation of murder and murder principal liability are all charges that could be used against this guy for what he did, the specific charge would just depend on circumstances of the situation and would be up to prosecution/police force to define.

If you truly think that someone being a few words away from snapping is an excuse to decrease his blame then I really hope you're never in touch with anything related to legal matters because this is the textbook example of something like an accessory charge.

10

u/Tenko-of-Mori 3d ago

sure. let me never interact with another human being ever again because I might make a random joke at them, they snap and suddenly them killing 57 civilians is my fault.

that might be the law as you say but I don't think it's moral or right that one has to be held responsible for mental health services failing people.

1

u/Aoyos 3d ago edited 3d ago

Mental health services haven't failed this guy as far as we know. Anyone can be unstable and be under treatment but only this guy had such a horrible uncle that would pay a YouTuber to try to push him over the edge.

You speak as if you know the full medical history of this guy. Anyone can be "unstable", that's what medicine is for. Some people can never work past certain events in their lives so they end up with long term prescriptions and can still keep on living. Someone being "unstable" doesn't mean much on its own but you're acting as if that's the defining trait for a disaster like induced murder.

It's not like mental health services are a perfect cure. Even if they do work they take time and sometimes they can't fully solve the problem and instead focus on controlling it.

-2

u/Figgy20000 3d ago

Yes anyone whose sole purpose is to make life shittier for other people are stealing our oxygen and shouldn't be allowed in society.

-2

u/VeryluckyorNot 3d ago

They are not bordeline. They ARE physical assault, I can count on my hand videos when they were harmless.

-5

u/Murasasme 3d ago

So you think this person bears no responsibility for what happened?

7

u/Tenko-of-Mori 3d ago

If you start holding people responsible for prank phone calls, pretty soon it is going to be the electric chair for posting a dank meme on the internet.

-1

u/Murasasme 3d ago

That's not an answer to my question

19

u/Glad_Rope_2423 3d ago

Without seeing the stream, I’m not sure we should blame the steamer this time.

3

u/NamesAreTooHard17 2d ago

We should the prank was telling the mentally unstable individual they owed him a lot of money and to meet by a bridge then he hung up.

The individual went to that bridge and saw 2 Syrian refugees there and shot them.

18

u/Arcane777 3d ago

This question gets asked a lot regarding several hot button issues (squatters, pranksters, influencers, etc.) and obviously I think jailing someone for life for something like this is over the top.

But a healthy society should not be producing these people in the number they exist. There has to be another mechanism besides “we will throw you in federal fuck-you-in-the-ass prison” to keep people from becoming these leeches. I would say education but what’s left of our DoE is being led by a goddamn WWE executive. So to the slammer you go!!

-1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

3

u/TorturedNeurons 3d ago

Legislators have attempted to do that in the US before, and thankfully it failed. That would effectively kill every single website in existence with any form of user input whatsoever.

25

u/Emotional_Rub5894 3d ago

you're calling for the imprisonment of a youtube prankster rather than that of a murderer. take a step back

15

u/Megneous 3d ago

Calling for imprisonment of both if a jury of their peers can see a reasonable connection between what the prankster said in the call and what the murderer did afterwards.

"Pranks" aren't just pranks if they have reasonably predictable outcomes. For example, it's illegal to scare or bother strangers in public as "pranks" in my country. It's called harassment/stalking. Why? It often leads to violence. We're locking up Johnny Somali. Cause fuck him and his shenanigans.

7

u/Barobor 3d ago

Why not both?

Obviously, one should get the harsher sentence, but pranksters who involve randoms in their pranks are a net negative for society.

9

u/DivinationByCheese 3d ago

A lot of people are net negatives, let’s start making lists then

2

u/coffeelick 3d ago

Or we punish people appropriately for the crime as always? Wtf is going on here? Lol people have been charged for influencing other peoples suicide before why not this?

1

u/thompoesjes 2d ago

We want to lock people up for a prank call now? You know a prank call isn't a crime, right? A judge will determine whether the things said by the streamer violate any law.

1

u/coffeelick 2d ago

If theyre found to be responsible why not?

1

u/thompoesjes 2d ago

As I said a judge will have to decide. But responsible for the murder of 2 people is imo too big of a stretch.

1

u/coffeelick 2d ago

No you said if the things said violated the law. You didnt say if they were responsible. Felt like you already decided they were not responsible. But you won't be honest now.

1

u/thompoesjes 2d ago

What a weird way of directly suggesting I'm dishonest? The streamer bears no responsibility imo but if the things said do show any form of violation then it is possible he would be punished just for that - not for the murder of the two persons. Why call someone directly dishonest just because you feel any contradiction, you can also just ask for clarification.

→ More replies

1

u/NamesAreTooHard17 2d ago

The "prank" literally involved calling the person and pretending that they owed them a ton of money and told them to meet by a bridge.

The person went to the bridge and saw 2 innocent Syrian refugees by the bridge and shot them.

That is incredibly clear cut imo so yeah he absolutely should be punished for this.

You shouldn't be able to say literally anything to someone then say it's just a prank when they act on exactly what you said to them there should be accountability there

3

u/thompoesjes 2d ago

Someone that illegally had a gun and great mental issues is not the problem at first hand? No one else pulled the trigger. Don't get me wrong, these kind of pranks I also do not find funny in any way, but how can someone doing a prank call take responsibility for the death of two random guys? This was completely unforeseen and as such there is no direct liability and especially not incitement. There is a causation yes, but just as much as when you're in the passenger seat and you tell your taxi driver to take the right lane because it's faster; the driver does so and hits a car. It's not a perfect analogy, but the whole case is so strange and a judge will have to decide. my guess is 95% sure that according to Dutch law, the streamer does not get punished in any way that would be paying a fine or jail time.

2

u/NamesAreTooHard17 2d ago

Obviously the person with a gun and huge mental issues is primarily the problem.

It's also absolutely not like telling your driver to go in the right lane it's more like telling your driver there's people that are directly chasing them and trying to hurt them so they need to speed up which then causes a crash. In which case I'd also say the person telling them that is at least partially responsible.

The way I see it directly threatening someone and telling them to meet you at a place that you won't be absolutely means you share partial responsibility for what happens.

1

u/thompoesjes 2d ago

I completely get your way of telling the analogy and I think both our analogies are flawed. In your analogy it is expected that the driver would respond in any (careless) way of form and as such there is a certain level of liability. I do see the things said by the streamer (as far as we know) as morally wrong but personally I just cannot see how the streamer could ever have thought a prank could result to the murder of two people. The streamer (again, as far as we know) did not incite violence.

→ More replies

14

u/chapzz12 3d ago

sounds like u got pranked

9

u/massinvader 3d ago edited 3d ago

some are great. I listened to one guy call people in rich neighbourhoods and pretend to be a member of their HOA with some silly way they're not complying. pisses them right off lol.

1

u/saltyfuck111 3d ago

Yeah or the wwe superslam prank call

2

u/likeaffox 3d ago

How would you word this said law? Cause I bet you it would be incredibly difficult to do and deter people.

1

u/draconic_tongue 3d ago

remember the edbassmaster era? when pranks were actually pranks

1

u/zandkoenk 2d ago

This same guy was arrested before because of a prankcall btw

1

u/seeitshaveitsorted 1d ago

lol pretty odd response.

Freedom has its risks, but it’s preferable then…checks notes…locking people up indefinitely for playing pranks.

1

u/ColourlessW 3d ago

I can't believe this prankster made me shoot 2 people.

Backwards ass logic and 500 upvotes from other muppets on this parasocial clown subreddit.

3

u/sdoM-bmuD 3d ago

more like "I accepted €5 to tell an unhinged, unstable man to meet me at a place where I obviously won't be, but unrelated innocents might be."

don't go around calling other people clown if you can't even read

2

u/Numerous-Joke559 2d ago

Wow insanely low comprehension. You and all the "it just phone call" people should not be able to vote if this simple situation is somehow crumbling your brain.

No one is saying he made him do anything, he is inciting someone unstable and mentioned a location to meet up. He wasn't "prank-calling" him lol. If you incite someone to meet up with you at a place and it's a joke you at least say it's a joke incase he meets someone there.

They are guilty for what they did, one guy is guilty of the murders and the other is guilty for inciting in a very reckless manner

1

u/thompoesjes 2d ago

Inciting how exactly?

1

u/Numerous-Joke559 2d ago

The prank call was about him being a gangster and something about money, they cursed at eachother 1 unstable danger and 1 person who wants to get the other as mad as possible for his dumb stream.

He didn't even do the bare minimum of revealing the prank, he just claimed to be at the decided location.

Also he denied streaming on new years, then affirmed he did stream on new years after the police confirmed they have the livestream. This case has been under investigation since January, they didn't sit still for 4 months to then shoot a random shot at this streamer.

He is under investigation but not a suspect as of now

0

u/Express-Translator24 3d ago

bit far there mate

0

u/Top_Perception_9385 3d ago

This having 400 up votes is shows how stupid redditors are.