Nexus Zero
Member
He obviously wasn't a permit ho... oh
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Father charged after daughter shoots self with his pistol
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
- Status
Dude Abides
Banned
He's being charged under FL law. I don't see what federalizing it would do. Plus it would never happen because NRA.
I don't think you have thought this through before getting outraged. Specifically banning guns at the bank, at the post office, at an university etc. doesn't improve safety at all. It does nothing to stop criminals; why would someone planning a robbery or murder care about a lesser charge piled on top?
It would actually decrease safety if people carrying concealed were prohibited from carrying into the bank, because then they'd have to fumble with the gun on the parking lot to unholster it, risking accidents, then store the gun in the car where it's easier to steal, then fumble with it again when coming out. This would also normalize the sight of people sitting in a car in front of a bank handling guns, making it harder to distinguish criminal behavior. When people carry guns in public, it's safest by far that the gun is carried continuously and never becomes visible or leaves the holster until the person is back home or at the workplace and can immediately store the gun safely.
And what if they weren't planning it?
EdibleKnife
Member
How about keep it locked up and write yourself a fucking sticky note instead.
I feel so sorry for that poor kid. This is one of the reasons I like to believe in an afterlife where a girl like her can find peace.
I find it hard to feel the same sympathy for the father. Yes he's probably being eaten up from the inside, as he should be, but he had multiple opportunities to make sure this didn't happen. After pointing a gun at her mother, that should have been the first and last time the girl ever encountered the firearm in the open. The thing should stay under lock and key until you're ready to take it and leave. Screw that 10 pounds of pressure bullshit. I'm not saying anything new, but I'm glad he's charged. Hope he gets convicted. If not, his future should includes either a gun or another child but not both. In fact probably just neither since he clearly can't handle either.
The vast majority of crime, including robbery and murder, is meticulously planned in advance and executed as a well-prepared process.
(No it's not)
So, would you say he should not be permitted to own a gun, because he cannot be trusted with one?
Prison time seems unnecessary to me. Unless you guys just want him to be punished more. He was responsible for his own child's accidental death. The dude must be going over that mistake 100x every day. The very thought of putting myself in his shoes makes me shiver. I doubt he needs rehabilitation. He knows exactly what he did wrong.
His irreponsible action caused a dead of a young kid, of course I want him punished more.
You're hypothesizing about an incident where a person who carries a gun and is sufficiently lawabiding that they would respect a law which prohibits carrying guns at a bank will nonetheless randomly go berserk or turn into a bank robber. Despite their criminal urge, if they don't have a gun on hand, they would not go back to their car and get a gun from there. Do you understand how astronomically unlikely this combination of circumstances is?
In comparison, like I already explained, a carry ban on a specific location inevitably causes actual safety hazards. At least unless the location provides a well thought out arrangement for gun storage, which takes resources to do.
Furthermore, if the bank doesn't want to allow carry on their premises, they can ban it themselves. That does not necessitate a law.
You're assuming a level of empathy and awareness from someone who was so ignorant that they left a loaded gun within reach of a 3-year old, more than once. He clearly won't feel as responsible as he should.
10 years in a cell ought to be enough time, let's try that first.
Random Painted HIghway
Member
Sad story all around.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I believe that he as an individual should be tried for the negligent homicide of his daughter. If he is convicted of that felony (and I think leaving your gun for your child to accidentally kill themselves or someone else *should* be a felony) then upon release from prison he should absolutely not be trusted to legally own a gun. Just like we don't currently allow convicted felons to own guns.
I'm not an advocate of taking away someone's rights without due process. Nor making blanket statements about large swaths of people based on the irresponsibility of a few.
Truth.
How is leaving a loaded handgun with the safety off within a child's reach an accident? He literally said he didn't think she was strong enough to pull the trigger. I don't know how you can be more negligent, or responsible for the situation.
Phoenix
Member
That's a really interesting question. We allow people who commit vehicular homicide to eventually drive again, same for DUI, same for pretty much anything. As a society we have more of a "status quo" attitude and people who have shown an irresponsible tendency are allowed to continue with it over and over and over and over again because we feel that not doing so would be a violation of their rights. There are people out there with 3-5 DUIs that are STILL driving today.
Phoenix
Member
His actions caused the death of an innocent and a loss to society, friends, family, etc. so he is being punished on behalf of society at large because they suffered a loss due to his actions.
You can take this even farther: every time we read a story (in the paper, on GAF, hear it from a friend, whatever) about people doing something stupid, we think "how could someone be so stupid? What an idiot, he deserves the consequences." That is, until we make a big mistake ourselves, which we inevitably do many times in our lives because we're human. At that point there is a perfectly logical explanation for why things turned out the way they did.
FortuneFaded
Member
People say that he shouldn't be punished because of the guilt he will be feeling. However, laws are not put in place solely to punish a perpetrator after they have already committed the action. It is also used to discourage bad behaviour in the first place to stop the incident ever occurring. Unfortunately, some people will not take the lives of children as incentive to do the right thing but the knowledge of possible legal repercussions can make an impact. An example of this is the use of seat belts in cars, which increased when laws were made making use of seat belts mandatory.
Addressing the guilt issue. If a burglar goes into a house bringing a gun to scare the owners, but with no intention of using it, and the gun accidentally misfires and kills a child, should he be left off because of guilt? I'm not saying the two stories are comparable (in my hypothetical the burglar should get a much bigger sentence than the father), but guilt is guilt.
Addressing the guilt issue. If a burglar goes into a house bringing a gun to scare the owners, but with no intention of using it, and the gun accidentally misfires and kills a child, should he be left off because of guilt? I'm not saying the two stories are comparable (in my hypothetical the burglar should get a much bigger sentence than the father), but guilt is guilt.
Prohibition was primarily a conservative movement. The prohibition party, formed specifically to fight for prohibition, is an extreme right party. By contrast, prohibition was repealed by Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Surely if he's making large deposits in his job it's up for his employer to provide things like helmet, body armour and firearm?
So by everyone having guns everyone is safest of all, right? That's my point. Why does everyone need a gun at all? It doesn't make anyone safer at all, but instead puts items whose only purpose in to kill in the hands of anybody who wants one. I can just about comprehend the thought process behind keeping a pistol at home in a secure lockbox for self defence, but why the fuck would you want to walk around in public with a gun holstered at your hip? Contrary to what you might think, if no-one had a gun in public then that's when safety would be highest. Its a device whose only purpose is to kill, so in what regard does that help keep people safe?
I will never make the mistake of leaving a loaded handgun out within reach of my daughter. Not once, let alone 3 times.
This wasn't an absent-minded relative who was over for a short visit, spilled some coffee, unholstered his gun to dry off and accidentally left it on the table for a split second.
This was the father, who purposefully left a loaded handgun within reach of his 3 year old daughter so he "wouldn't forget it". It wasn't a mistake at all.
He did this. 3 fucking time. Calling this guy stupid is putting it mildly.
Pretty sure prohibition was favoured by the rural, conservative, evangelical and nationalist sides of politics.
Edit: Beaten like a prohibition party.
MarkMclovin
Member
In before people without kids quote you with bullshit responses. Oh wait.
It's a tough one though. If there wasn't the previous incidents where she had the gun then I'd say you're right. But 3 times is 3 times too many. Maybe he was a great father too and right now I can't imagine what he and the families are going through, but some sort of punishment does need to happen. I certainly don't think he should get a long sentence. Losing his own child in such a way will be punishment enough and he'll blame himself for the rest of his life for his mistakes and irresponsibility.
Certainly many people who fought for local and state prohibition laws were females and religious people but from what I've heard the people who pushed for the actual laws that amended our constition were liberals who worried about the immigrant populations in big cities.
EDIT: in any case that's way off topic and I do agree that the prohibition years prior to the civil war was primarily a conservative movement (although one could certainly argue that the gender equality that seemed to rise was a very liberal thing).
Give me a break. The judicial system is more reactive in nature than any other level of government.
After the first incident involving this man's firearm, either the city, county, state, or country should have been able to confiscate this man's firearms, with him being able to petition the government directly, or file grievance with the courts, to have his firearms returned (usually after providing evidence of further training or safety precautions... something to show that they CAN be responsible, pleading their case)
This is how it works in Sweden and Norway and most developed nations that have high levels of gun ownership. You don't need to criminalize something, then wait for a crime to occur, before you can take preventative action.
It's not how it works in the US either for many things, either, especially those involving children. You don't need to commit a crime for CPS to take action against you. Or to be audited by the IRS. Or have your controlled substance purchases monitored.
Not just for him, but for other idiots like him who do similar stupid things. And I know it'll never happen, but it should.
You know, I think it's poor wording that leads to that belief, thinking about it just now, and reading this quote:
I think the arrest report is from this incident, but after being arrested, he talks about prior incidents with the child and the gun.
I don't think it was ever reported.
Edit: to clarify, I think daughter shoots herself, dad is arrested -- under questioning, dad mentions that daughter had twice previously acquired gun, but didn't discharge it, because, he assumed, she wasn't strong enough.
The article says "The fatal incident was also the third time Zuri had toyed with a gun she found at home, according to police."
It doesn't site witness accounts or what Zuri told police. That's from the police, so I'd assume they have records of previous incidents on file (the vast majority of reported incidents to the police do not involve an arrest, and the vast majority of arrests have charges dropped).
Haha, this is beautiful. The real problem is that toy guns exist, not that actual guns kill.
freenudemacusers
Member
'You don't have kids you wouldn't understand' works for some situations; this isn't one of them. I don't really see how it matters.
That was my reading of it.
Triggerhappytel
Member
But in this instance if we're to believe the report his daughter got hold of his gun twice before, so he had his chances. He continued to make the same mistake and his daughter died from it.
You didn't convey your point very well, because what you said was this: "it's legal to take a loaded gun into a bank?! What the fuck is wrong with a society when this shit is acceptable?".
Now you are piling on strawman arguments and plain untruths. I don't see anyone here - or elsewhere, for that matter - arguing that everyone needs a gun. Someone being legally allowed to have a gun does not mean everyone is legally allowed to have a gun, nor does it mean anyone can easily obtain one. Guns definitely increase the safety of some people. Guns have plenty of purposes besides killing.
This logic would be invalid even without the bad assumptions. A hypothetical thing that is only capable of killing and nothing else is perfectly capable of helping to keep people safe.
GreatMightySymp
Member
Not surprised it's another "idiot gun owner in Florida" headline.
There's things I love about this state, but there's seriously way too many idiots down here.
There's things I love about this state, but there's seriously way too many idiots down here.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
.This was negligence without intent to harm and is the very definition of the word "accident". I quote:
"1a: an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance. 2a: an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance"
This was kind of what I was saying.
Prisons can protect society from dangerous people and possibly rehabilitate them. You're suggesting we also use prison as a means to satisfy public outrage in this case. That doesn't seem exactly ethical to me considering the circumstances. Then again, maybe society isn't as ethical as we should be.
Good.
If you are so lax with your gun safety that a child or mentally unstable person in your home can gain access to it, you should be 100% liable for anything they do with said weapon.
It should not only be the law, it should be common fucking sense.
Not very different than drunk driving in my eyes. Scumbag behavior due to laziness/idiocy.
If you are so lax with your gun safety that a child or mentally unstable person in your home can gain access to it, you should be 100% liable for anything they do with said weapon.
It should not only be the law, it should be common fucking sense.
Not very different than drunk driving in my eyes. Scumbag behavior due to laziness/idiocy.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Sorry, I was thinking in context of someone not being discovered that they left the gun out until the child fired a fatal shot due to negligence. By all means if the authorities are made aware that a gun has been left out like that and a child was playing with it then I feel it should be a crime and the person arrested and just about everything I advocated before should occur.
Now if shit like home inspections and such are advocated I'd feel that's going too far but just saying "Listen, if you own a gun or multiple guns you have a legal obligation to simply lock your shit up. And if you don't you are responsible if your child gains access." So that gives people the freedom to own their guns. And to give far more thought into the storage of their self0defense firearms because it's THEIR ass if their kid gets their hands on it.
In NY the law is if you live in a home w/ a convicted felon or someone w/ known mental illness you have a legal obligation to secure your firearms. I wouldn't have an issue with that extended to cover children. Doesn't infringe on my right to OWN my guns. Just means I need to be responsible and accountable. I don't oppose that.
If the idiot in question didn't have access to guns in the first place, the daughter would be alive. Simple as that. Most people who actually own guns in the USA are more likely to kill themselves or a loved one with it, than an intruder.
If I killed someone drunk driving, should I go to jail? I know I wouldn't do it again, and would be going over that mistake every day myself. I can't imagine what it would be like either, but I don't think our justice system should be based on my own personal sense of empathy. If I had killed my kid through that sort of neglect, I really can't predict what sort of person I would become. Would I be more dangerous or less dangerous to myself or others? I couldn't say. I certainly couldn't say how this would affect a stranger who allowed this to happen.
Old Gimlet Eyes
Member
It's not hard to keep your firearms locked up. I keep most of my guns locked in my large safe and another quick opening safe houses my pistol. No excuse not to keep your guns stored in a safe manner, especially with children around.
It was not unforeseen, he witnessed her holding the gun on two previous occasions.
Her shooting herself was certainly unplanned, but his placement of the gun was not. He put it there purposefully.
It was an unfortunate event, but not one born from carelessness or ignorance, again, he willfully placed it there. He attended a firearms training course, so I'm not sure how he was ignorant to anything.
The only reason I can see a firearms course not discussing that firearms should be kept out of the reach of children at all times, regardless of any and all safety features and precautions, and regardless of whether it was loaded or not, would be because it should go without saying. I'd wager that it's a part of the handbook though, despite its obviousness.
Random Painted HIghway
Member
Which is more likely, previous reports of gun incidents inside the home with zero action taken or the police interview of the father and others revealing that this wasn't the first time she picked up the gun? You are coming to conclusions based on your own biases rather than a reasoned perspective. Further, while CPS reports would likely be confidential, police reports and disturbance calls would be accessible to the public/media. Outside of a child custody battle or an unrelated party witnessing the event, I can't fathom someone calling the authorities because the girl picked up the gun.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Okay, maybe I have explained my reasoning poorly. I think of all places, guns should absolutely be banned from banks (along with schools and suchlike). I don't agree that guns should have any place in common society outside of people's homes, but clearly you and I will not agree on this aspect so there's probably no point in continuing to discuss it.
Mammoth Jones
Member
- Status