A 19-year-old kick streamer known as Clavicular (whose real name is Braden Peters) faces potential felony charges after running over an alleged stalker with his Tesla Cybertruck on Christmas Eve in Miami during a live stream. Legal analyst DumbedDownLaw has examined the incident in a recent YouTube video and believes the teenager will struggle to claim self-defense.
According to public reports, Peters was streaming when an individual he described as a stalker jumped onto the hood and windshield of his Cybertruck. Peters then drove forward, causing the person to fall and be run over. Police arrived at the scene but filed no charges at that time. The condition of the person struck remains unclear, though Peters allegedly made comments expressing hope that the individual had perished.
Streamer Clavicular has been banned from Kick following reports that he drove his Cybertruck over a person lying on the vehicle.
The individual was reportedly a stalker who had repeatedly harassed the streamer during live broadcasts.
Authorities have not disclosed the… pic.twitter.com/WyKwhYlv2g
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) December 25, 2025
The central legal question revolves around whether Clavicular had justification to use what Florida law considers deadly force. Under Florida statute 776.02, individuals can use force when they reasonably believe it necessary to defend against imminent unlawful force. However, deadly force requires a reasonable belief that it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.
DumbedDownLaw outlined the strongest defense arguments Clavicular could make. His attorneys would likely argue that with someone on his vehicle’s hood, he was trapped and faced imminent danger. They could claim Clavicular had no duty to retreat under Florida’s stand-your-ground law, and that his intent was to escape rather than cause harm.
However, the attorney believes prosecutors have a significantly stronger case. The primary issue is whether Peters’ use of a vehicle as a weapon was reasonable and necessary given the circumstances. “You can be terrified all you want,” the attorney explained. Prosecutors must prove “the force wasn’t reasonable or necessary under the circumstances.”
Prosecutors would argue that even if Peters felt frightened, jumping on a car hood doesn’t justify using potentially lethal force unless the person posed an immediate threat of death or serious injury. They would likely emphasize that Peters had alternatives, including calling police or driving away without running over the individual.
Peters’ statements after the incident pose another significant problem. His post-incident comments, including expressed hope that the person had passed away, could be used to argue his mindset reflected anger and recklessness rather than genuine fear.
“Prosecutors love that kind of thing because it helps them argue your mindset,” DumbedDownLaw noted. “This wasn’t fear. This was anger, punishment, or reckless indifference.”
The attorney acknowledged that defense counsel could argue post-incident statements don’t prove Peters’ state of mind during the split-second decision, particularly given his youth and immaturity. However, this argument faces significant challenges.
Potential charges range from misdemeanor battery to aggravated battery, which in Florida is a second-degree felony carrying up to 15 years. If prosecutors believe Peters acted with intent to cause serious harm or end a life, attempted murder charges could be filed. The attorney noted that while maximum sentences rarely apply, Peters could realistically face one to three years if convicted of aggravated battery.
Beyond criminal liability, Peters faces almost certain civil litigation. Even if acquitted in criminal court, he could be found liable in civil proceedings, which operate under a lower burden of proof. This could result in significant financial judgments, including wage garnishment.
DumbedDownLaw emphasized that as a streamer, Peters created extensive evidence through his broadcasts. “Your live stream is evidence. Your DMs are evidence,” the attorney warned. Everything Peters said before, during, and after the incident will be scrutinized.
In the attorney’s professional opinion, this situation does not constitute justifiable self-defense. While Peters had the right to use reasonable force if threatened, he escalated to deadly force by using his vehicle as a weapon. “He could have gotten out of his car, punched this guy, beat the hell out of him. That, in my opinion, would have been completely fine and justified under reasonable force,” the attorney said. “He chose to elevate it to deadly force.”
The attorney concluded that unless additional facts emerge showing the person made specific threats or possessed a weapon, Peters will likely face felony battery charges at minimum.
