• klisurovi4
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    51
    ·
    2 months ago

    I am not justifying the guy’s actions in any way, but the article says the teens hopped the fence and walked around the property looking for the homeowner. I can certainly understand why the woman would feel threatened. It’s not an excuse for anybody to just start shooting, but this feels like an extremely dumb decision on the boys’ part.

    • Flax@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      82
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      He blocked them in the property then shot them in their car

      • klisurovi4
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        41
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes, that is absolutely insane, I agree, and I am not trying to justify his actions. I just wanted to point out that it’s not like some kids walked up to the door and got shot they were in fact trespassing, so the headline is a bit misleading.

        • Flax@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          46
          ·
          2 months ago

          By that logic the postman, politicians canvassing, the neighbour’s child who lost their ball, are all trespassing.

        • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          2 months ago

          Dumb? Maybe, but these were teens. Dumb is obligatory. Misleading headline? No.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          2 months ago

          The intention is to stop criminals from leaving a crime. Citizens arrests in america are a thing, and some glorify the idea.

          In america, guns are tools like forks and knives. Keep em on your hip, forget they are there type of thing. Other countries would grab a bat or stick, americans grab guns. Its intimidation either way but when you mishandle a stick nothing happens.

          Mishandling a firearm happens to every firearm owner at least once, and mishandling a firearm can result in unintended death and destruction.

          • socphoenix
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            2 months ago

            In the US (including Colorado), citizens arrests are only legal for felonies. Last I checked hopping a fence isn’t a felony so blocking them in and waving a gun is just a multitude of gun crimes and kidnapping charges even if he didn’t shoot one of them.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I don’t think a gun should be involved in the first place. Legally speaking its possible you could argue you thought they were committing a felony. Breaking and entering us a felony in most places.

              Thats all just to show how awful the system is built in America.

          • diskmaster23@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            It sounds like the argument you made is to limit the use of firearms to reduce the amount of accidents.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Yeah that would be the very basic idea. The general population simply is not capable of handling guns on the scale it currently is.

              Gun ownership needs to be based on actual need rather than fear.

      • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        2 months ago

        yes, taking out your locked and loaded pistol, pointing it at someone with your finger on the trigger and it going off, in your mind, is an accidental discharge

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          2 months ago

          Apparently its called negligent discharge now as ive learned but yes. If you don’t intend to shoot and you shoot, thats what it is.

          He should still be charged for that and have to pay for damages and such, but its different than murderous councilman attempts to give teen facelift.

      • Kaity@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Glad to know I can do anything and just say “oopsie” afterwards and you’ll be there to back me up.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Funny how you think I’m excusing it. Intent changes things, but only slightly.

          Is it just that the nuance of things is scary to think about? That things might not be as easy and simple as going with your gut reaction?

      • Gerudo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Rule number one of gun ownership, never point a gun at anything you do not wish to destroy.

        This is a rule BECAUSE of accidental discharges.