3-year old kills self playing with gun, parents blame Wii

[Chibibar]

I don't think it fits negligent homicide because he didn't have a conscious disregard for the risk and putting a gun on a counter, while stupid, is not a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. Stupid people do that all the time.

Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?[/QUOTE]

They were driving the car, they were IN CONTROL of what kills the people. That is completely different than leaving a gun on a counter. If the guy had been pretending he was a gunslinger and then accidentally shot the kid, lock his ass up. But all he did was leave a gun on a counter and the kid shot herself. Not the same thing.[/QUOTE]


So I'm going to 'stupidly' put the car in cruise control and go fall asleep on the backseat. Not in control.[/QUOTE]

I would have to agree with Chaz on Drunk driving killing and neglegence of leaving firearm are the same level.

Both you are in control. It just take an extra step to avoid the whole situation.
The drunk person could have call a cab and NOT drive.
The father could have unload the weapon and left on the counter (not prefer)

 

[makare]

I don't think it fits negligent homicide because he didn't have a conscious disregard for the risk and putting a gun on a counter, while stupid, is not a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. Stupid people do that all the time.

Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?[/QUOTE]

They were driving the car, they were IN CONTROL of what kills the people. That is completely different than leaving a gun on a counter. If the guy had been pretending he was a gunslinger and then accidentally shot the kid, lock his ass up. But all he did was leave a gun on a counter and the kid shot herself. Not the same thing.[/QUOTE]


So I'm going to 'stupidly' put the car in cruise control and go fall asleep on the backseat. Not in control.[/QUOTE]

I would have to agree with Chaz on Drunk driving killing and neglegence of leaving firearm are the same level.

Both you are in control. It just take an extra step to avoid the whole situation.
The drunk person could have call a cab and NOT drive.
The father could have unload the weapon and left on the counter (not prefer)[/QUOTE]

By law it isn't the same. In one case the person is controlling the method of death and in the other he isn't. You cant change the facts or circumstances to make them the same,unless you are speaking in hypothetical instead of the actual case here. But the guy would still have to be holding the gun to make them the same.

 

[Chazwozel]

I don't think it fits negligent homicide because he didn't have a conscious disregard for the risk and putting a gun on a counter, while stupid, is not a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. Stupid people do that all the time.

Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?[/QUOTE]

They were driving the car, they were IN CONTROL of what kills the people. That is completely different than leaving a gun on a counter. If the guy had been pretending he was a gunslinger and then accidentally shot the kid, lock his ass up. But all he did was leave a gun on a counter and the kid shot herself. Not the same thing.[/QUOTE]


So I'm going to 'stupidly' put the car in cruise control and go fall asleep on the backseat. Not in control.[/QUOTE]

I would have to agree with Chaz on Drunk driving killing and neglegence of leaving firearm are the same level.

Both you are in control. It just take an extra step to avoid the whole situation.
The drunk person could have call a cab and NOT drive.
The father could have unload the weapon and left on the counter (not prefer)[/QUOTE]

By law it isn't the same. In one case the person is controlling the method of death and in the other he isn't. You cant change the facts or circumstances to make them the same,unless you are speaking in hypothetical instead of the actual case here. But the guy would still have to be holding the gun to make them the same.[/QUOTE]

So what you're saying is we can go around a city leaving bombs in briefcases that say "don't pick me up" around a city. As soon as someone picks up said briefcase, it explodes. Can't blame me. WONK WONK WOOOOONNNNKKK!!!!

 

[makare]

I don't think it fits negligent homicide because he didn't have a conscious disregard for the risk and putting a gun on a counter, while stupid, is not a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. Stupid people do that all the time.

Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?[/QUOTE]

They were driving the car, they were IN CONTROL of what kills the people. That is completely different than leaving a gun on a counter. If the guy had been pretending he was a gunslinger and then accidentally shot the kid, lock his ass up. But all he did was leave a gun on a counter and the kid shot herself. Not the same thing.[/QUOTE]


So I'm going to 'stupidly' put the car in cruise control and go fall asleep on the backseat. Not in control.[/QUOTE]

I would have to agree with Chaz on Drunk driving killing and neglegence of leaving firearm are the same level.

Both you are in control. It just take an extra step to avoid the whole situation.
The drunk person could have call a cab and NOT drive.
The father could have unload the weapon and left on the counter (not prefer)[/QUOTE]

By law it isn't the same. In one case the person is controlling the method of death and in the other he isn't. You cant change the facts or circumstances to make them the same,unless you are speaking in hypothetical instead of the actual case here. But the guy would still have to be holding the gun to make them the same.[/QUOTE]

So what you're saying is we can go around a city leaving bombs in briefcases that say "don't pick me up" around a city. As soon as someone picks up said briefcase, it explodes. Can't blame me. WONK WONK WOOOOONNNNKKK!!!![/QUOTE]

No because that would be GROSS negligence. It would be depraved heart murder. and it would NOT be the same as this situation. I am not saying anything remotely like that. Like I said, maybe you shouldn't try to talk about the law... or go learn about it first or SOMETHING.

 

[Chazwozel]

I'd consider leaving a loaded gun on the table as the very definition of gross negligence.

An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.
Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.


Yeah I think leaving a loaded gun on the table fits nice.

 

[makare]

I'd consider leaving a loaded gun on the table as the very definition of gross negligence.

you could probably argue that it is, that is the beauty of the law. But I would be right there arguing that IN THIS CASE (getting to argue a case by case basis also a beauty part of the law) it wasn't.

Also, I think that is the civil definition of negligence, not the criminal one. There is no cause of action in the criminal sense and you don't get punitive or any other damages in a criminal case.

 

[Chazwozel]

I'd consider leaving a loaded gun on the table as the very definition of gross negligence.

you could probably argue that it is, that is the beauty of the law. But I would be right there arguing that IN THIS CASE (getting to argue a case by case basis also a beauty part of the law) it wasn't.

Also, I think that is the civil definition of negligence, not the criminal one. There is no cause of action in the criminal sense and you don't get punitive or any other damages in a criminal case.[/QUOTE]

.

 

[makare]

I do however respect that you at least tried to educate yourself. Just remember no damages in criminal law, damages are what dictates what a jury says a defendant has to pay a plaintiff in a civil case.

 

[Chazwozel]

I do however respect that you at least tried to educate yourself. Just remember no damages in criminal law, damages are what dictates what a jury says a defendant has to pay a plaintiff in a civil case.

So this is how you impress a lawyer? Copy and paste shit you googled in 10 seconds? Fuck! I should have gone to law school!

 

[makare]

I do however respect that you at least tried to educate yourself. Just remember no damages in criminal law, damages are what dictates what a jury says a defendant has to pay a plaintiff in a civil case.

So this is how you impress a lawyer? Copy and paste shit you googled in 10 seconds? Fuck! I should have gone to law school![/QUOTE]

Actually I mocked you by saying you should have had a PhD in wikipedia. So no I was unimpressed by what you said.
But at least you kind of sort of tried to be more knowledgeable.. you failed miserably but you know I worked preschool for years I am used to saying "yay you walked without falling down.. good job"

 

[Chazwozel]

I do however respect that you at least tried to educate yourself. Just remember no damages in criminal law, damages are what dictates what a jury says a defendant has to pay a plaintiff in a civil case.

So this is how you impress a lawyer? Copy and paste shit you googled in 10 seconds? Fuck! I should have gone to law school![/QUOTE]

Actually I mocked you by saying you should have had a PhD in wikipedia. So no I was unimpressed by what you said.
But at least you kind of sort of tried to be more knowledgeable.. you failed miserably but you know I worked preschool for years I am used to saying "yay you walked without falling down.. good job"[/QUOTE]


Well if you want a pissing contest. There's no doubt in my mind I could easily do what you do, and you'd shit a brick at what I do.

 

[Dubyamn]

I do however respect that you at least tried to educate yourself. Just remember no damages in criminal law, damages are what dictates what a jury says a defendant has to pay a plaintiff in a civil case.

So this is how you impress a lawyer? Copy and paste shit you googled in 10 seconds? Fuck! I should have gone to law school![/QUOTE]

Actually I mocked you by saying you should have had a PhD in wikipedia. So no I was unimpressed by what you said.
But at least you kind of sort of tried to be more knowledgeable.. you failed miserably but you know I worked preschool for years I am used to saying "yay you walked without falling down.. good job"[/QUOTE]


Well if you want a pissing contest. There's no doubt in my mind I could easily do what you do, and you'd shit a brick at what I do.[/QUOTE]

That sounds like an absolutely atrocious reality TV show.

 

[makare]

I do however respect that you at least tried to educate yourself. Just remember no damages in criminal law, damages are what dictates what a jury says a defendant has to pay a plaintiff in a civil case.

So this is how you impress a lawyer? Copy and paste shit you googled in 10 seconds? Fuck! I should have gone to law school![/QUOTE]

Actually I mocked you by saying you should have had a PhD in wikipedia. So no I was unimpressed by what you said.
But at least you kind of sort of tried to be more knowledgeable.. you failed miserably but you know I worked preschool for years I am used to saying "yay you walked without falling down.. good job"[/QUOTE]


Well if you want a pissing contest. There's no doubt in my mind I could easily do what you do, and you'd shit a brick at what I do.[/QUOTE]

What are you referring to when you say what I do? Law school? I don't think I ever said you couldn't handle law school just simply that you aren't and therefore your knowledge is not the same as mine. I would not do what you do because math is my nemesis and also I find it incredibly boring. So that point is somewhat irrelevant.

I don't want a pissing contest. I actually, as usual, just wanted to post in a thread on a forum.

 

[Dave]

He just likes competitive pissing.

 

[Chibibar]

Makare1: Ok So we have different type of case here.

Leaving a hot gun (lock, cock, and ready to roll. I.E. it is loaded and cock also I use the term hot since it makes sense to me) around the house can be negligence since anyone could pick it up and hurt someone with it.
Now - having a child around and leaving a hot gun on the counter. That is a recipe for disaster. This is a child of 3. So I might presume the father knew he had a child and should have been more care with the weapon.

Now circumstance could change the situation.
If the guy leave the hot gun ALL the time laying around. That could be consider Gross negligence. It would almost be the same as leaving a bomb around. Someone could set it off and hurt someone. (this is not the case with this guy)

There was an intruder (so he said) so this is an unusual situation that cause him to be negligence so it "could" be forgivable for leaving a hot gun on the counter.

Of course now the question would be. Was the gun hot? How much strength does a child need to shoot herself in the abdomen? If the gun was hot, it shouldn't be too much strength. I fire many different pistols (all rental I don't get to own one yet) at a range and I do try firing with and without hammer pull back. There is a difference to me.

Now the father did not shoot and accidentally shot his daughter. That would be totally different case here.

As a person studying law, does circumstance change much regarding having a loaded weapon? I mean what if a person kept a loaded pistol in his desk drawer and a visiting child found it and shot him/herself. What is the consequence then?

 

[makare]

Makare1: Ok So we have different type of case here.

Leaving a hot gun (lock, cock, and ready to roll. I.E. it is loaded and cock also I use the term hot since it makes sense to me) around the house can be negligence since anyone could pick it up and hurt someone with it.
Now - having a child around and leaving a hot gun on the counter. That is a recipe for disaster. This is a child of 3. So I might presume the father knew he had a child and should have been more care with the weapon.

Now circumstance could change the situation.
If the guy leave the hot gun ALL the time laying around. That could be consider Gross negligence. It would almost be the same as leaving a bomb around. Someone could set it off and hurt someone. (this is not the case with this guy)

There was an intruder (so he said) so this is an unusual situation that cause him to be negligence so it "could" be forgivable for leaving a hot gun on the counter.

Of course now the question would be. Was the gun hot? How much strength does a child need to shoot herself in the abdomen? If the gun was hot, it shouldn't be too much strength. I fire many different pistols (all rental I don't get to own one yet) at a range and I do try firing with and without hammer pull back. There is a difference to me.

Now the father did not shoot and accidentally shot his daughter. That would be totally different case here.

As a person studying law, does circumstance change much regarding having a loaded weapon? I mean what if a person kept a loaded pistol in his desk drawer and a visiting child found it and shot him/herself. What is the consequence then?

There are many ways to change the facts. Let's say the father wasn't checking for a prowler instead, he's a drug dealer and he ALWAYS has the gun out so he can get to it for, I dont know, drug emergencies. Then in that case I would argue that it was gross negligence. The circumstances and the intent are very important. And in the end it really is just what argument you want to make. I am maintaining my argument in this case and I would in court but that doesnt make me "right" anymore than it makes anyone who argues the opposite "wrong". I want an outcome that fits the law and is just. So that is what I am arguing.

 

[Chibibar]

There are many ways to change the facts. Let's say the father wasn't checking for a prowler instead, he's a drug dealer and he ALWAYS has the gun out so he can get to it for, I dont know, drug emergencies. Then in that case I would argue that it was gross negligence. The circumstances and the intent are very important. And in the end it really is just what argument you want to make. I am maintaining my argument in this case and I would in court but that doesnt make me "right" anymore than it makes anyone who argues the opposite "wrong". I want an outcome that fits the law and is just. So that is what I am arguing.

but certain situation regardless of circumstance, they are against the law.

i.e. Driving Drunk, Jaywalking, Calling a bomb threat, threatening a political figure, having bomb parts in your home and tons of other stuff regardless of situation, there are laws against and for that stuff.

My argument is simply put is there a law of just purely leaving a loaded weapon with a child in the house.

I read many stories (on this forum and I even post some) that kids shot themselves with weapons that parents don't lock up and leaving them loaded laying around as negligence.

 

[makare]

There are many ways to change the facts. Let's say the father wasn't checking for a prowler instead, he's a drug dealer and he ALWAYS has the gun out so he can get to it for, I dont know, drug emergencies. Then in that case I would argue that it was gross negligence. The circumstances and the intent are very important. And in the end it really is just what argument you want to make. I am maintaining my argument in this case and I would in court but that doesnt make me "right" anymore than it makes anyone who argues the opposite "wrong". I want an outcome that fits the law and is just. So that is what I am arguing.

but certain situation regardless of circumstance, they are against the law.

i.e. Driving Drunk, Jaywalking, Calling a bomb threat, threatening a political figure, having bomb parts in your home and tons of other stuff regardless of situation, there are laws against and for that stuff.

My argument is simply put is there a law of just purely leaving a loaded weapon with a child in the house.

I read many stories (on this forum and I even post some) that kids shot themselves with weapons that parents don't lock up and leaving them loaded laying around as negligence.[/QUOTE]

I don't think so. But I can't say for sure. I would have to research it and I won't do that, Im on break haha. But if there is not all states would have it. I mean if that were the case half of south dakota would be in jail because most families have guns of some type and not all lock them up.

 

[Chibibar]

I don't think so. But I can't say for sure. I would have to research it and I won't do that, Im on break haha. But if there is not all states would have it. I mean if that were the case half of south dakota would be in jail because most families have guns of some type and not all lock them up.

True, but kids don't usually pick them up and shoot themselves. If they did, we'd here more about it. I guess I'm leaning more toward having a weapon laying around (gun, sword, a bomb) and a kid got access to it and hurt him/herself and others. I'm sure there is something about that.

 

[makare]

Kids shooting themselves accidentally with their parents guns is not uncommon here and like I said I don't know anyone who has ever been charged with anything. I am pretty sure there is no law or statute against it in this state.

 

[fade]

Nevermind. I have to think about this some more.

 

[makare]

A few years ago, during a very hot day in the summer, a local man drove to work. He was doing his job for a few hours when he remembered that he had left his infant daughter in the car. His wife was usually the one who took the child to daycare but on that day he had to do it. He ran back to, of course, find the child dead from heat. It seems to me that the people in this thread would want him to go to jail. He caused the death of his child, carelessly, but he was the cause no doubt. And he was a much more direct cause than just leaving a gun on the counter. I didn't want him punished either. He is a good man, a loving father, a productive and dedicated member of our community. He just made a horrible mistake. He never went to prison for it, which made me happy. I can't understand wanting to punish someone in that situation. Someone who has suffered so much loss. You can't reduce it down to "feeling guilty" it all has to add together, he had no intent to kill his daughter and he felt so horribly about it he tried to take his own life.
I really don't understand why the people in this thread want to punish something like that, an unintentional act that he already suffers for. Yes the law is the law but I like to think the point of the law is justice. *shrug* I really do not understand.

 

[fade]

And I can't understand not wanting to punish him. We punish our own children for unintentional accidents. Part of the legal system, as I'm sure you know, is prevention of future crime, whatever we've labeled as such. I would certainly believe the man in the above hypothetical should be punished. Intentional or not, the result is the death of a human being due to the actions of another. I believe you and agree with you that he feels terrible and has suffered a lot. But he still did something wrong. I just don't understand how loss and tragedy, terrible though it may be, should exempt one from punishment. I really do not understand. I counter still that the same arguments could be made of someone who killed anyone without malice aforethought, especially if the person was close. Intent alone doesn't exempt one from punishment, anymore than it did when you broke your mom's favorite vase playing tag in the house as a kid.

 

[Chazwozel]

*cough* Roman Polanski *cough*

 

[makare]

And I can't understand not wanting to punish him. We punish our own children for unintentional accidents. Part of the legal system, as I'm sure you know, is prevention of future crime, whatever we've labeled as such. I would certainly believe the man in the above hypothetical should be punished. Intentional or not, the result is the death of a human being due to the actions of another. I believe you and agree with you that he feels terrible and has suffered a lot. But he still did something wrong. I just don't understand how loss and tragedy, terrible though it may be, should exempt one from punishment. I really do not understand. I counter still that the same arguments could be made of someone who killed anyone without malice aforethought, especially if the person was close. Intent alone doesn't exempt one from punishment, anymore than it did when you broke your mom's favorite vase playing tag in the house as a kid.

How exactly does punishing him prevent crime? It was an accident. Punishing him will do nothing but cause a man who has lost a child to lose years of his life in prison. That's it.
The point of the legal system is NOT to nanny people or mother them, it is to protect society as a whole from preventable crime. There is no societal benefit to punishing that man.

*cough* Roman Polanski *cough*

He intentionally raped a child and then lived it up in Europe. Not the same.

 

[fade]

Again, how does punishing a manslaughterer benefit society or protect them from preventable crime?

 

[makare]

Again, how does punishing a manslaughterer benefit society or protect them from preventable crime?

Most of the time I feel the same way about most manslaughter cases. The penalty for manslaughter used to be like 5 years now it is 5 times that! That is ridiculous. The legal systems fetish for imprisoning people is not helping anyone especially not society which has to deal with the influx of pissed of ex-cons and the cost of the penal system.

 

[fade]

As far as prevention, not everyone is as nice as you. A person may not give a rat's ass about their kid in the car, but they may remember that they will go to jail if the kid dies.

 

[makare]

As far as prevention, not everyone is as nice as you. A person may not give a rat's ass about their kid in the car, but they may remember that they will go to jail if the kid dies.

if they knew the kid was in the car that would be completely different. In the case mentioned the man forgot her because it wasnt a usual part of his usual routine and he felt so horrible that he tried to kill himself.

 

[crono1224]

Punishing in this situation is retribution vs rehabilitation in my opinion. Unless he has other children and even if he does, will this really teach him valuably to stop leaving around a loaded cocked gun? I doubt it he probably just slipped up and left it there. But considering what the item that he left, and what state he left the item laying around in. It would be negligence, I say this cause every example of the gun being locked away and gotten out is a thousand times different than it being out in the open in what is probably a high traffic room, locked and ready to go. I doubt there is no crime he couldn't be charged with, he left a killing device out in the open that required almost no effort to use it.

Do I think he should be punished? Probably not, it would be purely out of retribution if he was punished, cause I doubt there is anything to rehabilitate, because he didn't exactly intentionally do anything.

 

[Chazwozel]

As far as prevention, not everyone is as nice as you. A person may not give a rat's ass about their kid in the car, but they may remember that they will go to jail if the kid dies.

if they knew the kid was in the car that would be completely different. In the case mentioned the man forgot her because it wasnt a usual part of his usual routine and he felt so horrible that he tried to kill himself.[/QUOTE]

How the fuck do you forget your kid in the car?

 

[makare]

I don't know. I guess the baby is asleep you are used to just driving to work without the kid so you forget he's there. Over the years it has happened a few times around the state. It's a pretty sad thing.

 

[Hailey Knight]

I don't understand that in the slightest. I can understand the logical progression of thought process as to how the events played out, but I can't understand actually forgetting the kid, as in stopping the car, putting it in park, pulling the keys from the ignition, opening the door, either locking it and closing it, or turning to lock it. No checking your parking job? No noticing the baby in the backseat? I don't understand how people can fail to see the toilet seat is up--not noticing the baby in the car is just unreal to me. Do these same people not twist their doorknobs to be sure they're locked when they leave the house? Do they never watch their step as they walk? I just can't fathom this kind of lack of awareness of the world around you.

 

[makare]

I feel the same way. I can't imagine forgetting a kid in the car. Just completely forgetting a kid. I don't know it's just weird. But it happens often sadly, and we only hear about it when the end results are the child's death so we don't really know how often it happens.

 

[Null]

People who accidentally bake their children deserve to be removed from society; they have proven themselves unable to handle to most serious of responsibilities. People who leave loaded guns where their children can get at them deserve to be removed from society; they are creating an immediately dangerous situation through carelessness.