Wisconsin toddler shot mom dead in front of grandma, 1-year-old brother as family drove down highway
Source: New York Daily News
The Wisconsin mom shot and killed by her 2-year-old son was driving with her own mother and another of her sons when the boy found the loaded weapon under a seat, police said.
Patrice Price, a 26-year-old mom from Milwaukee, died Tuesday after her son grabbed a gun that had slid out from under the front seat. The tot fired a single bullet through the drivers seat, Milwaukee police said in a statement.
Prices mother and 1-year-old son were sharing the passenger seat at the time of the mid-traffic shooting, police said.
Neither the toddler in the back seat or the 1-year-old in the front was in a car seat, police said.
<more>
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wisc-toddler-shot-mom-dead-front-grandma-baby-brother-article-1.2616247
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)1) her toddler wasn't secure in a carseat
2) her gun wasn't secured either
they are lucky the toddler didn't kill the driver so that the entire family died
barbtries
(28,798 posts)Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)they were very lucky
sofa king
(10,857 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)and the gun may well have belonged to her security guard boyfriend - they found his gun belt in the car.
louis-t
(23,295 posts)"through the driver's seat"
thesquanderer
(11,989 posts)From the article:
erpowers
(9,350 posts)She was driving, but is was not her car. It was her security guard boyfriend's car. So, he may have left the gun under the seat and not told her. The 2 year old may have been buckled in the back seat. The article said the young man had just learned how to unbuckle his seat belt and he got out of his seat, picked up the gun, and fired one round into the back of the driver seat which struck his mother.
This woman was not stupid and uncaring. We do not know this woman, or how she felt about the world and issues. We do not know how the gun got into the car. We do not even know if she knew their was a gun in the car in which she was driving. Even if she had put him in a car seat, once he learned how to unbuckle the car seat the same thing could have happened.
This is first and foremost a tragic incident in which three children have lost their mother. Also, a woman has died at far too young of an age.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)You stated that so well. It's always blame the victim.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Laurian
(2,593 posts)What are you trying to imply?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)who made judgemental comments about the victim in the story- apparently without reading the article. Callous, unfeeling and only caring about themselves and theirs. I find that it is a trait shared with the person they support for President of the US. Pointing that out is not a cheap shot.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)You may want to disable access to the Intertubes and keep your TV on non-stop Spongebob for two weeks to clear that out. Let me know if that doesn't work for you and we will go on to phase 2 of treatment
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)snacker
(3,619 posts)mostlyalurker
(37 posts)Not having a two year old and a one year old secured in car seats in the back seat of the car is all the proof of stupidity and carelessness you need. That being said she in no way deserved what happened and since she was DRIVING the car when she was shot....everybody else in that car is damm lucky to be alive, as are the other people on the road at the time. Since her mother s now going to be raising her kids, I can only breath a sigh of relief that she is apparently uninjured.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)yes, she was. Not having her kids in a car seat greatly increases their risk of injury in a car accident. If you don't have enough time in your precious little life to secure your children safely in the car, you are stupid and uncaring.
Coventina
(27,121 posts)Not only that, but it endangered everyone else on the road with her.
I feel sorry for the kids, not her.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)when I was 13 years old. It affects me to this day, and I didn't cause it. I feel for these kids.
Coventina
(27,121 posts)how their actions and choices can have such negative consequences on the humans they chose to bring into the world.
It seems so unbelievably selfish to me.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)At that age kids learn to unbuckle and get out of their seat, naturally. If the gun slid out from under the seat and the toddler saw it, the instinct is to be good and get the object. This was a complete tragedy.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I was prepared to be judgemental, but you opened my eyes to the matter. Tragedy all around.
postulater
(5,075 posts)The car seats were stolen with her car.
denvine
(802 posts)Imagine growing up knowing you killed your mother. Stupidity is rampant!
LuckyLib
(6,819 posts)with children not secured needs to get pulled over and hit with a huge fine. Unfortunately, it's often folks who can't afford such fines who disregard safety and don't belt up their kids.
Coventina
(27,121 posts)Blandocyte
(1,231 posts)Those poor kids, especially the 2 year old. The boyfriend who lost his girlfriend due to what seems to be his own negligence. What a nightmare.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)in by not buckling them in.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)but Darwin believes in them.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)... considering the she'd already had 3 children and the equally stupid boyfriend
is still able to reproduce.
SCantiGOP
(13,871 posts)are the reason I cannot go to the gun forum here on DU. Some of those folks are probably good-intentioned Democrats, but I have to question some of the NRA-cloned arguments I have seen there.
I reject the idea that we are ever going to have a citizens' army overthrow a dictatorial government, so the possession of anything other than hunting rifles and small handguns for personal defense is, in my opinion, totally indefensible and dangerous to our society.
Short version of my position: Guns DO kill people, and every day.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)fit enough to OWN a firearm.
Given that, I have a few slow-shooting bolt-action target rifles and skeet shotgun.
My preference is that handguns were entirely illegal.
SCantiGOP
(13,871 posts)Anyone should be able to own a single shot musket or rifle. If you get really good at it you can get off maybe 2 shots a minute and probably hit anything within 50 feet.
If you had explained to the Founding Fathers what you can do with a semi-automatic assault rifle, and then ask them if they want anyone to be able to have one, they would have thought you were out of your freaking mind.
(On edit, I looked up 'musket range' and found out you could hit something up to 100 yards if you were good. But forget about a mass shooting - someone will come knock the crap out of you while you are reloading after your first shot. Here is the entry:
Based on the Jäger rifle, long rifles known as "Pennsylvania Rifles" were used by snipers and light infantry throughout the Revolutionary War. The grooved barrel increased the range and accuracy by spinning a snugly fitted ball, giving an accurate range of 300 yards compared to 100 yards for smoothbore muskets.
Darb
(2,807 posts)You notice they never sound off when guns are the exact problem in a situation and it would not have happened if they and others like them hadn't made our society the gun-polluted, blood stain that it is. They only come out to spew bullshit when their toys are threatened.
Come on gun humpers, come tell us how this is a good thing that that stupid person could get a handgun and let it sit out so her child could kill her. Tell us how we need people to be able to do that. Come on over.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)I do own a few small caliber, target, bolt-action rifles and skeet shotgun - kept unloaded and all are locked in a safe. Home protection is literally the LAST thing I worry about in this world. I worry far more about a vehicle accident, falling down stairs or off a ladder.. You might think target or skeet shooting is a stupid "sport", that's okay, I think golf is stupid. The physics of propelling such a small object past the speed of sound so accurately is intiguing.
It would do a LOT more good if those who are anti-handgun and anti-high capacity semi-auto assault style weapons would be more clear about what they are against.
I don't believe that a lot of Dems want to take away hunting / target rifles from people.
TIP:: This needs to be clear. When anti-gunners complain about "guns", it is "handguns" that should be specified to give the movement more power.. just saying 'No more guns" isn't going to get it done.
BAN ALL HANDGUNS NOW!
hack89
(39,171 posts)It was her boyfriends car and his gun. He was a armed security guard - if so, that means he was trained, licensed and bonded.
safeinOhio
(32,688 posts)the cops find a bag of drugs under the seat, you are responsible even if you didn't know it was there.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that was what Darb was implying. He put the blame solely on her.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Where a toddler could get to it and it was most likely a glock, they have no safety and most likely are the cause of abut 90% of unintentional shootings, anyone who would leave one around with a cartridge in the chamber is an idiot and should no be allowed to own any gun
freebrew
(1,917 posts)turbo_satan
(372 posts)...is that it wasn't from Florida.
valerief
(53,235 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)and that she most likely was not aware the gun was there?
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Many seem to be quite satisfied with her death.
stone space
(6,498 posts)But the mother bears some responsibility for exposing her kid to an irresponsible ammosexual's guns without taking proper precautions.
Parents need to protect their children from irresponsible ammosexuals.
And special precautions need to be taken for the protection of any children when parents date an ammosexual.
Good parents don't just ASSume that ammosexuals in their childrens' lives are responsible.
hack89
(39,171 posts)sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Conservatives say; before they change the "ho" to "am"
stone space
(6,498 posts)Conservatives say; before they change the "ho" to "am"
It is homophobic and offensive in the extreme.
Despite what some gunhumpers claim here on DU, gays are most certainly not deadly weapons.
They are human beings, just like everybody else.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)A victim
romanic
(2,841 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)romanic
(2,841 posts)Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)Granted, the kids should have been in car seats, but I can't say for sure if that would have changed the situation, given that there are all kinds of seats and the kid may have been able to get out of such a one.
What bothers me is the gun being in the backseat. I'm sure the boyfriend didn't imagine his girlfriend needing the car, and likely left the gun back there out of convience (security guard; so gun in car to put on for the job). But come on! Even if he thought the gun was well hidden, the car could still have been broken into, the gun found, stolen and used by a criminal.
If you're too lazy to take the gun with you into the house, at least don't leave it *loaded* while in the car. Even if you don't anticipate a toddler getting his hands on it, at least be paranoid enough, and safety minded enough to fear a car thief getting his hands on it.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Because only a good kid would not have shot his mom. He was a bad kid, and should not have been allowed to have a gun.
"I'm the NRA, and I vote!"
Coventina
(27,121 posts)apnu
(8,758 posts)Nihil
(13,508 posts)> He probably wasn't a good kid.
> Because only a good kid would not have shot his mom.
> He was a bad kid, and should not have been allowed to have a gun.
> "I'm the NRA, and I vote!"
On the other hand, "One bullet, one kill" also applies ...
What to do, what to do?
apnu
(8,758 posts)1) loose gun in the car.
2) Two year old toddler not in a child booster seat. Unless the car was a tiny sports car, and if the child was belted in properly, there's no way they should have been able to reach the floor to pick up the gun.
3) Grandma and one year old in lap of the passenger seat.
4) loose gun in the car.
nruthie
(466 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)You don't lend out your gun-filled cars out to folks with small kids.
GOPblows431
(51 posts)RIP to the mother.