Parents will be prosecuted - Page 5

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; Personally I believe these laws are only enacted so that someone, anyone, is available to be prosecuted. If we can't go after someone because of ...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 101

Thread: Parents will be prosecuted

  1. #61
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Personally I believe these laws are only enacted so that someone, anyone, is available to be prosecuted. If we can't go after someone because of age, then lets hang their parents or even the movie producers that made a movie similar to the crime.
    Someone has to pay afterall.

    Michael


  2. #62
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    I'd appreciate if any of those people would respond to the point about cars. Why do you dole out all this extra responsibility for gun owners as compared to car owners?
    Simply because this is a forum that is about guns not automobiles.
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

  3. #63
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,323
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    CCW9mm has said I would be responsible if I left a gun accessible to any adult as well.
    Nope. Didn't say that. Didn't even mean/imply that, though apparently it was inferred. Rinse, repeat.

    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    Why do you dole out all this extra responsibility for gun owners as compared to car owners?
    People are responsible for their actions. But with children, those nominally responsible for their safety and well-being have some contribution to make ... and that contribution can either be wholesome or negligent or otherwise. The point in this thread is that there may well be, due to the age/knowledge of the participants in the shooting that two areas of responsibility were present: (a) for the shooting, and possibly (b) for the accessibility of the gun.

    In this case, I cannot say. I can make no assumptions or lay claim to some knowledge that hasn't been reported. None of us know. Am merely suggesting that it could go beyond face value, as any situation can.

    As for a car, it's just another tool, sure. But when it's taken and someone's run over, then the same questions are worth asking. I'm of the opinion that a 4yr old driving a car over someone is one thing; that a 12yr old doing the same is something different; and someone with his/her own driving license doing it is something different still. In each of these three cases, there is a changing degree of contributing control on the part of parents/educators that help the child to the knowledge of doing whatever it is he/she is doing. Generally, parents can be looked at for the areas of right and wrong, or access to things around the home. But by 24yrs of age, by golly, if you decide to commit a homicide then you're on your own, utterly and completely. Just as it should be. But, at age 4? Someone else should have pulled a finger out and had better knowledge of your whereabouts, control over the car and other dangerous things around the house, at least until you were old enough to know the difference.

    Still not convinced? Okay, how about an educator that brings a loaded shotgun to his middle school, leaving the shotgun on the cafeteria floor for all 12yr old children to find (and use, if they're interested). No contributing negligence in this case? None at all? I daresay, even in Texas, eyebrows would be raised over that one, asking the educator what the lesson plan was for the day.

    Opinions vary. So do the codified moral standards of communities, in the form of laws. Good thing they do.
    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. #64
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post

    I'd appreciate if any of those people would respond to the point about cars. Why do you dole out all this extra responsibility for gun owners as compared to car owners?
    Its because most the people making these snap judgments drive cars. They do not want to think that they could be held responsible for a death. Not long ago here in Okla a man intentionally ramed someones veihcle with his. There were deaths resulting from it.
    The media kept calling it an accident.
    It angers me as well to see this.

    Michael

  5. #65
    Senior Member Array NYcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Upstate
    Posts
    517
    I take the curiosity of my firearms out of all my boys heads. They don't think twice about the firearms, and could careless about them.

    I drill into them should they ever see on at a friends house, get away quickly and tell an adult.

    I do keep my CC one on me at all time, also have several lockbox/safes in the house, so if I have to show can lock em up quickly.

    Tragic story.

  6. #66
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Cars come up a lot as a to use as an argument about guns.
    As in most of those cases it amounts to . The topics are night and day IMHO.
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

  7. #67
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Someone with training will find it tougher to go against training. It's a main point of learning. A 12yr old that had been trained to ALWAYS handle firearms as if they could kill would, unless homicidal, almost certainly handle them that way. (After all, that's why we train, no?)
    No one cared how much training the parents gave the kid before they condemned the parents.

    Nothing is absolute. Gun rights don't exist in a vacuum. Much like your gun rights stop the moment they butt up against my property rights, the right failure to ensure a 12yr old child is going to be safe around firearms stops when it butts up against another person's right to life. In short: competing goals must coexist. It's called civilization.
    The law doesn't require that a parent ensures inaccessibility. It's perfectly legal to leave loaded guns accessible. The goals aren't just competing. They're contradictory.

    Shouldn't be the case, I agree. Nothing is absolute.
    These parents are from a small rural Texas town where experience with guns, even for children, is very likely common place. Are you conceding that we don't have enough information to condemn these parents as irresponsible just simply on the fact that they left a gun (not even necessarily a loaded gun) accessible to a twelve year old and someone was killed?

    Here's what you said earlier. This and your other comments have implied to me that you believe that by the mere fact that 12 year old kills his friend with a shotgun that the parents were irresponsible.

    If adults (a) fail to ensure the child is trained AND (b) negligently leave their firearms lying around for use by whomever, then they absolutely deserve a bit of legal attention heaped upon their shoulders ... especially if someone gets shot or dies due to "accident" as a result. My $0.03.
    We are, all of us, basing what little we're opining on a spartan list of facts and impressions noted in a single, brief news article. NONE of us has hard evidence about any of it. Not about whether it was homicide or murder. Not about whether he had parents who give a darn. Not about whether he was a "typical" Texan who popped out of the womb with an I.V. karma drip full of knowledge about drinkin', stompin', shootin' and cowboyin'. Who's to say. This wrangling is ridiculous, given the paucity of facts at this point, as it's all supposition. All of it. None of us were there. The writer of that story, too, I'll warrant.
    None of that mattered. They left a gun (possibly even unloaded) accessible to a 12 year old, and the 12 year old shot someone with it. That's all that's required to draw the conclusions you and many others have made.

    Suffice to say: responsibility is also not absolute, at least when we're speaking of children. It's why the absoluteness, if you will, occurs at a higher, agreed-upon age limit (ie, 18, or 21). C
    Nobody agrees on an age limit. Which is it, 18 or 21? Or was it 14 when a minor (not a child) can be tried as an adult? Or was it much older when you were holding adults gun owners responsible for leaving guns accessible to other adults?

  8. #68
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Personally I believe these laws are only enacted so that someone, anyone, is available to be prosecuted. If we can't go after someone because of age, then lets hang their parents or even the movie producers that made a movie similar to the crime.
    Someone has to pay afterall.

    Michael
    That's exactly right.

  9. #69
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by NYcarry View Post
    I take the curiosity of my firearms out of all my boys heads. They don't think twice about the firearms, and could careless about them.

    I drill into them should they ever see on at a friends house, get away quickly and tell an adult.

    I do keep my CC one on me at all time, also have several lockbox/safes in the house, so if I have to show can lock em up quickly.

    Tragic story.
    None of that matters. If you go to bed with that CC gun in your nightstand drawer in Texas, you could wake up a criminal.

  10. #70
    Senior Member Array NYcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Upstate
    Posts
    517
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    None of that matters. If you go to bed with that CC gun in your nightstand drawer in Texas, you could wake up a criminal.
    Thats true, mine are always under my control on me or in the lockbox, even if it is just for a second.

    Can't get complacent, it only take one bad time to change your life for ever. SAFETY!!

  11. #71
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by NYcarry View Post
    Thats true, mine are always under my control on me or in the lockbox, even if it is just for a second.
    Nothing wrong with that. It's a decision only you can judge.

    Can't get complacent, it only take one bad time to change your life for ever. SAFETY!!
    What day in your children's life will you feel comfortable trusting that they are responsible and well trained enough to leave a firearm accessible to them, and how will you ever know that you're right?

  12. #72
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,323
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    No one cared how much training the parents gave the kid before they condemned the parents.
    I do and did.

    Consider the truth. Whatever possibilities I tossed out for consideration are there because they're possible, not due to my having made presumption one about the reality of this specific case. Why? Well, simply, because we don't have many facts to go on.

    And, at the end of the day, forum discussions about handling certain situations are, at the core, about taking a small amount of data that's known at the time and being able to run down the list of possibilities sufficiently well, considering the alternatives sufficiently well, such that we don't make a deadly and irreversible decision when it really does matter.

    Doesn't mean I agree with the sentiments. Doesn't mean I necessarily think that way. And it certainly doesn't mean I'm condemning anyone, merely for voicing possibilities that might turn out to be correct or incorrect, in the specific case. It only means I'm offering up alternatives for consideration in the possibility that others might want to think that way. Understand, now??

    These parents are from a small rural Texas town where experience with guns, even for children, is very likely common place.
    Generally speaking, you're probably correct. In this case though, who's to say? You're not saying we can say for certain, simply because the child is a Texan, are you? I don't know those parents, nor whether they took any opportunity to teach this child about right and wrong, about firearms, about the rules of the house.

    The sheriff might well know the family, the child and the motives that haven't been made public. If so, then he/she has the way of things and is on better footing than we are.

    Are you conceding that we don't have enough information ...
    I concede there is not enough information in that quip of a news article to make any judgments on less than all the facts. We've just got supposition at our disposal, really. That, and the short comment by the sheriff about the "handling" of the gun. That ain't much to go on.

    Again, for those who would twist such things: I offered up the possibilities because, without facts to go on, it's possible that contributory negligence played a part. Can't tell, in this case.

    Here's what you said earlier. This and your other comments have implied to me that you believe that by the mere fact that 12 year old kills his friend with a shotgun that the parents were irresponsible.
    Either you're misinterpreting what I've written, or I am not writing clearly enough.

    Let's give it another whirl.

    In any situation involving a less-than-fully responsible child, in the opinion of many communities around the country (by virtue of their state statutes) there can exist at least two areas of responsibility:
    • outright responsibility for the act in question; and
    • contributing responsibility, possibly, for those who committed an agreed-upon negligence without whose help the situation would not have occurred.

    That's just the way things are. That doesn't mean I have condemned anyone. That doesn't mean I see things that way. That means that many state legislatures have put into place statutes that hold people to certain standards that include the possibility that aiding and abetting someone in their commission of an act is, itself, contributing to the act. That's what we do with criminals. In the case of contributory negligence, it's what many communities do with those in our society who are less than full citizens held fully culpable for all aspects of their actions and the results. And on this point, here's basically all I said: that it's worth consideration, circumstances depending.

    Nobody agrees on an age limit. Which is it, 18 or 21?
    If a state legislature has put into law the age limit at which a person is expected to hold a citizen's full legal rights and responsibilities, then I think it's reasonable to suggest that the consensus in that state is what's specified in the statute. (That's what I said. Not those other things you said I said, or thought I said.)
    Last edited by ccw9mm; February 1st, 2009 at 03:37 AM. Reason: gramur
    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. #73
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by rottkeeper View Post
    Cars come up a lot as a to use as an argument about guns.
    As in most of those cases it amounts to . The topics are night and day IMHO.
    Sorry. That doesn't cut it. Cars come up a lot because if everyone applied the same rational to cars as the do firearms, we'd still be riding horses. You can sure somebody would be looking to haul the manufacturer of horses into court too.

  14. #74
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Either you're misinterpreting what I've written, or I am not writing clearly enough.
    Alright, sorry we wasted so much time on that. I guess I'm still stuck on your training test in general though. It's a serious question right? What day, as your kid grows up, can you or I as a parent responsibly decide a firearm can be left accessible to a child?

    It might be 8. It might be 18, 24, or never because my responsibility to make that decision as a parent doesn't get any easier when they turn 18. Now, if I make that decision, on what basis would you or anyone else judge if I've made a responsible decision as a parent? It seems we agree that the Texas law doesn't give us that basis since that's exactly the wording we see in this story.

  15. #75
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    Sorry. That doesn't cut it. Cars come up a lot because if everyone applied the same rational to cars as the do firearms, we'd still be riding horses. You can sure somebody would be looking to haul the manufacturer of horses into court too.
    A car and a gun are two different instruments, as is knives, baseball bats and darts. All can be deadly but are separate instruments, each having their own degree of accessibility to a minor. Each have a different age at which a kid becomes proficient enough to be trusted with them. Each with a much different intended use. Of cars and guns one is a right and the other a privilege.
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Sponsored 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, 01:34 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, 08:11 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, 01:23 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, 12:38 PM
  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, 09:31 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.