I'm not sure what it means, "to serve that time talking to hunter safety education classes." Do you think it means as part of his sentence he should take safety classes? Would that mean that he will not lose his right to own guns? Is that because everyone in gun-friendly Vermont figures they're good boys who just made a little mistake and have learned their lesson?Prosecutors acknowledged in both cases that they couldn't establish who had fired the fatal shot, which was one of about 100 rounds alternately fired by members of the group throughout the afternoon. But they pursued the cases anyway, seeking to hold McCarthy responsible for setting up the firing range and Lussier for providing the rifle, loading it and promoting its use in an unsafe area.
A third man shooting with them wasn't charged.
"Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Lussier both did things that led to the death," said prosecutor Justin Jiron.
Lussier, a "working stiff," according to Judge Mark Keller, had no criminal record. Under the plea, he agreed to a 2- to 5-year jail term, all suspended except the 60 days, and 200 hours of community service. Prosecutor Mary Morrissey said the goal is for Lussier to serve that time talking to hunter safety education classes about the dangers of shooting in residential areas.
In the original post, I noticed that McCarthy, who had hosted this little shooting party, "had passed a hunter safety course 10 days before." Is that the kind of course they're now recommending for his shootin' buddy?
What's your opinion? Do you think this kind of deadly incident is rare enough that we should just accept it? Is a slap on the wrist enough for these boys?
Please leave a comment.
"I'm not sure what it means, 'to serve that time talking to hunter safety education classes.' Do you think it means as part of his sentence he should take safety classes? Would that mean that he will not lose his right to own guns?"
ReplyDeleteNo, it means as part of his sentence, he will attend multiple classes and tell the students how bad things can turn out. He will be a felon and will lose his rights to own firearms.
"What's your opinion? Do you think this kind of deadly incident is rare enough that we should just accept it? Is a slap on the wrist enough for these boys?"
A 2-5 year sentence is a felony and they will lose their rights to ever own a firearm. Not exactly a slap on the wrist. Yes, it is rare and it sounds like by the community service portion that the judge is hoping that will hep it to remain rare.
Anybody stupid enough to set up a firing range in their backyard within a neighborhood might benefit from a high school plane geometry class.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that 60 days is nearly enough for negligent homicide or manslaughter. I would say a minimum of 6 months to a year would be more appropriate for the taking of a life.
Do you think this kind of deadly incident is rare enough that we should just accept it?
ReplyDeleteNo--we should not accept it. We should rail at the sky, until the gods make it right!
This isn't even a slap on the wrist. It's akin to listening to a stern lecture.
ReplyDeleteLet's review: a man is dead and his family's life has been forever altered.
And the guy who participated in causing this gets 60 days in jail and has to talk at safety classes? Knowing gunloons, the talk will go something like this:
Yep, shooting an SKS in the backyard in the suburbs probably ain't the smartest thing in the world.
But, lemme tell you, that ol' SKS can dump a lot of lead. And if someone happens to wander by at about 200 yards--oh well. You know the SKS is up for the job.
Class: Guffaws.
I'm here to tell you--60 days for shootin' an SKS and killin' someone? Priceless.
--JadeGold
FWM, who occasionally spins the story, said, "A 2-5 year sentence is a felony and they will lose their rights to ever own a firearm. Not exactly a slap on the wrist."
ReplyDeleteBetter would have been, "A 2-5 year suspended sentence, of which only 60 days will be served, is a felony and they will lose their rights to ever own a firearm. Not exactly a slap on the wrist."
I have a feeling the part which constitutes "not exactly a slap on the wrist" for FWM is the part about losing the right to bear arms, not the prison time whether months or years.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYour sentence and mine are of course both accurate. I wasn't "spinning" anything no more than you were.
The judge probably gave probation for the bulk of the sentence because the man was negligent but had no criminal intent. The man had no prior criminal record and is gainfully employed. The sad truth is that armed robbers serve less. His 60 days and 2-5 probation is on par with what sentences are handed down for other negligent homicides.
His 60 days and 2-5 probation is on par with what sentences are handed down for other negligent homicides.
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely correct. FWM FTW.