• solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    248
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    “oh shit my gun just went off”

    fucking hilarious how effortless it is for them to alternate between “guns don’t kill people” and “oh shit it wasn’t me–the gun did it!!!”

    but seriously-- if you live anywhere near bumfuck tumptown hickville, for fucks sake tell your kids not to go up on anyone’s property. i live in one of these areas, and the government couldn’t hire anyone to go door to door doing census count for that one reason. they. will. fucking. kill you

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Jumping right out of the truck immediately laying down covering fire regardless of the situation?

    Yep. That’s a republican.

  • SassyRamen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    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

    • SoGrumpy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        73
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Godnroc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

      • unmagical@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        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 …
          • unmagical@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

          • 2ugly2live@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            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!”

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    This is the inevitable outcome of the combination of the proliferation of guns in the US + the over-the-top fearmongering of certain high-profile personalities (specifically on the right). It was never going to end any other way.

    Scare people into thinking everyone is out to get them and tell them they have to arm themselves, and you get tragedies like this: the guy that shot a teenaged girl through his front door when she was looking for help. This kid shot in the face looking for a place to take pictures.

    People like Tucker Carlson and all similar scaremongers (too many to name) are partly to blame for this. I’m old enough to remember the red scare, where average people thought communists were hiding in every suburban neighbourhood, and also the satanic panic – this is all that but on steroids.

    Everyone isn’t out to get you. They never were. But people are becoming millionaires by riling people into killing each other *for no reason *, and unlike back then, now everyone is armed and convinced to shoot first like every place is the fucking OK Corral.

    e: and to add a layer of irony, yes, Wild West high-noon shootouts are the same kind of myth-sayings as boiling frogs – pretty much all old west towns required you to surrender your guns to the sheriff on entry. Things were actually safer back then.

    • Snowclone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 months ago

      As someone who grew up near those wild west towns and have a lot of roots out here, yeah it’s a myth, most people I knew growing up didn’t even hunt, and most hunters I knew owned two guns tops and it WASN’T their personality, inviting you over to eat venison was their personality.

      • tyler
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s not even a Wild West town, it’s conifer. It’s a rich person Mecca. Anyone that has a gun up there is most likely just using it to scare off wolves or bears, but not actually hunting (source, my in-laws live there).

      • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I spent a lot of my childhood in Arizona, and we did field trips in school to ‘ghost towns’ (e: the old west towns), Montezuma’s Castle (back when you could actually walk through it before vandals ruined it for everyone), and Pueblo ruins with indigenous living history reenactors.

        I never even saw a modern gun in person until I was 16. It just wasn’t a thing. And yet we managed to survive.

      • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, grandmother grew up in a family that had been poor farmers outwest, and midwest for a long time. They had like 10 guns, but that is because there was one rifle per person over the age of 12, plus a couple shotguns. Not for like having a shoot-out, but for killing problematic predators. Only my great grandfather had a hand gun, and he only had that because it was a gift from someone he did a bunch of work for. He rarely took it out of the box.

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    3 months ago

    We need to admit that some of the people fanatical about guns… really want to kill someone with one.

  • mhague@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • IMongoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      By the same government encouraging their armament. “Give them guns” and also “they’re coming for YOU so be afraid!”

        • Etterra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            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

  • jqubed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • ABCDE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        Is it not legal to be on someone’s property, you know, like a postman or… If you want to ask someone a question?

          • Microw@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

    • hddsx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      3 months ago

      Is it? I heard the opposite. A lot of people live through suicide maimed because the bullet ricocheted off their skull. Supposedly, there are better ways to off yourself that I won’t specify here

  • NeuronautML@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • NeuronautML@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • crashfrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      35
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

        • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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.

      • workerONE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • crashfrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

  • Soup@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Well, there ya go. All the proof you need that there’s clearly no gun problem in America.

    /s

    EDIT: I’d love for the cowards downvoting this to step up and be heard. Come on, speak your mind.

  • unphazed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    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…

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 months ago

      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!”

      • unphazed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

    • Tudsamfa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.