I probably need to toss into this conversation and clarify, he did own a gun safe. the loaded gun was kept in the gun safe. it was momentary negligence combined with violation of restricted space and childhood foolishness that put the gun into the hands of the girl. I get the feeling that some people aren't realizing that this was a mistake, not a pattern of negligence.
Even this was avoidable.
- Thread starter briandg
- Start date
therealdeal, yes, it was a gun, not a riding mower. And perhaps pitchforks don't easily go off by accident. On the other hand, cars driven by teenagers kill more kids than do guns, year after year. For that matter, cars driven by drunks kill more kids than do guns, year after year. Those cars are dangerous; they should all be garaged, and the keys should be secured.
Dangerous items are dangerous items. Some get more media attention than do others.
And while nobody has crucified the gun owner in this particular story, look at all the responses from people who - based on the written laws and case law in their own areas - speculated that he would likely be charged. In many parts of the US, the gun owner likely would in fact have been charged; I feel that is not the way things should be.
I have to wonder about the ages of people who feel that is how things should work. I spent most of my childhood in Maine, in the '70s, and I can assure you that between my friends and I, most of us had access to unlocked firearms. Yet none of us harmed ourselves, nor anybody else; even though some of us might not have known better than to handle the guns our parents thought we didn't realize were on the closet shelf, behind their headboards, etc, all of us knew not to point real firearms at ourselves nor others.
And if any of us had been caught doing so, we'd have been grounded, and possibly not sitting so comfortably.
The older I get, the more we creep toward the nanny-state. Orwell and Ayn Rand seem more on point with each passing year.
Dangerous items are dangerous items. Some get more media attention than do others.
And while nobody has crucified the gun owner in this particular story, look at all the responses from people who - based on the written laws and case law in their own areas - speculated that he would likely be charged. In many parts of the US, the gun owner likely would in fact have been charged; I feel that is not the way things should be.
I have to wonder about the ages of people who feel that is how things should work. I spent most of my childhood in Maine, in the '70s, and I can assure you that between my friends and I, most of us had access to unlocked firearms. Yet none of us harmed ourselves, nor anybody else; even though some of us might not have known better than to handle the guns our parents thought we didn't realize were on the closet shelf, behind their headboards, etc, all of us knew not to point real firearms at ourselves nor others.
And if any of us had been caught doing so, we'd have been grounded, and possibly not sitting so comfortably.
The older I get, the more we creep toward the nanny-state. Orwell and Ayn Rand seem more on point with each passing year.
BS.
Why was it loaded? Because here in America, we have these things called "criminals" and once in a while criminals break into a person's home, and present a threat to the virginity of our daughters, among other things.
We, in america, value our daughter's virginity, among other things. we also take measures to prevent these goons from doing criminal actions.
THIS IS BEING RESPONSIBLE. PREVENTING MURDER AND/OR PHYSICAL HARM FROM BEFALLING YOUR FAMILY.
Please don't waste my time telling me that england is safe. I've seen enough of your sports hooliganism, and just watched riots in the streets. We need to thank england and other parts of europe for having inspired our local idiots to start sports riots and wall street riots.
Yes we have criminals in the UK and a few virgins, and as for valuing your daughter's virginity locking her in the house would be more effective than worrying about criminals And as i live in N Ireland i have seen armed violence all my life but would still not leave a loaded gun house in the house. As i said irresponsible.
Was he in the house if not why was it loaded.
Why was it loaded? Because here in America, we have these things called "criminals" and once in a while criminals break into a person's home, and present a threat to the virginity of our daughters, among other things.
We, in america, value our daughter's virginity, among other things. we also take measures to prevent these goons from doing criminal actions.
THIS IS BEING RESPONSIBLE. PREVENTING MURDER AND/OR PHYSICAL HARM FROM BEFALLING YOUR FAMILY.
Please don't waste my time telling me that england is safe. I've seen enough of your sports hooliganism, and just watched riots in the streets. We need to thank england and other parts of europe for having inspired our local idiots to start sports riots and wall street riots.
Yes we have criminals in the UK and a few virgins, and as for valuing your daughter's virginity locking her in the house would be more effective than worrying about criminals And as i live in N Ireland i have seen armed violence all my life but would still not leave a loaded gun house in the house. As i said irresponsible.
Was he in the house if not why was it loaded.
Last edited:
mleake, living in this corner of the state, and particularly his county and city almost gave him blanket immunity from prosecution. All of the questions that would ordinarily be considered came up with good answers.
Was he a dirtbag? No, he was a good person.
Criminal record? Nothing
gross negligence? not really.
Obvious reasons for charges? none.
Almost every native born person in this town will own a firearm. We are a hunting, fishing shooting community. Owning a gun is normal and accepted, and there was nothing out of the ordinary happening there.
Put the case in baltimore, philadelphia, boston, or maybe san francisco, it is almost certain that he would have wound up in trouble.
Was he a dirtbag? No, he was a good person.
Criminal record? Nothing
gross negligence? not really.
Obvious reasons for charges? none.
Almost every native born person in this town will own a firearm. We are a hunting, fishing shooting community. Owning a gun is normal and accepted, and there was nothing out of the ordinary happening there.
Put the case in baltimore, philadelphia, boston, or maybe san francisco, it is almost certain that he would have wound up in trouble.
Read the post. he was downstairs, where the kids should have been, they went into places they were not supposed to go while his attention was on other things.
In reality, his loaded and accessible handgun was also offering a measure of protection to all of the girls in the group.
Nobody is denying negligence on the part of the owner. The question is, how badly negligent he was, and whether his mistake should be considered the sole author of the tragedy, and what portion of blame falls on his shoulders and how to distribute the blame to the girls involved. His daughter led them into forbidden territory. the other took the loaded gun out of the holster and shot one of the children.
A prosecutor will break this event down into the smallest of details, present the bits that support his goals to a jury, and the defense will enter the parts that minimize the responsibility of the gun's owner. The jury will have to decide .
That's why the thread was named "even this was avoidable." One of the basic ideas of gun ownership is that safety has to be absolute, and a person can never lose sight of it, not for a second. Going downstairs for a cup of coffee and leaving it out (if that is what happened) led to catastrophe. Even the smallest of things can have enormous consequences.
Which is why people choose to walk around with a concealed weapon. even in the tiniest, most mundane moment, even in your own bathroom, the lightning may strike. People have been killed in their own showers. many have died in their own beds, many die in their cars. It honestly is like lightning striking.
I am among the people who are willing to accept the occasional tragic story, because other tragic stories are being averted.
I'm not comfortable with it, but I accept it.
Which is why people choose to walk around with a concealed weapon. even in the tiniest, most mundane moment, even in your own bathroom, the lightning may strike. People have been killed in their own showers. many have died in their own beds, many die in their cars. It honestly is like lightning striking.
I am among the people who are willing to accept the occasional tragic story, because other tragic stories are being averted.
I'm not comfortable with it, but I accept it.
I guess I am bad. When I get home I peal off my holster and lay my loaded pistol on my nightstand (sometimes I may have two or three out, all loaded). The only people who live in my house is my wife and me. However, if any of my kids are coming to visit I require they call me first so I can be sure everything is locked away or worn.
Amazing. One 14-year-old girl shoots another one and no one is referred for charges. It's one thing to double-guess the homeowner, but the basic fact remains that one 14-year-old girl picked up a gun and shot another girl.
Yeah, we can "coulda, woulda, shoulda" to our hearts content, but that doesn't change the basic fact that one girl killed another girl. I'm fairly sure that some law should apply to that fact.
Juvenile, no record, none involved wanted to press charges, and nobody wanted an honor student at a private school with a promising future to have her life messed up any more than it already has been.
That's one thing I'm pretty certain about. There wasn't any point in sending this kid into the court system. There is already punishment enough. There is still hope for her. If she was tried, she was going to be completely ruined.
My thoughts.
That's one thing I'm pretty certain about. There wasn't any point in sending this kid into the court system. There is already punishment enough. There is still hope for her. If she was tried, she was going to be completely ruined.
My thoughts.
therealdeal
New member
MLeake
I agree with your last post 100%, and I can understand where you are coming from too.
I grew up in New England too(the southern tristate area), but my college yrs were in NH and my buddy and girlfriend in Bar Harbor and/or Boothbay. One nitwit even lived in Caribou(about an 8hr drive from are college). I shouldn't call him a nitwit, but he was definately a maineiac
I agree with your last post 100%, and I can understand where you are coming from too.
I grew up in New England too(the southern tristate area), but my college yrs were in NH and my buddy and girlfriend in Bar Harbor and/or Boothbay. One nitwit even lived in Caribou(about an 8hr drive from are college). I shouldn't call him a nitwit, but he was definately a maineiac
Johannes_Paulsen
New member
MLeake said:
I am posting this response because snarky comments about the McDonald's 'hot coffee' case are typically a throw-away applause line in many venues that people do not think much about. This is a pet peeve of mine.
The story of the woman in that case goes as follows.
The woman who was involved in the litigation was 79 years old. She ordered coffee from McDonald's at a drive-through while a passenger in her grandson's car. After getting the coffee, he parked the car so that she could add cream and sugar. As she removed the lid, the coffee spilled into her lap.
As a result, the woman suffered third degree burns on her thighs, buttocks, and vagina. The lady remained in the hospital for eight days for skin-grafting. Two years of medical treatment followed.
The woman's past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. She offered to settle the case with McDonald's for $20,000. McDonald's refused, offering $800.
McDonald's had received hundreds of reports of people suffering burns from spilled coffee in the previous ten years, and had settled those cases for approximately half a million dollars. McDonald's quality control manager, claimed that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. At the temperature served, McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if people drank it.
The jury found Liebeck 20% at fault, and McDonald's 80% at fault, awarding her $160,000 of damages. The jury further awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages because of the pattern of behavior of McDonalds. At the time, McDonald's revenues from the sale of coffee alone was $1.35 million per day. This constituted two days' revenues.
The judge then reduced the punitive damage award to $480,000 (for a grand total of $640,000.)
The decision was appealed. Both parties later settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
Carry on.
jkp1187, I personally like my coffee that hot, as it will eventually cool. I don't like it served at a temperature that isn't much above tepid, because it will get cold.
Hot coffee is hot. It might be very hot. The little sip holes in coffee lids have caused me to burn my lips with coffee that didn't actually burn without use of the lid, because of focusing... Should I blame the lid manufacturer?
Knives are sharp. I've cut myself on knives...
You can look at it as being snarky; I look at it as a matter of recognizing that some things out there come with anticipatable risks.
And while you might say, "she's a 79 year old woman," as though that means she should be viewed as more vulnerable, you might also say "she's a 79 year old woman," as though it means she should be that much aware - due to her age and experience - and that much more cautious, due to her (known) weaker physical condition.
You could also say that choosing to eat or drink while driving brings with it a certain amount of elevated risk. Go to Germany; cars there do NOT have cupholders. The Germans, strange though it may seem, think that a driver should focus on driving....
Hot coffee is hot. It might be very hot. The little sip holes in coffee lids have caused me to burn my lips with coffee that didn't actually burn without use of the lid, because of focusing... Should I blame the lid manufacturer?
Knives are sharp. I've cut myself on knives...
You can look at it as being snarky; I look at it as a matter of recognizing that some things out there come with anticipatable risks.
And while you might say, "she's a 79 year old woman," as though that means she should be viewed as more vulnerable, you might also say "she's a 79 year old woman," as though it means she should be that much aware - due to her age and experience - and that much more cautious, due to her (known) weaker physical condition.
You could also say that choosing to eat or drink while driving brings with it a certain amount of elevated risk. Go to Germany; cars there do NOT have cupholders. The Germans, strange though it may seem, think that a driver should focus on driving....
Willie Lowman
New member
In before the lock!
What the heck does how you like your coffee have to do with a teenage girl shooting her friend?
What the heck does how you like your coffee have to do with a teenage girl shooting her friend?
Willie, he's tying into one of my previous posts about individual responsibility as opposed to the individual being protected from all harm by the nanny state, and the latter resulting in excessive regulation and litigation. So, I'm responding to his criticism of my inclusion of the McDonald's coffee case.
Personally, I think it's on point. Many things out there can hurt us if we are careless. Often as not, though, when we get hurt it's our own fault. The lawyer who came up with the concept of "attractive hazards" should have been tarred and feathered, but I suspect he occurred a few generations too late for that result...
How it all ties into the OP is that the fact of the unlocked gun is something the gun owner may regret, and something that most of us might recommend against; but the shooting is the responsibility of the shooter. A 14yo is old enough to know better, unless she's mentally incompetent.
Personally, I think it's on point. Many things out there can hurt us if we are careless. Often as not, though, when we get hurt it's our own fault. The lawyer who came up with the concept of "attractive hazards" should have been tarred and feathered, but I suspect he occurred a few generations too late for that result...
How it all ties into the OP is that the fact of the unlocked gun is something the gun owner may regret, and something that most of us might recommend against; but the shooting is the responsibility of the shooter. A 14yo is old enough to know better, unless she's mentally incompetent.
yes, it is applicable to the post.
Attractive hazard is older than I am. I believe that the idea goes back to the fifties, when men who had gone through the war began to see all of the dangers that their precious children faced every day. Nothing was more important to them than their children; raising them strong and safe. When they saw unfenced pools, it bothered them. That generation of parents, who had seen millions of war dead and horrors beyond imagination, began to fight back against death and pain.
Dragging the law into it and allowing the lawyers to warp the concept to their own benefit is where it went wrong.
The girl found a "toy." an attractive hazard. if it had been a pink ladysmith, it would have been an even more attractive hazard.
M, if your point is that the homeowner should not be held accountable for the death of his guest because of an act of minimal negligence, I agree. I'd like to see the other kid held accountable, but not to the point of prosecution.
Can I point out that for generations, even up to current times, the family deer/home defense rifle hung over the fire place, often loaded?
Attractive hazard is older than I am. I believe that the idea goes back to the fifties, when men who had gone through the war began to see all of the dangers that their precious children faced every day. Nothing was more important to them than their children; raising them strong and safe. When they saw unfenced pools, it bothered them. That generation of parents, who had seen millions of war dead and horrors beyond imagination, began to fight back against death and pain.
Dragging the law into it and allowing the lawyers to warp the concept to their own benefit is where it went wrong.
The girl found a "toy." an attractive hazard. if it had been a pink ladysmith, it would have been an even more attractive hazard.
M, if your point is that the homeowner should not be held accountable for the death of his guest because of an act of minimal negligence, I agree. I'd like to see the other kid held accountable, but not to the point of prosecution.
Can I point out that for generations, even up to current times, the family deer/home defense rifle hung over the fire place, often loaded?
Interesting comment. Yes, it's true. But it seems that gun accidents just aren't allowed to happen without an outcry for punishment---even incarceration.
This even comes from the pro gun community.
Of course, if a child drowns in a swimming pool, gets run over in the street, or meets with serious injury or death as a result of adult negligence, there tends to be more sympathy and a realization that accidents happen.
Few feel that a prison term would serve any purpose. The adult already has the burden of living with the results of their actions.
Obviously, some degrees of negligence deserve no sympathy and should result in charges.
Ah, but a gun accident. The above rules don't apply. The heartbroken adult must, in addition to the moral consequences, go to prison and pay the price for his negligence. The news media believes that, and so do (as I mentioned) members of our own gun community.
To say the gun accidents shouldn't happen is true to the same extent that other accidets shouldn't happen. Accidents have always happened and always will, even though that fact can't be used as an excuse.
In some states, negligence resulting in death of a child (non gun accident) is business as usual in the court system. The prosecuter has the descretion.
But gun accidents mandate charges and jail time upon conviction. Off to jail goes a heartbroken adult who was negligent only for an instant. Something that could happen to any of us. That gun owner faces mandatory prosecution not forth coming for other accidents doesn't sound fair to me.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
aarondhgraham
New member
I agree with Nnobby45 when he wrote:
I truly believe that as a society we are becoming a group of self-righteous prigs,,,
We seem to revel in the harsh punishment of even accidental offenders,,,
Our society is trending towards the belief that there are no accidents.
There is a quote attributed to Thomas Paine,,,
I believe it applies very well to this situation.
An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty.
It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws.
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.
And there's always the old,,,
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
JM ns HO
Aarond
I truly believe that as a society we are becoming a group of self-righteous prigs,,,
We seem to revel in the harsh punishment of even accidental offenders,,,
Our society is trending towards the belief that there are no accidents.
There is a quote attributed to Thomas Paine,,,
I believe it applies very well to this situation.
An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty.
It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws.
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.
And there's always the old,,,
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
JM ns HO
Aarond
mize the innocent.