• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    959 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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      469 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        729 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          279 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    199 months ago

    If I can’t Shoot a Teenager in the Face you’re INFRINGING ON MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS! Now let me Save The Children!

  • arthurpizza
    link
    fedilink
    English
    229 months ago

    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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    159 months ago

    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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    249
    edit-2
    9 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

    • Diplomjodler
      link
      fedilink
      1299 months ago

      When i was young, the US were famous for how friendly the people were and that you could just knock on any door and they’d help you. The “conservatives” have really done a number on you guys.

    • Snot Flickerman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      829 months ago

      It seems like that’s more of a way for him to avoid responsibility for it than anything else.

      South Park called it in its first fucking season.

      Nothing they say is in good faith, ever. It’s all about exploiting the situation.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    189 months ago

    Reminder that guns don’t just “go off” and anyone that suggests this should be disregarded as the nincompoop they very clearly are.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3329 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.

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      439 months ago

      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!!!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        459 months ago

        Gun owner here.

        1. Treat all guns as if they are always loaded - Followed
        2. Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy - Violated
        3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot - Violated
        4. 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        139 months ago

        Not his property. His gf’s property. Dude has no legal right whatsoever to guard property that isn’t his own, does he?

            • capital
              link
              fedilink
              19 months ago

              If you drive to your friend’s house for dinner, you’re a legal occupant of their house.

        • capital
          link
          fedilink
          19 months ago

          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…)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        14
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        419 months ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          129 months ago

          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”

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            209 months ago

            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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            99 months ago

            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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                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 @[email protected] .

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  19 months ago

                  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!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      399 months ago

      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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          129 months ago

          Depends on their wealth. I am not sure if you can sue someone if you’re poor. Attorneys are expensive

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            179 months ago

            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.

          • Buelldozer
            link
            fedilink
            29 months ago

            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)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      489 months ago

      These shitlarpers are a bunch of weak babies that don’t have any idea how to be the big man they think they are.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      89 months ago

      allegedly blocked the teen’s car from leaving . . .

      Sounds like unlawful imprisonment to me. I’m sure he will be prosecuted for that (NOT).

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      151
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Miles O'Brien
        link
        fedilink
        English
        709 months ago

        “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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    52
    edit-2
    9 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      479 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        119 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?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            109 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              49 months ago

              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”.

    • Buelldozer
      link
      fedilink
      189 months ago

      Hard to say. The kid was driving an Audi S4 so they likely have money.

          • 2ugly2live
            link
            fedilink
            79 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!”

            • metaStatic
              link
              fedilink
              29 months ago

              well was it a white Audi? because you know a black man is rich when everything he owns is white.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    44
    edit-2
    9 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      159 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.

    • Buelldozer
      link
      fedilink
      389 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        19 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.