The number of people in this country that think you’re allowed to murder other people for trespassing is insane. Guy should spend a very long time in jail, the absolute shit-for-brains asshole.
When you’ve got an arsenal of hammers you’re always looking for nails.
These people are scared of everything.
They weren’t even on his property when he jump from his vehicle and shot the kid.
Oh woah that’s a new development - the dipshit was a local politician, too?
Oh shit, my gun just went off
Because you pulled the trigger. They don’t just fire on their own.
Looks like a ranch.
Metz is a member of the Mountain View Town Council. Property records show he also owns a home in Mountain View under Hartwood Ranch LLC. https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/teen-searching-for-place-to-take-homecoming-photos-shot-in-the-face-by-homeowner-in-jefferson-county
It makes a lot more sense if you know how ranchers deal with “trespassing” animals.
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.
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
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.
By that logic the postman, politicians canvassing, the neighbour’s child who lost their ball, are all trespassing.
The distinction being that the postman or politician isn’t going to hop a fence.
If someone doesn’t want you on their property, then yes. Hopping a fence is already pretty much blatant trespassing.
Hey man just never cross any property lines without permission for your sake
When there’s a fence, you don’t know the owner? Yes, absolutely. First of all, you don’t know what’s on the property. Lifestock can get spooked. There could be livestock guardian dogs. You could get shot. At the end of the day you don’t look any different from a thied / burglar trying to get into the house.
Dumb? Maybe, but these were teens. Dumb is obligatory. Misleading headline? No.
The woman who wasn’t there and didn’t shoot them?
You didnt finish the article. It says it was an accidental discharge.
I don’t think waving a gun around and blocking in a car is accidental.
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.
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.
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.
It sounds like the argument you made is to limit the use of firearms to reduce the amount of accidents.
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.
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
deleted by creator
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.
You never point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot. There has to be a whole chain of wrong decisions for an accidental discharge to hit someone. If he had accidentally shot the ground, this wouldn’t have made national news.
I agree. Still different than what the article title implies happened. And quite a lot of people won’t read the article, or the whole article.
The title implies an enraged or insane councilman shot a random teen in the face on sight.
What actually happened the councilman mishandled his gun and shot someone.
Still awful right? Why would he even have the gun out? But not quite the same thing.
Personally it makes no difference. This wouldn’t happen if you guys had sane gun laws like the rest of us.
Thats the point I’m trying to make.
Everyone’s arguing about how to perfectly handle a gun so you don’t ever make mistakes, rather than talking about how everyone makes mistakes and that mistakes with guns are deadly.
Maybe there shouldnt be more guns than people out there.
If someone got shot, the rest of it is sort of moot, isn’t it? Responding to trespassers by pulling out a gun is insane to begin with, if the trespassers aren’t doing anything else to imply a threat. Blocking the trespassers from leaving the property is bad enough, but to then threaten then with a gun is horrendous in its own right. Pointing that gun at them is insane unless he intended to shoot them.
If he was shooting targets for practice and had a lapse of judgement and accidentally shot someone, sure, that is a different situation. If you knowingly and intentionally point a gun at someone and “accidentally” shoot them, I don’t see how that is any different than intentionally shooting them, other than the timing of when you pull the trigger.
You are right it doesnt change that the person is shot. Guilt and sentencing are separate things. I think this person is guilty of shooting someone, but as far as punishment goes, the intention does matter.
I think the difference between our positions is that I believe pointing a loaded weapon at someone should be considered as intending to kill that person, at least until evidence and circumstance can determine otherwise. Because aiming a weapon at someone is more than just a threat that you will use it against then, it is taking physical action to prepare to use it against them.
I’d honestly like to hear the councilman’s version of events, as in what he actually intended to do.
That said I agree with you it should likely be intent regardless of what you meant to do with it.
My guess would be he would argue he was just brandishing, or was aiming at the car.
I don’t like people being so casual with guns, its disturbing how widespread it is.
Claims it was an accidental discharge.
Glad to know I can do anything and just say “oopsie” afterwards and you’ll be there to back me up.
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?
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.
Great, another article with a misleading headline, and when you read the article the crucial bit is in the last line, where its mentioned its likely an accidental discharge.
Seems like other news sources are mentioning this more explicitly.
Still shouldnt be waving guns around, or have them at all IMO, but thats no excuse for the poor framing of the article by the author.
Edit: I get it, we call them negligent discharges now. Doesnt change my point. This is not a random fit of murderous rage, its a mishandled firearm.
Can’t talk about how dangerous guns are though right.
Accidental discharges don’t exist. They are called negligent discharges because guns don’t fire accidentally.
…guns dont fire accidentally
Oh yes they do, and its a contingency in any theater of war. New guns are required to be safer but old guns that are less safe still exist and are in use. I was raised shooting guns well older than I was…or am.
And they can misfire which often means clearing a cartridge that might still go off. Fun times.
They can definitely misfire, but humans are more likely to misfire
When the adrenaline is pumping, it’s real easy to squeeze slightly harder… That’s why your finger shouldn’t be on the trigger until you’re ready to shoot
You want to tell me your gun shot two rounds instead of one? I can believe that. You want to tell me a cold gun, with a round in the chamber for more than 5 seconds, suddenly decided to override the required mechanical safety because you waved it around?
Okay sure, I’ll try and remember the new term. The guy did still fuck up but he didnt get out in a homicidal rage and shoot someone in the face before even saying a word.
This is someone mishandling a gun who should know better because of their standing in the community, and I think a short prison term wouldnt be crazy for this.
You only point guns at things you want to destroy. This was completely avoidable. I knew guys kicked out of the army for negligent discharges that didn’t hit anything. Hitting someone in the face should be a lengthy prison term.
This [is what] I was taught handling firearms in the eighties. So imagine my surprise and distress seeing the police lines during the Ferguson unrest standing or walking with their guns pointed at the crowd. One unintended discharge by law enforcement could have been disaster.
We’ve gone batshit bizarro regarding guns in the US.
Thank you, thats the point I’m making. Not defending the councilman, pointing out how dangerous guns are in american culture and how easy they are to acquire.
I agree, shouldnt matter if he hit him or not. We don’t know he even intended to point the gun at the people in the car though, if he apparently pulls his gun out with his finger wrapped around the trigger, then who’s to say he has a great understanding of what the guns pointing at.
Its far too easy to get a gun in America, its far too easy to mishandle guns, even if you are an expert, which means we are going to continue having this awful stuff happen in huge numbers.
Every poster in this post who has mentioned how to safely use a weapon has broken one of those rules at least once. They just haven’t killed someone yet.
its far too easy to mishandle guns, even if you are an expert
Every poster in this post who has mentioned how to safely use a weapon has broken one of those rules at least once.
Incorrect. Some of us were professionally trained to handle weapons safely. I’ve never violated a gun handling rule after I learned them. I think you’re projecting a bit.
If you violate the rules of gun handling then you shouldn’t be able to own or handle one.
I’m worried you’re going to accidentally kill someone or shoot your femoral artery. No one is perfect.
You just made a caveat I didnt. You mishandled a gun before in your life, by your own admission. You were lucky you didnt hurt someone or yourself.
This thinking we can be perfectly in control 100% of the time is why we have this problem to begin with.
I was taught the rules before I handled a gun. But nice try.
I see you’ve never taken a gun safety class. There are rules you’re supposed to follow to prevent exactly this kind of shit. Responsible gun owners are absolutely anal about following those rules. And they’re really simple rules. Here’s the version from gunpro.com:
- Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.
- Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy.
- Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
- Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
Cool. You’ve broken one of those before. Everyone has. Noones perfect, the best of us make mistakes.
They had to break at least two at the same time.
And I’ve never shot anyone.
oh you were there?
because the limited reporting on this incident doesn’t back up your premise. What we do know: he intentionally blocked in another vehicle with his own, took his firearm out and aimed it at the kid’s head. Where it miraculously fired ALL ON IT’S OWN uh huh.
We don’t know what was said.
We know what he said as the gun fired and how he reacted, based on the victims friends testimony. Its still awful, its just different awful. Like instead of just wondering why some psycho would shoot someone on sight, we should talk about how dangerous mistakes with a gun are, and how capable anyone is of making a fatal mistake.
Shout out your four rules all you want, they don’t keep anyone safe in the way y’all think they do. They are a morality test so those with guns don’t have to feel guilty for putting their entire family in danger just to puff up their ego.
Shout out your four rules all you want
you’re mixing up your replies. I’m prior service and want fewer weapons of war in the hands of civilians. I’m sick of the bang bang ra ra crowd, get fucked if you think I’m on their side.
that said: you treat every weapon as if it’s loaded and never point it at anything you’re not ready to light up. that’s just common fucking sense.
Sorry I meant that more as a generalization, its in these comments a ton.
I agree with you except there is no such thing as common sense. Everyone has to learn every single thing they know, none of it was a given. I don’t like saying common sense gun handling because it implies its so obvious it doesnt need to be taught, and it also detracts from the real answer which is removing guns from the public.
I normally point a gun at things I don’t intend to shoot as well… That makes total sense
Sure, you are perfect. Got it. You totally deserve guns. Hope you practice the unspoken 5th rule of locking them up correctly. More likely to be used on a family member than an intruder.
Must have some scary family members huh.
What?
This is not a random fit of murderous rage, its a mishandled firearm.
Drawing a gun is murderous because it suggests an intent to use it. If you don’t draw a gun, you don’t accidentally shoot someone. Words can solve a lot of problems. There’s really no need for violence and assuming it’s needed is flawed logic.
Just to add on to your excellent point here, this is often outlined in many forms of training. Never draw if you don’t intend to use it. Brandishing is the stupidest shit possible.
Brandishing a firearm when not in fear for your life is illegal.
I agree with this morally. I think the law in america doesnt agree with that but I’m not a lawyer.
People open carry guns all over, including in ways that most would consider brandishing them.
I think the real takeaway from this shooting is that when accidents with guns happen, people can get hurt or die, and its impossible to make everyone accident less, so to even own one is inherently dangerous.
Because of that, you should have to have a real need to put that sort of danger on those around you.
Everytime this happens we have the same list of replies saying they were just a bad person with a gun, they should just allow good people to have guns. Funny how every single poster here is one of those good people based on their own analysis.
Depending on the state. In some states, you haven’t committed a crime until the weapon is discharged, and then not a seious one until it hits something important. But that can change based on the race and circumstances of the gunman. Most counties really don’t like black men carrying guns.
Are there states that actually code racism like that into law or does it just bear out with the statistics?
I only know my home state laws really, and its legal here to walk around with a rifle on your back. Although last time someone tried that in my town the police came and followed him for a few hours.
Ever since the civil rights movement and the overturn of the Jim Crow laws (and the establishment of the right to interracial marriage), laws to prevent gun ownership based on race (even by implication, such as based on neighborhood) have been successfully challenged, but that doesn’t stop the police rushing to escalation once it’s established a someone has a gun, and blacks are represented disproportionately in officer-involved homicide.
But I can’t say I have the data specifically regarding armed black suspects verses armed white suspects. Still if you’re black in Missouri or Mississippi (or Oakland, California – the US teems with a lot of racial-tension hot zones) then yes, the police are more likely to escalate a situation or shoot at you than if you are white, but that’s true regardless if you have a gun.
Also blacks are convicted of crimes, violent or otherwise, statistically more often than whites with less evidence, and are given harsher sentences than whites for the same crimes, and this includes possession of illegal firearms. I suspect it’s harder for nonwhites to get concealed-carry permits in states they are needed.
(My impression is no-one really likes open-carry in urban or suburban regions. Even here in California, there are rural towns where one could carry a rifle on their back, at least during hunting season, especially since the local economies depend on hunting tourism. So you’re not going to be bothered by the county sheriff along the California / Nevada border the way you would say, in the Bay Area.)
The killing of Philando Castile in 2016 serves as an example of what blacks fear. He was pulled over for a broken tail-light, announced he was armed to Officer Jeronimo Yanez of the St. Anthony PD. Yanez freaked out and shot Castile seven times, two of which penetrated his heart. (Of note is that in the last thirteen years, Castile had been pulled over 39 times in that area for broken tail-light type offenses.) Yanez was tried and acquitted. He was removed from that precinct but as far as we know Yanez is serving as law enforcement elsewhere.
I see what you mean thats very insightful.
I was mainly wondering if there were laws in some states that explicitly state some sort of racism in the letter of the law.
Thats not to say thats a requirement to believe the things you said, I just thought at the very least racist laws were more indirect in how they are racist.
she took a loaded gun out and pointed it at the windshield. it goes off. says it was an accidential discharge. you believe it. you go and type it on the internet.
Isn’t like one of the basic rules of gin ownership that you only point a gun at someone you are going to kill?
It’s a rule of firearm safety. Unfortunately, in the US you don’t need to follow those or many rules for ownership.
4 rules of firearm safety:
1-treat every firearm as if it’s loaded
2-don’t point your firearm at anything you don’t intend to destroy
3-keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire
4-know your target, backstop, and beyond
Bonus 5- don’t do anything stupid
Yes. There is also supposed to be “trigger discipline”. Your finger should be kept to the side and not on the trigger until you intend to shoot.
In the US, in order to drive a scooter (like a Vespa) you need to take a basic motorcycle safety class. No such requirement exists to carry a gun.
Yeah. This is bullshit. The person took a gun out and pointed it at someone. There’s nothing accidental about that. You’re 100% right, you never point a gun at something/one you don’t intend to shoot. So this soft apologist language of “accidental” doesn’t fly.
oui
Absolutely, and I think this person should be charged for it. I don’t think its accurate to say he got out of his truck and immediately decided to shoot them in the face.
This should be a discussion about how easy it is to mishandle a gun. All these people quoting the four rules just haven’t broken them lately, but they have broken them.
Its impossible to be safe around guns when people are involved. Name a place and group of people that is safe with guns and I’ll show you an example of one of them using them incorrectly.
Not she, dude did it, she wasn’t home.
The victims said it. Like I said, still wrong, but different wrong. Nuance is dead to you people.
Oh and my favorite part is where pointing out details means I’m defending someone else.
The guy should go to prison for it. Does that make you happy?
accidental discharge.
HE AIMED HIS FIREARM AT A CHILD IN A VEHICLE.
Accidental discharge my ass, you don’t play with firearms you treat them as if they’re loaded and ready to go at all times BECAUSE LAZINESS KILLS PEOPLE.
An accidental discharge goes into the sky or the ground. This fucker was AIMING AT THE KIDS HEAD.
Sounds like BS. Everyone knows you only point a gun at something you intend to destroy, and you keep the safety on until you are absolutely sure. This guy did neither, he’s just lying at this point.
He intended to citizens arrest or something along those lines. He didnt intend to shoot though, which doesn’t change much, but I at least think an accident is different than on purpose.
Still guilty of something, and honestly wouldnt be too shocked if the charge was the same regardless.
If you point a gun at someone, you are trying to kill them…there is no other way of thinking about it or you end up like this guy. It’d be the same as me pushing a needle to my vein and going woopsie. I didn’t mean to get high. The needle only has one purpose to penetrate the vein. Same as a gun, it’s not a warning tool it’s not a citizen arrest tool it has one purpose to kill, that’s it.
Don’t fucking point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot.
I don’t think anyone outside of the US is going to care at all about this distinction. I know I don’t. Accidentally shooting someone because you’re an idiot with a gun is just another reason why people shouldn’t be allowed to own and carry guns.
The reason I bring it up is because americans are again going to say this was just an idiot with a gun.
He took training classes just like everyone else in here shouting about gun safety. He is a town councilman. He is not an idiot with a gun, he’s an above average example of an American, which should be terrifying.
The takeaway here is that America has too few regulations on firearms. In fact it should be flipped, where noone gets a gun unless they have a proven need for one.
This wasn’t “negligence” or “accidental”. He was deliberately pointing the gun at the individual. It wasn’t unintentionally pointed at him. It wasn’t accidentally pointed at him. The bullet didn’t unexpectedly ricochet off of something to hit the teen. He deliberately chose to point a gun at another person. That deliberate handling of the gun eliminates the possibility of “negligence”.
I don’t quite know how you didn’t, but you managed to piss off both gun owners and hoplophobes with that comment, and those groups can’t seem to agree on anything else.
How is it misleading? Shot in the face… that did happen.
When you leave stuff out, peoples brains fill in the blanks.
What did you expect the story would be about? And how many people in this thread posted stuff that was contradicted by the content of the article.
Do you want a better example of a headline?
Yes, please give me an example. Titles are supposed to be short and concise. The teen was shot in the face. The Title doesn’t say it was intentionally or accidentally.
Are you saying that the title should be a paragraph long and include all details in the article?
It should be designed to summarize the most relevant parts of the article. In this case its designed to get an emotional response, which is manipulation.
I will agree its not explicitly misleading, but there are better headlines for this story out there. Feel free to compare yourself.
Get the fuck outta here…
Great, another article with a misleading headline,
I will agree its not explicitly misleading
You can’t have it both ways is it misleading or not?
Explicitly means it literally says misleading words. Implicitly means it leaves out relevant words.
Its like lieing by omission.
In my opinion its misleading, but maybe I just have an awful time parsing headlines.
You can’t offer a better headline. And you admit its not misleading. Take L and move on. I’m not going to search. It’s your argument to prove. I feel it’s accurate. It’s not misleading; the title is accurate.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/misleading
It, misleading, means to be deceptive, imo, the headline is not deceptive.
Edit also trying to change what you originally said. You didn’t say it wasn’t implicit.
