• Drusas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    3 months ago

    I don’t think in any other democracy than USA, could there be any doubt that this was outright murder.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      3 months ago

      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?

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

      • hime0321@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I know, and I don’t know how the “well regulated” part got to be completely ignored? But that’s how it is.

          • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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.

            • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              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!

              • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                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.

                • prole
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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.

          • prole
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            We all know that the SCOTUS has never been wrong about anything.

            Good call.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    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!