Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by ATCclears, Nov 26, 2012.
Gun owner may be held responsible for girl
I don't know how I feel about this. I will say that's one irresponsible gun owner though.
I see a case for criminal negligence
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????
Yes, it's called being an accomplice to a crime via negligence
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
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.
So this guy is charged with assault when not even there but yet the cop goes free again.:thumbdown:
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?
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...
You do not actually want this guy to be charged with assault, or the cop to be convicted...neither is good for anyone.
Assault, hell no!
Criminal negligence is what he should be charged with. The little punk who had the gun should be charged with assault.
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,aranoid: 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?
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.
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.
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
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 !
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.
According to the definitions in the Washington statutes, this gentleman should be culpable.
Separate names with a comma.