• Drusas
    link
    fedilink
    791 month ago

    The confrontation was the latest in a dispute between the two neighbors over Owens’ children playing in a grassy area near both of their houses. Prosecutors said Owens had come to Lorincz’s home after her children complained that she had allegedly thrown roller skates and an umbrella at them amid a long-running annoyance at their boisterous play outside.

    I can’t even imagine how hateful you have to be to behave as this woman did.

    I will admit that I find “boisterous play” annoying to have to hear. But I also recognize that children need to play and it’s my problem, not theirs. So I grumble and make jokes about getting a cane to shake at them. I don’t assault the children and then murder their mother, Jesus Christ.

    Of course, I’m also not racist, and I’m sure that was a factor here.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      81 month ago

      Fights with neighbors, property rights, people get incredibly heated about it all. And often the only simple solution is to build a fence.

      If you have no fence, but do have a racist with a quick trigger finger, this is not as unlikely as it should be. Which also shows why the Castle Doctrine is absurd, because it didn’t help her here but it should not help anyone in similar circumstances, yet it often does.

  • SeaJOP
    link
    fedilink
    621 month ago

    I remember racists trying to defend this piece of shit.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    401 month ago

    I don’t think in any other democracy than USA, could there be any doubt that this was outright murder.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    261 month ago

    Here’s a really good rule of thumb: don’t shoot someone that you feel threatened by until they break into your house. As long as they are outside–and not shooting at you through the door–you are not in imminent danger. This is a situation where you can readily call the cops and wait. If the neighbor had kicked the door in and come inside, then we’d be looking at a legitimate self-defense claim. But you will almost never get to claim self-defense if you’re shooting through a closed exterior door in your home at someone outside of your home.

    If you’re going to carry for self-defense, the most important thing you can learn is de-escalation, so that you don’t murder someone.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      111 month ago

      Even if you are in imminent danger, maybe don’t shoot through a door to the outside? Responsible gun owners should be aware of the target and what’s beyond it. That’s really hard to do if there’s a door between you. She could have missed the person pounding the door and hit a kid or something.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        111 month ago

        My point is that it’s not imminent danger when there’s a hard barrier between you and them.

        But yes, unlike cops, normal people are responsible for every single bullet that leaves their gun, regardless of their intentions.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -11 month ago

          Well, not unless you’re pretty sure you’re the only bluefor and the building is swarming with opfor… at that point I would shoot through a door. But pretty much only then

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            41 month ago

            “Opfor” and “bluefor” isn’t a thing outside of military operations, and the military has entirely different rules of engagement than civilians do. I’m pretty sure that even cops intentionally firing blindly through a door are risking getting charged with murder.

      • @el_abuelo
        link
        51 month ago

        Did Oscar Pelistorious teach them nothing!?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    81 month ago

    The ONLY ONLY LITERALLY ONLY way to have Prevented this was if the NEIGHBOR Shot the Woman FIRST! There’s Literally NO OTHER WAY to have Prevented this! I’m also Pro Life!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      441 month ago

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to shoot your neighbors shall not be infringed

      How could they miss that critical protection?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      30
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      She had a gun, which is the right the 2nd amendment gives you.

      It doesnt give you the right to kill other people because you feel like it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        61 month ago

        Exactly.

        Even if the fact pattern were that the shooting was justified (and I don’t know enough of the facts to comment on that), being convicted incorrectly for it wouldn’t be related to the second amendment.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 month ago

        militia in the second amendment is a duty like a firefighter. If you own a gun you’re supposed to go help your neighbors when they need help. Its never been an “individual right”

        Imo, there should be some kind of “good will” pledge people are forced to take every time they purchase a gun or ammo just so they are reminded the second amendment was 1700s communism.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        201 month ago

        The 2nd amendment says “a well regulated militia” and we do not have that. So maybe it’s fuck the politicians that keep our guns poorly regulated. That is what is doing more harm than good. The second amendment is designed to allow citizens to defend themselves from government tyranny not to have guns just for shits and giggles.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          8
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I know, and I don’t know how the “well regulated” part got to be completely ignored? But that’s how it is.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 month ago

            Because the second amendment is written like ass, even for back then

            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

            Like, it’s stupidly easy to read that as “because militias are important the state can’t make laws impeding gun ownership”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 month ago

          Not just government tyranny, but outside threats too. When it was written, the state didn’t have the armies or infrastructure to defend the entire United States. Militias were intended to act as a national guard, should independence or the republic’s borders be encroached by outside nations. This required things to be “well-regulated” too. Who has what weapons and where should militias need to be raised to protect the free-state.

          In no way can I fathom a militia comprised of today’s Gravy SEALs and common citizens being effective, either in organisation or physical ability. Ironically, their aid would likely be a negative things for forces protecting the state. All because of poor regulation.