"The gun fired," did you get that? And "the bondsman was not arrested," that's the best one of all. Far from suffering consequences for this stupidity and for breaking the no-guns-in-hospitals law, this guy will go on his merry way and live to fight another day.In a written statement, police said the bondsman was involved in some sort of disturbance at the hospital at Randallia Drive and East State Boulevard.
Parkview spokesman John Perlich said hospital security officers asked the bondsman to leave, but he refused.
About 12:30 p.m., police officers were called to assist the security officers. Police learned that the bondsman had a handgun, and as he was trying to unload the gun by taking a round out of the chamber, the gun fired. No injuries were reported.
It was not clear why the bondsman, whose name was not released, was at the hospital or what prompted the disturbance. Police said the bondsman was not arrested.
What's your opinion? Does this sound right to you? Please leave a comment.
"Far from suffering consequences for this stupidity and for breaking the no-guns-in-hospitals law, this guy will go on his merry way and live to fight another day."
ReplyDeleteIndiana has a no-guns-in-hospitals law? When did they pass that?
From the article, referring to the hospital security officer,
ReplyDeletePerlich said guns are not allowed in the hospital.
The Law, FWM, is that the property owner can prevent someone from bringing a firearm on his property.
ReplyDeleteI believe that is the right of the property owner.
If this bondsman wouldn't leave when requested, he should have been charged with trespass.
ReplyDeleteThis would appear to be precisely the kind of armed jerk we are supposed to trust per the gun-crowd, but who does not respect either law or law enforcement, as evidenced by his conduct.
To my read, his accidental gun discharge is just the frosting on the cake of his misconduct -- very heavy frosting, but still only part of the issues involved.
My guess is that the defiant trespass charge wouldn't be as much of a threat to his ability to carry a concealed firearm as if he were charged with carrying in a prohibited area.
ReplyDelete"The Law, FWM, is that the property owner can prevent someone from bringing a firearm on his property."
ReplyDeleteIn some states, hospitals are enumerated by law as gun free zones. In others, they can post it as such and maybe there is a state law that enforces a violation of criminal trespass or maybe it is purely a civil matter. The way I read Mike's post, it sounded like it was protected by law and as such, he believed that the man should have been arrested. That is why I was asking. I hadn't heard that guns were banned by law in hospitals in Indiana so I was asking. It sounds like maybe MikeB just Jaded it and assumed it should be against the law.
"Far from suffering consequences for this stupidity and for breaking the no-guns-in-hospitals law, this guy will go on his merry way and live to fight another day."
Wait! Wait! the "it depends on the jurisdiction" is the lawyerly answer.
ReplyDeleteIt took about a minute or so of googling:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.parkview.com/locations/parkviewhospital/visitorpatientinfo/pages/patientadmissioninformation.aspx
Oh noes, gunz don be 'lowed!
He's another "hidden criminal" passing himself off as lawful. We'll probably see him in the news again sometime, which is a damn shame. Guys who do stuff wrong with guns should be out of the game.
ReplyDeleteBlogger democommie said...
ReplyDeleteIt took about a minute or so of googling:
http://www.parkview.com/locations/parkviewhospital/visitorpatientinfo/pages/patientadmissioninformation.aspx
Oh noes, gunz don be 'lowed!
October 10, 2011 9:50 PM
So, as far as D'o'C can find it is a civil matter, the hospital should sue the BB.
I don't think trespass with a firearm is a civil matter Fringie; but if you would care to demonstrate your superior knowledge of the law on that point, I would be fascinated.
ReplyDeleteAnd I imagine that my co-blogger who uses his expertise pretty much daily in criminal law will be well entertained if not educated by it.
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteAnother minute or so of googling yields this:
"IC 35-43-2-2
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;"
from here (http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar43/ch2.html)
Shall not be inconvenienced to look things up--one more FAIL in a long, long chain.
Thank you for that assist, democommie!
ReplyDelete