Another gun tragedy

[Gob]

A four-year-old US girl shot and killed her four-year-old cousin in what authorities have called a tragic and avoidable accident.

The children were playing at their grandfather's home in Detroit on Thursday afternoon when the girl found a loaded rifle under a bed.

The boy was shot once in the chest and was pronounced dead in hospital.

Police have said they are investigating whether to press charges. It was not immediately known who owned the gun.

A family friend was the only adult at the home at the time, police said.

"It's a tragic incident," Detroit police Sgt Michael Woody said. "It's really not anything more than that. There was no malicious intent."

"This is a very senseless... incident that could have been avoided," he said, adding the accident reinforced the need to keep firearms secure, especially around children.

The gun was a small-calibre rifle, Sgt Woody said.

[rubato]

Strict liability. The gun owner should be charged with negligent homicide and forced to pay all damages.


Yrs,
Rubato

[Joe Guy]

That republican gun owner should be classified as a child abuser & murderer...

[Gob]

Strict liability. The gun owner should be charged with negligent homicide and forced to pay all damages.


Yrs,
Rubato

I'm sure that would be a great comfort to the parents.

[Lord Jim]

Strict liability. The gun owner should be charged with negligent homicide and forced to pay all damages.


Yrs,
Rubato

I'm sure that would be a great comfort to the parents.

Every time I see this sort of "perspective" from rube, I am imbued with renewed respect for Frau Rube, and her wise decision not to make him a father, or even let him have a puppy...

Talk about missing the point...

[rubato]

Strict liability would reduce the numbers of these stupid and pointless tragedies in the future. It would show an appropriate sense of the value of life and the central importance of individual accountability.


Nothing anyone else has suggested would do so.


This event was not an accident. It was the product of negligent behavior. Having an unsecured gun in the house, let alone a LOADED gun, creates the opportunity for this to happen.

That is what killed this child.

It was tragic and it was avoidable. But it was not an accident.


Yrs,
Rubato

[Lord Jim]

But it was not an accident.

You figure the 4 year old girl intended to kill her 4 year old cousin? Because that is what would be required for this to not be an accident...

Do you know what the meaning of the word "accident" is?

(Generally when I ask a question like that it's rhetorical, however in rube's case it's a fair, straight up question. He's demonstrated that he doesn't know the meaning of a number of simple words; it's entirely possible that he doesn't know the meaning of the word "accident"...if that's the case, it wouldn't surprise me a bit... )

[rubato]

I figure that only a stupid person would think that leaving a loaded gun where children could find it was not a way to cause death.


Only a stupid person. A criminally stupid person.


When you leave a loaded gun lying around, having a child pull the trigger is not an "accident", it is a predictable outcome. You know that it WILL happen with some frequency.


Strict liability would reduce the numbers of these events. None of them are "accidents".


yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

and what do you do when you live in an area where home invasions happen with great frequency and police protection is all but non-existent?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh come on, CP. I'm a grandparent and no matter what neighbourhood I lived in, when the little four year olds come over I'd make damn sure my gun was safely away from them. We're not speaking of four year olds breaking into the house at midnight while the owner was in the loo. At best it's carelessness (which is negligence) and at worst it's carelessness (which is negligence).

Why should a gun owner be held to a lesser standard than (say) a dog owner?

At my son's grandfather's house, I picked up an airgun laying on the kitchen counter and that was enough, without pressing the trigger, to cause it fire a pellet which hit my son on the cheekbone. (a) it shouldn't have been loaded; (b) Grandpa Tom should have put it away before the kids got there and (c) I nearly shot my boy's eye out (and yes, it was at Christmas!).

I wouldn't have sued grandpa - families shouldn't. But I sure would have expected him to pay for any out of pocket hospital expenses had the worst happened - and he would have done. Tragic as this Detroit shooting is, I hope the parent (is it possible there is more than one?) doesn't feel the need of a civil suit

As to criminal negligence - why not?

[Crackpot]

I'm not so much debating the negligence part some of that is apparent (but not necessarily on the part of the gun owner if proper instructions were left or if the owner was even aware they were going to be there) but the must pay all damages part is absurd especially in a case like this where you'd have more luck getting blood from a stone.

What I'm objecting to isn't so much the general sentiment but the application of the sentiment without knowing the facts.

[Lord Jim]

When you leave a loaded gun lying around, having a child pull the trigger is not an "accident", it is a predictable outcome. You know that it WILL happen with some frequency.


Strict liability would reduce the numbers of these events. None of them are "accidents".

Okay, so you genuinely don't know the meaning of the word "accident" ...not really surprising...thanks for clearing that up...

This was clearly and indisputably an accident. It may have been a preventible accident, brought about by irresponsible behavior, (the vast majority of accidents probably fall into this category) but an "accident" nevertheless..

Unless of course you believe the guy was thinking, "I know what I'll do. I'll leave my loaded gun out here, and with a little luck my daughter will pick it up and kill her cousin."

The problem here is obviously not some malevolent intent, but rather the complete absence of any thought process whatsoever...

And it was this thoughtlessness that led to this tragic "accident"...

(That doesn't mean of course that someone can't be held responsible for the consequences of the accident; obviously as a society we do that all the time; in everything from fender benders to surgical mishaps...)

This kind of thing can only happen one of two ways rube; intentionally or unintentionally; or put another way, "deliberately" or "accidentally"....

Gezzus, I can't believe I'm actually having to explain something so basic and obvious to a supposedly college educated adult....

Though I don't know why it surprises me; it's not like it's the first time...

And the really hilarious part is, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that he still won't get it....

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm not so much debating the negligence part some of that is apparent (but not necessarily on the part of the gun owner if proper instructions were left or if the owner was even aware they were going to be there) but the must pay all damages part is absurd especially in a case like this where you'd have more luck getting blood from a stone.

What I'm objecting to isn't so much the general sentiment but the application of the sentiment without knowing the facts.

That's a key point you make. However, I don't see anything wrong with the principle that the negligent storage of a firearm may be criminal and that the police should investigate to uncover evidence for a DA (or whomever) to judge whether a case against the owner/person responsible should be filed.

In this case, we don't know if the rifle under the bed belonged to grandpa - who evidently was not home - to the "family friend" (uh huh), apparently the only 'responsible' adult present - or to some third party as yet unidentified. But somebody put it there, loaded and (if bolt-action) with one in the tube. Presumably grandpa knew the kids might be there (if they don't, in fact live there). So if his gun then he's damn careless ain't he? If it was the gun of the friend then he's even more negligent because he presumably did know the kids were there - he was keeping 'em safe and sound while mum was... wherever mum was. If a third party, well it's criminal negligence IMO to leave a loaded weapon on the floor anywhere.

As to damages - perhaps I agree that it's a case by case thing. But jail time (is that appropriate?) and/or a substantial fine - fines are levied regardless of ability to pay are they not?

rubato's point - as far as I can see it - is that gun owners will be more careful with their weapons if they believe there is a substantial likelihood that they will be haled into court, jailed/fined/punitive damages assessed, to reward their negligent storage of loaded guns easily accessible to miscreants, whether accidental or intentional.

At issue is liability. At present, homeowners with dogs seem to be regarded as a greater danger than homeowners with loaded weapons littering their carpet

Meade

ed. to correct egregious spelling error. er eggregulus egringoless

[Crackpot]

To tell you the truth the family friend aspect of it is one of those things that may well be far more suspicious sounding than it is. All it does do is add another link in The game of telephone that may or may not know about the firearm. As for the knowledge of who owns the gun it seems that as of the point of publishing the article the grandfather had not yet been contacted.

[Lord Jim]

gun owners will be more careful with their weapons if they believe there is a substantial likelihood that they will be haled into court, jailed/fined/punitive damages assessed, to reward their negligent storage of loaded guns easily accessible to miscreants, whether accidental or intentional.

I don't have a problem with some degree of financial accountability in theory, (though as CP points out, we don't know all of the relevant facts in this case needed to make that determination) but I question the likely value or effectiveness of this strategy in preventing these sorts of tragedies...

It seems to me that if a person is so thoughtless and careless as to leave an unattended loaded gun lying around in the presence of small children, they're not likely to be thinking about potential legal or financial risks either...

If the obvious risk to the children isn't enough what makes anyone think that someone is going to "reason" in this fashion:

"Well, I don't really care if the kids kill each other, but if they do I might take big hit in the wallet, so I better lock up the gun"...

Apparently rube believes people think that way, (maybe he would) but I just don't see it...

[Scooter]

I'm prepared to take the hit for being with rubato on this one, because it's a position I have put forward many times myself.

A child died needlessly because a gun owner was grossly irresponsible in the manner in which the gun was or was not stored. There can be no denying that, else a four year old could not gotten a hold of it. There should be not only financial, but also criminal penalties for gun owners in cases like this, which are homicides that occur as a direct result of their utter recklessness and complete disregard for the safety of young children who are able to access their guns.

Put a few of these irresponsible louts in prison for several years and we'll see if people begin to take a bit more care in how they store their firearms. And I don't care how much they may have "suffered enough" in dealing with how they were responsible for killing a child; they need to pay, and pay dearly.

[Lord Jim]

Scooter, I really have no problem with punishing people who act with the type of gross negligence that leads to tragedies like this. In my opinion they certainly deserve punishment.

I just have some questions about the deterrence value, since we're talking about people who are unbelievably thoughtless in the first place. That type doesn't stop and think very often; pretty much by definition...if they're not thinking about something as basic as the lives of their children, I don't see worrying about legal penalties as entering the minds of many of them. (They probably wouldn't even be aware of the laws.)

However the punishment has validity and merit in and of itself from a moral standpoint, even if the deterrence value is limited.

[Crackpot]

The issue here is you assume the owner knew that children would be around. Not only that any method of storing such item in order to ensure a child coud not get ahold of it negates its use for home defense.

[Scooter]

Well, if the owner of the gun isn't around to supervise the children, then he couldn't possibly be in a position to use the gun for home defense during that time, could he, and so there is no reason why the gun cannot be securely stored. So many of these incidents occur when all of the adults are away that I cannot see how safe storage could possibly be an impediment to self-defense. If the gun is at home and they are not, how would they use it for self-defense?

If someone wants to keep a gun under their bed while they are sleeping in it, I can't really quibble with that. But leaving it unattended at other times, in an area that small children will often make a beeline for, is inviting disaster.

[Crackpot]

You are assuming the owner knew kids would've be around. It seems possible to me that daughter stops by dad's unannounced to have him watch kids. However he is out long time neighbor and family friend notices offers help but says they don't have a child friendly house.... Daughter says she has key to fathers house either forgetting or unaware of fathers gun. (Which he secures when kids are over). The rest is tragic history.