Vegas streamer was shot dead by a rival YouTuber after a feud over copyright strikes
At around 10:30 p.m. on Sunday, Las Vegas police officers heard gunshots during a routine patrol on South Las Vegas Boulevard. They found a man and woman — later identified as 44-year-old Rodney Finley and 43-year-old Tanisha Finley — suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. Both were declared dead at the scene.
By Monday morning, the suspected shooter, 41-year-old Manuel Ruiz, had turned himself in to authorities at a Henderson police station.
On June 8, 2025, near the Bellagio in Las Vegas, YouTuber Finny Da Legend and a woman were fatally shot during a livestream by another YouTuber, allegedly SinCity-MannyWise, over a social media dispute. Police detained the suspect, and the area was locked down. pic.twitter.com/PxarrVvRnA
Rivalry over content spirals into chaos
Rodney Finley, known to his followers as 'Finny Da Legend', had built a YouTube presence livestreaming life in Las Vegas. But his content also frequently called out Ruiz, who ran a channel under the name SinCity-Manny. Their online tension became public last year when Finley accused Ruiz of hitting his channel with a copyright strike — a move that could have led to channel termination under YouTube's policy.
In a now-deleted video titled 'Look at what Sin City Family (Pmanny & Julie) Did to Me,' Finley shared screenshots of the YouTube violation. The incident may have intensified a feud that already seemed personal and bitter.
According to a police report, Ruiz described their relationship as a 'rivalry' and claimed he acted in self-defence, insisting he had no idea the Finleys were livestreaming at the time. The livestream, which captured the terrifying moment gunfire broke out and bystanders scattered in panic, has since been removed.
Awaiting justice
Ruiz is currently being held without bail as he awaits a court appearance scheduled for Thursday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
BBA student, passport agent among trio who bought cryptocurrency with funds siphoned in Cyber fraud
THE CYBER Crime Police Station of the Pimpri Chinchwad police have arrested three persons including a BBA student and a passport agent who had withdrawn cash from the funds that were siphoned from the victims of a cyber crime and later used it to purchase Tether (USDT) cryptocurrency to be sent to the international handlers. The Cyber Crime police station of Pimpri Chinchwad were investigating a share trading scam in which a man who was lured using a YouTube advertisement had lost Rs 56 lakh. The victim was made to believe that he had earned a profit of Rs 5.15 crores after he was manipulated into making several transactions through a fraudulent phone based application. In the initial phase of the probe the Pimpri Chinchwad police's Cyber investigators zeroed in on one specific bank account registered in Pune in the name of Balaji Enterprises. A team from the Cyber police station identified the man as Shivam Balkrushna Sanvatsarkar (34), a resident of Erandwane in Pune, who worked as a film producer. He was subsequently placed under arrest. In the subsequent phase of the probe, investigators found out that some funds from the victim had landed in an account of a public sector bank, in the name of a real estate entity. The money was further withdrawn as cash. Police zeroed in on the suspects who were operating the account and had withdrawn the cash. Over the last week, the police arrested the three suspects including Sahil Anwar Sayyed (22), a BBA student, Bhupendra Avatar Singh (34), a passport agent and Sarfaraz Rafique Sayyed (29), automobile repair ship owner. Further probe revealed that the bank account which these suspects operated had been flagged in at least seven Cyber crimes and had seen transactions of Rs 12 lakh. After their arrest, the trio were remanded to police custody. Further investigation is on.
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Espionage case: Jyoti Malhotra's custody extended by 7 days
A Hisar court on Monday extended by seven days the judicial custody of YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra, who is under investigation for alleged espionage for Pakistan. Her advocate Kumar Mukesh said she was produced before the court via videoconferencing. Her appearance on August 25 would be in-person when she will be provided with a 2,500-page chargesheet that was submitted by the special investigation team (SIT) of the Hisar police on August 14, he said. YouTuber Jyoti Malhotra 'Thereafter, we will review the chargesheet to ascertain if it contains any evidence,' he added. Travel blogger Jyoti, 33, a resident of Hisar, was arrested on May 16 for allegedly sharing sensitive information with Pakistani operatives. According to police officials, she had been allegedly sharing sensitive information to Pakistani operatives and she was in regular touch with them. 'Initially, she created digital content. Later, during her visit to Pakistan, she came in contact with Pakistani handlers. The enemy intelligence operatives developed her like an asset. Jyoti had links with ISI operatives Nasir Dhillon, Hasan Ali, Shakir and Ehsan-ur-Rahim Danish Ali, an officer at the Pakistani high commission in Delhi,' said a senior police officer, requesting anonymity. As per the chargesheet, Jyoti had visited various places, including Pahalgam in J&K, three months before the terror attack. She travelled to Pakistan thrice, once to China and other countries like Bangladesh and Indonesia. Earlier, Hisar superintendent of police (SP) Shashank Kumar Sawan had said that Jyoti did not have direct access to any information related to the military or defence operations that she could have shared, but she was in touch with Pakistan's officials. 'They were developing her as an asset. She was in touch with other YouTube influencers. They were also in touch with PIOs (public information officers). She used to go to Pakistan, like on sponsored trips. She was in Pakistan before the Pahalgam attack. An investigation is on to establish linkages, if there are any. We are also investigating as we have leads that other people were also involved with her,' the SP had said. The SP said that the YouTuber had visited the Pakistani embassy and uploaded a video in March last year. 'Pakistan is not a normal country for us. Attending several events with them and remaining in touch with Danish and others during the conflict period endangers the unity and sovereignty of the country,' the SP said.
Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Gangs are using increasingly sophisticated kit to steal cars
IMAGINE MEETING a seasoned British car thief in 2013. They would probably have cut a sorry figure. Every year of their career, the grind had got harder. The tools of their trade, such as a coat hanger or 'slim jim' (a flat metal strip) for bypassing locks and strippers for manipulating ignition wires, had, slowly but surely, been rendered obsolete, thanks to improved security technology. Business had dried up. Not any more. The recent boom in car theft offers a window into an ever-shifting battleground. On one side are manufacturers, who make and sell products. On the other are thieves, who try to nick them. As the technology for providing security, and defeating it, has become better, and cheaper, the battle has speeded up. Modern cars are sometimes called 'computers on wheels'. That brought benefits but also vulnerabilities that carmakers were slow to grasp. The first was 'relay attacks', which became popular in Britain in 2016 after manufacturers introduced keyless ignition. A thief stands on a street and uses a device to 'bounce' the electronic signal from a house to the car. Manufacturers have designed that out in newer models. Now thieves are more likely to get in by plugging a device directly into one of the car's electronic components, which tricks the car into thinking it is being contacted by a smart key. Adam Gibson, a police officer at Felixstowe port, points to several cars he has recovered that have been broken into using this technique: one via the tail-light, another via a component next to the bonnet latch. The kit for this can be easily bought online. Videos on YouTube even explain how to use it. Most thefts are carried out by organised criminal groups, which will invest as much as £20,000 ($27,000) on a single piece of equipment. A police force says that, when it confiscated such a device, it bought only a quiet couple of weeks. One challenge for manufacturers is the speed of criminal innovation. The timeline for designing and making cars is long; once criminal groups have found an entry point, they might have years of easy business. Another is cost. At the top end of the market, companies invest heavily in fixing vulnerabilities, partly because they worry that a rash of thefts will hurt their brand. For mid-market cars, price competition is fiercer, and drivers are less likely to blame the manufacturer if their car is stolen. Criminals have similarly had to adapt their techniques when it comes to phones. The introduction of biometric locking and face identification made it harder for thieves to get into locked phones, rendering them less valuable. The response was a surge in 'snatch thefts', whereby thieves yank an unlocked phone from someone's hand, and then disable tracking before the victim can report it lost. Manufacturers have, in turn, developed motion-based theft-detection measures (a phone will lock in response to a jarring movement) and stolen-device protection (it requires a passcode when moved to an unfamiliar location). Yet the security of any system depends on humans. Many phone users do not turn on such features. Criminals have become adept at phishing for the personal information needed to unlock a phone. If all else fails, a locked phone can always be sold on for parts. Manufacturers are often accused of dragging their feet. MPs have argued, for example, that Apple could easily undermine the business model of phone-snatchers by introducing a 'kill switch', but it won't because of 'strong commercial incentives'. That oversimplifies things. Manufacturers design security around passwords and locks, and already allow users to remotely 'kill' their phone when it is locked. Introducing a kill switch for a phone that appears to have been legitimately transferred to a new user would create a host of new problems. A second-hand seller could, for example, try to extort money from a buyer by threatening to kill a phone post-sale. Manufacturers would struggle to design an infallible process for distinguishing thefts from legal sales. A fairer conclusion is that—because its costs are socialised, via higher insurance premiums—theft is often a problem that no one has a strong incentive to fix.
