Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=iol1268201814680G642" target="_blank">http://www.iol.co.za/index.php...4680G642</a> ***A US toddler accidently killed herself after mistaking her stepfather's handgun for a Nintendo Wii control. Cheyenne Alexis McKeehan, 3, shot herself in the stomach with the .380 caliber, semi-automatic weapon after finding it lying on a table in the living room.*** ***The horrific events unfolded in Lebanon, Wilson County, Tennessee, on Sunday evening after Cheynne's stepfather Douglas Cronberger, 32, heard a prowler outside the property. He fetched his gun, which he usually kept unloaded in a cabinet and went to investigate. After failing to find anyone, he left the gun in the living room and went to bed.*** So they lost a child because someone heard a bump in the night and went to grab the gun "for protection". And then left it lying around with kids in the house. Someday I'd really like to see some unbiased statistics on how many "prowlers" are thwarted by having a weapon in the house versus how many family members die accidentally from same.
Originally Posted By Labuda Very sad that a 3-year-old lost her life due to her parents' idiocy. For those who don't bother clicking the link, check out how bad of a parent her mother was, too: "Her mother, Tina Ann Cronberger, 32, told them Cheyenne had played on the games consol for days at a time." Why the heck was a 3-year-old playing with a Wii for "days at a time?"
Originally Posted By FaMulan I know in the State of CA, in any household with firearms, they must be stored in such a way that children do not have easy access to them. Meaning locked up in a gun safe of some sort. I don't know about Tennessee.
Originally Posted By Mr X ^---how would such a law have prevented what happened here though Fa? The guy took the weapon out, (apparently) loaded it and went to look for bad guys. Then set it down and went to bed (this makes me go Hmm as well). Do you really think if there was a law he'd have been more careful? Why would a law affect his thinking anymore than "oh, we've got small babies in the house, maybe I shouldn't set this gun on the table" would (should)?
Originally Posted By FaMulan In CA, he would be held responsible because he failed to unload the firearm and secure it per the law. I know my husband is very careful about the storage of his guns and we don't have children.
Originally Posted By Mr X And I hope he's held responsible in this case as well. But that doesn't bring back the little girl.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin So this genius thought he heard as prowler? So he left the gun on the table...if it had been a prowler, wouldn't he be afraid whoever the prowler was might actually get in and use the gun on someone in the family? I think they are lying...it just doesn't add up...at the very least he leaves the gun laying around all the time, worst case he's responsible for shooting the kid.
Originally Posted By pecos bill I wonder if it will mean sending a person to prison who has probably been punished enough. I would certainly revoke his right to ever own another gun, perhaps probation, but jail will do nothing here.
Originally Posted By mele I wouldn't want my husband to go to jail, no. Unless he was my ex-husband. (Yes, I'm kidding.) I'm torn about this because losing a child is the worst thing in the world for most parents. Absolute worst. I can't imagine a bigger, harsher lesson. Jail time just seems...vindictive. Not justice, just punishing someone who feels like they have just lost everything.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I wouldn't want my husband to go to jail, no.*** That wasn't what I was driving at. What I meant was, what if it was your kid visiting that house who got killed? Would you think such negligence deserved punishment then?
Originally Posted By barboy When will people learn that, for the most part, guns don't belong in homes since the chances of tragedy far outweighs warding off a would be assailant/intruder. As a collective body gun owners/advocates really are deluding themselves with a false belief of safety. I know there are few cases where a gun owner successfully defended himself but too many times we are left with stories like this 3 year old or some Japanese teen knocking on the wrong door in Texas only to be gunned down by some worthless pile of snot for a human who is trigger happy.
Originally Posted By pecos bill If it were my kid visiting the house? Well, that's a completely different set of circumstances, and honestly, I would probably want the guy in jail, after I beat the hell out of him. The guy is an idiot, no doubt, but no more a criminal than a person who accidentally leaves a poisonous substance out where a child can get at it. Once again, I reiterate, there are tens of millions of households in America where guns are kept safely while children are in the house. Isolated incidents do not paint an accurate picture of the overwhelming majority of safe, responsible gun owners.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Well, that's a completely different set of circumstances, and honestly, I would probably want the guy in jail, after I beat the hell out of him.*** So you're saying the actions of negligent people which bring upon unintentional death are a crime and should be punished, unless said negligent person loves the one who died? ***The guy is an idiot, no doubt, but no more a criminal than a person who accidentally leaves a poisonous substance out where a child can get at it*** But you just SAID he was a criminal, who "probably" would deserve jail after you got finished beating him up. Make up your mind, will you? (leaving poison lying around in reach of children is negligence too, by the way...both are criminal actions, not neither).
Originally Posted By pecos bill As I said, these are two entirely different cases, one being his own child dying, the other being my child. You ask a lot to expect emotional indifference here. If what happened is deemed criminal negligence, then it's in the courts hands. If they find him to be a callous, drunken idiot, who isnt showing remorse for what happened, then I would just as soon the guy went to prison. If they determine that he is emotionally crushed, then leave him be.
Originally Posted By Mr X I understand your point, but honestly the only difference here is perception. Should it ONLY be parents who get a pass? What about negligent Grandparents? Aunts? Cousins? Friends of the family? In other words, where do you draw the line in determining that a sympathetic relationship deserves special consideration even though a crime clearly HAS been committed (plenty of people in jail for negligent but unintentional vehicular homicide right? I'm sure most of them feel emotionally crushed and remorseful)? Just sayin.
Originally Posted By Wendy Pleakley Sounds like a slippery slope. Someone who didn't want their child could "accidently" leave a gun lying around. Punishment should be based on the law, I don't like the idea of a sentence being impacted by how the perpetrator allegedly feels.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Jail time just seems...vindictive. Not justice, just punishing someone who feels like they have just lost everything. >>> You act like that is unusual or rare in the criminal justice system. The theory of it goes that jail time can be a) punishment for someone that has knowingly done wrong, b) keeps a bad guy out of society for some period of time, during which he cannot commit more crimes against the public, and c) serves as a deterrent to others. In the case of someone truly accidentally leaving a gun accessible to a kid that then shoots himself to death but otherwise is a very responsible gun owner, perhaps a) and b) don't apply. But I think that most prosecutors would say that c) alone can provide the justification in of itself for jail/prison time. Even if does nothing for this guy, the fact that it's in the news and we're all talking about it will make others take a moment to review how they store guns in their homes, and in doing so, a public purpose is served. At least that's the theory.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I would certainly revoke his right to ever own another gun, perhaps probation, but jail will do nothing here. >>> This can be difficult to do. The only criminal convictions that will prevent you from owning a gun are a) felonies, or b) domestic violence. I suppose they could convict him of a felony and give him probation, which would avoid jail and prohibit him from owning a gun going forward. But a felony conviction will also prevent him from holding most jobs, renting most apartments, and a whole host of other things.
Originally Posted By mele <<You act like that is unusual or rare in the criminal justice system. >> No, I do not "act" like it is unusual. I said nothing of the sort. Most parents are not put in jail when things like this happen. Most DAs do not pursue charges against parents in situations like this and I believe it's for the reasons I stated. I am well aware of the differences between punishment vs. justice in our court systems. I disagree with a lot of our laws in this regard.
