Gun owner may be held responsible for shooting of girl

[ATCclears]

Gun owner may be held responsible for girl

Read More

 

[Boomerang]

I don't know how I feel about this. I will say that's one irresponsible gun owner though.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I see a case for criminal negligence

 

[hermannr]

I don't know how I feel about this. I will say that's one irresponsible gun owner though.

You are irresponsible, and responsible, when someone steals your gun and then it is used in a crime or accidentally injures someone else????

Do you really believe that. Is that what you want our laws to show, you are responsible for someone elses actions????

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Yes, it's called being an accomplice to a crime via negligence

 

[hermannr]

I see a case for criminal negligence

Not. Better go to RCW 9A.8.010 and see if you can find something like that, that fits this situation.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Not. Better go to RCW 9A.8.010 and see if you can find something like that, that fits this situation.

I'm not talking statutes, just common sense

 

[Boomerang]

You are irresponsible, and responsible, when someone steals your gun and then it is used in a crime or accidentally injures someone else????

Do you really believe that. Is that what you want our laws to show, you are responsible for someone elses actions????

That's not what I said. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this. On one hand, you shouldn't be responsible for someone else's actions, but on the other hand, you shouldn't leave a loaded firearm where some kid can find it and take it to school.

 

[John H]

So this guy is charged with assault when not even there but yet the cop goes free again.

 

[chemist]

The issue is that it's a kid that picked up an unsecured gun inside a house where he was entitled to be.
If the kid had shot himself with the gun, wouldn't the boyfriend be held responsible, both criminally and at civil trial? How is it different when the kid shoots somebody else?

 

[hermannr]

So this guy is charged with assault when not even there but yet the cop goes free again.

Actually this guy is appealing the possible charge...the county charged him, his lawyer says, you can't do that; and appealed to the appeals court.

We are not in real trouble yet, the appeals court has not ruled he can even be charged with assault. This is one of the reasons it is very important who we elect to the courts...

 

[hermannr]

So this guy is charged with assault when not even there but yet the cop goes free again.

You do not actually want this guy to be charged with assault, or the cop to be convicted...neither is good for anyone.

 

[Flyingswords]

I see a case for criminal negligence

Assault, hell no!

Criminal negligence is what he should be charged with. The little punk who had the gun should be charged with assault.

 

[parallax]

That's not what I said. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this. On one hand, you shouldn't be responsible for someone else's actions, but on the other hand, you shouldn't leave a loaded firearm where some kid can find it and take it to school.

kinda creepy to think that when I leave my house, and hypothetically, a single or group of teenagers breaks in, somehow gets my guns, and then i am possibly liable for there actions? not exactly like this story,"as the boyfriend should have had that weapon locked down" but brings up the question of liability of someone elses actions, after they have broken into my house. this is one of a long list of fears i have, its not so much the loss of firearms, as the concern of what the people that took them are doing with them. also makes me wonder about the liability,if someone steals my car or truck, then goes out playing bumper cars with people on the freeway. does anyone in Oregon know the liabilty of such senario? has anyone had there gun or car stolen, then were liable for it afterward, in oregon?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I haven't seen anything about whether the gun was secured or not. If the owner took reasonable precautions, like locking the gun in a safe and carrying the only key in his person, and the kid then somehow got access, then I would think he has no liability. If he left it on the kitchen table then he shares responsibility because he was negligent. That's why, believe it or not I like having a statute covering reasonable security. Once I've satisfied the statute I can't be held liable, and most statutes I've seen fall short of the standards I set for myself.

 

[parallax]

it usually comes down to ,if the D.A. wants to pursue a criminal charge against the boyfriend. If it goes to trial, regardless of if the gun was secured or not, the boyfriend is going to take an extreme financial toll and emotional toll. Thats what sucks about the legal system. If a D.A. wants to pursue something, the D.A. has no financial loss and and has an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars at his/her whim., but the accused gets destroyed financially.gulty,until proven innocent.

 

[nwdrifter]

too any of you that think he should be prosecuted, i have questions

if some drunk steals your car and kills someone with it, i hope the DA comes after you for murder and negligence for leaving the keys in your car.

Ok maybe you forgot to shut your gate, your small dog got out and ran up to a little girl to get petted. Not biting just wants to be petted. Problem is the girl is allergic to dogs and goes into anaphylactic shock and dies. Now your a murderer because you were negligent not shutting the gate.

maybe your kid grow up to be bad and at the age of 17 robbed a store and shot someone. now your being held for murder because you were negligent and did not throw the ball with him enough and he grow up bad.

people are not responcable for other peoples stupidity, even kids.

we sure need a good cleansing in this country

 

[DuneHopper]

The law puts the burden on proof in a case like this on the defendant ( gun owner ).
However if the gun was stored in a locked residence there is no other security needed and that is considered safe and only slight care is needed by locking the door.

If the person had access to the residence then the gun must be secure great care is needed to secure the gun.

The judge or jury may look at it as if :
If you knew the child or any child had access to the weapon whether it was stolen is not relevant great care must be used.
It would be like leaving it in your unlocked car or on your porch and it was stolen.

It is a sad case but is why people having guns need to control access !

 

[MountainBear]

The key issue is that the gun was taken by a child. Since that child cannot generally be held completely responsible for his actions in our society, someone needs to get burned for this. If another adult had broken into the home or otherwise taken the gun without the owners permission, then I would say that person needs to be held responsible for their own actions. However, considering the gun was taken by a youth that lived in the house with the adult and the adult did not properly secure his gun, then at the very least he is guilty of criminal negligence.

RCW 9A.08.010

General requirements of culpability.




(1) Kinds of Culpability Defined.

(a) INTENT. A person acts with intent or intentionally when he or she acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.

(b) KNOWLEDGE. A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when:

(i) he or she is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense; or

(ii) he or she has information which would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by a statute defining an offense.

(c) RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

(d) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

(2) Substitutes for Criminal Negligence, Recklessness, and Knowledge. When a statute provides that criminal negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally.

(3) Culpability as Determinant of Grade of Offense. When the grade or degree of an offense depends on whether the offense is committed intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, its grade or degree shall be the lowest for which the determinative kind of culpability is established with respect to any material element of the offense.

(4) Requirement of Wilfulness Satisfied by Acting Knowingly. A requirement that an offense be committed wilfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further requirements plainly appears.

[2009 c 549 § 1002; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.08.010.]

According to the definitions in the Washington statutes, this gentleman should be culpable.