Opinion, H/T Armed Attorneys on X.

Self-defense is a fundamental legal right, but its nuances and limitations can often lead to complex legal battles, particularly when the defense is invoked in cases involving trespassers. The recent case of Brent Metz, a Colorado town council member who shot a 17-year-old trespasser in the face, raises important questions about when self-defense is legally justified and the challenges individuals face in asserting such claims.

Let us break down the legal principles at play in this case to clarify why self-defense may not apply in this situation. A well-informed audience understands the importance of protecting oneself but must also recognize the legal boundaries that must be respected.

Background of the Event

In September of 2024, the incident occurred near Conifer, Colorado, roughly 30 miles southwest of Denver. Two teenagers, aged 17 and 15, jumped a fence onto private property to ask for permission to take homecoming photos. Finding no one home, they returned to their car, which was parked on a public road, to write a note requesting permission from the property owner.

At this point, Brent Metz, a member of the Mountain View Town Council, arrived in his truck. Without saying a word, he allegedly fired a shot through the windshield of the teenagers’ car, striking the 17-year-old in the face. Metz later claimed that his gun accidentally discharged, reportedly saying, “Oh s…, my gun went off,” according to the victim’s friend.

The teen survived, but the legal battle for Metz is far from over. He faces charges of second-degree assault, felony menacing, and illegal discharge of a firearm. Despite Metz’s claims, the legal complexities surrounding self-defense, especially in situations involving trespassing, suggest his defense will face serious hurdles.

Self-Defense vs. Property Defense

At the heart of this case is the distinction between protecting one’s property and using deadly force in self-defense. As discussed by the Armed Attorneys, self-defense laws generally do not permit the use of deadly force against someone merely for trespassing. In this case, the teens did not pose an immediate physical threat to Metz or anyone else, as they were simply writing a note after leaving the property.

Under Colorado law, which mirrors the laws in many other states, deadly force can only be used when there is an immediate and credible threat of serious harm or death. Trespassing alone does not meet this threshold. For Metz to claim self-defense, he would have needed to demonstrate that the teens posed an imminent threat to his life or safety at the time he fired the gun. Since the teens were back in their car on a public road, any perceived threat would have already passed.

The distinction between “force” and “deadly force” is critical here. As the Armed Attorneys noted, property owners can use reasonable force to remove trespassers, but this typically does not involve pulling a trigger. Instead, verbal commands or even physical removal may be legally justified depending on the circumstances. However, the moment a gun is fired, the legal stakes change dramatically.

The Problem with Pursuing the Interaction

Another crucial aspect of self-defense law is the principle of “innocence,” which means that the person claiming self-defense must not have initiated or escalated the confrontation. In this case, Metz approached the teens after they had left the property and were no longer trespassing. By pursuing them on a public road, Metz arguably escalated the situation, weakening his claim of self-defense. As the Armed Attorneys pointed out, self-defense is much harder to justify when the individual seeking to claim it has sought out or provoked the confrontation.

This principle of non-escalation is vital in self-defense cases, and it highlights why Metz’s actions on the road may undercut his claim. A common legal mantra in self-defense cases is that the defendant should be “minding their own business” when the threat arises.

In contrast, Metz initiated the interaction after the perceived threat had already dissipated.

The Gun Accident Defense

Metz’s alleged statement that “my gun went off” further complicates his defense. Self-defense claims rely on the shooter intentionally using force in response to a perceived threat. An accidental discharge suggests negligence, not intentionality, and courts are unlikely to treat an unintentional shooting as justifiable self-defense.

While negligence may not always result in criminal charges, the specific circumstances of this case—firing a weapon during an interaction with teenagers who posed no threat—could easily be seen as recklessness. Under the law, recklessness can lead to serious criminal charges, as it reflects a disregard for the known risks associated with one’s actions.

Lessons for Gun Owners

For gun owners, this case offers important lessons about the boundaries of self-defense. Protecting property is a legitimate concern, but the law is clear: deadly force is only justified in response to an imminent and serious threat to life or safety. When it comes to trespassers, especially those who pose no immediate threat, gun owners must exercise extreme caution.

Confrontations can escalate quickly, as this case demonstrates. A trespasser can become a greater threat if they escalate the situation, but until that moment, gun owners must be careful not to overreact. The situation with the teenagers was tragic, but it could have been avoided if Metz had called law enforcement instead of taking matters into his own hands.

While self-defense is a right that every gun owner should understand and be prepared to exercise, it comes with responsibilities and limitations. The Brent Metz case shows how quickly a claim of self-defense can unravel when the legal boundaries are not carefully followed. Whether it was an accident or not, Metz’s decision to confront the teens and fire his weapon has led to serious legal consequences, and his defense will hinge on navigating the complex interplay of property rights, self-defense laws, and the intent behind his actions.

Gun owners must remember that while defending life is a clear legal right, defending property requires a far more measured response.

AmmoLand Readers: In situations like this, where a trespasser is not an immediate danger, how would you have handled the encounter differently? What steps should be taken to avoid escalating such situations?”