Export thread
3-year old kills self playing with gun, parents blame Wii
#1
figmentPez
figmentPez
ARGH! Blame the parents, not Nintendo, you stupid reporters!
Wilson County (Tennessee) Girl, 3, Fatally Shoots Self
Wilson County (Tennessee) Girl, 3, Fatally Shoots Self
I'm almost glad that the local news outlets in Tennessee seem to have kept Wii out of the actual headlines (not so for Fox News), but why is this being reported as part of the story? Would it have been included if the parents had assumed the kit thought the gun was a hair dryer?LEBANON, Tenn. -- A 3-year-old Wilson County girl accidentally shot and killed herself Sunday night, said local police.
The incident happened at about 6:15 p.m. at a home of located off of Cainsville Road. The girl was identified as Cheyenne Alexis McKeehan.
Cheyenne's stepfather, Douglas Robert Cronberger, said he believed someone was trespassing on their property, so he stepped outside with his semi-automatic gun. When he returned inside, he placed the gun on the counter.
Cronberger said Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller and fatally shot herself in the abdomen.
Cheyenne was rushed to University Medical Center in Lebanon where she was pronounced dead.
As of Monday morning, no charges had been filed in the case.
#2
@Li3n
@Li3n
Wii's, more dangerous then leaving guns around the house!...
#3
Hylian
Hylian
#4
makare
makare
The wii thing is stupid but damn that is sad. When I was a kid my friends older brother accidentally shot their younger brother in the head. They didn't blame video games or anything it was just a horrible thing. Now Im sad 
The forum has gotten super depressing.
The forum has gotten super depressing.
#5
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
That's the only time the Wii is mentioned. Not once does it blame the Wii; it just says she mistook it for one. Obviously they shouldn't leave a gun lying around.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
#6
Dave
Dave
Guns don't kill people....people...oh yeah. Guns do kill people. It's kinda their thing.
#7
Chibibar
The SMART gun owner DO NOT LEAVE their guns lying around when you have kids around (heck don't leave lying around period. Always have it on you or lock up.)
Chibibar
It shouldn't have been mention AT ALL. If by mentioning in passing (like above article) people will come to conclusion on their own and thinks the Wii controller promotes killing since people are likely to blame others than themselves.That's the only time the Wii is mentioned. Not once does it blame the Wii; it just says she mistook it for one. Obviously they shouldn't leave a gun lying around.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
The SMART gun owner DO NOT LEAVE their guns lying around when you have kids around (heck don't leave lying around period. Always have it on you or lock up.)
#8
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
So it's not that the news is calling the Wii a killer, it's that other people might read the news and call the Wii a killer. Without prompting, but just because it was mentioned.
#9
Dave
Dave
I was going to complain that there's no way a kid could mistake a Wii controller for a gun but then I saw this:
Still doesn't make it anything more than an accident, but I could see a 3 year old doing this if they've learned how to use the controller.
Still doesn't make it anything more than an accident, but I could see a 3 year old doing this if they've learned how to use the controller.
#10
@Li3n
@Li3n
What move does it do when you point it at your gut?!
#11
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
The information does not add up, unless the gun was locked and cocked, then it does not matter what the child thought it was.
#12
Dave
Dave
Obviously it was ready to fire and safety off. The guy thought he heard something so of course the first thing you think of is, "Get yer gun!"
Then you find nothing and set it on the counter. Not the brightest move.
Then you find nothing and set it on the counter. Not the brightest move.
#13
Chibibar
Chibibar
Heck, if the gun is lock and cock and lay on the counter, accidentally knocking off the counter COULD set it off. Yea. The parent is totally to blame on this one.Obviously it was ready to fire and safety off. The guy thought he heard something so of course the first thing you think of is, "Get yer gun!"
Then you find nothing and set it on the counter. Not the brightest move.
#14
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
This.The information does not add up, unless the gun was locked and cocked, then it does not matter what the child thought it was.
#15
Chazwozel
The SMART gun owner DO NOT LEAVE their guns lying around when you have kids around (heck don't leave lying around period. Always have it on you or lock up.)[/QUOTE]
It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.
Chazwozel
It shouldn't have been mention AT ALL. If by mentioning in passing (like above article) people will come to conclusion on their own and thinks the Wii controller promotes killing since people are likely to blame others than themselves.That's the only time the Wii is mentioned. Not once does it blame the Wii; it just says she mistook it for one. Obviously they shouldn't leave a gun lying around.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
The SMART gun owner DO NOT LEAVE their guns lying around when you have kids around (heck don't leave lying around period. Always have it on you or lock up.)[/QUOTE]
It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.
#16
Denbrought
Denbrought
I don't care if the kid had spent his whole childhood playing Persona 3 (the characters shoot themselves in the head with a gun-looking device regularly, for gameplay reasons), the culprit here is the dude that left an unsupervised loaded gun in a place accessible to a child. Parenting is not the kind of job at which you can afford this kind of slip up, not even once.
#17
Chazwozel
What ever happened to a good ol' fashioned baseball bat for protection? I got a 2 iron and my Louisville slugger for just such an occasion. I don't think a gun is ever a good idea for general protection. I've got one, in a safe, in the closet with a lock on the trigger and bullets in another locked container. But it's my 'doomsday' 9mm, meaning I'll only get it out if I see zombies knocking on the door.
I really don't see the need for active guns in the house. Like I said, all you need is a bat and a nice big German Shepherd.
Chazwozel
Obviously it was ready to fire and safety off. The guy thought he heard something so of course the first thing you think of is, "Get yer gun!"
Then you find nothing and set it on the counter. Not the brightest move.
What ever happened to a good ol' fashioned baseball bat for protection? I got a 2 iron and my Louisville slugger for just such an occasion. I don't think a gun is ever a good idea for general protection. I've got one, in a safe, in the closet with a lock on the trigger and bullets in another locked container. But it's my 'doomsday' 9mm, meaning I'll only get it out if I see zombies knocking on the door.
I really don't see the need for active guns in the house. Like I said, all you need is a bat and a nice big German Shepherd.
#18
sixpackshaker
The SMART gun owner DO NOT LEAVE their guns lying around when you have kids around (heck don't leave lying around period. Always have it on you or lock up.)[/QUOTE]
It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.[/QUOTE]
I thought you would know what a fact is. I doubt the 3 yo called out... "wow, look at this wii controller, I will now play duck hunt on my belly." It is totally unverifiable what was going through a 3 yo's head.
sixpackshaker
It shouldn't have been mention AT ALL. If by mentioning in passing (like above article) people will come to conclusion on their own and thinks the Wii controller promotes killing since people are likely to blame others than themselves.That's the only time the Wii is mentioned. Not once does it blame the Wii; it just says she mistook it for one. Obviously they shouldn't leave a gun lying around.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
The SMART gun owner DO NOT LEAVE their guns lying around when you have kids around (heck don't leave lying around period. Always have it on you or lock up.)[/QUOTE]
It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.[/QUOTE]
I thought you would know what a fact is. I doubt the 3 yo called out... "wow, look at this wii controller, I will now play duck hunt on my belly." It is totally unverifiable what was going through a 3 yo's head.
#19
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
nah, everyone would be screwed as a parent if this were true. But leaving a loaded gun on the counter ranks up there with dipping your nuts in a piranha infested pool.I don't care if the kid had spent his whole childhood playing Persona 3 (the characters shoot themselves in the head with a gun-looking device regularly, for gameplay reasons), the culprit here is the dude that left an unsupervised loaded gun in a place accessible to a child. Parenting is not the kind of job at which you can afford this kind of slip up, not even once.
#20
Shegokigo
Shegokigo
#21
Denbrought
I don't mean any kind of slip ups, I mean *that* degree of slip up ("this kind"). I understand nobody's perfect, but that's a freaking firearm.
Denbrought
nah, everyone would be screwed as a parent if this were true. But leaving a loaded gun on the counter ranks up there with dipping your nuts in a piranha infested pool.[/QUOTE]I don't care if the kid had spent his whole childhood playing Persona 3 (the characters shoot themselves in the head with a gun-looking device regularly, for gameplay reasons), the culprit here is the dude that left an unsupervised loaded gun in a place accessible to a child. Parenting is not the kind of job at which you can afford this kind of slip up, not even once.
I don't mean any kind of slip ups, I mean *that* degree of slip up ("this kind"). I understand nobody's perfect, but that's a freaking firearm.
#22
Cajungal
Cajungal
That's just terrible. Poor kid... there's no room for that kind of carelessness if you must own a gun. That's going to haunt him forever, and even though it was a REALLY stupid mistake, I pity him very much for that.
#23
Chazwozel
The SMART gun owner DO NOT LEAVE their guns lying around when you have kids around (heck don't leave lying around period. Always have it on you or lock up.)[/QUOTE]
It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.[/QUOTE]
I thought you would know what a fact is. I doubt the 3 yo called out... "wow, look at this wii controller, I will now play duck hunt on my belly." It is totally unverifiable what was going through a 3 yo's head.[/QUOTE]
Fact:
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller.
Reporter writes:
Cronberger said Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller
Fiction:
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller.
Reporter writes: Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller after first shooting the TV (insert further embellishment).
The reporter did their job. They asked questions and reported what they were told with no spin on the facts.
Chazwozel
It shouldn't have been mention AT ALL. If by mentioning in passing (like above article) people will come to conclusion on their own and thinks the Wii controller promotes killing since people are likely to blame others than themselves.That's the only time the Wii is mentioned. Not once does it blame the Wii; it just says she mistook it for one. Obviously they shouldn't leave a gun lying around.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
The SMART gun owner DO NOT LEAVE their guns lying around when you have kids around (heck don't leave lying around period. Always have it on you or lock up.)[/QUOTE]
It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.[/QUOTE]
I thought you would know what a fact is. I doubt the 3 yo called out... "wow, look at this wii controller, I will now play duck hunt on my belly." It is totally unverifiable what was going through a 3 yo's head.[/QUOTE]
Fact:
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller.
Reporter writes:
Cronberger said Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller
Fiction:
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller.
Reporter writes: Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller after first shooting the TV (insert further embellishment).
The reporter did their job. They asked questions and reported what they were told with no spin on the facts.
#24
Deschain
Deschain
Protip: Hot guns are always kept in hand, holster, or sight.
And a bat is a terrible defense weapon. What if he had a gun too?
And a bat is a terrible defense weapon. What if he had a gun too?
#25
Hailey Knight
The SMART gun owner DO NOT LEAVE their guns lying around when you have kids around (heck don't leave lying around period. Always have it on you or lock up.)[/QUOTE]
It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.[/QUOTE]
I thought you would know what a fact is. I doubt the 3 yo called out... "wow, look at this wii controller, I will now play duck hunt on my belly." It is totally unverifiable what was going through a 3 yo's head.[/QUOTE]
Fact:
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller.
Reporter writes:
Cronberger said Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller
Fiction:
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller.
Reporter writes: Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller after first shooting the TV (insert further embellishment).
The reporter did their job. They asked questions and reported what they were told with no spin on the facts.[/QUOTE]
This^. Nowhere does it give the impression of "It was the Wii that killed her! Goddamn video games! Those Japanese at Nintendo wanna murder our American gun-weilding children!"
Hailey Knight
It shouldn't have been mention AT ALL. If by mentioning in passing (like above article) people will come to conclusion on their own and thinks the Wii controller promotes killing since people are likely to blame others than themselves.That's the only time the Wii is mentioned. Not once does it blame the Wii; it just says she mistook it for one. Obviously they shouldn't leave a gun lying around.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
The SMART gun owner DO NOT LEAVE their guns lying around when you have kids around (heck don't leave lying around period. Always have it on you or lock up.)[/QUOTE]
It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.[/QUOTE]
I thought you would know what a fact is. I doubt the 3 yo called out... "wow, look at this wii controller, I will now play duck hunt on my belly." It is totally unverifiable what was going through a 3 yo's head.[/QUOTE]
Fact:
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller.
Reporter writes:
Cronberger said Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller
Fiction:
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller.
Reporter writes: Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller after first shooting the TV (insert further embellishment).
The reporter did their job. They asked questions and reported what they were told with no spin on the facts.[/QUOTE]
This^. Nowhere does it give the impression of "It was the Wii that killed her! Goddamn video games! Those Japanese at Nintendo wanna murder our American gun-weilding children!"
#26
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Facts are verifiable. The reporter was repeating conjecture.
"Fact" a bullet struck a child. The rest is hearsay.
"Fact" a bullet struck a child. The rest is hearsay.
#27
Chibibar
Chibibar
It is easier to think the child thinks it is a toy and shot herself.Facts are verifiable. The reporter was repeating conjecture.
"Fact" a bullet struck a child. The rest is hearsay.
#28
figmentPez
figmentPez
That's not a fact. That's the parents' opinion of what happened. Unless the child said, "Hey look at this Wii controller" they didn't know what she was thinking. The reports can't even agree if the mother or the father is the one who said that the child mistook the gun for a Wii controller.It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.
#29
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
The ad I'm getting is for the Firearms Training Institute.
#30
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I thought that was just me, since I go to a couple of gun and ammo sites.The ad I'm getting is for the Firearms Training Institute.
#31
Chazwozel
It's a news report. What they hear is what is fact for their article. Jesus, it's Journalism, not a flipping scientific study or court proceeding. What the guy told her and what the reporter reported is a fact. This is how journalism works. The reporter reports answers to questions he or she asks to the witness of the report. The reporter in this case is not spinning the facts, or making slanderous claims to what he was told in order to make it seem like a Wii is the cause of the problem.
The reporters job is to report the interview; not cross check facts of the incident. That's the job of the police
Chazwozel
That's not a fact. That's the parents' opinion of what happened. Unless the child said, "Hey look at this Wii controller" they didn't know what she was thinking. The reports can't even agree if the mother or the father is the one who said that the child mistook the gun for a Wii controller.[/QUOTE]It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.
It's a news report. What they hear is what is fact for their article. Jesus, it's Journalism, not a flipping scientific study or court proceeding. What the guy told her and what the reporter reported is a fact. This is how journalism works. The reporter reports answers to questions he or she asks to the witness of the report. The reporter in this case is not spinning the facts, or making slanderous claims to what he was told in order to make it seem like a Wii is the cause of the problem.
The reporters job is to report the interview; not cross check facts of the incident. That's the job of the police
#32
Dusty668
Dusty668
And if you believe a pistol has any other reason, you need to never have one. PERIOD.Guns don't kill people....people...oh yeah. Guns do kill people. It's kinda their thing.
Personally I would go with in hand only. A 5 second unload would have saved her up to 80+ years.Protip: Hot guns are always kept in hand, holster, or sight.
And a bat is a terrible defense weapon. What if he had a gun too?
#33
Baerdog
Baerdog
What is misleading here is the thread title...
#34
Chazwozel
Seriously, I can start making up awesome scenarios right now... I could sneak up around the corner and baseball bat the burglar's head before he even sees me. I could pull his pants down and flick his nuts while disarming him. I could shove the bat up his ass after throwing a pebble across the room to divert his attention. You're just as fucked with a gun as much so as with a bat. So you confront the burglar with your mighty gun, and he's got a gun. MEXICAN STANDOFF TIME!
Chazwozel
What if... What if it was a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, then you'd be royally fucked with or without a gun.Protip: Hot guns are always kept in hand, holster, or sight.
And a bat is a terrible defense weapon. What if he had a gun too?
Seriously, I can start making up awesome scenarios right now... I could sneak up around the corner and baseball bat the burglar's head before he even sees me. I could pull his pants down and flick his nuts while disarming him. I could shove the bat up his ass after throwing a pebble across the room to divert his attention. You're just as fucked with a gun as much so as with a bat. So you confront the burglar with your mighty gun, and he's got a gun. MEXICAN STANDOFF TIME!
#35
Chibibar
I do feel bad for the parents, but at the same time the parent should be charge for reckless murder (or whatever manslaughter that match this situation). The gun was left on a counter, loaded, and probably cocked (the last was assumption on my part) If the gun is no longer in hand (and it seems that the threat is no longer a threat) the parent should have unload the gun.
Chibibar
(agree)Personally I would go with in hand only. A 5 second unload would have saved her up to 80+ years.
I do feel bad for the parents, but at the same time the parent should be charge for reckless murder (or whatever manslaughter that match this situation). The gun was left on a counter, loaded, and probably cocked (the last was assumption on my part) If the gun is no longer in hand (and it seems that the threat is no longer a threat) the parent should have unload the gun.
#36
ElJuski
ElJuski
Hahahahahahahaha my god do you gamers get your pants in a tizzy.
#37
makare
I do feel bad for the parents, but at the same time the parent should be charge for reckless murder (or whatever manslaughter that match this situation). The gun was left on a counter, loaded, and probably cocked (the last was assumption on my part) If the gun is no longer in hand (and it seems that the threat is no longer a threat) the parent should have unload the gun.[/QUOTE]
I think the parents have suffered enough. If there is one person in the world who knows with absolute certainty that a loaded gun should never be left lying around it is probably that girl's dad. Horrible lesson learned a horrible way. leave them alone.
makare
(agree)Personally I would go with in hand only. A 5 second unload would have saved her up to 80+ years.
I do feel bad for the parents, but at the same time the parent should be charge for reckless murder (or whatever manslaughter that match this situation). The gun was left on a counter, loaded, and probably cocked (the last was assumption on my part) If the gun is no longer in hand (and it seems that the threat is no longer a threat) the parent should have unload the gun.[/QUOTE]
I think the parents have suffered enough. If there is one person in the world who knows with absolute certainty that a loaded gun should never be left lying around it is probably that girl's dad. Horrible lesson learned a horrible way. leave them alone.
#38
Espy
The SMART gun owner DO NOT LEAVE their guns lying around when you have kids around (heck don't leave lying around period. Always have it on you or lock up.)[/QUOTE]
It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.[/QUOTE]
I thought you would know what a fact is. I doubt the 3 yo called out... "wow, look at this wii controller, I will now play duck hunt on my belly." It is totally unverifiable what was going through a 3 yo's head.[/QUOTE]
Fact:
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller.
Reporter writes:
Cronberger said Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller
Fiction:
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller.
Reporter writes: Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller after first shooting the TV (insert further embellishment).
The reporter did their job. They asked questions and reported what they were told with no spin on the facts.[/QUOTE]
This^. Nowhere does it give the impression of "It was the Wii that killed her! Goddamn video games! Those Japanese at Nintendo wanna murder our American gun-weilding children!"[/QUOTE]
This.
Duh.
Espy
It shouldn't have been mention AT ALL. If by mentioning in passing (like above article) people will come to conclusion on their own and thinks the Wii controller promotes killing since people are likely to blame others than themselves.That's the only time the Wii is mentioned. Not once does it blame the Wii; it just says she mistook it for one. Obviously they shouldn't leave a gun lying around.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
The SMART gun owner DO NOT LEAVE their guns lying around when you have kids around (heck don't leave lying around period. Always have it on you or lock up.)[/QUOTE]
It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.[/QUOTE]
I thought you would know what a fact is. I doubt the 3 yo called out... "wow, look at this wii controller, I will now play duck hunt on my belly." It is totally unverifiable what was going through a 3 yo's head.[/QUOTE]
Fact:
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller.
Reporter writes:
Cronberger said Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller
Fiction:
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller.
Reporter writes: Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller after first shooting the TV (insert further embellishment).
The reporter did their job. They asked questions and reported what they were told with no spin on the facts.[/QUOTE]
This^. Nowhere does it give the impression of "It was the Wii that killed her! Goddamn video games! Those Japanese at Nintendo wanna murder our American gun-weilding children!"[/QUOTE]
This.
Duh.
#39
crono1224
Seriously, I can start making up awesome scenarios right now... I could sneak up around the corner and baseball bat the burglar's head before he even sees me. I could pull his pants down and flick his nuts while disarming him. I could shove the bat up his ass after throwing a pebble across the room to divert his attention. You're just as fucked with a gun as much so as with a bat. So you confront the burglar with your mighty gun, and he's got a gun. MEXICAN STANDOFF TIME![/QUOTE]
This, though a combat knife might be even better, at least in my house the hallways aren't very large, so I could easily lose swing room.
crono1224
What if... What if it was a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, then you'd be royally fucked with or without a gun.Protip: Hot guns are always kept in hand, holster, or sight.
And a bat is a terrible defense weapon. What if he had a gun too?
Seriously, I can start making up awesome scenarios right now... I could sneak up around the corner and baseball bat the burglar's head before he even sees me. I could pull his pants down and flick his nuts while disarming him. I could shove the bat up his ass after throwing a pebble across the room to divert his attention. You're just as fucked with a gun as much so as with a bat. So you confront the burglar with your mighty gun, and he's got a gun. MEXICAN STANDOFF TIME![/QUOTE]
This, though a combat knife might be even better, at least in my house the hallways aren't very large, so I could easily lose swing room.
#40
phil
Seriously, I can start making up awesome scenarios right now... I could sneak up around the corner and baseball bat the burglar's head before he even sees me. I could pull his pants down and flick his nuts while disarming him. I could shove the bat up his ass after throwing a pebble across the room to divert his attention. You're just as fucked with a gun as much so as with a bat. So you confront the burglar with your mighty gun, and he's got a gun. MEXICAN STANDOFF TIME![/QUOTE]
But what if HE HAS A BAT TOO?!?!?
phil
What if... What if it was a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, then you'd be royally fucked with or without a gun.Protip: Hot guns are always kept in hand, holster, or sight.
And a bat is a terrible defense weapon. What if he had a gun too?
Seriously, I can start making up awesome scenarios right now... I could sneak up around the corner and baseball bat the burglar's head before he even sees me. I could pull his pants down and flick his nuts while disarming him. I could shove the bat up his ass after throwing a pebble across the room to divert his attention. You're just as fucked with a gun as much so as with a bat. So you confront the burglar with your mighty gun, and he's got a gun. MEXICAN STANDOFF TIME![/QUOTE]
But what if HE HAS A BAT TOO?!?!?
#41
Deschain
Deschain
That's all cool and shit Chad, but you know as well as I do, in the end, a gun would be the most useful in these collective 'situations'.
#42
crono1224
crono1224
You know till someone shoots a relative, or their kid sneaking back in from a night out. Not that it has ever happened before.....That's all cool and shit Chad, but you know as well as I do, in the end, a gun would be the most useful in these collective 'situations'.
#43
Chazwozel
...He crept slowly and approached the shadowy figure in the pale stillness of the night air. Without a second hesitation, he leaped forward swinging the bat wildly. A deep thud echoed through the hall. Madly he swung, aiming specifically for the intruder's head.
"Da..ddy...."
He paused. "Meh, must be the wind," he said. And he beat away for another twenty minutes before he stood up, washed his hands, and went to bed. "Clean up can wait till morning," he muttered to himself as he sleepily yawned and dredged back upstairs.
Chazwozel
You know till someone shoots a relative, or their kid sneaking back in from a night out. Not that it has ever happened before.....[/QUOTE]That's all cool and shit Chad, but you know as well as I do, in the end, a gun would be the most useful in these collective 'situations'.
...He crept slowly and approached the shadowy figure in the pale stillness of the night air. Without a second hesitation, he leaped forward swinging the bat wildly. A deep thud echoed through the hall. Madly he swung, aiming specifically for the intruder's head.
"Da..ddy...."
He paused. "Meh, must be the wind," he said. And he beat away for another twenty minutes before he stood up, washed his hands, and went to bed. "Clean up can wait till morning," he muttered to himself as he sleepily yawned and dredged back upstairs.
#44
crono1224
...He crept slowly and approached the shadowy figure in the pale stillness of the night air. Without a second hesitation, he leaped forward swinging the bat wildly. A deep thud echoed through the hall. Madly he swung, aiming specifically for the intruder's head.
"Da..ddy...."
He paused. "Meh, must be the wind," he said. And he beat away for another twenty minutes before he stood up, washed his hands, and went to bed. "Clean up can wait till morning," he muttered to himself as he sleepily yawned and dredged back upstairs.[/QUOTE]
Boo my sarcasm detector is terrible for people online. I am assuming you are commenting that its much harder to accidently kill someone with a bat than a gun but i can never be sure.
crono1224
You know till someone shoots a relative, or their kid sneaking back in from a night out. Not that it has ever happened before.....[/QUOTE]That's all cool and shit Chad, but you know as well as I do, in the end, a gun would be the most useful in these collective 'situations'.
...He crept slowly and approached the shadowy figure in the pale stillness of the night air. Without a second hesitation, he leaped forward swinging the bat wildly. A deep thud echoed through the hall. Madly he swung, aiming specifically for the intruder's head.
"Da..ddy...."
He paused. "Meh, must be the wind," he said. And he beat away for another twenty minutes before he stood up, washed his hands, and went to bed. "Clean up can wait till morning," he muttered to himself as he sleepily yawned and dredged back upstairs.[/QUOTE]
Boo my sarcasm detector is terrible for people online. I am assuming you are commenting that its much harder to accidently kill someone with a bat than a gun but i can never be sure.
#45
@Li3n
@Li3n
Plus, it saves you all those childcare money... win-win.That's all cool and shit Chad, but you know as well as I do, in the end, a gun would be the most useful in these collective 'situations'.
#46
Null
Null
This is tragic, but it's also very much criminal negligence - being careless about dangerous conditions (like a loaded and cocked handgun on the counter). Charging the parent won't bring the kid back, but even as much as they've lost, they've shown why there are laws about that and they must be charged appropriately.
#47
bhamv3
bhamv3
Regarding the facts issue, you guys are aware that reporting the facts can still involve bias, right?
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller. Or maybe she saw me shooting the gun when I took her to the firing range last week. Or it could be I like to give her toy guns to play with, really realistic-looking ones.
Reporter writes: Cronberger said Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller.
Do I know for certain something like this happened? No.
Should we keep an open mind regarding this possibility? I think so.
Still, a tragic story, no matter how it's spun. Rest in piece, child.
Reporter: Mr. Cronberger, why do you think that your daughter picked up the weapon.
Dumbass: Well I reckon she thought it was that new fangled Wii controller. Or maybe she saw me shooting the gun when I took her to the firing range last week. Or it could be I like to give her toy guns to play with, really realistic-looking ones.
Reporter writes: Cronberger said Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller.
Do I know for certain something like this happened? No.
Should we keep an open mind regarding this possibility? I think so.
Still, a tragic story, no matter how it's spun. Rest in piece, child.
#48
@Li3n
@Li3n
dude, it was only a gun, not a chainsaw...Rest in piece, child.
#49
bhamv3
bhamv3
Ah crap... I seem to do that a lot...
#50
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
Well time to leave this thread. My retard alarm is getting too loud.
#51
@Li3n
.
@Li3n
Well time to leave this thread. My retard alarm is getting too loud.
#52
crono1224
crono1224
But the thread will die without the tastemaker
#53
fade
fade
Wait, wait, wait, wait. So the guy shouldn't be charged because he feels really bad about what he did? Outside of Hollywood, that pretty much describes most murderers, too.
#54
Espy
Espy
They all do without his loving tenderness.But the thread will die without the tastemaker
#55
makare
makare
I have known a few people who have suffered through similar situations with loaded guns and none of them were charged with anything. I don't think he should be charged and I don't think he will be.
If it hadn't been a gun and someone had left an open jug of antifreeze on the counter and the kid had drank it thinking it was gatorade should the guy go to jail too? Yes guns are very dangerous but there are a lot of things that are potentially deadly, especially to children.
The father is not a murderer Fade. As far as we know he never intended for her to die. He made a bad judgment call and WILL pay for it for the rest of his life, he doesn't have to do it in prison to be punished.
If it hadn't been a gun and someone had left an open jug of antifreeze on the counter and the kid had drank it thinking it was gatorade should the guy go to jail too? Yes guns are very dangerous but there are a lot of things that are potentially deadly, especially to children.
The father is not a murderer Fade. As far as we know he never intended for her to die. He made a bad judgment call and WILL pay for it for the rest of his life, he doesn't have to do it in prison to be punished.
#56
Chazwozel
I feel the same way about Roman Polanski. FULL CIRCLE BABY!!!!!!!
Chazwozel
I have known a few people who have suffered through similar situations with loaded guns and none of them were charged with anything. I don't think he should be charged and I don't think he will be.
If it hadn't been a gun and someone had left an open jug of antifreeze on the counter and the kid had drank it thinking it was gatorade should the guy go to jail too? Yes guns are very dangerous but there are a lot of things that are potentially deadly, especially to children.
The father is not a murderer Fade. As far as we know he never intended for her to die. He made a bad judgment call and WILL pay for it for the rest of his life, he doesn't have to do it in prison to be punished.
I feel the same way about Roman Polanski. FULL CIRCLE BABY!!!!!!!
#57
fade
fade
Ok substitute manslaughter for murder, then.
The argument still stands. I'm sure most people feel guilty when they commit manslaughter. That doesn't exempt them from punishment. I don't doubt in any way that this guy will feel horrible for the rest of his life. But I don't see how his situation is any different than any other criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter.
The argument still stands. I'm sure most people feel guilty when they commit manslaughter. That doesn't exempt them from punishment. I don't doubt in any way that this guy will feel horrible for the rest of his life. But I don't see how his situation is any different than any other criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter.
#58
makare
I feel the same way about Roman Polanski. FULL CIRCLE BABY!!!!!!![/QUOTE]
You know, I actually thought about that conversation when I wrote that but I didn't think you would come in here and compare living the high life in Europe to living a life having lost a child. My bad.
makare
I have known a few people who have suffered through similar situations with loaded guns and none of them were charged with anything. I don't think he should be charged and I don't think he will be.
If it hadn't been a gun and someone had left an open jug of antifreeze on the counter and the kid had drank it thinking it was gatorade should the guy go to jail too? Yes guns are very dangerous but there are a lot of things that are potentially deadly, especially to children.
The father is not a murderer Fade. As far as we know he never intended for her to die. He made a bad judgment call and WILL pay for it for the rest of his life, he doesn't have to do it in prison to be punished.
I feel the same way about Roman Polanski. FULL CIRCLE BABY!!!!!!![/QUOTE]
You know, I actually thought about that conversation when I wrote that but I didn't think you would come in here and compare living the high life in Europe to living a life having lost a child. My bad.
#59
Null
Turn this around: what does message does it send if he's not arrested for causing his child's death?
Null
Except that he committed a crime. If it had been an open jug of antifreeze and the kid drank it, that still would have been criminally negligent homicide and he should still be arrested. He didn't commit first degree murder - but he is responsible for the child's death and there are legal consequences.I have known a few people who have suffered through similar situations with loaded guns and none of them were charged with anything. I don't think he should be charged and I don't think he will be.
If it hadn't been a gun and someone had left an open jug of antifreeze on the counter and the kid had drank it thinking it was gatorade should the guy go to jail too? Yes guns are very dangerous but there are a lot of things that are potentially deadly, especially to children.
The father is not a murderer Fade. As far as we know he never intended for her to die. He made a bad judgment call and WILL pay for it for the rest of his life, he doesn't have to do it in prison to be punished.
Turn this around: what does message does it send if he's not arrested for causing his child's death?
#60
makare
Turn this around: what does message does it send if he's not arrested for causing his child's death?[/QUOTE]
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.
It could be simply involuntary manslaughter. But like I said I dont think he should be charged.
makare
Except that he committed a crime. If it had been an open jug of antifreeze and the kid drank it, that still would have been criminally negligent homicide and he should still be arrested. He didn't commit first degree murder - but he is responsible for the child's death and there are legal consequences.I have known a few people who have suffered through similar situations with loaded guns and none of them were charged with anything. I don't think he should be charged and I don't think he will be.
If it hadn't been a gun and someone had left an open jug of antifreeze on the counter and the kid had drank it thinking it was gatorade should the guy go to jail too? Yes guns are very dangerous but there are a lot of things that are potentially deadly, especially to children.
The father is not a murderer Fade. As far as we know he never intended for her to die. He made a bad judgment call and WILL pay for it for the rest of his life, he doesn't have to do it in prison to be punished.
Turn this around: what does message does it send if he's not arrested for causing his child's death?[/QUOTE]
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.
It could be simply involuntary manslaughter. But like I said I dont think he should be charged.
#61
Officer_Charon
Officer_Charon
This is giving me some serious food for thought here, with a daughter on the way.
I keep my pistol hot at all times, out of habit, but if it's not in my hand, it's secure in my holster, high up and out of reach. Yes, the man screwed up by not re-securing his weapon, and his daughter is the one who paid the price.
The Wii controller aspect of the article is completely ancillary to the underlying aim of the report - lack of respect for the firearm on the part of the parent and child caused an easily-preventable death.
I keep my pistol hot at all times, out of habit, but if it's not in my hand, it's secure in my holster, high up and out of reach. Yes, the man screwed up by not re-securing his weapon, and his daughter is the one who paid the price.
The Wii controller aspect of the article is completely ancillary to the underlying aim of the report - lack of respect for the firearm on the part of the parent and child caused an easily-preventable death.
#62
Chibibar
Chibibar
as an officer of the law, do you think this guy should be charge? if so what kind? I am not a lawyer (or anywhere near it) but there are laws against murder of different level including involuntary or negligence. So what is your opinion?This is giving me some serious food for thought here, with a daughter on the way.
I keep my pistol hot at all times, out of habit, but if it's not in my hand, it's secure in my holster, high up and out of reach. Yes, the man screwed up by not re-securing his weapon, and his daughter is the one who paid the price.
The Wii controller aspect of the article is completely ancillary to the underlying aim of the report - lack of respect for the firearm on the part of the parent and child caused an easily-preventable death.
#63
Chazwozel
Turn this around: what does message does it send if he's not arrested for causing his child's death?[/QUOTE]
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.
It could be simply involuntary manslaughter. But like I said I dont think he should be charged.[/QUOTE]
Sweet, so gross incompetence excuses people from criminal charges? Time to 'accidentally' set some fires!
Chazwozel
Except that he committed a crime. If it had been an open jug of antifreeze and the kid drank it, that still would have been criminally negligent homicide and he should still be arrested. He didn't commit first degree murder - but he is responsible for the child's death and there are legal consequences.I have known a few people who have suffered through similar situations with loaded guns and none of them were charged with anything. I don't think he should be charged and I don't think he will be.
If it hadn't been a gun and someone had left an open jug of antifreeze on the counter and the kid had drank it thinking it was gatorade should the guy go to jail too? Yes guns are very dangerous but there are a lot of things that are potentially deadly, especially to children.
The father is not a murderer Fade. As far as we know he never intended for her to die. He made a bad judgment call and WILL pay for it for the rest of his life, he doesn't have to do it in prison to be punished.
Turn this around: what does message does it send if he's not arrested for causing his child's death?[/QUOTE]
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.
It could be simply involuntary manslaughter. But like I said I dont think he should be charged.[/QUOTE]
Sweet, so gross incompetence excuses people from criminal charges? Time to 'accidentally' set some fires!
#64
makare
Oh and before anyone says it, I neither have children nor own guns. BUT a lot of people learned that lesson that day and I am going to remember it for the rest of my life.
makare
I always tell people that they also need to be sure that if they lock up their guns don't let the kid know where the key is. In that situation I mentioned earlier the older brother was 11 and his father had taken him hunting many times and he was trained to use guns so his father wasn't careful about letting him know where the key to the cabinet was.Even though, obviously, he wasn't "allowed" to go into it. One day the 11 year old wanted to show his little brother a new gun I think and he ended up shooting the little one in the head. Now they keep the guns in a completely different location but like I said horrible lesson learned a horrible way.This is giving me some serious food for thought here, with a daughter on the way.
I keep my pistol hot at all times, out of habit, but if it's not in my hand, it's secure in my holster, high up and out of reach. Yes, the man screwed up by not re-securing his weapon, and his daughter is the one who paid the price.
The Wii controller aspect of the article is completely ancillary to the underlying aim of the report - lack of respect for the firearm on the part of the parent and child caused an easily-preventable death.
Oh and before anyone says it, I neither have children nor own guns. BUT a lot of people learned that lesson that day and I am going to remember it for the rest of my life.
#65
figmentPez
figmentPez
Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?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.
#66
makare
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.
makare
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]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.
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.
#67
figmentPez
figmentPez
They were drunk, thus they were not in control. They intentionally placed a dangerous contraption in a state where it was out of their control and could kill someone. That is the same thing as placing a loaded gun on a table where a child could reach it.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.
#68
Chazwozel
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.
Chazwozel
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]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.
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.
#69
makare
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]
How about I don't talk about molecular biology and you don't man ape your way through the law?
makare
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]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.
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]
How about I don't talk about molecular biology and you don't man ape your way through the law?
#70
Chazwozel
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]
How about I don't talk about molecular biology and you don't man ape your way through the law?[/QUOTE]
You fought the law, and the law won! I'm going to now stupidly open up one of my 50 gallon nitrogen tanks and suffocate everyone in the lab. IT'S ALL GOOD THOUGH, BECAUSE I WAS BEING INCOMPETENT! Those morons should know not to breath pure nitrogen!
Chazwozel
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]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.
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]
How about I don't talk about molecular biology and you don't man ape your way through the law?[/QUOTE]
You fought the law, and the law won! I'm going to now stupidly open up one of my 50 gallon nitrogen tanks and suffocate everyone in the lab. IT'S ALL GOOD THOUGH, BECAUSE I WAS BEING INCOMPETENT! Those morons should know not to breath pure nitrogen!
#71
Chibibar
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)
Chibibar
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]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.
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)
#72
makare
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.
makare
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]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.
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.
#73
Chazwozel
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!!!!
Chazwozel
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]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.
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!!!!
#74
makare
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.
makare
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]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.
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.
#75
Chazwozel
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.
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.
#76
makare
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.
makare
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.I'd consider leaving a loaded gun on the table as the very definition of gross negligence.
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.
#77
Chazwozel
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]
.
Chazwozel
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.I'd consider leaving a loaded gun on the table as the very definition of gross negligence.
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]
#78
makare
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.
#79
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
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!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.
#80
makare
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"
makare
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]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.
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"
#81
Chazwozel
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.
Chazwozel
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]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.
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.
#82
D
Dubyamn
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.
D
Dubyamn
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]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.
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.
#83
makare
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.
makare
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]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.
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.
#84
Dave
Dave
He just likes competitive pissing.
#85
Chibibar
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?
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?
#86
makare
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.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?
#87
Chibibar
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.
Chibibar
but certain situation regardless of circumstance, they are against the law.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.
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.
#88
makare
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.
makare
but certain situation regardless of circumstance, they are against the law.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.
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.
#89
Chibibar
Chibibar
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.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.
#90
makare
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.
#91
fade
fade
Nevermind. I have to think about this some more.
#92
makare
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.
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.
#93
fade
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.
#94
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
*cough* Roman Polanski *cough*
#95
makare
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.
makare
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.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.
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.
He intentionally raped a child and then lived it up in Europe. Not the same.*cough* Roman Polanski *cough*
#96
fade
fade
Again, how does punishing a manslaughterer benefit society or protect them from preventable crime?
#97
makare
makare
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.Again, how does punishing a manslaughterer benefit society or protect them from preventable crime?
#98
fade
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.
#99
makare
makare
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.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.
#100
crono1224
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.
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.
#101
Chazwozel
How the fuck do you forget your kid in the car?
Chazwozel
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]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.
How the fuck do you forget your kid in the car?
#102
makare
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.
#103
Hailey Knight
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.
#104
makare
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.
#105
Null
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.
#106
@Li3n
@Li3n
What about people that leave medicine high up under the idea that the kids can't get to them, but the kids find a way?! They obviously didn't do a good enough job hiding the medicine which lead to a dangerous situation...People who leave loaded guns where their children can get at them deserve to be removed from society;
#107
crono1224
This has to be the worst statement i have ever read. First of all i am willing to bet the medicine is necessary or at least mostly, so unless the person is a police officer or I guess in the military the gun is probably not. Second of all your statement and reading of his are huge hyperboles, mostly due to the fact that in this story the gun was on a counter ready to go.
Third the gun can be separated from its ammo and thus not be deadly, i.e. another further step can be taken to reducing the chance of death.
This is although completely in agreeing that removed from society is a hugely exaggerative statement as people make mistakes, tiredness I would even venture being a huge cause of stupid things.
crono1224
What about people that leave medicine high up under the idea that the kids can't get to them, but the kids find a way?! They obviously didn't do a good enough job hiding the medicine which lead to a dangerous situation...[/QUOTE]People who leave loaded guns where their children can get at them deserve to be removed from society;
This has to be the worst statement i have ever read. First of all i am willing to bet the medicine is necessary or at least mostly, so unless the person is a police officer or I guess in the military the gun is probably not. Second of all your statement and reading of his are huge hyperboles, mostly due to the fact that in this story the gun was on a counter ready to go.
Third the gun can be separated from its ammo and thus not be deadly, i.e. another further step can be taken to reducing the chance of death.
This is although completely in agreeing that removed from society is a hugely exaggerative statement as people make mistakes, tiredness I would even venture being a huge cause of stupid things.
#108
@Li3n
@Li3n
No, i'm pretty sure they where just giving it to him as a precaution... they even stopped giving it to him after.
And you can also lock it somewhere or do other things that make it harder for the kid to get to it... i don't see how the minutia of how you make on or the other safer matters.
But the point was that if the law did punish in this case then it would need to in all cases where the object was left somewhere reachable by a kid...
And you can also lock it somewhere or do other things that make it harder for the kid to get to it... i don't see how the minutia of how you make on or the other safer matters.
But the point was that if the law did punish in this case then it would need to in all cases where the object was left somewhere reachable by a kid...
#109
crono1224
Though I agree that punishment in this case would probably be fruitless and only cause more harm than good.
crono1224
Fair enough, his wording was probably poor, but like I said the distinction between guns and medicine must be made. Because then you can just as easily state scissors as a possibility, my point was merely that guns are a killing device, unlike medicine or other household items.No, i'm pretty sure they where just giving it to him as a precaution... they even stopped giving it to him after.
And you can also lock it somewhere or do other things that make it harder for the kid to get to it... i don't see how the minutia of how you make on or the other safer matters.
But the point was that if the law did punish in this case then it would need to in all cases where the object was left somewhere reachable by a kid...
Though I agree that punishment in this case would probably be fruitless and only cause more harm than good.
#110
ZenMonkey
ZenMonkey
http://kotaku.com/5489137/wii-gun-involved-in-3+year+old-shooting-is-amazingly-lifelikeIt is easier to think the child thinks it is a toy and shot herself.
#111
Chazwozel
Holy fucking shit!
Chazwozel
http://kotaku.com/5489137/wii-gun-involved-in-3+year+old-shooting-is-amazingly-lifelike[/QUOTE]It is easier to think the child thinks it is a toy and shot herself.
Holy fucking shit!
#112
@Li3n
@Li3n
EDIT: Oh, so it's the chinese's fault... good to know.
Still, how much bad luck you need to have to shoot yourself instead of the TV or something...
Yeah, scissors work too, that's the point. Knives are hunting/killing tools too, even if the have other uses, singling out guns because their use is more limited seems too arbitrary to me... gets closer to gun control then negligence imo.
Still, how much bad luck you need to have to shoot yourself instead of the TV or something...
Fair enough, his wording was probably poor, but like I said the distinction between guns and medicine must be made. Because then you can just as easily state scissors as a possibility, my point was merely that guns are a killing device, unlike medicine or other household items.[/QUOTE]No, i'm pretty sure they where just giving it to him as a precaution... they even stopped giving it to him after.
And you can also lock it somewhere or do other things that make it harder for the kid to get to it... i don't see how the minutia of how you make on or the other safer matters.
But the point was that if the law did punish in this case then it would need to in all cases where the object was left somewhere reachable by a kid...
Yeah, scissors work too, that's the point. Knives are hunting/killing tools too, even if the have other uses, singling out guns because their use is more limited seems too arbitrary to me... gets closer to gun control then negligence imo.
#113
crono1224
True, but maybe some are for gun control
. Also I was merely pointing out facts that guns have no other uses other than killing.
crono1224
Yeah, scissors work too, that's the point. Knives are hunting/killing tools too, even if the have other uses, singling out guns because their use is more limited seems too arbitrary to me... gets closer to gun control then negligence imo.[/QUOTE]EDIT: Oh, so it's the chinese's fault... good to know.
Still, how much bad luck you need to have to shoot yourself instead of the TV or something...
Fair enough, his wording was probably poor, but like I said the distinction between guns and medicine must be made. Because then you can just as easily state scissors as a possibility, my point was merely that guns are a killing device, unlike medicine or other household items.No, i'm pretty sure they where just giving it to him as a precaution... they even stopped giving it to him after.
And you can also lock it somewhere or do other things that make it harder for the kid to get to it... i don't see how the minutia of how you make on or the other safer matters.
But the point was that if the law did punish in this case then it would need to in all cases where the object was left somewhere reachable by a kid...
True, but maybe some are for gun control
. Also I was merely pointing out facts that guns have no other uses other than killing.
#114
Chibibar
No, It is the parents' fault according to kotaku. Even if it is realistic looking, the parents should have been more careful with a real gun in the house with a child (in this case 3 year old) but what was interesting is that it say about "shooting dogs" then it became intruder but our forum shows it was intruder to begin with.
So............. it could be that the reporter report it wrong (saying it was dogs originally and correct with intruder) OR the parents are changing their stories.
Chibibar
Yeah, scissors work too, that's the point. Knives are hunting/killing tools too, even if the have other uses, singling out guns because their use is more limited seems too arbitrary to me... gets closer to gun control then negligence imo.[/QUOTE]EDIT: Oh, so it's the chinese's fault... good to know.
Still, how much bad luck you need to have to shoot yourself instead of the TV or something...
Fair enough, his wording was probably poor, but like I said the distinction between guns and medicine must be made. Because then you can just as easily state scissors as a possibility, my point was merely that guns are a killing device, unlike medicine or other household items.No, i'm pretty sure they where just giving it to him as a precaution... they even stopped giving it to him after.
And you can also lock it somewhere or do other things that make it harder for the kid to get to it... i don't see how the minutia of how you make on or the other safer matters.
But the point was that if the law did punish in this case then it would need to in all cases where the object was left somewhere reachable by a kid...
No, It is the parents' fault according to kotaku. Even if it is realistic looking, the parents should have been more careful with a real gun in the house with a child (in this case 3 year old) but what was interesting is that it say about "shooting dogs" then it became intruder but our forum shows it was intruder to begin with.
So............. it could be that the reporter report it wrong (saying it was dogs originally and correct with intruder) OR the parents are changing their stories.
#115
@Li3n
---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------
BTW, why has no one suggested that yet?!
@Li3n
Which has what to do with prosecution for negligence?!True, but maybe some are for gun control
Or inspiring replicas in the gas lighter, bottle and video game controller industries... don't forget that.Also I was merely pointing out facts that guns have no other uses other than killing.
---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------
Oh no, i agree that the father was responsible for the kids death by being an idiot, i was just arguing against that making him liable for manslaughter charges... at most take away his gun license...No, It is the parents' fault according to kotaku. Even if it is realistic looking, the parents should have been more careful with a real gun in the house with a child (in this case 3 year old) but what was interesting is that it say about "shooting dogs" then it became intruder but our forum shows it was intruder to begin with.
BTW, why has no one suggested that yet?!
#116
Chibibar
Chibibar
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/a/gunlaws_tn.htm
I am not sure how accurate is this (since laws DO change a lot) but you can buy one without a permit. So you could possess one without a permit. you are not allow to carry it around your home (i.e. wearing it if nothing is going on) so...... taking away his license wouldn't change much in this situation if he keeps the gun lock away and only use it when intruder around.
I am not sure how accurate is this (since laws DO change a lot) but you can buy one without a permit. So you could possess one without a permit. you are not allow to carry it around your home (i.e. wearing it if nothing is going on) so...... taking away his license wouldn't change much in this situation if he keeps the gun lock away and only use it when intruder around.
#117
@Li3n
@Li3n
Then what the hell are the NRA bitching about?!
But i bet there are laws against former criminals and the insane being allowed to own guns, so you could take it away somehow...
But i bet there are laws against former criminals and the insane being allowed to own guns, so you could take it away somehow...
#118
Chibibar
Chibibar
my response was to thisThen what the hell are the NRA bitching about?!
But i bet there are laws against former criminals and the insane being allowed to own guns, so you could take it away somehow...
That is maybe why no one suggest that yet (taking away his license) cause it won't solves anything or teach other lesson. Punishment to an individual works two ways. It punish the actual individual and act as deterrent for OTHER people. Drug laws (the most I have read about) are design like this. to let other knows that this is a bad bad thing and you will be punish and hopefully people will be more careful.Oh no, i agree that the father was responsible for the kids death by being an idiot, i was just arguing against that making him liable for manslaughter charges... at most take away his gun license...
BTW, why has no one suggested that yet?!
#119
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
Well it's pretty obvious that because the damn Wii controller looks like a real damn gun, the logical conclusion is that the girl picked up the real gun thinking it was a Wii controller. JUST LIKE THE ARTICLE UNBIASEDLY REPORTED HER FATHER SAYING!
#120
Dave
Dave
Have you guys seen their Wii controller? Second picture in the flash slideshow. http://www.wsmv.com/slideshow/news/22775502/detail.html
I can REALLY see how this happened.
I can REALLY see how this happened.
#121
@Li3n
@Li3n
We all do Dave, wejust derailed the thread from that a while back.
And taking away his right to a gun (with arrest if he gets one) is just a good idea based on the fact that he's obviously not fit to have one, but actually charging him is too much...
Someone needs to ask him "Yeah, so?!"Well it's pretty obvious that because the damn Wii controller looks like a real damn gun, the logical conclusion is that the girl picked up the real gun thinking it was a Wii controller. JUST LIKE THE ARTICLE UNBIASEDLY REPORTED HER FATHER SAYING!
Isn't the war on drugs going badly?!It punish the actual individual and act as deterrent for OTHER people. Drug laws (the most I have read about) are design like this. to let other knows that this is a bad bad thing and you will be punish and hopefully people will be more careful.
And taking away his right to a gun (with arrest if he gets one) is just a good idea based on the fact that he's obviously not fit to have one, but actually charging him is too much...
#122
figmentPez
Putting medicine, inside a child-resistant container, in a medicine cabinet is normal behavior. Generally, by the time a child has the manual dexterity to open a container like that, (and medicine should not be stored in easy-open containers if a child is going to be in the house), they're old enough to have been taught that medicine is not candy. (If that is not the case, and a parent should be keeping track of their child's development, then locking the medicine cabinet is advisable) However, setting a loaded gun on a table and leaving it unattended is never acceptable behavior, period. It doesn't even matter if there is a child in the house. You don't run a space heater underneath curtains, you don't park a car on a hill without putting on the parking break, you don't mix bleach and ammonia, you don't mess around with Jim, and you don't let a loaded firearm out of your reach (and certainly not out of your sight).
figmentPez
I'd modify that statement a little. Precisely because it is realistic, the parents should have been even more careful with a real gun in the house... When I was a kid my parents gave me firearm lectures just about every time I played with any sort of gun shaped object. Squirt guns (both realistic and Super Soaker), cap guns, nerf guns, sticks held like guns while I said "bang", etc. They warned me repeatedly about the danger of real guns, and there weren't even any guns in the house. In fact, I don't think I even saw a real gun until I shot a .22 rife at Boy Scout camp. My friends didn't even have BB guns.Even if it is realistic looking, the parents should have been more careful with a real gun in the house with a child
Putting medicine, inside a child-resistant container, in a medicine cabinet is normal behavior. Generally, by the time a child has the manual dexterity to open a container like that, (and medicine should not be stored in easy-open containers if a child is going to be in the house), they're old enough to have been taught that medicine is not candy. (If that is not the case, and a parent should be keeping track of their child's development, then locking the medicine cabinet is advisable) However, setting a loaded gun on a table and leaving it unattended is never acceptable behavior, period. It doesn't even matter if there is a child in the house. You don't run a space heater underneath curtains, you don't park a car on a hill without putting on the parking break, you don't mix bleach and ammonia, you don't mess around with Jim, and you don't let a loaded firearm out of your reach (and certainly not out of your sight).
#123
Jay
Jay
Let's be honest, who's to blame here? The Wii or parents leaving a gun around? Or perhaps parents using the Wii as a tool to be left alone in peace and being used as a parent to an inbecile child? I feel bad to what happened but there's no one else to blame than deplorable parenting.
But hey, WE DEFEND THE RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES MAN!
But hey, WE DEFEND THE RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES MAN!
#124
Chibibar
I think most of us agree on that, it the part on "should parent be charge with some degree of murder/homicide?" that is the question. (I say yes)
Chibibar
Parents are to blame in my book.Let's be honest, who's to blame here? The Wii or parents leaving a gun around? Or perhaps parents using the Wii as a tool to be left alone in peace and being used as a parent to an inbecile child? I feel bad to what happened but there's no one else to blame than deplorable parenting.
But hey, WE DEFEND THE RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES MAN!
I think most of us agree on that, it the part on "should parent be charge with some degree of murder/homicide?" that is the question. (I say yes)
#125
@Li3n
And like i said, that was an example against manslaughter charges... of course leaving a loaded gun around the house is way more retarded then medicine...
@Li3n
Don't think we even had child-resistant containers back then.Putting medicine, inside a child-resistant container, in a medicine cabinet is normal behavior. Generally, by the time a child has the manual dexterity to open a container like that, (and medicine should not be stored in easy-open containers if a child is going to be in the house), they're old enough to have been taught that medicine is not candy. (If that is not the case, and a parent should be keeping track of their child's development, then locking the medicine cabinet is advisable) However, setting a loaded gun on a table and leaving it unattended is never acceptable behavior, period. It doesn't even matter if there is a child in the house. You don't run a space heater underneath curtains, you don't park a car on a hill without putting on the parking break, you don't mix bleach and ammonia, you don't mess around with Jim, and you don't let a loaded firearm out of your reach (and certainly not out of your sight).
And like i said, that was an example against manslaughter charges... of course leaving a loaded gun around the house is way more retarded then medicine...
#126
Philosopher B.
Philosopher B.
I'm surprised it's not illegal or something to sell a black toy gun. I've only ever seen white Wii gun controllers.Have you guys seen their Wii controller? Second picture in the flash slideshow. http://www.wsmv.com/slideshow/news/22775502/detail.html
I can REALLY see how this happened.
#127
Chibibar
It is made in China do you think we really care what is legal or not?
Chibibar
I'm surprised it's not illegal or something to sell a black toy gun. I've only ever seen white Wii gun controllers.[/QUOTE]Have you guys seen their Wii controller? Second picture in the flash slideshow. http://www.wsmv.com/slideshow/news/22775502/detail.html
I can REALLY see how this happened.
It is made in China
do you think we really care what is legal or not?
#128
Frankie Williamson
It isn't legal. It's why nerf/toy guns are always neon or have some brightly coloured crap on them. There's no way that accessory was technically legal.
Frankie Williamson
I'm surprised it's not illegal or something to sell a black toy gun. I've only ever seen white Wii gun controllers.[/QUOTE]Have you guys seen their Wii controller? Second picture in the flash slideshow. http://www.wsmv.com/slideshow/news/22775502/detail.html
I can REALLY see how this happened.
It isn't legal. It's why nerf/toy guns are always neon or have some brightly coloured crap on them. There's no way that accessory was technically legal.
#129
Officer_Charon
Officer_Charon
In response to charging the guy, insofar as GEORGIA is concerned, I can say that the only charge that would fit in this situation would be OCGA 16-5-60: Recklessly causing harm or endangering safety. The charge usually gets applied to people who are knowingly HIV infected and share needles or participate in unprotected sex. It also applies to inmates who hurl bodily excretions on correctional or police officers. However, the pertinent section of the code reads:
(b) A person who causes bodily harm to or endangers the bodily safety of another person by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act or omission will cause harm or endanger the safety of the other person and the disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation is guilty of a misdemeanor.
In Georgia, a misdemeanor is punishable by up to 12 months imprisonment.
Do I think he should? Would I have? I honestly don't know. In a situation like that, I might hand the report to the district attorney and have them contact Department of Family and Children Services, to see if they wanted to take out a warrant. He has shown himself to be socially incompetent by failing to exercise due care and regard for a deadly weapon. But I wouldn't, in good conscience, place the handcuffs on him myself without a GOOD bit of due process taking place first.
Maybe I'm weak, I don't know.
(b) A person who causes bodily harm to or endangers the bodily safety of another person by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act or omission will cause harm or endanger the safety of the other person and the disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation is guilty of a misdemeanor.
In Georgia, a misdemeanor is punishable by up to 12 months imprisonment.
Do I think he should? Would I have? I honestly don't know. In a situation like that, I might hand the report to the district attorney and have them contact Department of Family and Children Services, to see if they wanted to take out a warrant. He has shown himself to be socially incompetent by failing to exercise due care and regard for a deadly weapon. But I wouldn't, in good conscience, place the handcuffs on him myself without a GOOD bit of due process taking place first.
Maybe I'm weak, I don't know.
#130
makare
makare
I don't think that's weak. I really respect that. One of the downsides to being in law school is I see so many cases where cops use improper procedure that you kind of develop this distrust for police. I like to see someone who uses, what I consider to be, better judgment and proper procedure.
#131
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I've never seen anyone hauled in for the accidental discharge of a weapon. The normal procedure would be for the DA/Grand Jury/etc. to make the call on whether to issue the warrant for the owner's arrest.
It does not make sense to pull the grieving husband away from the grieving mother.
It does not make sense to pull the grieving husband away from the grieving mother.
#132
Dave
Dave
This dad is going through hell right now. And he always will. Nothing the law could do to him can ever feel as bad as he does right now.