A West Hollywood gay father who punched a conservative streamer during a viral confrontation involving his husband and infant son will not face criminal prosecution after completing a pre-filing diversion agreement.
A viral confrontation that began with a gay couple being questioned about their right to raise a child has ended without criminal charges being filed.
Los Angeles County prosecutors have confirmed that David Vulin, 32, will not be prosecuted over an April altercation with self-described “MAGA influencer” Ryley Niemi in West Hollywood.
Vulin had been arrested on suspicion of battery and vandalism after video showed him striking Niemi during the encounter.
His attorney, R.J. Dreiling, told the Los Angeles Times that Vulin completed the terms of a pre-filing diversion agreement with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.
The DA’s office confirmed the case was referred to diversion and that criminal charges would not be filed. The terms of the agreement have not been made public.
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge also agreed to seal records relating to Vulin’s arrest, according to Dreiling.
What happened in West Hollywood?
The confrontation unfolded on 16 April 2026 as Vulin and his husband, Anthony, walked along Santa Monica Boulevard with their infant son, Ante.
According to the couple, Niemi and a camera crew approached them while presenting the interaction as an interview associated with CNN.
The real CNN later covered the incident; Niemi was not working for the network.
During the filmed exchange, Niemi asked the couple whether they thought it was “weird” to have a child when neither parent was a woman.
He then claimed gay men were statistically more likely to molest children.
When the Los Angeles Times subsequently asked Niemi for evidence supporting that assertion, he did not provide a source. The newspaper noted that published academic research does not support his claim.
The questioning also turned to the couple’s use of surrogacy.
For two gay fathers simply walking home with their baby, the encounter quickly became personal.
The confrontation turned physical
Video of the incident shows Vulin initially shoving Niemi.
Additional footage filmed a short distance away later shows Vulin punching Niemi in the head several times after the streamer continued questioning whether the child was safe with his parents.
Niemi told the Los Angeles Times that he suffered a concussion and said a camera worth about US$2,000 was damaged.
The newspaper reported that video did not show Niemi hitting either Vulin or his husband.
Vulin was subsequently arrested by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies on suspicion of battery and vandalism.
The eventual decision not to prosecute therefore should not be read as a court ruling that the physical violence was lawful or justified.
There was no criminal trial and no verdict.
Instead, the matter ended through pre-filing diversion, meaning prosecutors agreed not to bring charges after Vulin fulfilled agreed conditions.
More than US$200,000 raised for the family
The arrest attracted widespread attention, particularly within West Hollywood’s LGBTQ+ community.
A crowdfunding campaign launched to assist with Vulin’s legal costs ultimately raised more than US$200,000, while West Hollywood officials also urged prosecutors not to pursue the case.
Local officials argued that Niemi had deliberately entered the city’s LGBTQ+ community looking to provoke confrontations for online content.
Niemi, meanwhile, has disputed the idea that provocation excused the violence.
Following the decision not to prosecute, he told the Los Angeles Times he was surprised by the outcome and said he may pursue a civil lawsuit.
The Vulins say the encounter was designed for viral content
After the case was resolved, David and Anthony said they were relieved the threat of criminal prosecution was over.
But they remained critical of how the encounter began.
In a statement, the couple described Niemi as someone who “provoked this encounter with hate speech then filmed and monetised it”, while expressing frustration that he faced no legal consequences.
Earlier, David told ABC7 that he believed his family had been exploited for online engagement.
“When someone inserts themself into a specific community with the intention of triggering people, it’s not freedom of expression, it’s an exploitation,” he said.
That distinction has become central to the wider discussion surrounding the case.
Niemi describes himself as a political activist and commentator. His content has included confrontational videos about LGBTQ+ people, abortion, immigration and transgender rights.
A possible California response to ‘rage-bait’ creators
The Vulins now say they want to turn the experience into political action.
According to their statement, Anthony is working with California state legislators on proposed legislation aimed at holding “rage-bait creators” accountable for harm caused by deliberately provocative content.
At this stage, however, no publicly introduced bill with final language has been identified in reporting on the case.
That means it is too early to say exactly what conduct such legislation would target, what penalties it might impose or how it would interact with First Amendment protections for speech and journalism.
For now, it is best understood as an effort the family says is under development rather than an established legislative proposal.
The case raises two separate questions
The incident became politically charged almost immediately, but two issues can be true at once.
Niemi subjected two gay fathers with an infant to hostile questioning built around an unsupported stereotype linking gay men with child abuse.
Vulin also responded physically, with video showing him striking Niemi.
The DA’s decision does not rewrite either part of that record.
What it establishes is narrower: after Vulin completed a pre-filing diversion agreement, Los Angeles County prosecutors decided not to file criminal charges.
For the Vulins, that ends the immediate criminal threat.
But their experience has also become part of a much wider conversation about a form of online content built around deliberately provoking marginalised people, filming the reaction and converting conflict into clicks.
