A Detroit mother has been found guilty of murder for driving her 15-year-old son to the scene of a fatal shooting at a recreation center and supplying him with a gun.
A Wayne County Circuit jury found Tarranisha Davis guilty of second-degree murder.
Prosecutors said 35-year-old Davis drove her son to the Considine Little Rock Family Life Center on Oct. 8 and opened the hood of her vehicle where he then retrieved a hidden revolver.
Four shots were fired and one struck 19-year-old Demitry Jackson in the head.
Prosecutors said Jackson was an innocent bystander who had gone to the center to play basketball.
“She made her son come back to the scene, she armed him, she prodded him,” prosecutor Lisa Lindsey said. “Just like a gun when you pull the trigger, he fired.”
That's a sad story. Of course it touches on our never-ending discussions about shared responsibility. I suppose the pro-gun folks who so vehemently resist my ideas will insist this is a wrongful conviction. After all, the mother didn't pull the trigger.
My question though, is not about the shared responsibility, which spreads out from this incident like ripples in a pond, but rather about the origins of the gun. Where do you suppose it came from? Who do you think was the last lawful owner of that gun and how did it move into the criminal world?
As I see it, there are only a few ways, all of which taint the last legal owner. It was either stolen or it was transferred knowingly or unknowingly to a criminal.
Some people don't like my blaming the victim of theft for losing the gun. I admit there are cases in which all proper precautions are taken and the guns are stolen anyway. But more often than not, I'd say there's some failure on the part of the gun owner which enabled the thief to succeed.
Some have said the gun owner who knowingly transfers a gun to a criminal is a criminal himself. But the same people who say that also demand proof for everything; they accept nothing without it. So, I suppose that means the gun owner who is slick enough to transfer his gun to a criminal without implicating himself enjoys his rights of presumed innocence and is therefore a lawful gun owner still. There are a lot of them out there like that, and I'll bet they will be the first to demand proof of me for saying this.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.