Parents will be prosecuted - Page 3

Parents will be prosecuted

This is a discussion on Parents will be prosecuted within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Kerbouchard When I was 10 I had a 30-30, a .22, and a 20 ga on a rifle rack above my bed. ...

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 101

Thread: Parents will be prosecuted

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    When I was 10 I had a 30-30, a .22, and a 20 ga on a rifle rack above my bed. Ammo was usually sitting on my dresser.

    I guess my parents, grandparents, uncles, cousins, etc should all be arrested.
    Yours, no. You were trained.

    It's the idiot-mitten, untrained variety (and situations) being spoken of.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Making somebody a criminal for something somebody else does without their knowledge or consent is absurd. The kid, and only the kid, deserves to be arrested.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    Making somebody a criminal for something somebody else does without their knowledge or consent is absurd.
    From a certain point of view.

    The responsibilities of parenting are rough. Not everyone can handle it. In clear cases where negligence contributed, there is indeed a degree of responsibility being shirked, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. Some communities choose to put that part of the responsibility where it lies. Some don't.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #34
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    So, if a parent forgets to lock up the steak knives and their kid stabs somebody? How about the baseball bats? Or the iron?

    A firearm is a tool. No better or worse than an ax in the garage. Both are downright deadly if misused.

    You can't possibly prevent every risk or possible irresponsible action somebody can make.

    If people persist on this line of thinking, my silverware drawer is going to have to have a lock on it, my car keys are going to have to be locked up in a safe unless I am actually driving, and any object over 2 pounds will have to be locked and attached to an immovable object.

    Be careful. A nanny-state doesn't stop with guns...I hear Britain is trying to outlaw knives.

    When you accept the premise that a tool used improperly to cause injury is the tools fault(rather than the persons), you accept the fact that any tool that can cause injury needs to be regulated for the good of the people. You know, just common sense regulations.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  5. #35
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    So, if a parent forgets to lock up the steak knives and their kid stabs somebody? How about the baseball bats? Or the iron?
    How about chemicals under the sink with a curious toddler? Chemicals are just a tool, after all. No parental responsibility? Toddlers should know chemicals are dangerous.

  6. #36
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    You can't possibly prevent every risk or possible irresponsible action somebody can make.
    .
    I have to agree with you...well stated logic. Unfortunately, the people that sit on grand juries do or may not have the same logic because firearms are looked as the evil harbiger of death.

    What we do not know is what was presented to the grand jury...the facts. We only know the outcome. So, we can speculate and assume this is the way it was...but they felt there was an element of culpabilty...perhaps driven by personal or past prejudices. Regardless...a child died. Could it have been prevented? That Sir is the very expensive question.

    Rick

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    When you accept the premise that a tool used improperly to cause injury is the tools fault(rather than the persons) ...
    Didn't say that. I suggested that acknowledging shared responsibility when parental negligence contributes isn't all bad.

    That's a far cry from claiming tools are miraculous beings.

    You can't possibly prevent every risk or possible irresponsible action somebody can make.
    Didn't say that, either. I suggested (more like, implied) that taking minimal precautions with the most-risky of our tools is a minimum responsibility a teacher has for a student (child, in this case). One can and should take minimal steps. Though, by age 12, one would think the idiot would have long since been introduced and understand the basics. (And, no, I'm not suggesting that movies fried his brain and should therefore be banned. Didn't say that.)
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  8. #38
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,316
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    How about chemicals under the sink with a curious toddler? Chemicals are just a tool, after all. No parental responsibility? Toddlers should know chemicals are dangerous.
    You're talking about a very fine line with the age of reason. Definitely far below a 12 year old concept of what is right, wrong, dangerous etc...

    Clearly what we define as "toddler" at this point in time typically lacks the reasoning capabilities to determine that the chemicals under the sink can kill them. That's a far cry from a 12 year old.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  9. #39
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    How about chemicals under the sink with a curious toddler? Chemicals are just a tool, after all. No parental responsibility? Toddlers should know chemicals are dangerous.
    I think you and I can both acknowledge that there is a large difference between a toddler and a 12 year old boy.

    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Didn't say that. I suggested that acknowledging shared responsibility when parental negligence contributes isn't all bad.
    There is no evidence, at least that I have read, that parental negligence played any part in it. A 12 year old boy got a hold of a shotgun and was showing it off to his friend. Now, that does not speak highly of the way he was raised, but then again, the things I did at 12 would get the BATF&E after me today.
    I suggested (more like, implied) that taking minimal precautions with the most-risky of our tools is a minimum responsibility a teacher has for a student (child, in this case). One can and should take minimal steps.
    By saying there should be minimal precautions, I have to ask, 'Who decides which minimal precautions we should use?' Your idea of precautions? Mine? The Brady's? Perhaps the legislature should decide? There are several places in this country where they believe that guns have no place in the hands of civilians or that they must be unloaded, locked up, and disassembled. With laws like that, there is a chance that this could have been avoided.
    Though, by age 12, one would think the idiot would have long since been introduced and understand the basics. (And, no, I'm not suggesting that movies fried his brain and should therefore be banned. Didn't say that.)
    You are probably right about this. The kid was probably not shown the basics and his parents probably tried to keep him away from any of the guns in the house. Because the gun was 'mysterious' or 'off-limits' to him, was probably the exact reason he was trying to show it off to his friend.

    A firearm has been personified by our media, our movies, and the Brady's as some magical, deadly instrument of destruction.

    If hammers had that kind of smear campaign going against them, maybe the kid would have been showing off his Dad's hammer, instead.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  10. #40
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Having children sufficiently aware of the use, safety issues and pros/cons of firearms should equate to "being trained." What's sufficient? Enough training to know by age 12 that pulling the trigger and pointing the gun at someone can kill. (Heck, there are kids that know this by age 7. It all comes down to the training, and to the parent/kid in question.)
    You mean to tell me you think this 12 year old kid didn't know that? I'd say it would have to be only the most isolated five year old that wouldn't know that with or without "training" by the parents.

  11. #41
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    So, if a parent forgets to lock up the steak knives and their kid stabs somebody?
    Then clearly the parents were criminally negligent in not giving them enough training to know that stabbing your brother in the chest might actually kill him.

  12. #42
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    There is no evidence, at least that I have read, that parental negligence played any part in it.
    Didn't say that. I suggested that in clear cases of contributing negligence, then negligence shouldn't be blindly discarded. I couldn't say, in this instance, as I don't know the specific facts, beyond the report in this one article.

    Now, as for a 12yr old not knowing what guns do, not knowing a gun and bullet poke holes, not having been shown by people who know, and having apparently gotten to both gun and ammo despite not having Clue #1 ... well, it does suggest that some failures to train and guide were part of this. Can't tell, based on so little from article.

    I acknowledge that negligence and abdication of responsibility is the second most widely-spread disease in America, after the common cold. It's entirely possible, in this case, that it played a part. Can't tell from here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    If hammers had that kind of smear campaign going against them, maybe the kid would have been showing off his Dad's hammer, instead.
    Well, hammers are a bit different. One must schwing der big hammer in order for it to have enough force to really harm someone. In contrast, a firearm needs only have the trigger pulled, and no specific violent (ie, swinging, hacking, punching) action is required. The subtlety can escape a lot of folks, some far older than 12.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  13. #43
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    I think you and I can both acknowledge that there is a large difference between a toddler and a 12 year old boy.
    That is why I specifically chose a toddler. At some point/age we expect a child to have specific knowledge or training. How can that age be specifically determined for an individual? Maybe the boy was retarded or had some other disability. Society has a vested interest in protecting children. That is why parental negligence sometimes results in the state taking the children from a dangerous situation.

    I agree with ccw9mm. The level of negligence, whatever it might be, cannot be ignored and discarded.

    There is no evidence, at least that I have read, that parental negligence played any part in it. A 12 year old boy got a hold of a shotgun and was showing it off to his friend. Now, that does not speak highly of the way he was raised, but then again, the things I did at 12 would get the BATF&E after me today.
    From what I read, parental negligence played a large part. Parents are responsible for protecting their children. That includes schooling, morals, and in this case specifically, proper safety handling of a firearm. Obviously, the parents are responsible for the acts of minor chldren.

    By saying there should be minimal precautions, I have to ask, 'Who decides which minimal precautions we should use?' Your idea of precautions? Mine? The Brady's? Perhaps the legislature should decide? There are several places in this country where they believe that guns have no place in the hands of civilians or that they must be unloaded, locked up, and disassembled. With laws like that, there is a chance that this could have been avoided.
    My issue is not that legislation should be enacted to preclude this type of accident but rather placing some part of the responsibilty where it belongs: the parents.

  14. #44
    Distinguished Member Array bandit383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,681
    Got me thinking...if a 12 yr old stole the keys to the car...then crashed killing a family...would the parents be held criminally responsible?

    I guess that's one reason we have lawyers...

    Rick

  15. #45
    Member Array socal2310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    467
    There is a big difference Nanny State wise between prosecuting parents after the fact and punishing people because something might happen. I don't even object to the laws regarding safe storage in the state of California (though widely misunderstood):

    12035

    ...(subsection (a) lists definitions)...

    (b) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a person commits
    the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm of the first degree" if
    he or she keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under
    his or her custody or control and he or she knows or reasonably
    should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm
    without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian and
    the child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes death or
    great bodily injury to himself, herself, or any other person.
    (2) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a person commits the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm of the second degree" if he or she keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under his or her custody or control and he or she knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian and the child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to himself, herself, or any other person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in violation of Section 417.

    (c) Subdivision (b) shall not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
    (1) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry to any premises by any person.
    (2) The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure.
    (3) The firearm is carried on the person or within such a close proximity thereto that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person.
    (4) The firearm is locked with a locking device that has rendered the firearm inoperable.
    (5) The person is a peace officer or a member of the armed forces or National Guard and the child obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the person's duties.
    (6) The child obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person, or persons.
    Note that two things have to happen in order for prosecution to occur: the firearm must be left loaded and unattended AND it must be discharged in an unlawful/accidental/negligent manner.

    I didn't even know this for myself until recently. I thought (and the state of California does its best to convince you) that it was illegal to leave the firearm loaded and unlocked period. It's too bad that John and Tephanie Carpenter didn't know that.

    Ryan

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Pirate Suspects To Be Prosecuted in US
    By DaveH in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2010, 12:34 PM
  2. Obama may allow U.S. soldiers to be prosecuted by the world court
    By ExSoldier in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: December 11th, 2009, 07:11 PM
  3. Many Contra Costa [county] crooks won't be prosecuted (CA)
    By Janq in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 25th, 2009, 12:23 PM
  4. ABC Scaring Parents About Kids' Friends Gun-Owning Parents
    By Patti in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: April 15th, 2009, 11:38 AM
  5. Texas Pistol-toting drivers without a permit will still be prosecuted
    By JT in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 30th, 2005, 08:31 PM

Search tags for this page

4 misdemeanor counts of lying

,

in sesson verdit in gun case boy killed

,

joyriding in car without permission texas

,

parents be prosecuted for kids gun

Click on a term to search for related topics.