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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
It's not premeditated, but I wouldn't say it lacks intent. Aiming a gun in someone's direction and pulling the trigger is a very deliberate, intentional act.
As they are a gun owner and should understand the consequences, there's no way this person could make the claim that they didn't think shooting at someone might kill them.
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.
I just don't think that argument would fly in court, though. Even if the stated "intent" is not to kill, it's a reckless disregard of a reasonable risk of murder that the shooter is conscious of.
If I swing a punch at someone and hit them hard enough that they suffer a traumatic brain injury and die (like that could ever happen with these spaghetti arms), I would still culpable for that death as manslaughter because it was an intentional act that carries an inherent risk of harm.
If a cop ends up shooting a defenseless person in the torso, they shouldn't be allowed to say "I didn't mean to hit them, I was trying to shoot their belt off so their pants would fall and they couldn't run away." Likewise, if some kids are playing in the park and someone starts opening fire in their direction, you also can't just explain it away as "I thought there were snakes in the grass, I was trying to protect them." You bear the burden of responsibility for every bullet you shoot. Even if you miss every shot, that is still criminal negligence at best, attempted manslaughter or murder at worse.
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 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.
"(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."
"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'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.
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.
I know a guy who in 2021 saw a single teenage girl with a BLM sign on a street corner outside St. Louis and has a panic attack, proceeded to invest in home security.
Seriously. He saw it as a signal that his 'enemies' who would be his enslavers are invading his space and that he wouldn't be safe.
I didn’t say it is normal. I said to many Americans it is ok to pick up a gun and shoot someone for ringing their doorbell or parking on their driveway.
The word ok does not even appear in that comment, but you said normal twice. You said "they think it's normal" and I'm saying I disagree. I think only the select few stories that get sensationalized are the people who think it's normal, but not the vast majority of the population.
But to the guy in the article, and the guy who shot some teen for knocking on his door, this is perfectly normal, acceptable behaviour. That is what I meant when I said "to many Americans".
I didnt think I needed the word "ok". But I wasnt clear enough.
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.
