Attorneys for a Colorado man facing felony charges of second-degree assault with a deadly weapon resulting in serious bodily injury, two counts of menacing with a weapon, and illegal discharge of a firearm after shooting a 17-year-old in the face while the teen was sitting in a vehicle on the man's property say their client was a victim as well. Brent Metz was carrying a Sig Sauer P320 when it discharged and struck the teen last September, and his lawyers argue that Metz never pulled the trigger. Instead, they claim the gun discharged as he was taking it from his truck and placing it in a holster on his hip. 

"He's absolutely sorry for what happened. It was a complete mistake. It was an unintentional firing of his weapon," said defense attorney David Jones. Jones and co-counsel Chris Decker plan to make the case that the weapon used by Brent Metz in the shooting along Pleasant Park Road in Conifer was faulty and misfired. The teen survived. 

The defense blames the functioning of the Sig Sauer P320 that Metz used.

"There are a number of circumstances well documented where these weapons are going off without the intent or physical interaction of the person holding it," said Decker. "Should there be responsibility? Absolutely. And we feel that should fall on Sig Sauer."

There have been a number of civil suits filed against Sig alleging that the P320 pistol can fire without the trigger being pulled, though the company maintains that "those claims are without merit and have been soundly rejected as a matter of law." And there's at least some indication that Metz didn't intend to discharge his pistol when he stopped his truck behind the car where the teens were sitting and approached the pair. 

In an arrest affidavit from the time, a Jefferson County Sheriff's Office investigator said Metz, 39, shot a 17-year-old high school student in the face while the teen was sitting in his car with a friend outside a home owned by Metz through an LLC. The teens told investigators that they tried to ask the homeowner for permission to take high school homecoming dance pictures on their property.

The 17-year-old and his 15-year-old friend tried speaking with the homeowner of a 33-acre property with horse barns, a pond, and views of the mountains, investigators said. They heard music playing at the property, hopped the fence to knock on the door, and when no one answered, they returned to their car on Pleasant Park Road. While in their car, they began writing a note to leave for the homeowner, which sheriff's office investigators recovered.

"There is nothing so far that we have learned that would cause us to believe that this was- that there was any intent to commit crimes that they were doing anything that would have been malicious or criminal other than stepping across their fence," Jefferson County Sheriff's spokesperson Jacki Kelley told CBS News Colorado in September. 

Someone at the home saw the teens on security cameras and called Metz, who came home, got out of his truck with a handgun, pointed it at one of the teens, and shot him, striking him in the face, according to an arrest report. The other teen told investigators that he heard Metz say, "Oh s..., my gun went off."

I'm curious to see if Metz will file a civil lawsuit against Sig Sauer before his criminal trial begins next month. If he's going to blame the gunmaker for a teen getting shot in the face, it seems to be that he'd want to take steps to hold Sig liable at the earliest opportunity, and certainly before a jury has a chance to decide whether he should go to prison. 

Former prosecutor Raj Chohan told CBS Denver that the defense's theory may not be as bulletproof as they're hoping for, pointing out that Metz will likely have to take the stand to describe his version of events, which opens the door for prosecutors to quiz him about what led to the shooting. 

He said, "The question is going to be, why did you pull the gun to begin with? And if you didn't mean to use it, why was it out? And why did you block the car in?"

The jury will have to weigh the motivation behind Metz's claims and any conflict with other testimony, particularly from the boys.

"There's going to be some deference given to what they saw and what they remember. And the person who's got the most self-serving version of this is going to be the shooter," said Chohan.

But he added that the defense is doing its job, going after the issue of intent, which is important for the most serious charge of assault in the second degree. The district attorney in Jefferson County had no comment, noting the case is pending.

The assault charge may be the most serious one that Metz faces, but menacing and illegal discharge charges are also felonies. I suppose if the jury accepts that Metz (and the teen who was shot) was the victim of a negligent discharge that could result in an acquittal on the charge of illegally discharging his firearm, but the menacing charge could be a bigger hurdle to overcome. 

The biggest question may be whether Metz "knowingly" placed or attempted to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury through threats or physical actions involving a firearm, which is what felony menacing entails in Colorado. Did Metz intend to scare the teens by pointing a gun at them, or did he inadvertently swing the barrel of his pistol towards the teens as he was grabbing his handgun from his truck to put it on his hip? I don't know the answer, but even if the jurors believe that Metz's pistol suffered a mechanical failure at that precise moment they're still going to have to decide whether prosecutors have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Metz intended to terrify the teens instead of getting his gun to protect himself against an unknown threat.