What is the appropriate consequence -

[digonswine]

for the dumbass who was irresponsible with a weapon in this link?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117217153

Who forgets that there is one in the chamber?

Better yet--why was there one in the chamber?

I see no excuse for this type of irresponsibility.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. what would you like to see happen?

anything up to and including the death penalty? what charge and repercussion would you like to see?

[digonswine]

3. Whoa nellie!

Easy now--

I want to know what the good people here think about this case.

Clearly, it was not intentional.

I see gun-ownership as a great responsibility.

I am responsible for what I do with my guns(I own them, and protect my home with them)
I am responsible for anyone in the line of fire of my guns.
I am responsible for being certain that there is not "one in the chamber."
I am responsible for what happens if I make a mistake with my guns.

If my gun kills someone, while I am in possession of it, due to my own stupidity-I am responsible.
I hope ALL gun-owners feel the same way--if not--you have no business owning one.

I am opposed to the DP, by the way.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

5. chill, dude --- you asked the question.. all I did was ask YOUR thoughts about it --

fair enough, right?

[digonswine]

7. OK-that is fair enough-

I read so many posts that I can't tell what is snark and sarcasm and what is real.

To be honest--I don't really know what the proper consequence is. That's why I asked the question.

I know that there should be SOME consequence. (I don't use PUNISHMENT-since there would be no learning from that, perhaps.)

That person should certainly not be able to legally own guns again.

I am not an expert in legal terms, either--maybe reckless endangerment?

A person is killed because of carelessness of another.

Whatever is the consequence of that, I do not know.

[iverglas]

66. it was snark

There was absolutely no evidentiary foundation for asking you whether you think that "anything up to and including the death penalty" was appropriate. A ludicrous thing to say to you. Pure attempt to discredit you, nothing else.

Disappointing, isn't it ...

[digonswine]

73. I tend to agree--

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, though, even if others will jump to conclusions about what I actually think and mean.

[Hoyt]

9. Gun culture just want right to tote in public -- but no responsibility.

Folks here will write it off as an "accident" and claim the toter's stupidity should not reflect badly on others who can't walk around without a gun.

The guy's biggest mistake was sticking the dang gun in his pants before going to church.

[ManiacJoe]

12. For the amount of posting your do in this forum, one would think you would learn something.

You know for a fact that the gunnies here attribute this death to negligence, yet you claim otherwise.

You know for a fact that the gunnies here know that responsibility is a prime ingredient in gun ownership, yet you claim otherwise.

Your post #9 is not even good for comic relief.

[digonswine]

17. As of now-

I have seen no one attributing this to negligence--mostly advocating sorrow for the killed.

I do, though, think that most decent gun owners will think that this is unacceptable.

[Hoyt]

27. And what will they do about? Next thread they'll be promoting more guns in more places.

[Callisto32]

40. Hmm.

Maybe that is because some of the people here have been able to attribute actions to their actors....

[digonswine]

18. I hate to say it-

no one yet chimed in about this being a case of negligence--

not to say they won't

All i got is "Sorry about the death thing"

[Hoyt]

26. Problem is gun culture chalks it up to negligence so they don't have to take any responsibility.

Oh, he doesn't count because he was just negligent. Oh, that doesn't count because he didn't listen to his trainer. That doesn't count because it was an accident. That doesn't count because he was a criminal the moment he strapped that gun on with bad intentions.

It all counts, and the reason we need to restrict the gun pipeline -- no mater how much the gun culture whines about some bogus 2nd Amendment right.

[Callisto32]

41. You have no idea what you are talking about.

If you are negligent, and somebody dies because of it, there are serious legal consequences for that...

You know what, I'm not wasting my professional advice on you.

[ManiacJoe]

48. It is good that you agree that it all counts.

However, you seem very confused on the concept of negligence.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Negligence resulting in a homicide can be prosecuted.

But you knew that, of course.

[Atypical Liberal]

23. I am all for this guy having responsibility for his actions.

This was not an "accident", it was negligence.

I'd be all for charges of negligent homicide being brought.

I'd also be all for a civil suit being levied against the man.

[Hoyt]

29. How about the gun culture, NRA, etc., taking some responsibility?

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Right after *you* take responsibility for Newt Gingrich.

Are you not a member of Georgia culture?

[Hoyt]

36. I can say I never voted for the racist -- and not surprisingly gun supporting -- candidate.

And, no I'm not part of the Georgia culture. Far from it.

[Atypical Liberal]

49. Why should anyone else take responsibility for what an individual did?

There is only one person responsible for this incident - the person who pulled the trigger on the gun.

[Callisto32]

39. By God, you can be vile.

[Hoyt]

52. Not so vile as to carry a gun in public. Guess we have different definition of vile.

[Callisto32]

74. No, just enough to be a bigot.

You smear entire groups based on some kind of...I don't know....fantasy...you have in your head about some stereotypical "gun owner" with an apparent IQ of about 65 and the inability to differentiate right from wrong.

Classy.

[shadowrider]

2. I'm waiting patiently until someone on the anti-gun side

simply says:

"My condolences. May she rest in peace" and leave it at that.

Is that too much to ask?

[digonswine]

4. So you simply throw up your hands-

and say-"That's the price of living in a free society!"???

Do you REALLY mean to say that this is just one of those things we have to live with?

I am not anti-gun. I am pro-responsibility.

I am sure the loved ones would be satisfied with that "Oh well--these things happen" excuse.

Hey--you fuck up-you pay a price. Just like in all things.

I hope you do not think that someone who acts that irresponsibly with a gun just gets a life lesson and that's it.

WTF?

[shadowrider]

6. I NEVER said what you say I said

I said no one on the anti side has yet to say "My condolences. May she rest in peace".

I'm still waiting.

[digonswine]

8. My problem is-

you changed the subject.

You can wait all day.

We both know that the family of that person is not scrolling through message boards looking for comfort.

I simply asked a question.

You said--
I said no one on the anti side has yet to say "My condolences. May she rest in peace"

This is avoiding the question I posed in the OP.

So--I ask again--what is an appropriate consequence for someone who abuses their gun rights in this way?

[shadowrider]

10. I give up

Anti's want consequences. They want to place blame. They want to blame guns. They want to increase gun control using an incident like this as fuel for their cause.

Yet they simply can't, for some strange reason, understand there is an innocent victim who died as the result of a tragic accident leaving grieving family and friends. The incident involved a gun. She just as easily could have been hit by a drunk driver on the way home.

If you won't say it, I will

My sincerest condolences to her family and friends. May she rest in peace.

If I don't speak for you, please let me know.

[digonswine]

15. But there is a consequence when drivers drive drunk-

when people act irresponsibly with the stuff they have.

Yes--I won't say it--I will not act like it is just "one of those things"

I do not blame guns--I blame those who act stupid with guns.

You certainly do NOT speak for me and I would like to think that most gun owners would be equally offended-

you act like I am blaming guns--that is clearly not the case-

I will not speak empty condolences to those suffering--that is you-

Most of the gun-owners on this board talk about responsible gun ownership. That is fine-I have no problem with that.

But when a gun-owner acts irresponsibly and KILLS someone due to negligence, you want to dismiss it. Dismiss it-that is what I see you doing-

Offering empty condolences is useless and offensive.

Do YOU NOT KNOW when you have one in the chamber??--if so-I do not want you to touch or own a gun-period-

[petronius]

11. I'm always torn on questions like this: my knee-jerk response is to have

no tolerance for people who make stupid mistakes and cause harm to others. But on the other hand, I often will accept the 'brain fart' explanation in other situations (for example, I'd think it pretty appalling to prosecute a parent who left a child in a car).

So it's not completely unreasonable to say that this was one instance of forgetfulness that would have passed unnoticed 99.99% of the time.

But, in this case, my zero tolerance side is winning out - checking the chamber should be automatic, especially when demonstrating the operation of a firearm, and in less-controlled environment like a church office. So I would not take it amiss if a charge of criminal (gross?) negligence was applied with appropriate punishments, and if nothing else this guy should lose a large civil suit...

[shadowrider]

13. Not to mention he has the guilt of what happened

that he'll carry for the rest of his life.

[petronius]

14. That too, certainly - I can't even begin to try to imagine what that feels like...

[Hoyt]

28. Too bad the gun culture won't accept any guilt over this type stuff.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. I read Car & Driver. Should I accept guilt over car crashes?

[Hoyt]

35. If you are promoting more dangerous cars on streets and reckless driving -- Yes.

[Johnny Rico]

37. Ok, I have to know...what would you define as a "dangerous" car?

Bearing in mind that this would be a car that is being written about in Car & Driver magazine, and thus would be street-legal.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. Hoyt, ALL cars (and guns) are capable of killing when operated improperly.

It would seem your ire is somewhat...selective when it comes to potentially deadly devices.

[Hoyt]

47. Yep, and we legislate shape of door handles and all kinds of stuff. Police catch speeders, etc.

More guns and more gun pollution are not good for a modern society. Get with the program.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

61. So you want guns regulated like cars? Do you really want to do that discussion again?

I'll save you the trouble: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=16660

**************************

They couldn't ban my guns just because they might look like a NASCAR racer.

It's none of the government's business what's under the "hood".

No waiting period to pick up your car or any background checks involved

We give a drivers license to every seventeen-year-old high school student who can pass a lowest-common-denominator Drivers Ed course. A course that can be successfully passed by a lobotomized chimpanzee.

We even give drivers licenses to 16 year-old kids who state that they have a particular hardship with no limits on what they can drive or even own.

You'll give a gun license to every 17 year-old who wants one, even if he has a police record -- just like a drivers license.

Any person who possesses a drivers license can drive on any public road on any state in the Union. They can drive on school grounds, they can drive on college campuses, and they can drive to any courthouse in the Union.

You'll let anyone with a gun license carry a gun anywhere they want to, in every State in the Union -- just like a drivers license.

Drivers licenses issued by one State must be honoured by all other States. Anyone with a Texas Drivers License can drive any car he (or she) wants to, anywhere in New York City that he can fit. And the New York authorities don't have a thing to say about the matter.

You'll let any 17 year-old cowboy from Bugscuffle, West Texas carry his gun anywhere he wants to in New York and tell the New York authorities they can't do anything about it -- just like a drivers license.

If you get caught driving a car without your drivers license, you get a $90 traffic ticket that comes off your record in three years.

Tell me that if that Texas cowpoke is visiting Chicago, and gets caught carrying his gun without his license, he just gets a citation -- just like a drivers license.

No one must undergo a background check to get a drivers license, any felon can get a drivers license, no background mental health checks are required for a drivers license.

You'll let everyone -- 17 to 70, felons, no mental checks, pay your money, take your test, here's your gun license -- just like a drivers license.

If I'm on private property, I don't even need a driver license to drive any car I want to, the only limit to the number of cars I can possess is the size of my bank account.

I can buy as many cars at once as my wallet can stand, and I can buy a car off a street corner in Compton today, another from a back-yard in New York tomorrow. Pay the taxes, transfer the title and that's it.

I can import cars as many as a I want, from any country that I want, and I can sell or trade any or all of them to anyone I want -- and the Federal Government doesn't have word one to say about the matter.

I build any car I want to in my garage -- with no Federal permission; I can modify, cut-down, trick-out, customize or skeletonize any car I want to without so much as a "Yes", "No", "Boo", "Kiss my ass" or "By your leave" from the Federal Government.

[Hoyt]

62. I want guns regulated like the lethal weapons they are. And carriers regulated closely as well.

Seems simple to me.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

64. Pocket knives are lethal weapons. Should they be regulated as you would have firearms regulated?

[Hoyt]

65. Quit being obtuse. Actually they are. In my state you can carry a gun but not a sword.

Shows how much influence the NRA and other right wing lobbying groups have on legislators when you can't carry a sword but can strap on as many guns as you like with the mere formality of getting a permit.

[rl6214]

71. "Shows how much influence the NRA and other right wing lobbying groups have"

Bullshit, the NRA is inconsequential, or so we are told by one of our other anti-gun zealots in a story they linked to in another post.

You can't have it both ways, which one is it?

[Hoyt]

72. The NRA and right wing gunners are consequential, though misled.

[digonswine]

16. Some mistakes you are not allowed to make-

this is one of those cases-no "OOPS!"

[Atypical Liberal]

24. I disagree. The consequences of fucking up with a firearm are grave.

As my father taught me from about 8 years old, there is no room for oopses with firearms. There are no do-overs. You can't say, "I'm sorry" and fix a mistake."

There is no excuse for negligent discharges. If you follow the standard rules of firearm safety they will never happen. If it does happen, it's because you didn't follow the standard rules.

I don't have much sympathy for such people, and there should be consequences when you screw up with a firearm and people get hurt or killed. Not only is it a disaster for whoever gets shot, but it is a disaster for all firearm owners.

[Callisto32]

42. Thanks.

It's always nice to see some reason come into these threads.

[ManiacJoe]

19. Is there an appropriate consequence?

Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2012, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Nothing can bring back the victim.

Death due to negligence often has defined consequences, but the judgment of the appropriateness of the punishment tends to be very personal and subjective.

[Atypical Liberal]

25. Jail time sounds good to me.

No, you can't bring back the victim, but that does not mean there should not be punishment.

Jail time sounds good to me.

[ellisonz]

20. Criminal negligence and a manslaughter charge.

And then fix the damn gun control system so nincompoops can't say they weren't told to not show off their damn gun at church!

[tortoise1956]

33. This may surprise you, but I wholeheartedly agree

If it was up to me, I would press for negligent homicide, or involuntary manslaughter (pretty much the same thing). This presupposes there was no intent, but that the actions which caused it were due to gross negligence.

As far as sentencing (assuming a guilty verdict), I would take into account the fact that the victim's family has specifically asked for the community to treat the young man with "love and grace". If they are willing to forgive, then it would appear that they believe he is truly sorry for his actions. That would argue for clemency.

This is similar to a case here in Las Vegas. A 78 year-old woman hit and killed a 6 year-old girl as she and friends were crossing a street in a crosswalk. The girl's family asked that she not be given jail time, as they believed she was heartbroken by what happened. The court agreed. The woman was fined $5,000 (maximum amount) and had to surrender her driver's license for 2 years.

[ellisonz]

34. I'm not surprised.

There are perfectly reasonable gun owners, and then there are the extremists who don't think people should be responsible for their choices.

[tortoise1956]

45. My parents raised me to assume personal responsibility for my actions...

I expect others to do the same. That extends to all aspects of life.

As for the responsible gun owner part, you might not think so after reading my posts.
I firmly believe that the 2nd amendment codifies the individual right to use firearms for personal defense. All 9 Supreme Court justices agree, so I'm in good company. In my opinion, that includes the ability to carry a weapon in public.

However, that is not an unlimited right, just as the right to free speech is not unlimited. The devil is in the details - determining what is reasonable. Places like Chicago and DC have implemented unreasonable and arbitrary regulations that have been ruled to be unconstitutional, and rightly so.

Ok, I hear the bell for the next round. Boxers, step up to the line!

[ellisonz]

50. "All 9 Supreme Court justices agree"

Cite please.

[ManiacJoe]

51. That would be the Heller case.

All 9 justices agreed that the RKBA was an individual right. The 4 dissensions were about other things.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

[ellisonz]

53. Would you care to quote where in in the Stevens and Breyer opinions...

...there is an express statement of an "individual right" unconnected to service in the Militia and what this means in terms of its exercise

[gejohnston]

54. anyone else see the irony?

the first case cited happened the one civil rights lawyers have been hacking at since the 1930s?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117216599#post30

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

[ileus]

21. Tragic accident, lesson learned.

Chalk it up to inexperience....hopefully he's learned a valuable lesson.

Better voluntary training classes for those new around firearms.

To buy an ATV you're required to take a short safety course before taking delivery. Why not have something similiar for new purchases?

[Atypical Liberal]

22. Possible criminal and civil suits

Personally I think such "accidents" are due to negligence and there should be charges for negligent homicide.

Also it is possible for the victim's family to file a civil suit against the perpetrator, though that appears unlikely to happen in this case.

[Remmah2]

44. Probably the best suggestion yet.

Person abuses machinery and causes death. It seems the intent was not criminal.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. Several years in prison would be appropriate

[Callisto32]

38. Depraved heart muder.

That would be at the very top, though.

Probably some kind of manslaughter charge would be appropriate.

[slackmaster]

43. In my state it would probably be billed as Involuntary Manslaughter

A charge of Murder requires malice aforethought.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection....

[AtheistCrusader]

55. I would call it criminal negligence.

I am a gun owner, I carry, I do not tolerate this shit. What happened was inexcusable. One does not 'forget' there is a round in the gun. One is STUPID. That is the only explanation.

Had the owner been following the four very simple rules of handling a firearm, it could have 'gone off' (meaning, he could PULL THE TRIGGER) and no one would have been hurt.

This accident was precipitated by negligence, and I would call it criminal. There are statutes and established penalties already on the books for this stuff. It needs only to be applied.


Edit: This is why the bro-in-law is not allowed to handle firearms in my presence, by the way. Stupid fuckers are not allowed to handle guns around me.

[digonswine]

57. Right-O

I hunt. When either walking through the woods or sitting in a stand, my thumb constantly checks the safety. I ALWAYS ALWAYS know when and where my ammo is at ALL TIMES!!

When unloading-both me and the barrel are ALWAYS in positions making it impossible to hurt another.

And yeah--this is what I expect from ALL gun owners. With no exceptions. No excuses and no Mulligans.

[montanto]

58. Negligent homicide, manslaughter, something like that.

Gun ownership is an awesome responsibility, but also very simple at the same time. Follow the three (or four, depending on how you see it) rules and this shit doesn't happen. This guy broke them all. The gun was loaded, he didn't check the chamber, he pointed it in an unsafe direction AND he pulled the trigger. I can't think of any excuses for this type of stupidity, not even "youth" and "first gun." Whether he actually does time for it is up to the state and / or the jury, but he should be charged and have to stand for it.

[Common Sense Party]

59. What happens to someone who unintentionally causes another's death

with any other object--say, an automobile?

If I stupidly leave my keys in the car and the engine running, and the car slips out of gear (maybe my dog moves the gear shifter) and the car then kills someone...I'm assuming I bear some sort of civil responsibility for negligence. Not criminal, obviously, but civil.

This should be treated in the same manner.

[digonswine]

60. I'm not sure if that is the same level of negligence-

I must admit, it is difficult determine what that level is.

Your analogy is good, but not quite the same-it seems to me.

I looked again at the article, but it did not give the exact details. It said that he had forgotten the round in the chamber and that "the gun went off"-not much info there. It could mean that the seller or buyer removed the clip, left the one in the chamber, and accidentally pulled the trigger. It could mean clip removed, forgot chambered round, and the buyer(or seller) dry-fired the gun at the wall(a BIG no-no), etc--

My feelings on this matter hinge greatly on the unknown details.

We all know that the gun did not just "go off"--the trigger was pulled by one of them, accidentally or on purpose.

That is why I would say that the analogy of the car just "slipping into gear" is not apt.

I truly believe that some people should not own guns. If one wants to buy a gun, they should take a rigorous safety course and demonstrate why they should have the ability to own one. Seriously--there are a few things that are like commandments from God regarding guns--ALWAYS assume the gun is loaded. NEVER allow the barrel to point anywhere but a safe direction. NEVER allow your gun to be handled by someone w/o training. etc.

I think, that with proper regs--accidental gun deaths could be almost unheard of.

[iverglas]

67. unbelievable

If I stupidly leave my keys in the car and the engine running, and the car slips out of gear (maybe my dog moves the gear shifter) and the car then kills someone...I'm assuming I bear some sort of civil responsibility for negligence. Not criminal, obviously, but civil.

This should be treated in the same manner.

Let's try this instead.

You're sitting in your car with your friend who is thinking of buying it. You are parked outside a church. You have the car in gear. You ... somehow ... press down on the gas pedal. The car shoots forward, hits a young woman coming out of the church, and kills her.

I'm assuming you bear some sort of criminal liability, myself.

The gun was not idling in the closet while its owner went to confession.

[ellisonz]

68. That is criminal negligence and manslaughter. n/t

[Common Sense Party]

69. Willful intent is immaterial, in your mind?

In re Jerry R. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1440. ("The trial court's statement that whether appellant believed the weapon was loaded was immaterial reveals its misreading of the elements of [Penal Code] section 246.3. Proof of an intentional discharge of the firearm was required, and an honest belief that a gun is empty negatives the mental state of an intent to fire the gun. The two mental states cannot coexist. FN7 FN7. "If ... one is holding a gun supposed to be unloaded, and pulls the trigger expecting no more than a harmless snap of the hammer, but the gun is in fact loaded, and is discharged with fatal consequences, the shooting as well as the killing must be classed as unintentional...&quot

[ellisonz]

70. That's why we have involuntary manslaughter charges in many states...

...but I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty of manslaughter charges in every state. Want to test your theory?

[DWC]

63. Involuntary Manslaughter will be the charge

To which the individual will probably plead guilty with a judge deciding the sentence. Civil action will probably be based on wrongful death.

When any potentially deadly device is being handled or operated, safety MUST come first. The ramifications of even the slightest oversight or error can be enormous.

Semper Fi,