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 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.
Does that mean he could have taken shots if he posted a no trespassing sign?
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 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.
apparently not. I looked it up out of curiosity:
the requirements for lethal force:
this would fail the last one.
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.