Colorado teen shot in the face by town councilman after going to home to ask permission to take homecoming photos
Colorado teen shot in the face by town councilman after going to home to ask permission to take homecoming photos
A woman who lives at the home thought trespassers were on her property, authorities said. Her boyfriend was arrested in connection with the shooting.
You're viewing a single thread.
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
You forgot target ID and what's behind them, the fourth rule of gun safety also broken in this incident.
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.