2 mo. ago • 99%

Colorado teen shot in the face by town councilman after going to home to ask permission to take homecoming photos

www.nbcnews.com Colorado teen shot in the face by town councilman after going to home to ask permission to take homecoming photos

A woman who lives at the home thought trespassers were on her property, authorities said. Her boyfriend was arrested in connection with the shooting.

News @lemmy.world Colorado teen shot in the face by town councilman after going to home to ask permission to take homecoming photos

United States | News & Politics @midwest.social Colorado teen shot in the face after going to home to ask permission to take homecoming photos

94 comments

The number of people in this country that think you're allowed to murder other people for trespassing is insane. Guy should spend a very long time in jail, the absolute shit-for-brains asshole.

117
- When you’ve got an arsenal of hammers you’re always looking for nails.
  
  These people are scared of everything.
  
  37
- They weren't even on his property when he jump from his vehicle and shot the kid.
  
  11
Oh woah that’s a new development - the dipshit was a local politician, too?

23
Oh shit, my gun just went off

Because you pulled the trigger. They don't just fire on their own.

20
Looks like a ranch.

Metz is a member of the Mountain View Town Council. Property records show he also owns a home in Mountain View under Hartwood Ranch LLC. https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/teen-searching-for-place-to-take-homecoming-photos-shot-in-the-face-by-homeowner-in-jefferson-county

It makes a lot more sense if you know how ranchers deal with "trespassing" animals.

-4
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.

-47
- The sheriff's office said the woman, who was not at the home, had called deputies before the shooting to report two trespassers on her property. She also called Metz, who drove over to the home and allegedly blocked the teen's car from leaving, KUSA reported. Metz then got out of his vehicle and is alleged to have fired one round through the windshield of the teen's car, the station reported.
  
  He blocked them in the property then shot them in their car
  
  81
  
  Yes, that is absolutely insane, I agree, and I am not trying to justify his actions. I just wanted to point out that it's not like some kids walked up to the door and got shot they were in fact trespassing, so the headline is a bit misleading.
  
  -35
- The woman who wasn't there and didn't shoot them?
  
  11
- You didnt finish the article. It says it was an accidental discharge.
  
  -41
  
  I don't think waving a gun around and blocking in a car is accidental.
  
  36
  
  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
  
  28
  
  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.
  
  17
  
  Claims it was an accidental discharge.
  
  10
  
  Glad to know I can do anything and just say "oopsie" afterwards and you'll be there to back me up.
  
  8
  
  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.
  
  5
Great, another article with a misleading headline, and when you read the article the crucial bit is in the last line, where its mentioned its likely an accidental discharge.

Seems like other news sources are mentioning this more explicitly.

Still shouldnt be waving guns around, or have them at all IMO, but thats no excuse for the poor framing of the article by the author.

Edit: I get it, we call them negligent discharges now. Doesnt change my point. This is not a random fit of murderous rage, its a mishandled firearm.

Can't talk about how dangerous guns are though right.

-89
- Accidental discharges don’t exist. They are called negligent discharges because guns don’t fire accidentally.
  
  45
  
  ...guns dont fire accidentally
  
  Oh yes they do, and its a contingency in any theater of war. New guns are required to be safer but old guns that are less safe still exist and are in use. I was raised shooting guns well older than I was...or am.
  
  And they can misfire which often means clearing a cartridge that might still go off. Fun times.
  
  -6
  
  Okay sure, I'll try and remember the new term. The guy did still fuck up but he didnt get out in a homicidal rage and shoot someone in the face before even saying a word.
  
  This is someone mishandling a gun who should know better because of their standing in the community, and I think a short prison term wouldnt be crazy for this.
  
  -27
- This is not a random fit of murderous rage, its a mishandled firearm.
  
  Drawing a gun is murderous because it suggests an intent to use it. If you don't draw a gun, you don't accidentally shoot someone. Words can solve a lot of problems. There's really no need for violence and assuming it's needed is flawed logic.
  
  37
  
  Just to add on to your excellent point here, this is often outlined in many forms of training. Never draw if you don't intend to use it. Brandishing is the stupidest shit possible.
  
  13
  
  I agree with this morally. I think the law in america doesnt agree with that but I'm not a lawyer.
  
  People open carry guns all over, including in ways that most would consider brandishing them.
  
  I think the real takeaway from this shooting is that when accidents with guns happen, people can get hurt or die, and its impossible to make everyone accident less, so to even own one is inherently dangerous.
  
  Because of that, you should have to have a real need to put that sort of danger on those around you.
  
  Everytime this happens we have the same list of replies saying they were just a bad person with a gun, they should just allow good people to have guns. Funny how every single poster here is one of those good people based on their own analysis.
  
  -11
- she took a loaded gun out and pointed it at the windshield. it goes off. says it was an accidential discharge. you believe it. you go and type it on the internet.
  
  36
  
  Isn't like one of the basic rules of gin ownership that you only point a gun at someone you are going to kill?
  
  36
  
  Not she, dude did it, she wasn't home.
  
  5
  
  The victims said it. Like I said, still wrong, but different wrong. Nuance is dead to you people.
  
  Oh and my favorite part is where pointing out details means I'm defending someone else.
  
  The guy should go to prison for it. Does that make you happy?
  
  -16
- accidental discharge.
  
  HE AIMED HIS FIREARM AT A CHILD IN A VEHICLE.
  
  Accidental discharge my ass, you don't play with firearms you treat them as if they're loaded and ready to go at all times BECAUSE LAZINESS KILLS PEOPLE.
  
  An accidental discharge goes into the sky or the ground. This fucker was AIMING AT THE KIDS HEAD.
  
  34
  
  Sounds like BS. Everyone knows you only point a gun at something you intend to destroy, and you keep the safety on until you are absolutely sure. This guy did neither, he's just lying at this point.
  
  12
  
  He intended to citizens arrest or something along those lines. He didnt intend to shoot though, which doesn't change much, but I at least think an accident is different than on purpose.
  
  Still guilty of something, and honestly wouldnt be too shocked if the charge was the same regardless.
  
  -11
- I don't think anyone outside of the US is going to care at all about this distinction. I know I don't. Accidentally shooting someone because you're an idiot with a gun is just another reason why people shouldn't be allowed to own and carry guns.
  
  26
  
  The reason I bring it up is because americans are again going to say this was just an idiot with a gun.
  
  He took training classes just like everyone else in here shouting about gun safety. He is a town councilman. He is not an idiot with a gun, he's an above average example of an American, which should be terrifying.
  
  The takeaway here is that America has too few regulations on firearms. In fact it should be flipped, where noone gets a gun unless they have a proven need for one.
  
  2
- This wasn't "negligence" or "accidental". He was deliberately pointing the gun at the individual. It wasn't unintentionally pointed at him. It wasn't accidentally pointed at him. The bullet didn't unexpectedly ricochet off of something to hit the teen. He deliberately chose to point a gun at another person. That deliberate handling of the gun eliminates the possibility of "negligence".
  
  I don't quite know how you didn't, but you managed to piss off both gun owners and hoplophobes with that comment, and those groups can't seem to agree on anything else.
  
  20
- How is it misleading? Shot in the face.. that did happen.
  
  7
  
  When you leave stuff out, peoples brains fill in the blanks.
  
  What did you expect the story would be about? And how many people in this thread posted stuff that was contradicted by the content of the article.
  
  Do you want a better example of a headline?
  
  -8

You've viewed 94 comments.