This is why stand your ground laws can’t realistically exist in places that aren’t sparsely populated. Because someone will read “defend your property and life with force if necessary” as “act as a raging lunatic and attempt to shoot anyone who comes at the door because it’s legal to do so if you claim you were defending your property, even though there was no indication of actual imminent danger to property or people”.
In my country we don’t have stand your ground laws. You can only defend yourself in case of an attack, but not drive away a thief. You’re supposed to run and call the police, but I keep wondering if a legal framework like the US where you weren’t legally punished for attacking a thief in your house wouldn’t be fairer but then there’s news like this.
This has absolutely nothing to do with “Stand Your Ground”. SYG only applies when you or someone else are in real and imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death, neither of which were true in this case. That’s why the guy was arrested and has been charged with a number of serious offenses. He’s going to end up in prison.
Since you aren’t from the United States I should also tell you that SYG isn’t a National thing, its only legal in the States in that have passed laws allowing it.
I keep wondering if a legal framework like the US where you weren’t legally punished by attacking a thief in your house wouldn’t be fairer but then there’s news like this.
That’s called “Castle Doctrine” and like SYG it isn’t National. It only exists in the States that have passed a law to allow it.
It CAN work but there’s at least a few States that have Castle Doctrine and a Duty to Retreat so you end up having to flee a home invader until or unless you have no other choice.
We have a make my day law in CO but it only applies inside your house
That’s such a sad way to put it; and yet still so accurate when it comes to these POSs.
Worked great for Zimmerman.
I wasn’t necessarily thinking the law would protect the person who did this, but pondering if the existence of that legal framework does not create the impression that this is acceptable, even though it isn’t and that’s not what the law is.
And also, i do understand this isn’t applied everywhere in the US, but to me I see the US as a country. As a foreigner it’s probably very unlikely I’m going to refer to it as the law from Connecticut or whatever. I just know this law exists in the US and to be fair I’m not really that interested in knowing specifically where and the nuances of state to state legislation.
But nevertheless i thank you for clarifying the difference between Stand your ground and Castle doctrine and reminding me that it’s not a national thing.
You are acting as if it were actually complicated. Requiring no duty to retreat makes perfect sense in your own home. The law most sane places says you have to be in a situation where a reasonable person would be in fear for life or bodily injury.
Note “reasonable person” is a common legal standard. A reasonable person doesn’t think someone outside is automatically a threat. People who shiit then ask questions go to jail.
Why should someone who is already breaking the law also enjoy the power of legal coercion to force you from a place you had the legal right to be, though?
“Well, we don’t want the situation to escalate. Someone could get hurt.” Why should the law protect only the welfare of criminals? Of the person actively breaking the law?
The issue with “Stand your Ground” laws is that the alternative is nonsensical if your view expands to include the rights and welfare of people who act consistent with the law.
You should be able to use reasonable force. If you’re trying to subdue a homicidal maniac then you can choke them unconscious or knock them unconscious or kill them if that’s all you have means to do. But if you just have someone who wants to be rude and yell in your face, then you don’t have a right to kill them.
I think it depends on who causes the confrontation and who is escalating the situation to different levels of violence.
Also, I think there’s different ways to interpret stand your ground as a concept. You can stand your ground and use reasonable force to secure your safety. You should not be able to stand your ground and murder someone so as not to inconvenience yourself if you don’t want to take a step back or move out of someone’s way for example.
You should be able to use reasonable force.
Any amount of force that stops an attacker is reasonable, by definition. The only one who should have a legal obligation of care for the welfare of the lawbreaker is the one breaking the law.
But if you just have someone who wants to be rude and yell in your face
But it depends what they’re yelling. If they’re yelling “I’m five seconds from killing you!” then you do have a right to use whatever force is available to you to stop them, and that might very well mean their death; there actually aren’t any safe, harmless, perfectly non-lethal means of disabling an agitated, adrenaline-fueled human being.
If that’s something that you don’t want to happen to you, then don’t go into public space and assault the people there. It’s actually pretty easy to avoid.
Who was attacking who when two kids were sitting in their car?
No answer required, FYI.
Where was the car?
It doesn’t matter. No place would justify murder.
It’s not unreasonable that you might need to shoot someone who’s attacking you with a car
Removed by mod
I can’t imagine how that fucking matters
That’s a you problem.
Thats obvious to everyone here you cant lmao
No
Because human life is more valuable than things.
Human rights are more valuable than human life.
Is that true? Interesting. I am sure the dead are enjoying all of their human rights to the fullest.
I am interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I am sure the dead are enjoying all of their human rights to the fullest.
You are, because they died for those rights. And it’s a good thing they did because they’d be ashamed of how little you think of their sacrifice.
LOL perfect
deleted by creator
You’re saying no one ever dies that others might live?
deleted by creator
You’re the one that brought it up, though. I’ve been talking about rights the whole time.
The problem is people applying laws like castle doctrine outside of situations that they were intended for… then shitty judges allow it to be applied outside of those situations… resulting in these random ass killings for people knocking on doors. It’s messed up and horrible.
But at the same time a few years ago a family near my friends house had someone break in, killed the two parents and then chased down the son and killed him in the woods. The young man tried to retreat and was killed anyway. THEN they robbed the house. They were looking for stuff to steal and sell for drugs. Then they set the house on fire.
https://www.courant.com/2018/05/14/details-emerge-of-brutality-in-deaths-of-griswold-family-members/
If someone is legitimately breaking into your house you should be able to defend yourself if you can’t get away. It doesn’t need to be a gun, but you should not go to jail for hurting someone who is in your house who is not supposed to be there.
There’s no way to tell if that person is just a burglar or might fucking kill you over your stuff. What are you supposed to do? Ask them? “Excuse me criminal, are you the murderous type or just a burglar?”
Obviously leave if you can, but this case shows running away doesn’t always work. That poor family.
It wasn’t even his house; it was his girlfriend’s. She thought they were trespassers, she called him for help (she also called the sheriff) and he showed up pointing a gun.
They also were in their car outside the gate to the property. TECHNICALLY that gate may be inside the property line, but that’s still totally egregious.
Is it not legal to be on someone’s property, you know, like a postman or… If you want to ask someone a question?
Trespassing is special I think.
Like, we have trespassing laws here in Europe as well, but I have never heard of anyone taking these as serious as some Americans seem to do. Worst thing to happen if someone is found to trespass would be a monetary fine.
Land of the free*.
*Some exceptions might apply.
You also have “freedom to roam” laws. Or at least in the UK.
Even in the US, no reasonable person would think someone going up to the door would be trespassing. But these kids did more than that, they hopped the fence and walked around the house. That could definitely be trespassing.
That said, it’s absolutely no excuse to shoot them. At most you say “hey get off my lawn”.
Exactly. Tell them to leave and in the worst case some landowner might threaten to punch them.
Oh s—, my gun just went off
Weird, I’d been told they don’t do that.
Generally they don’t. There are a few certain models, like the Sig P320, that have some kind of deficiency where it can go off if bumped in just the right way. It’s very, very rare, but it still happens much more often than others (due to it being a design defect and not a manufacturing defect, I believe).
I guarantee there was a lack of trigger discipline at play
It’s way more than just trigger discipline. There’s the traditional rules of course:
- Never point your gun at something you do not intend to kill
- Be sure of your target and what’s beyond
- Trigger discipline
But there’s also reasonable shit beyond the 5 basic rules:
- Don’t willingly put yourself in a situation where use of a gun may be warranted.
- Property isn’t worth killing over, especially in situations where you had to go out of your way to put yourself in perceived danger to protect it.
- Don’t block in the person you are trying to convince to leave.
- People with guns commit more acts of violence than those who don’t. Owning a gun is an irresponsible choice. There are more and there are less responsible gun owners, but owning a gun puts you and those around at a greater risk of violence. When all you have is a hammer …
lists 3 rules
“beyond the 5 basic rules”
Uh
There are 5 basic rules for guns:
- Treat every gun as if it were loaded.
- Always point your gun in a safe direction.
- Never point your gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot.
- Keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot.
- Be sure of your target and what’s beyond.
What I posted was a subset of the five then alluded to the full list.
Thanks :)
“Guns don’t kill people.” But only because this boy survived.
What are the odds that the teen is darker than a peach color?
Hard to say. The kid was driving an Audi S4 so they likely have money.
What do you mean by that?
Money isn’t colour blind, especially in murica
That’s true.
But to insinuate that the person being in an Audi is even a factor in determining the person’s race is kind of rude. Like, “They were shot, which is a ‘black’ thing, but they had an Audi, which, you know, means they could have money
and we know black people couldn’t have money, so who knows what race they could be!”well was it a white Audi? because you know a black man is rich when everything he owns is white.
Gotta check the sound system 👀
Clearly it must have been stolen
(yes, this is indeed sarcasm)
I’m betting he fired without even looking then realized what he had done.
Oh definitely. Dude thought “wow this is my chance to be a hero”, I’m sure.
Confiscate the fucking town councilman’s guns, prosecute the dumbass for attempted murder and hopefully the teen will sue the living shit out of him.
Reminder that guns don’t just “go off” and anyone that suggests this should be disregarded as the nincompoop they very clearly are.
guns certainly do “just go off”
That’s why you secure them, unload them, store them safely.
Pointing a gun at something should be treated with the same severity as pointing it at something and pulling the trigger. Yes, police included.
So I’m reading idiot who can’t read a situation and who is super scared, also has shit trigger discipline and as a result a kid was injured and possibly damaged for life… we really need to at the very least make training a requirement, even just a written exam would help…
You can’t train out the stupid.
I’ve taken regular gun safety classes. They’re less stringent than a driver’s ed class. It’s like taking the driver safety class after you’ve gotten a ticket. Yeah, yeah…let’s just get through this shit so I can get back to whatever.
we really need to at the very least make training a requirement, even just a written exam would help…
Cue gun nuts, “…shall not be infringed!”
I mean. I have a lot of guns (mostly inherited), but mu family taught me safety, storage, etc. No crazy mods, just magazines, grips and such. Meanwhile my friends when they turned 18 were packing in their pants and shooting eouble barreled derringers and shit. Another friend and I took them to a range and had to teach them safety so they wouldn’t hurt themselves.
I totally agree with your comment that I replied to. But I also know that making literally anything a requirement for gun ownership is a bridge too far for enough gun owners that I am doubtful we’re going to see any meaningful new restrictions anytime soon.
At least until the right stops salivating for a second civil war, but even that might not be enough for some sane attitudes to prevail.
Cue anyone sane: “Well-regulated.”
I live in a state with an online training requirement and it’s a joke. The employees at sporting goods stores actually encouraged me to quickly click through to the end and print the results.
As someone who supports firearm ownership, I also believe it should require a background check, a thorough psychological evaluation, and equally thorough, in-person safety training and testing, all repeated periodically in order to maintain ownership.
All he had to go off was a vehicle with 2 teenagers inside and the call from his girlfriend that there were trespassers on the property. Depending on what exactly was said on the call and what happened between him blocking the vehicle in and the shot, he might just have shit trigger discipline and his girlfriend is the one who is super scared of anyone she sees on their security cameras. He is still an idiot for trying to block their vehicle in any case though.
The sheriff’s office said the woman, who was not at the home, had called deputies before the shooting to report two trespassers on her property. She also called Metz, who drove over to the home and allegedly blocked the teen’s car from leaving, KUSA reported.
Metz then got out of his vehicle and is alleged to have fired one round through the windshield of the teen’s car, the station reported.
These fuckeits refuse to ever just let a situation de-escalate on its own
Like, you drive there to make them leave, prevent them from leaving. And shoot at the fucking driver before speaking to them.
We can’t ignore the real life consequences of all this fucking fear mongering.
Current report is the gun accidentally went off. Dude deserves the books thrown at him though. Kids where already off his property and honestly where not a threat in the first place. This is like that one story where the dude shot at a car turning around in his driveway.
As someone who owns multiple guns both for sport and hunting these are the people that should not ever own one!!!
We’re*
Where?
Whe’re*
Nope. Point a gun at someone only if you’re expecting to shoot.
Gun owner here.
- Treat all guns as if they are always loaded - Followed
- Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy - Violated
- Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot - Violated
- Be sure of your target and what is behind it - Violated
This shooter violated three of the four fundamental gun safety rules. That’s not an accident. It’s attempted murder.
Rule#1 of responsible gun ownership: always assume the gun is loaded
Also
Rule#1 of responsible gun ownership: never point a gun barrel at somebody unless you intend to kill them.
Rule number 1 of life: you can’t have two rule number 1s
Clearly you have neither spoken to a veteran at length, not are you one yourself. But here, I’ll explain it. The reason you call multiple rules/laws “the first” is because they’re all both equally and critically important.
Ask multiple veterans what the 1st rule of warfare is, you’ll get multiple different answers. If you then reply with “I thought this other one was the first rule of warfare” they will reply to the effect of “yeah, it is.”
Because firearms are dangerous tools that serve the singular purpose of killing or destroying a target, any target, and have been from inception to the modern day, every safety rule is just as important as all the others. Ergo, multiple first rules of firearmb safety.
Solid take.
Hey bro? Calm down, it was a joke. It’s not that serious. Did you skip your meds today pal?
It’s called personal responsibility. You should learn to accept that some subjects are going to be taken seriously, because they are (literally) life and death circumstances. If you don’t, they’ll just be taken seriously anyways, and you’re the asshole.
If I had to trust some internet rando with my life, I’d have no qualms choosing @Etterra@lemmy.world .
Attacking my sense of personal responsibility because I said “can’t have 2 rule number 1’s”?
It’s not me that looks like the ass but go off, hole!
But you can have two number 9s, a number 9 large, a number 6 with extra dip, a number 7, two number 45s, one with cheese, and a large soda.
And now I have$97.65 worth of food at Wendy’s that I don’t know what to do with, thanks dick
Sir, this is a Wendy’s
never point a gun barrel at somebody unless you intend to kill them.
In the infantry it was “don’t point the loud end at friends”
Not his property. His gf’s property. Dude has no legal right whatsoever to guard property that isn’t his own, does he?
I believe generally interpreted as legal occupant, not owner.
Well if he “drove over to her property”, he might not even be an occupant
If you drive to your friend’s house for dinner, you’re a legal occupant of their house.
That’s not entirely true.
When I took my concealed carry class in Tx there was a section on this.
It depends heavily on the relationship between you and the owner of the property. The example given in the class was a good neighbor relationship and suggested talking about this before something happened.
I would expect that if the shooter and the owner are in contact during the event to weigh heavily on it.
The gist is, it depends state-to-state but I would expect that their relationship would make an otherwise LEGAL use of a firearm OK. (I’m really not sure if this is a legal use…)
gun accidentally went off
Yeah, of course. The gun accidentally leapt out of its holster and into its owner’s hand, accidentally released the safety, accidentally pointed itself at the victim’s face, and accidentally went off.
Completely unavoidable accident, really.
Weird how these extremely common completely unavoidable accidents tend to overwhelmingly concentrate themselves on one particular country in the whole wide world, though. Must be some kind of accidental statistical fluke.
According to an arrest affidavit obtained by the station, one of the teens reported hearing Metz say “Oh s—, my gun just went off” after the shooting.
The kids did trespass by hopping a fence, I’m guessing his defense is going to be he was just trying to hold them there for police but accidentally discharged his weapon into a kids face. The fuckwit is really lucky the kid lived.
I can’t understand the idiotic appeal of inserting yourself into these situations when the police are already on the way and there’s no danger to yourself to just waiting and letting them handle it.
The victim can and probably sue them in the civil courts for damages.
Depends on their wealth. I am not sure if you can sue someone if you’re poor. Attorneys are expensive
A lot of injury lawyers will work for a percentage of the payout. This seems like a pretty slam dunk case for a competent injury lawyer.
Depends on their wealth.
The kid was driving an Audi S4. I suspect they have some spare $$$ available. (assuming they haven’t spent it all on repairs)
allegedly blocked the teen’s car from leaving . . .
Sounds like unlawful imprisonment to me. I’m sure he will be prosecuted for that (NOT).
They don’t want to deescalate. They already had a big celebration planned in their head for murdering someone before they even do the act. They want to kill people so they can look like some hero. These people are sick and as far as I’m concerned their punishment should equal their crime.
“Yay, I get to legally murder someone today! This’ll shut up my hippy liberal relatives” -Metz, shortly before pulling up to the teen’s car
These shitlarpers are a bunch of weak babies that don’t have any idea how to be the big man they think they are.
This crazy fuck was on the city council?
Have you seen the kind of people who much of the US likes to elect?
Oh shit, my gun just went off
I’m not sure what he was expecting the gun to do. You never point at anything or anyone you don’t intend to destroy. Treat every gun as if it has a hair-trigger.
Brent Metz is accused of shooting a 17-year-old in the face after the teenager trespassed on a property to find a homeowner and inquire about taking homecoming photos there. (Jackson County Sheriffs Office)
Trespassing? So walking to someones door looking for the owner of the house is now Trespassing? Wtf
Not a lawyer. By the letter of the law, yes.
They had to jump the fence - presumably the gate was secured - in order to get to the house. Further, they walked around the property looking for the owner. This looks to anyone without more knowledge, very much like trespassing.
Just my 2 cents, I’m not trying to defend or accuse anyone.
2 cents has different value around the world. To me yours currently is worth a lot.
Not trying to but you literally did
No
Now hold on mate, just listing facts is not the same as an endorsement of a conclusion. The same can be said about NOT listing facts. All the information available should be presented to allow for informed opinions.
It doesn’t look like trespassing, it was trespassing, and particularly suspicious at that. If he’d shot him after they hopped the fence it’d be one thing, but that’s not what happened. He shot the kid after they’d gotten back in the car and left the property.
I was going to say that “stand your ground” laws shouldn’t exist when so many people are terrified of shadows.
But that’s it isn’t it? If they’re terrified of shadows then a gun and a power fantasy is the answer.
By the same government encouraging their armament. “Give them guns” and also “they’re coming for YOU so be afraid!”
That’s the conclusion of ‘bowling for columbine’.
And yet the GOP (mostly) either don’t give a fuck, have no moral courage, or are bought and paid for by the firearm industry. And then they use fear to keep their base glued to their propaganda machine and voting them into power on a loop.
Meanwhile the DNC keep trying to compromise as if both sides were still using the same playbook (which they ain’t) and have thus drifted so far to the right that they’re basically Republican lite. So much so that when progressives try to yank them back to their roots, the Republicrats resist and call the progressives “too extreme”.
Gawd I hate this quagmire.
What progressives?
And yet the GOP (mostly) either don’t give a fuck, have no moral courage, or are bought and paid for by the firearm industry.
D: all of the above
This isn’t even stand your ground or castle doctrine or anything. The homeowner wasn’t even home and they were outside the front gate when shot. That’s the craziest part to me, absolutely no one was in danger until the dude showed up.
I guess that’s a “no.”
Clearly no gun problem in America
No
If I can’t Shoot a Teenager in the Face you’re INFRINGING ON MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS! Now let me Save The Children!
