Thanks to the folks at Fark and by extension, Reddit, I have a solid place to find video content that’s fresh and fun. If you’re a regular Farker, this video above will be of no surprise. If you haven’t seen it, watch through until the end. While I don’t advocate the shooting of clowns (or really any violence towards them), I do believe that the fine citizens of Texas are well within their rights to shoot a clown if presented with any of the scenarios filmed here. Sec. 9.31 of the Texas Penal Code available here states the following (emphasis mine):

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

Based on that three-factor test, a Texan would be well within their legal rights to shoot the clown in the above scenarios. Hopefully, discretion would prevail, but given the rise in concealed carry permits being awarded in these United States, statistics do not favor the producers of this prank show. Looking for a close call? In the last ten seconds of the video, you’ll see a chap, knife in hand, having a heated discussion with the producers. Future pranksters might not be so lucky to find themselves chatting with a somewhat rational man wielding a knife.

The lesson here is to keep your head on a swivel, be ready to bolt (it worked for these people), and don’t run a prank show that scares the bejeezus out of people.

Recommended For You

60 Responses to How a Clown Gets Ventilated

  1. I understand that this was not filmed in the US, but still, there would be one less clown in the world. I think two to the chest and one to the head is a language understood no matter where in the world you might be.

  2. I saw that earlier and my first thought was “that clown guy would be dead if they tried something like that in Arizona.” I can’t begin to express how completely irresponsible and dangerous it is to do something like that.

    • ^^ this. Late at night, I’m walking with my wife and we witness physical harm of someone else and then the perp come after us?? That’s not going to end well for the clown. Fuck warning, I’m shooting.

    • I predict this type of prank will end badly for the clown. I suspect the many thousands of CCW holders in this country would draw and fire when the clown turns aggressive. The producers of this show need to rethink what they’re doing.

  3. I’m not gonna play hard ass, clowns freak me the hell out…

    It would be time to throw down.

  4. The antis like to say that people doing crap like that in the video have some sort of right to do those things and getting shot because of guns being available “ruins” their ability to promote “expression” like this… if the asshat doing this got someone killed because they ran into traffic, had a heart attack or anything like that, the antis wouldn’t say anything about it, probably say “be more careful” or “eat healthier”. I don’t get the mentality where running away in endless fear from shit like this is ever a good thing. If some douchebag comes at you with what appears to be a giant sledge, after doing what appears to be a horrifically brutal act to another person, his head can explode from a well placed .45 ACP. Simply put, don’t do that shit.

  5. Hey guys, this video was made in Brazil, in Curitiba to be more specific… unfortunately, we can’t walk with a gun here, sometimes not even with a knife! but the criminals does ! or in this case a Clown !

    See Ya !

    Ps: Very nice web site !

    greetings from Brazil !

    • You have my sympathies, sir – can you carry a walking stick? Something along the lines of an Irish blackthorn, or a Mace Cane from Atlanta Cutlery? (www.atlantacutlery.com)

      Not as helpful as a Taurus .45, but better than praying.

  6. Im not going to lie, I would have screamed like a little girl and run away in basically every one of those scenarios. I think running away would have been the better option (rather than drawing) in several of those scenarios. Unfortunately as a slave to ca, I would not have had the option to draw.

  7. I’m no expert on Texas law, but might there be a distinction between using “force” and using “deadly force” lurking in there somewhere? Not that the clown doesn’t deserve it, of course.

    • “A person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.”

      I would say chasing someone with giant bludgeoning tool would be considered “attempted use of unlawful force.”

      • Especially since the “prankster” idiots set the whole thing up to make a “reasonable person” believe that the clown had just killed someone else in a very messy fashion. This would be a very bad idea to try in Idaho.

  8. I’m sure if that happened here the clown would have ripped off the mask and screamed like a little girl, or the producer would have ran out at the sight of a gun. I did notice that the ones that stood there were not approached further until they began to run.

    • Indeed, an excellent method for suicide by armed citizen, see also : How to commit various misdemeanors and felonies in the pursuit of committing suicide by armed citizen.

      • Yup. There was a video where someone did something somewhat similar. I think the assailant was just wearing a Jason Mask or… something like that. I can’t really remember. There was a video on YouTube of it. Well at one point they tried that at a basketball court and it turned out one of the plays happened to be carrying. No one got shot but the prankster ended up running for all he was worth away from that scene.

  9. Maybe if one of those guys did get shot we wouldn’t have to put up with these idiotic prank videos anymore. I’ll let him take one for the team.

  10. I’d probably run too, as fast as these old legs could go, but not to worry, the clown would be slipping in shit all the way!

  11. I don’t do Reddit, because I find their format deeply annoying, but I’ve been on Fark for years. There certainly seems to be a lot of crossover with members there and here.

  12. Every scene I was but the pour ‘gas’ gag was absolutely a justifiable homicide legally, ethically and tactically but one, and the gas can trick is questionable. The one that I question is in the hallway at close range, ethically and legally justifiable still, but tactically running the hell away may have been the right answer.

    Also, all of these but the gas can (again, questionable) would represent a likely charge of inducing panic, possibly a felony aggravated assault charge depending on the prosecutor, and a reckless homicide charge almost every time if someone were killed while fleeing.

    I also doubt that many prosecutors would or in most jurisdictions could mount any case for murder if you shot that idiot down or for battery if you beat him silly. I’m pretty sure the reaction to any reasonable person seeing these videos in a courtroom would be that a reasonable person would most certainly been in fear for their lives had they been the victim of these ‘pranks’. As the script would provide evidence that inducing fear and panic was the point, charges against the clown and likely the producers shouldn’t be too hard. I also calculate that all their profits and them some would be handed over in the resulting civil suits. I’d say it’s just a Darwin award looking for a place to happen. Stupid people, places . . .

    • so someone pouring some kind of liquid that you don’t know what on/next to your car at a gas station? Whose to say that guy isn’t pouring something highly flammable and wanting to light you and the whole gas station up? I would have at least drawn on him and may have shot him. There are some sick people out there and I wouldn’t put it past some one to light themselves on fire to burn you and the whole gas station down.

      • I did say ‘questionable’ Re: the gas can. That one I think is down to individual judgment (and whether one has a duty to retreat in that jurisdiction. I know that the place won’t explode anytime soon just because someone set a car on fire, there is plenty of time to leave. Also, he didn’t seem to have an ignition source handy as both hands were on the gas can. My judgment, based on those facts, is that I wouldn’t have shot him and would not have drawn as long as he never got any closer than he did in the video. Then again, I also judge that before he could produce and use an ignition source I could drawn and shoot him.
        On the flip side, someone else, another perfectly rational person with a different perspective might have shot the clown in the gas can episode, and likely would have prevailed legally having done so, it’s just that among the others, that one was ‘least obviously’ justifiable, but I wouldn’t call it unjustified.

    • Kinda like “Shaking hands with Abe Lincoln” or “Windsurfing on Mount Baldy”… sounds dirty, but completely legit. (h/t to David Letterman)

  13. I have to stop myself from shooting clowns on general principle because they scare the crap out of me. But one that’s coming at me with a weapon? Sayonara, Chuckles, and don’t expect anyone to write songs about your dumb ass after I deposit every bullet I have into you.

  14. “Hopefully, discretion would prevail…”

    The discretion should have been used by the moron in the clown suit. If it were me, I’d of done what’s legal to defend myself and the lives of those I care about.

    While I wouldn’t wish harm to anyone, the jokers need to think about their own safety when they choose to stage such idiotic stunts. Some of us really do carry and know how to use a firearm.

  15. There are only a couple of those scenarios where I would have straight up killed the clown (when he charges guy that sees him dragging the ‘body’ and when he steps out from behind the bush and charges the two guys on the walking path) but I would have drawn down on the idjit in all the rest.

    The one scene that just boggles me is the one with the car. The mark’s reaction to some random looney coming up to his car and pouring some unknown (presumably flammable) substance around it defies all logic. Especially how close the clown gets before he gets noticed. If the clown truly had been any kind of threat, the driver would have been dead before he even realized he was in trouble. I cannot wrap my brain around the utter disregard for one’s safety.

    • Ok Booth, I get it, the guy was coming at you with a mallet, but you reloaded and shot him 32 more times while he was on the ground!? Booth: I did say it was a CLOWN with a mallet, right?

  16. To the writer of the article, you posted the law on the use of simple force in Texas NOT deadly force. Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

    (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

    (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

    (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

    (b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

    (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

    Amended by:

    Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.

    and for protecting a third party from that clown:

    Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

    (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

    (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

  17. Reminds me of a video put up after the most recent friday 13th. It was of a man dressed as Jason chasing people with a running chain saw. I would have shot his ass too.

  18. Part of the misguided YouTube idiots. In virtually every CCW sate the clown would have been dropped like a bad habit. Lord know if I had been one of those folks he would have expired from lead/copper poisoning.

  19. Dude in the car shot came out of the door panel with something in his right hand, and held it close to his side, hard to tell but he seems to grab it like a pistol.

    • Pretty sure that’s a knife – he’s the guy at the very end of the video standing by his car, knife in hand, talking to the guys making the video

  20. Watching that video made me have flashbacks of the movie IT, scariest ish ever to this day. If I’m solo in everyone of those situations I’m running like Bo Jackson in Tecmo Bowl. If my wife or my son were with me, it would have definitely been a DGU (err at least a perceived DGU).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *