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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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”
Rule number 1 of life: you can’t have two rule number 1s
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
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!
Nope. Point a gun at someone only if you’re expecting to shoot.
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.
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…)
We’re*
Where?
Whe’re*
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).
“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
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.
I mean, that was only ever true if you were a very specific hue on the color spectrum.
But also
likemarry women, and go to church with the other smiling people.
Ya, I’m not sure that has ever been true as a blanket statement.
Maybe Canada, but the US is ruining them too
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.
The teen is recovering.
In case you were wondering
Guy released from jail for $5000, after shooting teen in face for trespassing. Let that sink in.
The worst part is, having lived in Colorado, none of this story was surprising in the least.
Thank you
Jumping right out of the truck immediately laying down covering fire regardless of the situation?
Yep. That’s a republican.
Yea… let me tell you about how shocked I was to read that the shooter was driving a truck.
I mean. I used to have to drive a truck for work…
“Joe’s Pool Maintenance & Murder Services, since 1985”
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.
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.
2 cents has different value around the world. To me yours currently is worth a lot.
Not trying to but you literally did
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.
No
Oh s—, my gun just went off
Weird, I’d been told they don’t do that.
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.
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).
What are the odds that the teen is darker than a peach color?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Or come help me butcher this boar and I’ll let you take home a couple pounds of sausage.
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.
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.
Land of the free*.
*Some exceptions might apply.
We need to admit that some of the people fanatical about guns… really want to kill someone with one.
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.
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.
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.
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
What progressives?
When thinking you are the good guy with a gun goes wrong…
That teen is lucky to have survived. Getting shot in the face is incredibly lethal.
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
You hear about them because it’s unusual. Someone shot in the pinky toe and surviving is not newsworthy.
Put the armor in the places without bullet holes
A lot of people live through suicide maimed because the bullet ricocheted off their skull.
I’m gonna need a definition on “a lot” here
100% of those who didn’t die!
100% does SEEM like a lot…
It’s like a fight to the end. Always a good spot for a fight to finish.
Yeah, my friend that shot himself in the head a couple years back would also like to know.
I knew a guy when I was a kid. Pretty hard to look at. That’s a lot to me.
And I know 2 that didn’t, I’m 0 for 2, you’re 1 for how many?
It should be as hard to own a gun as it is to drive a car
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.
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.
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.
Worked great for Zimmerman.
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.
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.
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.
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
It’s an interesting implication that there is no right to life.
You’re saying no one ever dies that others might live?
That doesn’t apply to this situation or what you are saying at all.
You’re the one that brought it up, though. I’ve been talking about rights the whole time.
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
