The confrontation was the latest in a dispute between the two neighbors over Owens’ children playing in a grassy area near both of their houses. Prosecutors said Owens had come to Lorincz’s home after her children complained that she had allegedly thrown roller skates and an umbrella at them amid a long-running annoyance at their boisterous play outside.
I can’t even imagine how hateful you have to be to behave as this woman did.
I will admit that I find “boisterous play” annoying to have to hear. But I also recognize that children need to play and it’s my problem, not theirs. So I grumble and make jokes about getting a cane to shake at them. I don’t assault the children and then murder their mother, Jesus Christ.
Of course, I’m also not racist, and I’m sure that was a factor here.
Fights with neighbors, property rights, people get incredibly heated about it all. And often the only simple solution is to build a fence.
If you have no fence, but do have a racist with a quick trigger finger, this is not as unlikely as it should be. Which also shows why the Castle Doctrine is absurd, because it didn’t help her here but it should not help anyone in similar circumstances, yet it often does.
I remember racists trying to defend this piece of shit.
I don’t think in any other democracy than USA, could there be any doubt that this was outright murder.
Here’s a really good rule of thumb: don’t shoot someone that you feel threatened by until they break into your house. As long as they are outside–and not shooting at you through the door–you are not in imminent danger. This is a situation where you can readily call the cops and wait. If the neighbor had kicked the door in and come inside, then we’d be looking at a legitimate self-defense claim. But you will almost never get to claim self-defense if you’re shooting through a closed exterior door in your home at someone outside of your home.
If you’re going to carry for self-defense, the most important thing you can learn is de-escalation, so that you don’t murder someone.
Even if you are in imminent danger, maybe don’t shoot through a door to the outside? Responsible gun owners should be aware of the target and what’s beyond it. That’s really hard to do if there’s a door between you. She could have missed the person pounding the door and hit a kid or something.
My point is that it’s not imminent danger when there’s a hard barrier between you and them.
But yes, unlike cops, normal people are responsible for every single bullet that leaves their gun, regardless of their intentions.
Well, not unless you’re pretty sure you’re the only bluefor and the building is swarming with opfor… at that point I would shoot through a door. But pretty much only then
“Opfor” and “bluefor” isn’t a thing outside of military operations, and the military has entirely different rules of engagement than civilians do. I’m pretty sure that even cops intentionally firing blindly through a door are risking getting charged with murder.
That was the point of my post
Did Oscar Pelistorious teach them nothing!?
The ONLY ONLY LITERALLY ONLY way to have Prevented this was if the NEIGHBOR Shot the Woman FIRST! There’s Literally NO OTHER WAY to have Prevented this! I’m also Pro Life!
Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Associated Press:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
2nd Amendment my ass.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to shoot your neighbors shall not be infringed
How could they miss that critical protection?
She had a gun, which is the right the 2nd amendment gives you.
It doesnt give you the right to kill other people because you feel like it.
Exactly.
Even if the fact pattern were that the shooting was justified (and I don’t know enough of the facts to comment on that), being convicted incorrectly for it wouldn’t be related to the second amendment.
militia in the second amendment is a duty like a firefighter. If you own a gun you’re supposed to go help your neighbors when they need help. Its never been an “individual right”
Imo, there should be some kind of “good will” pledge people are forced to take every time they purchase a gun or ammo just so they are reminded the second amendment was 1700s communism.
I think you mean fuck the 2nd amendment. Because it does more harm than good.
The 2nd amendment says “a well regulated militia” and we do not have that. So maybe it’s fuck the politicians that keep our guns poorly regulated. That is what is doing more harm than good. The second amendment is designed to allow citizens to defend themselves from government tyranny not to have guns just for shits and giggles.
I know, and I don’t know how the “well regulated” part got to be completely ignored? But that’s how it is.
Regulated in that context wasn’t exactly like fishing regulations.
A regularly trained soldier was considered a regular, as opposed to an irregular who was only trained as they were needed. The founders wanted groups who got together and practiced so they could have a more effective army when they needed kill some indigenous people.
But why would we care what some 18th century slave owners thought when they were setting up a system to protect their class from the masses, the only guide to how the constitution is interperated is how it affects modern day society and anyone who tells you different is either lying to you or naive.
They OBVIOUSLY wrote THAT specific Part of the Amendment with common language but the REST of it was OBVIOUSLY written thinking about the Future! That’s why Regulation refers to THEIR Regulation but Arms refers to OUR arms hundreds of years later!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the “arms” line was understood to include field artillery in their time. They would not have cared about machine guns, other than thinking how easy it would be to put down a slave rebellion with them.
Fun Fact: one of the ways you became a commissioned officer at the time was not only buying the commission, thus the name, but outfitting the troops at least partly from your personal wealth. If you feel like getting some historical cultural shock look at how the old style armies were getting their arms, it’s all “Messir Tinglestamp purchased and donated twelve field guns from the proceeds of his harvest to help our campaign against the Godless Savages”
If you want to make Originalist arguments against the 2nd Amendment your best bet is arguing for another Amendment, which they were absolutely for to acknowledge a changing world and changing needs, not assuming a bunch of dead slavers thought like you.
Yeah dude, founding fathers wanted normal citizens to be able to fire off field artillery. I remember that part of the Federalist Papers.
We don’t have militias anymore, no matter how much you twist it in your head to justify or rationalize it, it’s just bullshit and you know it.
Because the second amendment is written like ass, even for back then
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Like, it’s stupidly easy to read that as “because militias are important the state can’t make laws impeding gun ownership”
What other interpretation is there?
There isn’t one. However the actual context is that the slavers were the ones pushing for the existence of abundant militias.
There was only one truly successful militia group in the Revolutionary War, led by the Swamp Fox and fighting as terrorists. The others were either ineffective or rolled into the Continental Army and trained as regulars.
The Founders knew this very well, and they didn’t truly believe militias would check the power of the federal government. What they could do, however, is stop slave rebellions who would be even more poorly equipped and unorganized, or push natives out of their homes without it being an official act of the government. Like the “settlers” in the West Bank today.
Edit: I see further down you actually knew this already.
Too bad SCOTUS doesn’t see it that way.
We all know that the SCOTUS has never been wrong about anything.
Good call.
Not just government tyranny, but outside threats too. When it was written, the state didn’t have the armies or infrastructure to defend the entire United States. Militias were intended to act as a national guard, should independence or the republic’s borders be encroached by outside nations. This required things to be “well-regulated” too. Who has what weapons and where should militias need to be raised to protect the free-state.
In no way can I fathom a militia comprised of today’s Gravy SEALs and common citizens being effective, either in organisation or physical ability. Ironically, their aid would likely be a negative things for forces protecting the state. All because of poor regulation.
