• diskmaster23
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think waving a gun around and blocking in a car is accidental.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The intention is to stop criminals from leaving a crime. Citizens arrests in america are a thing, and some glorify the idea.

        In america, guns are tools like forks and knives. Keep em on your hip, forget they are there type of thing. Other countries would grab a bat or stick, americans grab guns. Its intimidation either way but when you mishandle a stick nothing happens.

        Mishandling a firearm happens to every firearm owner at least once, and mishandling a firearm can result in unintended death and destruction.

        • socphoenix@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 months ago

          In the US (including Colorado), citizens arrests are only legal for felonies. Last I checked hopping a fence isn’t a felony so blocking them in and waving a gun is just a multitude of gun crimes and kidnapping charges even if he didn’t shoot one of them.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I don’t think a gun should be involved in the first place. Legally speaking its possible you could argue you thought they were committing a felony. Breaking and entering us a felony in most places.

            Thats all just to show how awful the system is built in America.

        • diskmaster23
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          It sounds like the argument you made is to limit the use of firearms to reduce the amount of accidents.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah that would be the very basic idea. The general population simply is not capable of handling guns on the scale it currently is.

            Gun ownership needs to be based on actual need rather than fear.

    • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      2 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

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 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.

    • Fermion@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      2 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.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 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.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 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.

        • Mesophar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 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.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 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.

            • Mesophar@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 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.

              • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 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@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

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

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 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?

    • Gerudo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 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.