689
submitted 3 months ago by DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 331 points 3 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.

[-] Nommer@sh.itjust.works 151 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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.

[-] SARGE@startrek.website 70 points 3 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

[-] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 47 points 3 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.

[-] Pacmanlives@lemmy.world 41 points 3 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!!!

[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 44 points 3 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.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 41 points 3 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.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 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"

[-] Disgracefulone@discuss.online -3 points 3 months ago

Rule number 1 of life: you can't have two rule number 1s

[-] Klear@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 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.

[-] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 6 points 3 months ago

And now I have$97.65 worth of food at Wendy's that I don't know what to do with, thanks dick

[-] Klear@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago

Sir, this is a Wendy's

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 8 points 3 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.

[-] bastion@feddit.nl 1 points 3 months ago
[-] Disgracefulone@discuss.online -1 points 3 months ago

Hey bro? Calm down, it was a joke. It's not that serious. Did you skip your meds today pal?

[-] bastion@feddit.nl 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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 @Etterra@lemmy.world .

[-] Disgracefulone@discuss.online -1 points 3 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!

[-] bastion@feddit.nl 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

No. Not at all. That's not the comment I replied to.

Hey bro? Calm down, it was a joke. It's not that serious. Did you skip your meds today pal?

Supporting the person who does take it seriously, though, when you make fun of him with that dull take? Absolutely.

[-] Disgracefulone@discuss.online 0 points 3 months ago

I'd hardly call what I said making fun of him. If you're that sensitive though, like I said - go off. You won't hurt my feelings fella.

There's nothing wrong with me saying what I said in my original comment. It was lighthearted poking. That's all.

Mr serious decided to jump in with the 99 rules of gun safety that I'm an idiot for not nodding along solemnly to.

Why wouldn't I jab back? If I were trying to be rude I would have been rude. lol.

You should take my previous advice and chill. It's not that serious - once again.

You're clearly the dull one here.

[-] bastion@feddit.nl 1 points 3 months ago

shrug I've already said what I need to, and nothing you said is unexpected or new. My opinion stands, yours stands, and time moves on. Have a good one.

[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

Nope. Point a gun at someone only if you’re expecting to shoot.

[-] leftzero@lemmynsfw.com 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 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.

[-] Microw@lemm.ee 13 points 3 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?

[-] potpotato@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

I believe generally interpreted as legal occupant, not owner.

[-] Microw@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago

Well if he "drove over to her property", he might not even be an occupant

[-] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

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

[-] capital@lemmy.world 1 points 3 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…)

[-] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 38 points 3 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.

[-] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

The victim can and probably sue them in the civil courts for damages.

[-] colmear@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 3 months ago

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

[-] Glytch@lemmy.world 17 points 3 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@lemmy.today 2 points 3 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)

[-] Trigger2_2000@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 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).

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
689 points (98.3% liked)

News

23669 readers
4410 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS