• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    63 months ago

    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.

      • Ben Hur Horse Race
        link
        fedilink
        283 months ago

        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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          23 months ago

          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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        17
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          33 months ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            73 months ago

            Personally it makes no difference. This wouldn’t happen if you guys had sane gun laws like the rest of us.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              23 months ago

              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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            63 months ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              13 months ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                13 months ago

                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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  23 months ago

                  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.

      • Kaity
        link
        fedilink
        English
        83 months ago

        Glad to know I can do anything and just say “oopsie” afterwards and you’ll be there to back me up.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          13 months ago

          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?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        53 months ago

        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.