• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      this is not entirely accurate.

      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.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        apparently not. I looked it up out of curiosity:

        the requirements for lethal force:

        • Person not engaged in unlawful activity;
        • Person in a place they have a legal right to be;
        • Reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;
        • The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time;
        • The belief is founded on reasonable grounds.

        this would fail the last one.

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        I don’t think a good-faith misdelivery is trespassing, so no. Unless you want any delivery to be done by throwing the box from the curb.