890
Teen pizza delivery driver shot at multiple times after parking in the wrong driveway
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 03 May 2024
890 points (98.8% liked)
News
23304 readers
4769 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Please make sure this fuckhead is never allowed to touch a firearm for the rest of his life. And give him a few years in a secluded spot to think about what he did wrong.
Sincerely,
Responsible Gun Owners
You know what this guy was before he tried to kill someone for the first time?
A responsible gun owner.
"Responsible" as in "doesn't know the laws regarding firearms ownership in his area so he just tried to shoot someone he was never legally allowed to even if he was breaking into his car?"
Trust me on this one, anyone who owns guns but doesn't know how to use them safely, efficiently, and legally, isn't "responsible," as those are prerequisites for "responsibility."
The point is there is no way to distinguish the two until they try to kill someone or kill someone. (And seemingly every effort to make it possible to distinguish the two ahead of time - well, you know how those go.)
Right, you can't know what's in the can until you open it. Unfortunately there isn't really a way to distinguish it ahead of time in many cases.
Sure, there are cases like Parkland, in which Broward Co had received over 40 calls about Cruz in the years before the shooting and each time decided not to charge him with a felony or hold him on an adjucated IVC, both of which could have been done but weren't. Same for that recent kid who's parents got charged, he had been begging for help, there are times which we could've done something even with our current laws and the system failed. In those cases there was a clear indication of the "can's contents" so to speak. There is clear evidence to speak that they are a danger, and we can already do something about that, even if sometimes we fail to do so (and I blame in part, in the above cases, Broward Co Sherrifs and the kid's parents respectively for their failure to act on the information they had).
But that isn't what they're advocating for. They want everyone to be treated as if they are a danger without evidence simply because "some people are." That is frankly the antithesis of our justice system, which considers (at least ostensibly) people innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I agree that taking guns from people who have proven themselves dangerous is a good idea, and that it can be done before significant harm is done in many cases. What I do not agree on is the concept of being considered dangerous without any evidence to base the assumption on.
And yet, we have the patterns of behavior we see in our police. That's tangential, but I couldn't not mention it in response to this comment.
You know what would shut me the hell up on gun control? These simple measures, which would be treated by the right like I'm calling for a total ban on guns.
Caveats:
Would my plan solve every problem? No. Would it be a better solution to school shootings and other related issues than "let's arm teachers and everyone else Wyatt Earp style?" Yes, yes it would. And, like any such measure, it could be further refined over time.
Edit - I made a distinction between owner and operator, I think this makes it better. shrug
And yet we continuously decry this as "bad." It's wrong when they do it yet you encourage it more. Guess you're one of those "thin blue line" guys who thinks it's good if you want to do it too, eh?
2a prevents this, it would have to be overturned to pass. Licensure is seen as turning a right into a privilege by the courts. Personally I don't like it because of how easily it could be abused to deny "the dangerous blacks" or "those suicidal trans" from gun ownership by an "instructor" so inclined.
See above. Though I did want to mention accidents are on the low end of our actual problem in terms of numbers. I think gun safety is important too but this does nothing to stop murderers and the like.
The license thing being blocked by the 2a still throws a wrench in your plan, but these are the guys who can decide "I won't approve guns for blacks" that I was referring to. Currently, these people are sheriffs doing it with carry permits, because that's the extent of their power, but it is being done as black people are iirc 60-70% of permit denials in some areas. Furthermore some guy deciding I'm "weird" is no basis for denying me rights. Even if it isn't due to skin color, I'm certainly not christian, what if I happen to wear my Anti-Christ Demoncore (great band) shirt and the instructor decides that's a "red flag" simply because he doesn't understand Vegan Satanists from California aren't actually all that bad just because they use scary imagry? Hell, "those columbine kids loved metallica, any metalhead shouldn't own a gun" is a thing I've actually heard before. Having the basis for denial of rights being anything other than "is criminal" opens denial of rights up far too wide.
Sheriffs currently can do this to some degree with those permits, it's just that those "red flags" are often "is black."
Frankly safety doesn't change much over time, the guns themselves haven't even changed all that much in the last 100yr.
But they can have them unlicensed at home even though they can't legally own them at all without a license? A) How would they get it home from the store? B) From the home to the range?
So if you carry it illegally out and don't get attacked and don't shoot anyone but get searched by an overzealous likely racist cop you're fucked, but if you do get attacked and kill a guy it's cool that you were carrying illegally? Why not just not harass the guy for not getting attacked?
Well sure lol.
LOL you are either being intentionally obtuse, or otherwise reaching so far, I don't really see the point in trying to tease any further nuance out of this discussion.
I do find it genuinely amusing that my sideswipe at police was interpreted as a pro-police statement - but clearly we're having two different conversations.
You're the one who says we should do a thing, I say that thing is bad, you say "well cops do the thing," how can I take that other than tacit admission you think the cops doing the thing you think is good, is good?
I'm sure in reality you simply have a rationalization for why you think it both is bad but also should be done more, but I had to have a little fun.
Youre hearing about him after he tried to kill someone for the first time. I said before. Now, think to before this happened, how do you tell this guy isnt a responsible gun owner?
These aren’t the actions of a responsible gun owner …
I think you missed the word before
Didnt see myself needing it to be honest...I thought I was clear in that what I meant was it is normal to some, not all. Ill try to be clearer in future.
Did he know the laws before, simply getting amnesia the day he broke them thus "becoming" an irresponsible gun owner, or did he never know the laws, and was always an irresponsible gun owner?
Whether you can tell or not has no basis on whether he is or not. Can you tell what is inside of an unlabeled soup can before you open it? No, but that doesn't make it not chicken noodle, you just have to open it before you know that it's chicken noodle. Just because he hadn't opened his can and shown his irresponsible contents doesn't mean they weren't in there to begin with, the closed can doesn't contain tomato soup until you open it and it magically becomes chicken noodle now that it is open.
I know youre used to the US where tons of gun homicides happen everyday, but its not normal for the rest of the developed world. If you want guns to be a safe thing, you have to be able to tell before these people go murdering. Hindsight is 20/20. There are people today that are going to kill someone for the first time, people that to the outside world look like responsible gun owners.
Unfortunately, like unlabeled cans, people are able to hide their contents. Unlike the cans, people can even actively attempt to resist "opening" them to find out their contents, making it all that more of an impossible task.
right, do you see the problem here? To the outside world, a responsible gun owner, and an irresponsible one that hasnt killed yet look the same. how do you keep guns away from irresponsible gun owners before they kill someone? You have to treat every gun owner as irresponsible, because we cant tell before it happens. And it needs to stop happening.
Ah yes, guilty until proven innocent, the backbone of the American justice system, and a good way to treat one's fellow human.
I dont think you know what our justice system does with people guilty of shooting people if you think that's what Im suggesting.
Yes, shooting people, the only thing one could possibly be considered "guilty" of, how could I forget.
I mean, that's what we're talking about
Well technically we're talking about people who haven't hurt anyone who through some minority report precognition we have decided will shoot someone beyond a shadow of a doubt, enough so that we can deprive them of their rights like a criminal even though they aren't one yet.
Hell tbh, why stop there? If we've determined that a person has a high enough percentage chance to kill someone one day, why simply remove legal access to one tool with which he could do so instead of removing the would-be killer himself, either through preemptive execution or life imprisonment? Hell, they were statistically similar to murderers of the past so we may as well, right? I mean as long as we're doing pre-crime it makes sense to me!
This isnt punishment for any kind of crime. Like, no one is allowed to drive drunk. Some people can manage it, they drive drunk anyway and never hit anyone. Are we depriving them of their rights? Am i treating them like criminals by not letting them drive drunk? I dont know what warped dystopian images youve got in your head of a world where people arent allowed to have guns, because we have a reality to look at. Places like Germany and Japan already do this. Are those awful places to live to you?
Right, nobody is allowed to drive drunk, yet we don't have checks at the local liquor store based on who is "more likely" to drive drunk, we punish those who get caught doing it with jail and Blow 'N' Gos, as those are the ones who have proven themselves to be irresponsible.
If we said "sorry but someone decided that you look like the type to drink and drive so you're not ever allowed to buy or consume alcohol," that would be a violation of their rights, and that is what you want to do with your pre-crime nonsense.
Yes. Germany and Japan would be awful places to live to me, and that is without even considering they don't trust their citizens to protect themselves. Germany would be the better of the two but, still nein, Japan is xenophobic and since I'm an "outsider" it sounds like a lame place to live. Combine that with the whole "Japanese police inspect every home in their district 1x/yr just cause, looking for that evil, evil, marijuana and can hold suspects indefinitely forcing confessions leading to a 98% conviction rate which is widely regarded as likely a large amount of unjust convictions" thing and yeaaahhh if you live there I can see why you're unfamiliar with being treated like a human.
You're throwing in a lot of your own shit. Havent said anything about this being criminal, about screening or having checks or how anyone looks. I havent said any of that. No one is allowed to own a gun same as no one is allowed to drive drunk.
Why would germany be an awful place to live? With its higher standard of living, higher life expectancy, much lower crime rates, better wages and access to healthcare. Thats the thing, i dont think you know what its like outside the US. Youre obsessed with having a gun to protect yourself because gun violence is common here. Germans dont need to protect themselves from gun violence because no one has guns. They just dont have that worry altogether.
Ah so to you, "owning a gun" should be a criminal offense, akin to driving drunk, which is a criminal offense, yet "you haven't said anything about this being criminal," just that it should be a crime, got it...
Lol I don't think you know what it's like inside the US, frankly. It isn't like it's Gaza over here, our violence is also largely localized in 5 counties which are easy to avoid as our entire country is comparable in size to the whole EU, not just Des Vaterland which is smaller than Montana alone. Not trying to rip on Germany too hard, Schwarzwalder kuchen ist sehr lekker and all, and I hear Frankfurt has the best hookers in all the world, but it isn't as if I feel the need to escape war torn South Dakota.
Germany has no violent crime, eh?
"But, but, there's less overall.." yes yes, but "less overall" matters little when you're being attacked with a blunt instrument or knife, as you'd likely be screaming "Oh mein gott help bitte" instead of "thankfully though I will die here I will be part of a smaller statistic than the US!" Well, maybe you will, if your nationalist ego is still the most important thing to you with however many stab wounds you happen to be leaking from. I on the other hand would prefer to be able to at least attempt to save myself given the unlikely scenario in which it becomes a necessity, and thankfully where I live allows me the freedom with which to do so. You on the other hand do not wish to defend yourself in the unlikely scenario in which it becomes a necessity, and thankfully for you where you live does not allow you the freedom to do so. Problem solved, everyone's happy.
yes. this is very different than you claiming Im treating people like criminals before they own a gun.
I live here. I have heard so many gunshots. People have been murdered a few dozen feet from my front door. There are shootings daily on the local news.
you're a goddamn lunatic. Of course less overall fucking matters if you dont wanna be attacked. It means you're less bloody likely to be attacked!
Well, there are already 600,000,000+ guns in 167,457,447 people's possession. So you're too late on that one.
But you are attempting to treat people how we treat criminals (removal of rights) without them having committed a crime. Like, by definition that is what you're doing.
Sounds like you should move out of your neighborhood as it is one of those 5 counties with 50% of the murders. Hell, move to ~~paradise~~ Der Vaterland if you're so inclined, but you could literally escape that by going one or two counties over. Or stay, but if you do I'd buy a gun.
You're a goddamned moron (two can play this game). You may be less likely to be attacked, but some people are attacked there nonetheless, and for those people, frequency likely stops mattering as they are being stabbed, as it is currently happening despite the rarity. It isn't pokemon cards, they don't suddenly go "yes I'm dying but really this is lucky because it's so rare to be brutally murdered here like I currently am."
If all it takes is 40 questions and some for show handling test? The system is fucked and not strict as others would make you believe.
Car license is 10x harder here and that's still loose.
Eh, he clearly was not, but I'm not here to get into a debate about guns or gun control. We definitely need way less of the former and way more of the latter but everybody has different ideas on that and I've had that online argument dozens of times.
Alright see you next crazy shooting
Hope not but it's inevitable since our leaders are unwilling to change anything.
The difference between a responsible gun owner and a fucking lunatic with a firearm is one mistake.
He's been charged with a felony, the only thing that could "save" him there is pleading down or acquittal. We do have some laws, y'know.
Signed.