Teen pizza delivery driver shot at multiple times after parking in the wrong driveway
2y 1mon ago by lemmy.world/u/Wilshire in news from www.nbcnews.com
We've turned into a nation of cowards. Just completely craven people who shoot first and ask questions later because the news has made them terrified that they'll be murdered in their beds, despite violent crime being historically low, comparatively speaking.
Having mingled with the gun community for some time, there are a lot of level-headed people among gun owners but there are also a worrying amount of terminally fearful people with violent ideation. Many are likely one bad life event, one half-cocked response to an uncertain situation from being a mugshot on a news story like this prick.
And if you don't have insurance, likely cheaper too.
Are you kidding? Even with insurance a gun is cheaper.
Cheaper too.
And significantly easier to not accidentally kill someone as a gun owner. I get your gist but that's a terrible comparison.
Having mingled with the gun community for some time, there are a lot of level-headed people among gun owners
This is why US has so much gun violence. Like rabid dog owners assuring you theyre safe. You just havent seen them when theyre not level headed, we're all emotional apes.
Yep. Even the "responsible" gun owners I know radiate the "I want you to know I'm dangerous" energy when they tell you how prepared they are, "just in case something happens that requires a gun"
There are other quieter owners you never really hear about though. My brother never really talks about it, doesn't chime in to water cooler "what are you shooting" kinds of talks, and basically just keeps them in the gun safe except for his ~2x a year gun range trips to make sure he stays competent.
He treats them like his garage full of dangerous power tools. Not a toy, but good to have in your back pocket should there be a need for that particular tool some day.
I know most gun owners go their entire lives never shooting someone.
But i dont trust anyones judgment on who will or wont. Its not just the loud and proud gun enthusiasts that end up on the homicide news.
I know most gun owners go their entire lives never shooting someone.
But i dont trust anyones judgment on who will or wont.
Even the cops who aren't bastards could make the wrong assessment here, too.
It's safer to go unarmed so when the pros show up you don't become a concern for them for an instant.
Cops who… aren’t bastards?
I don’t follow.
He treats them like his garage full of dangerous power tools. Not a toy, but good to have in your back pocket should there be a need for that particular tool some day.
A significantly unfortunate number of gun owners treat them like fashion accessories. To be displayed, accessorized, collected, and carelessly treated.
Every gun owner is a responsible gun owner until they aren't.
For the same reason, it makes spur of the moment suicide attempts more likely, and more deadly.
there are a lot of level-headed people among gun owners but there are also a worrying amount of terminally fearful people with violent ideation.
The problem is that both groups have the same ease of access to weapons.
Until there are a lot more reliable ways to tell the 2 groups apart, weapons need to be a lot more difficult to get your hands on.
Yeah. I have friends that won't even let their kids walk a quarter mile to school, in one of the safest communities in the entire state. It's insane. The media has put the fear of "but what if..." into so many people.
You've got better odds winning the lottery than what these people are afraid of. Be smart, be savvy, be aware of your surroundings and watch out for the oblivions as you go about your business. But there's no need to be afraid of everything around you.
In that situation I'm concerned about other drivers, and also the child not paying attention while staring at their phone. I have seen sooo many teens just step off the curb and walk across the street without even looking up from their phone. Stranger Danger would have nothing to do with it.
There needs to be a better balance between the latch key kid independence/responsibility and the absolute lack of trust in your kids and your community to just not be child kidnapping murderers???
Fixing transport infrastructure would have the most impact. Narrower roads with fewer lanes and more complexity, 20mph/30kmph speed limits, better designed pedestrian crossings, and separated bike and pedestrian infrastructure. And requiring the vehicles themselves to be designed such that they are not just safe for the occupants, but safe for other vehicles and people too (which means lower hood heights and lower weight).
And in general, providing viable alternatives to driving so there are less vehicles on the road, making it safer to walk and bike.
but safe for other vehicles and people too (which means lower hood heights and lower weight).
Small note on this, but better crash compatibility and an upper weight limit might also increase the relative safety of bicycles, motorcycles, and even potentially some larger local wildlife, on top of just increasing safety for pedestrians and people driving relatively smaller cars, like sedans.
The whole way our society is built is not around pedestrian safety or teaching it to children.
My daughter is growing up in a subdivision with low traffic and no sidewalks and I have to regularly remind her to look both ways when crossing the streets when we're elsewhere because it's just not something she has to do all the time.
There's room for sidewalks, they just didn't build them. If there were sidewalks, it would be far easier for her to remember to do it every time.
You’ve got better odds winning the lottery than what these people are afraid of. Be smart, be savvy, be aware of your surroundings and watch out for the oblivions as you go about your business. But there’s no need to be afraid of everything around you.
Awareness prevents the vast majority of dangerous situations. Carrying is actually more likely to escalate situations into being dangerous than not. even a basic situational awareness will keep you far safer than a fire arm ever will.
I agree that people shouldn't be afraid of this stuff, but I think you underestimate the odds of winning the lottery and your chances of being murdered.
Around 32,000 homicides/year in the US. 333,000,000 people, so about 1 in 100,000.
Powerball odds are 1 in 292,000,000.
the distribution is different though, if you buy a powerball ticket you have the same odds as everyone else who bought one assuming the numbers are equally distributed and truly random
the difference between living in Biden's suburban neighborhood in Delaware vs west Philly or Baltimore is huge
Sure, but nowhere is the chance of winning the lottery greater than the chance of getting murdered. Even Singapore, which has the lowest homicide rate, is around 1 in 1,000,000.
I suppose if you classified getting a playback prize on a scratch off as a lottery win, but I doubt most people count that.
Everything is a threat. Thank you Faux News and the rest.
Different color skin - threat
Gay - threat
Trans - threat
Environmental rules - threat
Immigration - thread
Vegetarian - threat
Equality - threat
Atheism - threat
Non-western religion - threat
Woke - threat
Electric cars - threat
The list is endless. Everything is a threat to them. Their pocketbooks, their marriage, their jobs, their theism, their TV, their guns…
An endless barrage of threats that they are constantly reminded of.
What can they do against all these threats? Elect a Strong Man that will crack skulls, He Has All The Answers. But those pesky libs keep getting in the way, so you gotta take matters into your own hands. Thank god and the good ol’ USA you can have a personal arsenal at arm’s reach to instantly panic-fire at that dark-skinned person pulling into your driveway who wants to steal your TV.
The "I feared for my life" rhetoric is just an excuse to shoot people, borrowed from police when they wanted to shoot people. You don't have to politely believe them just because they said it.
Yeah this was just a car in the driveway right ? No one is fearing for their life over that.
Violent crime being historically low except for idiots who shoot at people for turning around in their driveway, ringing the wrong doorbell, etc...
I've talked about in in several other posts regarding gun control.
The rampant media sowing fear is poison. It's the culture that's being fostered that's more dangerous than the guns. "Fuck around and find out" and "come try and take them" keeps reinforcing that guns are a totally normal thing to use to solve problems.
The NRA fear paranoia narrative has permeated our society. Add to that those who feel inferior so they carry a gun to feel powerful. Now add the hate farming by Russian trolls and right wing media, (the two are the same, with different names)
How often I witness roadrage/aggressive drivers makes the mass gunownership in this country kind of terrifying. I've seen a truck try to push another car off the road for getting off a left hand exit. I can only assume the truck driver was mad at the car for "being in the way." The power tripping and entitlement to being aggressive towards others combined with your list of problematic cultural phenomenon and guns is horrifying.
I saw an ad for a news app that literally said "fear watch"
So you can always be on top of what to be afraid of next!
You’re right that the vast majority are cowards, but you also have psychos who jerk off to a fantasy of shooting someone. There are all kinds of crazies out there just looking for a reason, and they’re getting crazier in their psycho echo chambers.
But it's a great chance to exercise your right to be left alone by shysters.
As a late night cab driver, if you're ever wondering why I'm on the street rather than the driveway in your sketchy, pickup truck filled suburban neighborhood, this is why.
Give me a shady looking industrial district or run down residential neighborhood over semi-rural suburbia any day of the week. I feel much safer.
"So there I was, watching Fox News on one TV, NewsMax on another, dick in hand of course - I'm an alpha you see. And I see this dude trying to steal my freedoms. I ran after him, and I heard him say something woke. It was either "Sorry - wrong house" or "I want to rape your wife and abort the baby". I couldn't tell which. Of course I had my blue steel beauty in the hand I wasnt using to rub one out - so I started blasting...."
It’s amazing he managed to wank, hold the gun, and drink a gallon of Pabst Blue Ribbon with only two hands.
That's what the beer hat is for.
Huffing Right-Wing media all day turning people extremely paranoid for no actual reason.
What the fuck are these people so scared of that they start blasting folk for pulling into their driveway? This seems to keep happening and nobody ever thinks to check up on the mf who almost blasted a delivery driver who got the wrong address? Forget just charging the dude with attempted murder, can we search the house and take away firearms from somebody so clearly irresponsible that they can't distinguish a genuine threat from an imagined one?
If the second amendment won't allow that to happen, then the amendment needs to be re-written.
A diet of fear mongering media with a heaping helping of social isolation.
Antisocial monsters are made surprisingly easily.
Maybe they just want to kill someone.
The second amendment absolutely would allow that to happen. To people purposefully misrepresenting what it says won't.
First, it says what it says because we need a militia to protect the nation, which was once true when an professional standing army wasn't expected but no longer is.
Second, the goal is for a well regulated militia. Even if we assume it still applies (it doesn't, but let's pretend), nothing about this is well regulated. Make sure people have training if you're going to let people own firearms so freely.
It wasn't that a professional standing army "wasn't expected" - in fact they were quite common at the time. Standing armies don't tend to go unused, they make it easy for asshole politicians to pick stupid fights with other countries. Not having one was a deliberate choice we made to avoid such things, and for the most part it worked, for a little while at least.
I wouldn't say the were quite common. They weren't unheard of, but only the major powers in the world could afford them. The US would be a nation of mostly farmers isolated from most of the developed world. There's no reason they would have expected to become a world power. A militia, at the time, would seem to be the reasonable expectation for such a nation for the foreseeable future.
As a responsible gun owner: they can and should take his guns away. There's multiple felonies he can be charged with and he'll almost certainly be convicted of at least one.
It's more about hate and bravado than fear.
Babcock told police what he could see on his Ring camera made him think someone was breaking into his car, so he went outside and started shooting.
Turns out your life is not in danger of someone is breaking into your car and it is not legal to shoot at them. I'm guessing this dipshit considers himself a responsible gun owner.
It may be in the constitution, but I doubt the founding fathers envisaged that you'd all be such fuckwits.
It isn't in there. What is in there is a legal provision allowing states to quickly raise an army to deal with a crisis.
I'm not American, so I could be wrong, but wasn't it something about a well-regulated militia?
It was, those three words aren't there by mistake.
Standing domestic armies were controversial at the time. They needed a way if a state was a facing a crisis it could grab a bunch of armed citizens, declare it a militia, and deal with the issue. Most of the signers were lawyers and they knew that there had to be a legally established procedure for this.
This is me being nice to them btw the issue was slavery and the fear of slave revolts.
And a few decades ago it got reimagined as a civil liberty. Which is clear from the text that it is not and is clear from the debates around the amendment at the time.
I was always under the impression that the militia bit was because they didn't want the USA to form a government army. The army instead would be all citizens, armed, that would act in case of a national threat, then like... go back to farming or whatever.
Regulation had a different interpretation back then. It had to do with training and equipment. It's why professional soldiers were called "Regulars." They wanted civilian militias to be equipped and have the ability to train on their weapons.
In order for civilian militias to exist, be effective, and be able to respond instantly the citizens need to have weapons.
Somebody who doesn't have a gun and has never used one isn't going to be effective in civil defense.
Yeah, but dumbasses think that part is optional (not joking)
He's trying to re-write history and every academically and officially accepted interpretation of the constitution because he doesn't like it.
You'll only see ridiculousness like his taken seriously on forums like these.
Here's the laugh though. Read "Democracy in America" by Alex de Tocqueville. A large part of it is observations amounting to "these fuckwits need to be aware of what they're doing and in many cases they are not"
I have read it and have a copy on my bookshelve. Where did you get that impression?
It's all through the book. I also have a copy on my bookshelf and have read it.
I guess to be clear, I'm not referring to America alone in my response and even though his observations were largely on America what he writes about can be applied generally.
One simple example is how he states something like "I don't know if America would vote the best people if they ran for office. We know they exist but they clearly don't enter politics."
It's an extremely polite way to say "we aren't getting the best or brightest running for office but that's ok cause we're so fucking dumb we probably wouldn't vote for them anyways."
It sounds like the man was writing in English, no? Why assume his meaning was other than what he said?
The constitution should be changed. Or better: Thrown out and written from scratch
The founding fathers are much worse then this guy. founding fathers owned slaves, this dude only traumatized one person.
$50k bond for almost killing the delivery driver. Bullet hole upper part of the driver door for assuming that the truck was being stolen.
Either he hates dominos or his wife cheated on him with a delivery driver.
Dude fired seven times, and three hit the car. What a menace, should have been charged with attempted murder.
And unless he lives in the middle of nowhere... then yeah where did the other four end up?
Outside the environment. /s
Doesn't matter, shot gun.
Bora-bora.
The worst part about that fact is that that's better accuracy than the average for cops. For the US army, it's about 50% accuracy under duress, and cops are about 30%.
I don't understand why he wasn't charged with attempted murder. This is a bullshit defense.
Babcock said he went outside and "began shooting at the truck" to "disable" it...
Yes, killing the driver would do that.
I don’t understand why he wasn’t charged with attempted murder.
Because...
Tennessee
He should be stripped of his weapons for his lack of discipline.
Not a requirement to own or use a gun, at the insistence of "responsible gun owners" who demand that responsibility remains 100% optional.
weapons freedom
Not freedom from consequences. He nearly killed someone.
I’m saying he should be stripped of his freedom, not just his weapons.
I'm not sure about the exact laws where the incident occurred, but in several other states that I know the law of, aggravated assault carries the exact same penalties as attempted murder. Because of the wording of the two laws, aggravated assault is much easier to prove. If you're a prosecutor, why would you not go with the easier to prove, exact same penalty crime?
I am not a lawyer, but I suspect you would need to prove the intent to kill to call it murder, and given plausible explanation it is nearly impossible, due to presumption of innocence.
Yes, shooting was intentional, but intent plausibly was not to kill. Thus, not a murder. Anyway, that's the only theory I have of why they did not charge him with attempted murder.
You are absolutely right, it would be manslaughter, not murder. Murder requires intent.
I have to be honest, I was surprised the delivery driver wasn't black. This idiot was just ready to kill someone, anyone. He's probably been looking out his front window, gun in hand, at every little noise for months or years.
And even if the kid was trying to steal an empty car, this guy would still go to prison if he killed him because no one's life or health was in danger. Stealing a car is not a capital offense.
Maybe some gun nut can help me with this. If the teen had, say an AR15 because he was concerned about running into some wild hogs. If he ducked down and started firing back in a clearly self defense situation, would he fine in doing this?
Or does it depend on the color of his skin?
Nevermind the racial part.
Your scenario actually highlights a good point, what kind of society do we want to live in? Some western everyone for them selves, shoot first talk later, or do we want to live in a civilized society?
My belief is that guns in general make us less safe. Both of the individuals in this story would be safer if neither had any guns. As well as the entire neighborhood, would also be safer without guns.
I’ll take the civilized society please. Unfortunately I seem to be surrounded by people who think they’re the badass, and they advocate for their ideal Wild West shoot first world from the comfort of their suburban home.
They always live in the dullest suburb.
Yes I’m sure this rant is based on reality and not just matching the pattern of “classic anti freedom rant sequence #63”
“They’re stupid people”
“And they’re dumb!”
“And I bet they eat their boogers”
“They totally do”
Deep thoughts indeed
That's what I was point out when Rittenhouse got away with murder. We are building a last man standing justice system.
What’s a “last man standing justice system”?
I legally provoke you, me and you fight, I kill you, and get off from self defense.
Nevermind the racial part.
Yeah I don't think I will... This isn't happening in a vacuum.
It's not but he was making the point that you don't even need to have that aspect included and it's still coming off terribly
guns don't kill people... stupid does.
there are countries with guns AND no crime.
Yes. That’s why you need to make sure there’s no stupid involved when you sell a gun, and the US seem to fail pretty hard at that.
there are countries with guns AND no crime.
I'm sure you have a ready list to support a bold statement like that, and that they are all desirable places to live. I remind you that you said NO crime.
what is hyperbole
what is hyperbole
Not a valid support for this statement, among other things.
guns don’t kill people… stupid does.
That’s funny I view “everyone for themselves” as the definition of a civilized society.
There theoretically could be a situation where two people shoot at each other and both can claim self-defense, but it would be convoluted.
Self defense does not apply if a person legally provokes the attacker. Now legal provocation means committing a crime, not telling a yo mama joke. As an example, if I try to rob a bank and someone starts shooting at me, I can't claim self defense because I provoked them by robbing a bank.
So in this case, depends on if the trespassing is a crime that would count as legal provocation. If not, delivery guy is allowed to return fire. And I hope every sane person agrees it is not a provocation or a crime.
Edit: So in this case, the only provocation could be trespassing, if parking in some ones driveway counted. Which it almost certainly does not as explained in replies to this comment. In addition, I am not sure trespassing would qualify as provocation, this may depend on state laws and the details of the trespass.
Edit 2: Just to make it even clearer, the answer is yes. I believe the delivery driver could legally return fire, but I am not a lawyer.
Pulling into someone's driveway isn't trespassing as a general rule, unless you know they don't want you there.
Trespass at its heart is legally something you need to have had intent to do. "No trespassing" signs or verbal warnings to leave inform someone that this is land they aren't wanted on, so are pretty important in proving trespassing.
This is also why door-to-door salesman and missionaries aren't sued out of existence. Both use the land in an attempt to offer something to the owner, its a legitimate use, as long as they leave when told.
But since the delivery man believed he had explicit permission, since he thought this was the house that ordered a pizza, it's perfectly legal. He just would've had to leave when he was told to go.
But the pizza man did nothing to provoke shooting, so I expect the owner gets no self-defense argument here. Just the pizza guy.
But the pizza man did nothing to provoke shooting, so I expect the owner gets no self-defense argument here. Just the pizza guy.
This is where the part about skin color comes into play... E.g. Trayvon Martin
This would not be criminal trespassing though. They would have to have been told to leave then, given an appropriate amount of time to leave, they refuse to do so, you now have a criminal trespass. Just pulling into someone's driveway isn't gonna cut it. Everyone has the legal right to enter your open property for the purpose of contacting you.
I don't disagree. Sorry if it sounded I did. I just did not want to state it with certainty as I am not read up on trespassing laws.
oh sorry if i came off rude, or snippy, I was just trying to put in some more info on the subject.
No, it was my fault for wording it misleadingly :) I will edit it to clear it up
You guys are nice. It's nice.
If that asshole didn't wanted anyone in his driveway he should have a good fence with a door, not an open one. As it has it (and with his trigger happy response) it's not s driveway but a honeypot.
Yeah people like him, even if they somehow haven't really broke the law, need to be labeled as dangerous to society. Like, shooting someone for pulling in your driveway? That is insanity. This person is definitely not stable enough to just be loose in society.
Also what kind of idiot starts shit from his own front door?
It's not just theoretical. Kyle Rittenhouse shot Gaige Grosskreutz and successfully claimed self-defense because Grosskreutz incidentally pointed his gun at Rittenhouse because he was moving his hands around while he was attempting to deescalate the situation. If that's true, then on the other side, Grosskreutz could've shot Rittenhouse and also met the standard for self-defense. After all, Rittenhouse pointed his gun at him after he'd already greased two other dudes. In that case, "self-defense" was just a matter of who shot first.
American law be all sorts of fucked.
Absolutely no. Gaige Grosskreutz would not be able to claim self defense exactly for the reason I explained. You don't get to claim self defense immediately after assaulting and battering someone. That counts as provocation.
That would be true even if Rittenhouse no longer had a claim of self defense (for example because Grosskreutz visibly stopped attacking), since as I wrote, those are two different things.
Grosskreutz did not touch, attack, or batter Rittenhouse. You must be thinking about Anthony Huber, who hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard.
You seem to be correct, I misremembered.
That being said, I don't think he would have a valid self defense claim against Rittenhouse after running up to him with a gun and pointing it at him. But I am not sure on this one.
Obviously, neither of us is a court of law, but to me, the law around self-defense is based around an individual's subjective perception of danger. Grosskreutz perceived an active shooter situation, and thus it would have been eminently reasonable for him to shoot RIttenhouse on sight. Instead, he approached with the intent to de-escalate, but it would also have been reasonable to shoot when Rittenhouse pointed the weapon at him. But, as you say, Rittenhouse perceived another threat charging at him with a gun, and a court of law did find reasonable grounds for self-defense. Each man perceived a threat for which the law allows a deadly response, and that's why I say the law is messed up.
Yes, as I wrote earlier it is theoretically possible.
That being said, the subjective here is subjective perception (what you see, hear, ...), not subjective evaluation of that perception. So IMO perceiving that someone shot someone else without seeing what preceded that absolutely does not give you the right to shoot immediately. Objectively evaluating that perception, it could be a murderer, or self defense, or an undercover cop. You do not have the justification to fire unless you see them threatening you, or someone who you actually perceived to not be a threat.
The way I see it, appearing threatening goes with carrying a gun. If you choose to carry, you need to be responsible for your appearance to the surrounding. As an example, aim a gun at a cop and it does not matter whether it is intentional, unintentional or even outside your control due to a medical condition. You will likely be turned into swiss cheese. It is your duty not to point your gun at people. The duty comes with the right to carry a gun. If you are unable to do so, maybe consider not carrying.
Also, I personally like how many European nations only allow concealed carry. This way, you don't create tense and possibly dangerous situations unnecessarily. You only reveal your weapon when you intend to use it.
Finally, what is the alternative to subjective perception? Oh, the terrorists gun was not loaded. You had no way to know but you go to jail, because objectively he was not a threat? That does not make sense.
Both subjective and objective evaluation of your subjective perception is the current requirement and IMO the reasonable one.
Of course, there are always details that could be improved.
Self defense does not apply if a person legally provokes the attacker
Yes it does. Rittenhouse
Rittenhouse is the reason I know about this. Again, legal actions do not ever count as provocation for purposes of self-defense law. So you can make yo mama jokes all you want and still defend yourself.
Also, a provocation from last week does not count. There are detailed rules as to when a provocation stops counting, it does not carry on for a lifetime.
legally provokes
The law exists/applies if those in charge want it to and doesn't if they don't.
On the presumption that robbing a bank is always an armed robbery, yeah, the law is likely going to tolerate parties using violence to stop the robbery if they think they are preventing harm.
Trespassing with intent to deliver a pizza is not going to cut it as justification since nobody was in physical danger. Probably not even in Texas since no property was in danger. He wasn't even warned to exit the property, and he wasn't fired on until he was leaving.
IANAL but there is absolutely no chance of a self-defense claim here. His best move will be to take whatever plea bargain his lawyer can get.
You are confusing two different questions here. Whether someone is justified to shoot the robber in the bank and whether the robber is justified to defend themselves if they are attacked (fired upon).
Yes, it would have to be armed robbery to justify shooting at the robber, and even then that alone may not be enough. (IANAL, depends on state, it's complicated)
On the other hand, even in an unarmed robbery, the robber does not have a claim of self-defense if they injure/kill a guard trying to stop them.
I was talking about whether the delivery driver was allowed to return fire, not if the homeowner was allowed to shoot them, which is somewhat unexpectedly not the same thing.
By the way, another interesting and unintuitive law is felony murder. Lets say you rob a bank with a permanent marker, pretending it is a gun. You obviously do not intend to harm anyone. However, lets say a cop shoots at you thinking it is a gun, misses you and kills a bystander behind you. You can go to jail for felony murder, because you created the dangerous situation by committing a felony (the bank robbery) and the bystander died as a result of that dangerous situation.
I don’t know about the law, but morally he would have been fully justified in returning fire. Getting your attacker to take cover forces them to stop firing at you. That’s the utility of “covering fire”.
However, his best move overall was driving away. Returning fire while driving away would have been fine, but delaying his leaving to stop and return fire would have had no benefit.
Again, not sure what the laws says here.
The ONLY ONLY ONLY way to Prevent this is to make sure TEENAGE DELIVERY DRIVERS shoot at every home they pull up in before getting out!
Please make sure this fuckhead is never allowed to touch a firearm for the rest of his life. And give him a few years in a secluded spot to think about what he did wrong.
Sincerely,
Responsible Gun Owners
You know what this guy was before he tried to kill someone for the first time?
A responsible gun owner.
"Responsible" as in "doesn't know the laws regarding firearms ownership in his area so he just tried to shoot someone he was never legally allowed to even if he was breaking into his car?"
Trust me on this one, anyone who owns guns but doesn't know how to use them safely, efficiently, and legally, isn't "responsible," as those are prerequisites for "responsibility."
The point is there is no way to distinguish the two until they try to kill someone or kill someone. (And seemingly every effort to make it possible to distinguish the two ahead of time - well, you know how those go.)
Right, you can't know what's in the can until you open it. Unfortunately there isn't really a way to distinguish it ahead of time in many cases.
Sure, there are cases like Parkland, in which Broward Co had received over 40 calls about Cruz in the years before the shooting and each time decided not to charge him with a felony or hold him on an adjucated IVC, both of which could have been done but weren't. Same for that recent kid who's parents got charged, he had been begging for help, there are times which we could've done something even with our current laws and the system failed. In those cases there was a clear indication of the "can's contents" so to speak. There is clear evidence to speak that they are a danger, and we can already do something about that, even if sometimes we fail to do so (and I blame in part, in the above cases, Broward Co Sherrifs and the kid's parents respectively for their failure to act on the information they had).
But that isn't what they're advocating for. They want everyone to be treated as if they are a danger without evidence simply because "some people are." That is frankly the antithesis of our justice system, which considers (at least ostensibly) people innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I agree that taking guns from people who have proven themselves dangerous is a good idea, and that it can be done before significant harm is done in many cases. What I do not agree on is the concept of being considered dangerous without any evidence to base the assumption on.
They want everyone to be treated as if they are a danger without evidence simply because “some people are.” That is frankly the antithesis of our justice system
And yet, we have the patterns of behavior we see in our police. That's tangential, but I couldn't not mention it in response to this comment.
I agree that taking guns from people who have proven themselves dangerous is a good idea, and that it can be done before significant harm is done in many cases. What I do not agree on is the concept of being considered dangerous without any evidence to base the assumption on.
You know what would shut me the hell up on gun control? These simple measures, which would be treated by the right like I'm calling for a total ban on guns.
- To own a gun, you must be licensed as a gun operator.
- To be licensed as a gun operator, you must complete a nationally standardized gun safety course. Then and only then can you take legal possession of a firearm.
- To teach such a course, you must be trained and certified to do so.
- Trainers of such a course are empowered and encouraged to reject issuance of a license based on a standardized list of criteria. One might call them flags. One might call them "red" flags, to highlight that they should be cause for concern. Edit - such "flags" could in some cases be resolvable.
- To maintain your license status, you must have a safety course refresher on some periodic basis. (I'm thinking a certain number of years, more than one, but not too many.)
Caveats:
- If you are licensed, you get concealed and open carry privileges in every location where this doesn't violate applicable local/state laws.
- If your license lapses, it's a felony to leave your home with your guns.
- Charges dropped if you make a valid self-defense case after doing so.
- And if you are leaving the home to overthrow your tyrannical government, then the laws don't really matter at that point, right?
Would my plan solve every problem? No. Would it be a better solution to school shootings and other related issues than "let's arm teachers and everyone else Wyatt Earp style?" Yes, yes it would. And, like any such measure, it could be further refined over time.
Edit - I made a distinction between owner and operator, I think this makes it better. shrug
And yet, we have the patterns of behavior we see in our police.
And yet we continuously decry this as "bad." It's wrong when they do it yet you encourage it more. Guess you're one of those "thin blue line" guys who thinks it's good if you want to do it too, eh?
To own a gun, you must be licensed as a gun owner.
2a prevents this, it would have to be overturned to pass. Licensure is seen as turning a right into a privilege by the courts. Personally I don't like it because of how easily it could be abused to deny "the dangerous blacks" or "those suicidal trans" from gun ownership by an "instructor" so inclined.
To be licensed as a gun owner, you must complete a nationally standardized gun safety course. Then and only then can you take legal possession of a firearm.
See above. Though I did want to mention accidents are on the low end of our actual problem in terms of numbers. I think gun safety is important too but this does nothing to stop murderers and the like.
To teach such a course, you must be trained and certified to do so.
The license thing being blocked by the 2a still throws a wrench in your plan, but these are the guys who can decide "I won't approve guns for blacks" that I was referring to. Currently, these people are sheriffs doing it with carry permits, because that's the extent of their power, but it is being done as black people are iirc 60-70% of permit denials in some areas. Furthermore some guy deciding I'm "weird" is no basis for denying me rights. Even if it isn't due to skin color, I'm certainly not christian, what if I happen to wear my Anti-Christ Demoncore (great band) shirt and the instructor decides that's a "red flag" simply because he doesn't understand Vegan Satanists from California aren't actually all that bad just because they use scary imagry? Hell, "those columbine kids loved metallica, any metalhead shouldn't own a gun" is a thing I've actually heard before. Having the basis for denial of rights being anything other than "is criminal" opens denial of rights up far too wide.
Trainers of such a course are empowered and encouraged to reject issuance of a license based on a standardized list of criteria. One might call them flags. One might call them "red" flags, to highlight that they should be cause for concern.
Sheriffs currently can do this to some degree with those permits, it's just that those "red flags" are often "is black."
To maintain your license status, you must have a safety course refresher on some periodic basis. (I'm thinking a certain number of years, more than one, but not too many.)
Frankly safety doesn't change much over time, the guns themselves haven't even changed all that much in the last 100yr.
If unlicensed, it's a felony to leave your home with your guns.
But they can have them unlicensed at home even though they can't legally own them at all without a license? A) How would they get it home from the store? B) From the home to the range?
Charges dropped if you make a valid self-defense case after doing so.
So if you carry it illegally out and don't get attacked and don't shoot anyone but get searched by an overzealous likely racist cop you're fucked, but if you do get attacked and kill a guy it's cool that you were carrying illegally? Why not just not harass the guy for not getting attacked?
And if you are leaving the home to overthrow your tyrannical government, then the laws don't really matter at that point, right?
Well sure lol.
Guess you’re one of those “thin blue line” guys who thinks it’s good if you want to do it too, eh?
LOL you are either being intentionally obtuse, or otherwise reaching so far, I don't really see the point in trying to tease any further nuance out of this discussion.
I do find it genuinely amusing that my sideswipe at police was interpreted as a pro-police statement - but clearly we're having two different conversations.
You're the one who says we should do a thing, I say that thing is bad, you say "well cops do the thing," how can I take that other than tacit admission you think the cops doing the thing you think is good, is good?
I'm sure in reality you simply have a rationalization for why you think it both is bad but also should be done more, but I had to have a little fun.
Youre hearing about him after he tried to kill someone for the first time. I said before. Now, think to before this happened, how do you tell this guy isnt a responsible gun owner?
These aren’t the actions of a responsible gun owner …
I think you missed the word before
Didnt see myself needing it to be honest...I thought I was clear in that what I meant was it is normal to some, not all. Ill try to be clearer in future.
Did he know the laws before, simply getting amnesia the day he broke them thus "becoming" an irresponsible gun owner, or did he never know the laws, and was always an irresponsible gun owner?
Whether you can tell or not has no basis on whether he is or not. Can you tell what is inside of an unlabeled soup can before you open it? No, but that doesn't make it not chicken noodle, you just have to open it before you know that it's chicken noodle. Just because he hadn't opened his can and shown his irresponsible contents doesn't mean they weren't in there to begin with, the closed can doesn't contain tomato soup until you open it and it magically becomes chicken noodle now that it is open.
Whether you can tell or not has no basis on whether he is or not.
I know youre used to the US where tons of gun homicides happen everyday, but its not normal for the rest of the developed world. If you want guns to be a safe thing, you have to be able to tell before these people go murdering. Hindsight is 20/20. There are people today that are going to kill someone for the first time, people that to the outside world look like responsible gun owners.
Unfortunately, like unlabeled cans, people are able to hide their contents. Unlike the cans, people can even actively attempt to resist "opening" them to find out their contents, making it all that more of an impossible task.
right, do you see the problem here? To the outside world, a responsible gun owner, and an irresponsible one that hasnt killed yet look the same. how do you keep guns away from irresponsible gun owners before they kill someone? You have to treat every gun owner as irresponsible, because we cant tell before it happens. And it needs to stop happening.
Ah yes, guilty until proven innocent, the backbone of the American justice system, and a good way to treat one's fellow human.
I dont think you know what our justice system does with people guilty of shooting people if you think that's what Im suggesting.
Yes, shooting people, the only thing one could possibly be considered "guilty" of, how could I forget.
I mean, that's what we're talking about
Well technically we're talking about people who haven't hurt anyone who through some minority report precognition we have decided will shoot someone beyond a shadow of a doubt, enough so that we can deprive them of their rights like a criminal even though they aren't one yet.
Hell tbh, why stop there? If we've determined that a person has a high enough percentage chance to kill someone one day, why simply remove legal access to one tool with which he could do so instead of removing the would-be killer himself, either through preemptive execution or life imprisonment? Hell, they were statistically similar to murderers of the past so we may as well, right? I mean as long as we're doing pre-crime it makes sense to me!
This isnt punishment for any kind of crime. Like, no one is allowed to drive drunk. Some people can manage it, they drive drunk anyway and never hit anyone. Are we depriving them of their rights? Am i treating them like criminals by not letting them drive drunk? I dont know what warped dystopian images youve got in your head of a world where people arent allowed to have guns, because we have a reality to look at. Places like Germany and Japan already do this. Are those awful places to live to you?
Right, nobody is allowed to drive drunk, yet we don't have checks at the local liquor store based on who is "more likely" to drive drunk, we punish those who get caught doing it with jail and Blow 'N' Gos, as those are the ones who have proven themselves to be irresponsible.
If we said "sorry but someone decided that you look like the type to drink and drive so you're not ever allowed to buy or consume alcohol," that would be a violation of their rights, and that is what you want to do with your pre-crime nonsense.
Yes. Germany and Japan would be awful places to live to me, and that is without even considering they don't trust their citizens to protect themselves. Germany would be the better of the two but, still nein, Japan is xenophobic and since I'm an "outsider" it sounds like a lame place to live. Combine that with the whole "Japanese police inspect every home in their district 1x/yr just cause, looking for that evil, evil, marijuana and can hold suspects indefinitely forcing confessions leading to a 98% conviction rate which is widely regarded as likely a large amount of unjust convictions" thing and yeaaahhh if you live there I can see why you're unfamiliar with being treated like a human.
You're throwing in a lot of your own shit. Havent said anything about this being criminal, about screening or having checks or how anyone looks. I havent said any of that. No one is allowed to own a gun same as no one is allowed to drive drunk.
Why would germany be an awful place to live? With its higher standard of living, higher life expectancy, much lower crime rates, better wages and access to healthcare. Thats the thing, i dont think you know what its like outside the US. Youre obsessed with having a gun to protect yourself because gun violence is common here. Germans dont need to protect themselves from gun violence because no one has guns. They just dont have that worry altogether.
Ah so to you, "owning a gun" should be a criminal offense, akin to driving drunk, which is a criminal offense, yet "you haven't said anything about this being criminal," just that it should be a crime, got it...
Lol I don't think you know what it's like inside the US, frankly. It isn't like it's Gaza over here, our violence is also largely localized in 5 counties which are easy to avoid as our entire country is comparable in size to the whole EU, not just Des Vaterland which is smaller than Montana alone. Not trying to rip on Germany too hard, Schwarzwalder kuchen ist sehr lekker and all, and I hear Frankfurt has the best hookers in all the world, but it isn't as if I feel the need to escape war torn South Dakota.
Germany has no violent crime, eh?
The newspaper said there was a nearly 7% increase in cases of dangerous and serious bodily harm, with 154,541 cases recorded — the highest number ever.
"But, but, there's less overall.." yes yes, but "less overall" matters little when you're being attacked with a blunt instrument or knife, as you'd likely be screaming "Oh mein gott help bitte" instead of "thankfully though I will die here I will be part of a smaller statistic than the US!" Well, maybe you will, if your nationalist ego is still the most important thing to you with however many stab wounds you happen to be leaking from. I on the other hand would prefer to be able to at least attempt to save myself given the unlikely scenario in which it becomes a necessity, and thankfully where I live allows me the freedom with which to do so. You on the other hand do not wish to defend yourself in the unlikely scenario in which it becomes a necessity, and thankfully for you where you live does not allow you the freedom to do so. Problem solved, everyone's happy.
Ah so to you, “owning a gun” should be a criminal offense, akin to driving drunk, which is a criminal offense
yes. this is very different than you claiming Im treating people like criminals before they own a gun.
Lol I don’t think you know what it’s like inside the US, frankly.
I live here. I have heard so many gunshots. People have been murdered a few dozen feet from my front door. There are shootings daily on the local news.
but “less overall” matters little when you’re being attacked
you're a goddamn lunatic. Of course less overall fucking matters if you dont wanna be attacked. It means you're less bloody likely to be attacked!
Well, there are already 600,000,000+ guns in 167,457,447 people's possession. So you're too late on that one.
But you are attempting to treat people how we treat criminals (removal of rights) without them having committed a crime. Like, by definition that is what you're doing.
Sounds like you should move out of your neighborhood as it is one of those 5 counties with 50% of the murders. Hell, move to paradise Der Vaterland if you're so inclined, but you could literally escape that by going one or two counties over. Or stay, but if you do I'd buy a gun.
You're a goddamned moron (two can play this game). You may be less likely to be attacked, but some people are attacked there nonetheless, and for those people, frequency likely stops mattering as they are being stabbed, as it is currently happening despite the rarity. It isn't pokemon cards, they don't suddenly go "yes I'm dying but really this is lucky because it's so rare to be brutally murdered here like I currently am."
If all it takes is 40 questions and some for show handling test? The system is fucked and not strict as others would make you believe.
Car license is 10x harder here and that's still loose.
Eh, he clearly was not, but I'm not here to get into a debate about guns or gun control. We definitely need way less of the former and way more of the latter but everybody has different ideas on that and I've had that online argument dozens of times.
Alright see you next crazy shooting
Hope not but it's inevitable since our leaders are unwilling to change anything.
The difference between a responsible gun owner and a fucking lunatic with a firearm is one mistake.
He's been charged with a felony, the only thing that could "save" him there is pleading down or acquittal. We do have some laws, y'know.
Signed.
This fucking country. 🤦♂️
Thank goodness for living in a civilized country where things like that simply don't happen.
I can't imagine anyone being so cowardly and scared of their own shadow that they would even want to own a handgun
Absolute fucking shitebags
This and what else makes the mind boggle is how these Walmart-fed, low self-control guys think they would be able to properly handle themselves in a crisis situation like an armed burglary or amok run for example. Watching too many hero movies probably fucked up the American psyche for good. Look how often even trained police officers who outman the perpetrator 20:1 get shot before they can kill or subdue the target. And Billy Bob thinks that he could handle professional criminals if they come to rob his house at gunpoint and would stand a chance lmao It’s like those Jan 6th guys thinking they have a fighting chance against the US military
They'd be blown away before they could unholster (while out of breath) their pistol. Don't play hero.
I am sorry, but as a handgun owner, I must disagree. In the civilized world, owning a (hand)gun usually means you have to pass some kind of test.
In my country, it is a written test of about 40 questions where only one single mistake is allowed, non-live gun manipulation where you have to basically be flawless, and then live gun manipulation and firing.
The law is pretty strict, which means actually using a gun to defend yourself has to be absolutely last resort.
In Canada, obtaining a verdict of self defense with a firearm is extremely difficult. You basically have to prove that you did everything in your power to diffuse the problem before turning to a firearm, you contacted the police, your life was in immediate danger, you somehow managed to unlock and load your firearm while still being in danger, and that if you hadn't done what you did you'd be dead.
Yes but the article above says that the fuckin cowards consider a lost pizza boy a danger 😂
Yeah, the US doesn't just have a gun problem unfortunately, it has a culture problem. I don't know of any other society that is so insanely paranoid.
Remove guns and you're left with crazies without means of causing massive harm?
Till they rent a big truck and go driving through a parade...
But muh god-given right to bear trucks man
It literally happened in Wisconsin not that long ago....
Which also isn't great. Having to defend yourself and then going bankrupt with lawyer fees is a kick to the nuts
Same, same. Here it is either "necessary defense" (when you defend yourself against an attacker) or "extreme emergency" (covers all the other situations of using firearms).
Ah yes, a test.
Surely anyone passing a test like that, like for a driving license, would never, ever break the law and cause danger to those around them, right?
Sure, there are cases, but they go into the 10s per year (with LEGALLY held guns). People are not perfect, but we did hell of good job with our laws.
canada?
About any country apart from the US and some that are involved in active external or internal wars.
Holy shit you guys need some serious help.
Tennessee again. Goddamn, Tennessee what the living fuck is happening over there?
Fox.
Everyone’s afraid of the immigrants and minorities because the right wing media needs a boogeyman to keep them donating.
And pizza delivery drivers continue to be pretty badass.
The Deliverator belongs to an elite order, a hallowed subcategory. He's got esprit up to here. Right now, he is preparing to carry out his third mission of the night. His uniform is black as activated charcoal, filtering the very light out of the air. A bullet will bounce off its arachnofiber weave like a wren hitting a patio door, but excess perspiration wafts through it like a breeze through a freshly napalmed forest. Where his body has bony extremities, the suit has sintered armorgel: feels like gritty jello, protects like a stack of telephone books.
When they gave him the job, they gave him a gun. The Deliverator never deals in cash, but someone might come after him anyway-might want his car, or his cargo. The gun is tiny, aero-styled, lightweight, the kind of gun a fashion designer would carry; it fires teensy darts that fly at five times the velocity of an SR-71 spy plane, and when you get done using it, you have to plug it into the cigarette lighter, because it runs on electricity.
The Deliverator never pulled that gun in anger, or in fear. He pulled it once in Gila Highlands. Some punks in Gila Highlands, a fancy Burbclave, wanted themselves a delivery, and they didn't want to pay for it. Thought they would impress the Deliverator with a baseball bat. The Deliverator took out his gun, centered its laser doohickey on that poised Louisville Slugger, fired it. The recoil was immense, as though the weapon had blown up in his hand. The middle third of the baseball bat turned into a column of burning sawdust accelerating in all directions like a bursting star. Punk ended up holding this bat handle with milky smoke pouring out the end. Stupid look on his face. Didn't get nothing but trouble from the Deliverator.
Since then the Deliverator has kept the gun in the glove compartment and relied, instead, on a matched set of samurai swords, which have always been his weapon of choice anyhow. The punks in Gila Highlands weren't afraid of the gun, so the Deliverator was forced to use it. But swords need no demonstrations.
The Deliverator's car has enough potential energy packed into its batteries to fire a pound of bacon into the Asteroid Belt. Unlike a bimbo box or a Burb beater, the Deliverator's car unloads that power through gaping, gleaming, polished sphincters. When the Deliverator puts the hammer down, shit happens. You want to talk contact patches? Your car's tires have tiny contact patches, talk to the asphalt in four places the size of your tongue. The Deliverator's car has big sticky tires with contact patches the size of a fat lady's thighs. The Deliverator is in touch with the road, starts like a bad day, stops on a peseta.
Why is the Deliverator so equipped? Because people rely on him. He is a roll model. This is America. People do whatever the fuck they feel like doing, you got a problem with that? Because they have a right to. And because they have guns and no one can fucking stop them. As a result, this country has one of the worst economies in the world. When it gets down to it-talking trade balances here-once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here-once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel-once the Invisible Hand has taken all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity-y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else:
- music
- movies
- microcode (software)
- high-speed pizza delivery
The Deliverator used to make software. Still does, sometimes. But if life were a mellow elementary school run by well-meaning education Ph.D.s, the Deliverator's report card would say: "Hiro is so bright and creative but needs to work harder on his cooperation skills."
So now he has this other job. No brightness or creativity involved-but no cooperation either. Just a single principle: The Deliverator stands tall, your pie in thirty minutes or you can have it free, shoot the driver, take his car, file a class-action suit. The Deliverator has been working this job for six months, a rich and lengthy tenure by his standards, and has never delivered a pizza in more than twenty-one minutes.
-- Snow Crash
I need to read this again.
Great book!
I get angry enough that a cop pulling me over for speeding carries a gun, or that every emergency call needs to be responded to by jackbooted, militarized thugs when less than 15% ever involve violence. I can't imagine living in a country where every scared little baby had easy access to firearms.
The thin bread line will always be more dangerous than the blue one
Yep, delivery drivers are twice as likely to be shot at as cops. Always respect the thin bread crust.
The modern day bullet proof vest (using kevlar) was invented by a pizza delivery driver.
Not an American, but I really don't get these stories. It has to be legal to enter somebody's driveway, right? How else are you supposed to ring someone's doorbell?
It absolutely is and the people who shoot at others for showing up on their property are 100% paranoid assholes watching too much Fox News. Hell, you can even legally camp on private property as long as you're not within view of the house. I don't suggest doing that, on account of the crazies.
Wait a minute tell me about this law that says Americans are allowed to camp on private property: like they can do that without permission of the property owner? as long as not within view of the house?
I'm going to guess this is either a local law or a misunderstanding
I think the answer is, if you don't get caught, it is legal
Need a citation for that last bit
There was a widely-reported battle in Wyoming over "corner crossing" last year. It was resolved in favor of hunters recently.
That is interesting, but hovering over private land isn't really the same thing as camping on it
Yeah I mean check your local laws, this is just a law I learned once and then never bothered to keep on hand since I'm never gonna test it.
Many EU countries have freedom to roam laws to allow access accross undeveloped private property, this includes as you said camping as long as you leave the land as found.
In the US i know of no state allowing such, and the ability of the person traversing the land to sue the owner means the default is no treasspassing signs everywhere. this isnt to say if you were unsure if the land was private and there is no sign/indicator of tresspassing you coulding walk through but that isnt strictly giving you the right to access the land
in western States quite a bit of land is federally owned and behaves more like right to roam, this has made odd cases there is a cheker board patern between two federal land areas and private property and what to do when a hunter says steps over the corner of the private properties between the two public access areas.
Trespassing isn't established until you've been told to leave and don't do so (hence why we have no trespassing signs), the shooter had no right to fire shots at this guy. He should go straight to prison.
this is not entirely accurate.
If you know you're somewhere you don't belong, you're trespassing. For example, you can't chill in some random backyard until someone comes out to tell you otherwise.
property owners (residential or otherwise) don't really want to ugly-up their properties with "no trespassing" signage that doesn't usually work and really only encourages teens to see what's on the other side of the fence.
Does that mean he could have taken shots if he posted a no trespassing sign?
apparently not. I looked it up out of curiosity:
the requirements for lethal force:
- Person not engaged in unlawful activity;
- Person in a place they have a legal right to be;
- Reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;
- The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time;
- The belief is founded on reasonable grounds.
this would fail the last one.
He can shoot at people because he was sold a gun and anyone who has a gun can shoot at anybody they decide. What we're actually waiting to learn is "Will this former responsible gun owner get away with shooting at people?".
If the answer is "yes" then other gun owners are going to do the same thing because they want to shoot at people.
If the answer is "no because he didn't have a 'no trespassing' sign" then gun owners are going to buy "no trespassing" signs and then shoot at people, because they want to shoot at people.
I don't think a good-faith misdelivery is trespassing, so no. Unless you want any delivery to be done by throwing the box from the curb.
Found the mugshot. Looks like the kind of chud who’s scared of his own shadow. Fucking asshole
Yup, a cop or wannabe cop. And the victim isn't even black, which is surprising...
Cop 'stache.
If anything it looks like a firefighter mustache. But it's childish to insult people based on their appearance.
A mustache is an aesthetic choice.
The number of gun owners who want to shoot someone is likely much higher than the number of gun owners who genuinely fear for their life when someone stops in their driveway but both of them will say "I feared for my life" when questioned.
Hmm. Wonder who that guy voted for...
Dunald Tormp
Is it just me or does he look like this guy from marvel with a fake moustache
If I were that boys dad, Hell hath no furry like what I would do to that shooter.
You like furries?
I think he means he wants the kind of furry that hell would draw a line at. "Hey man this hell and everything, but we got standards. You can't do that here. You gotta go."
Hell without furries would be incredibly upsetting.
Why do you care? All dogs go to heaven.
Not sure what you have against Furries. Id rather hang out with 100 Furries for eternity than a Christian for a week.
I am a furry.
How am I gonna yiff in hell if I'm the only one down there?
You won't be. If I remember correctly, and I shudder at the memories, you'll have anthropomorphized versions of the seven sins. Be warned, All hope abandon ye who enter here.
only one way I can comment this
Psychotic behavior. I agree with the victim: this lunatic should be charge with attempted murder.
ETA: and be forbidden from ever owning firearms.
Ag assault is a felony in TN, either way, barring acquittal or pleading down to a misdemeanor, no more guns for him.
As we saw with the old man who shot a Black teenager for ringing his doorbell, acquittal is not assured. The old man got a mistrial, not acquittal, but the point is that he hasn't yet been held accountable. That makes me a sad panda.
Yeah mistrial would also do it. Yeah this is unfortunately a thing based on how our justice system works, people can fall through the cracks. In theory though assuming "all goes well" he'll have his rights stripped.
What the fuck is wrong with some Americans
My friend tells me that her in-laws in rural Missouri are cutting holes into the walls to hide guns so they are prepared for attacks from antifa.
The absolute state of the United States. Jesus christ
No shit, when seeing this, I'm glad I don't have to worry about guns...
Totally normal. Not brain damage at all. 😐
Me: * checks to make sure this wasn't Georgia *
Me: "Tennessee, thank God... oh and the delivery driver wasn't killed, that's good too."
I'm not American and I'll never understand your fascination with guns.
But to me the important aspect is the driver was already moving away when shot at, or immediately did so once shooting began.
Surely this invalidates any self defense claim? If you shoot and they retreat, you stop shooting, right?
It actually varies state by state which is part of the problem.
Here in Oregon, there are only 3 use cases where lethal force is allowed:
- Someone is about to use lethal force on you.
- Someone is about to use lethal force on someone else.
- Someone breaks into your home.
That's it.
In Tennessee...
"(c) Unless a person is justified in using deadly force as otherwise provided by law, a person is not justified in using deadly force to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on real estate or unlawful interference with personal property."
BUT:
https://www.mcelaw.com/blog/what-are-the-rules-on-self-defense-in-tennessee/
"According to Tennessee law, individuals can use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily injury at the hands of another person."
So in this case, even if Pizza guy had been messing with perps car, lethal force wouldn't be authorized.
I don’t think he’d win, but Tennessee is a castle doctrine state.
If he had reasonable belief that the pizza delivery driver was breaking in, the home owner is likely justified to use deadly force.
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t apply to shooting out of your house unless you’re being shot at, though.
I’m not American and I’ll never understand your fascination with guns.
Hell, I’m a born and raised Texan and I don’t get it either.
I'm from Finland and I definitely get it. It's the same exact reason for why I loved shooting soda cans with my bb gun as a kid and airsofting as little older. I'd definitely buy a real one if I could and I'm glad I can't.
Babcock told police what he could see on his Ring camera made him think someone was breaking into his car, so he went outside and started shooting.
He's already invalidated that claim with his own words. In the US you're only allowed to use deadly force in proportional response, to prevent death or great bodily injury to yourself or another innocent party.
Sorry, but that's not exactly right, because in several areas, the prevention of death or great bodily harm also includes the scenario where if you were to attempt to reclaim control over your property, you would be putting yourself in those same risk categories. See 9.42 (3)(B) here, where I have had the misfortune of having to research the law before. In other words, if you think the person is stealing your stuff and could harm you if you try to recover said stuff... well, you're 'legally' allowed to start blasting.
Not exactly. You can defend property with normal force, and if that turns deadly you can then be authorized to use deadly force, but the deadly threat does still have to present itself.
As in, he could have walked outside, gun in holster or even in hand at low ready, and said "get the fuck out of here," or punched or OC sprayed him (of course, this is all if he was actually stealing the car, since he wasn't this would also be assault, but ykwim), and then if the guy pulls a knife, or blunt instrument like a pipe, or goes for a gun instead of retreating, then you can shoot him.
These laws are all very state specific, as well, but by and large that's how it works, you can't just start blasting because "well anyone could have a gun or knife."
That said, it's still up to the DA to bring charges and the jury to convict, even though it is a crime I'm sure you can find a case that fits the description where the guy got off, hell OJ got off, but it is still illegal. In this case the DA did bring charges, which indicates to me it's illegal enough that the DA thinks they can win.
I'm disagreeing with your statement that "you're only allowed to use deadly force in proportional response," not with whether this case is being prosecuted rightly or not.
Mate, read that link I put in there. I can tell you, from experience, that if you shoot at someone stealing your property in Texas, where that penal code I posted is from, that exact portion of the statute is going to be used and you will not be convicted. It really is "anyone could have a gun or knife." At least Texas has it so just theft has to be during the nighttime, so I guess that's something.
You'll also get similar worded statutes in many other states in the US, several of which, stating this again, where I've had the misfortune of having to research those laws. And that "reasonable belief" part about exposing yourself to risk of serious bodily injury or death? I have seen it applied to people who are simply physically larger than you. Proportional response is a moot concept.
Ah yes the "that literally only applies to texas and only at night which means it must be true for the whole US" thing, I've heard this one before.
generally, the right to self defense requires a reasonable belief that there is imminent, severe bodily harm; and even then, the measures you take must be proportionate and reasonable. every state has it's own nuances, though.
As far as the general laws go... somebody standing on a street corner leering at you? it's proportionate and reasonable to cross the street. Somebody brandishes a firearm and says they're going to kill you? it's reasonable to believe them. (unless you know them, and you know they're joking. Details. those kind of jokes aren't really funny though.)
Simple trespass is not itself a threat. The teen was presumably unarmed. At no point was the asshole reasonably in need of self defense.
Mostly yes. Consider an actual deadly threat with someone shooting at you. You start shooting back and they duck for cover. They shoot again, you shoot again, and again they duck for cover. If I was on that jury, I'm not convicting you for shooting at the person ducking for cover. This is an extremely specific and nuanced hypothetical. So mostly yes, but there could be some million to one scenario that doesn't follow that track.
The "castle doctrine" and everyone who's misunderstanding it is reminding me a LOT of a "localized purge" - been watching the first 2-3 films lately and season 1 (surprisingly good) and it's chilling to see the real state of the US these days. Used to be my favourite travel destination in the 90s, then still a great place to go for business trips in the 2000s - but never again will I set foot on that unholy land where every insane person can get a gun and murder you on the spot and will likely get away with it.
Never mind that the 90s was a peak for violent crime mainly due to the war on drugs, and it's safer now than it was then...
Nobody seems to be misunderstanding it but you. This is the kind of country these people want.
Many of us are trapped by the choices of our Fox-brainwashed elderly population.
The absolutely morally bankrupt and spoiled boomers dominating the voting population with blind allegiance and rising evengelicism over the last 50 years got us here. Basically, the most self centered and selfish generation in modern American history is hell bent on fucking every generation that follows them.
A lot of us have chosen and chosen and chosen otherwise in futility. Even when we've had the opportunity for progress it was tempered by trying to appease the other party; in the name of bipartisanship we get a neutered health care plan that still has grift built directly into the system.
I suppose I forgot the quotes around "misunderstanding" - maybe should have rephrased to "deliberately misinterpreting". Either way, I agree & it is a sad and depressing world in which people get murdered daily because some asshole with a gun wanted blood...
People are convicted of murder by the hundreds if not thousands every day
And this contradicts my point how?
They want cash tips, not hollow tips
Shit I delivery drove for 10yr, and I definitely got paid with a couple boxes of JHPs in that time. A lot more pizza drivers are strapped than you think and some take alternate forms of payment (commonly weed, but bullets and other trades are certainly not unheard of.)
Fucking mouth-breathing vermin...
Its not that he thinks that this is normal behaviour, its that so many Americans think that this is normal behaviour.
Are people just itching to use their guns or something? What the fuck
Today, two strangers knocked on my door. They were there to spread some bullshit or another, didn't really care. Told them to go away, which they did.
I really hope that this situation is the norm, and that the news headline is the outlier. But at this point I'm not sure.
It is. Situations like yours don't make the news.
Coming up to a strange house NEEDS to be a cautious dance involving photos of Picture ID sent to someone and a very brief statement of your business. In a place with so many guns and shysters, we don't have time to open the door for people selling vacuums or invisible friends. And by the time you strike out at one house and try another, everyone on the block chat group needs to know what you're selling.
I read the interview and this dude seems surprisingly chill after a guy tried to kill him.
All home delivery services can be suspended. Like the Amazon guy, the UPS guy, the mailman, the pizza guy, nobody is coming to your door anymore pretty soon. It's only takes a few quacks for this kind of thing.
what a goddamn shithole
Clearly we should arm delivery drivers with frag grenades.
It would be consistent with how the right likes to "solve" gun violence in schools.
Grenades sales wouldn't be as profitable to gun manufacturers as handguns and rifles, which is why its rare to see "grenades should he covered by the second amendment" but common to see "the answer to all these guns is even more guns".
It's no different to the days when tobacco companies claimed smoking was actually good for lung conditions, knowing full well that it wasn't.
Grenades sales wouldn't be as profitable
Well yeah, you're more likely to actually hit your target...
Dead bodies cant buy a new gun and return fire
Why not a Mk 19 mounted on their delivery vehicle?
I didn't say not too...
I wonder, does his homeowner insurance cover the damage? Do you go through your insurance?
Your insurance generally doesn't cover your own crimes.
I think they mean for the delivery guy. But the moron's insurance still won't pay out for this.
Exactly, to my knowledge all personal liability insurances do not cover acts of wrongful doing. The delivery driver will have to retain a lawyer and sue the moron personally.
So do you file it under your own insurance and they sue him?
Loophole: any time insurance agents show up to assess the situation, shot them.
That is the american way
What a culture!
I’m so glad I live in Massachusetts. Feels like the last bastion of sanity.
Or somewhere not in the us.
I mean that’s crazy coming to us. If I remember correctly that asshole was from Kansas or something.
That's my point, y'all aren't living in a bubble up in Mass, crazy shit happens everywhere.
That’s a little like arguing that being visited by an asylum escapee is the same as living in the asylum.
Fine. The brothers that bombed the Boston marathon were from Cambridge. Better?
I mean I never said Massachusetts was perfect? I’m not sure what dog you have in this fight but as far as sanity goes we’re pretty more sane than most of the state zeitgeist.
Hard to say though
‘MURICA!!
You can get the death penalty for a lot of things in the United States.
Death penalties follow a trial. These are just summary executions. Fuck, sometimes they don't even follow a crime.
You're missing my commentary. In the United States, some of the things that are punishable by death include pulling I to the wrong driveway, walking down the street, being asleep in your own bed, going to school, being black, being outside, etc.
These are only a few of the crimes that Americans get shot to death for, on a regular basis.
I got it, I just think you're still being too kind.
If you don’t wanna get shot, don’t have a job.
Edit: /s, but I thought that was obvious.
Leave Trump out of this! /s
🦅