I doubt that the ill mother of these children could ever, in her wildest imagination, have contemplated this result. But given the number of registered sex offenders in this community, and given that his man did have a criminal background, I would argue that this was also not a man who was a good candidate to be entrusted with children either.
The larger point here is that people are too trusting, that people make decisions that can result in someone DYING, without knowing enough about their backgrounds. I doubt we can do much about requiring people to be more careful about their children, but it is for the most part their own families that are at risk.
In the case of firearms, that people allow into the hands of others, it is the rest of us in society that are at risk from those decisions. I would argue, again, that we need the original gun owners, the ones where there is no obvious theft, to have more at risk to them for a bad decision, a too-casual decision, a decision where like this mom, they didn't know enough or were not cautious ENOUGH about where they placed their trust, and their weapons.
This is just heartbreaking - from MSNBC.com and the news services:
Babysitter bludgeoned Ind. girl, 9, then dismembered her, police say
'Family friend' admitted killing Aliahna Lemmon, who had emotional, physical problems
breaking news
Editor's note: This story contains graphic content.
FORT WAYNE, Ind. — A babysitter bludgeoned a 9-year-old to death with a brick then dismembered her with a hacksaw, police in Indiana said Tuesday.
Michael Plumadore admitted he killed Aliahna Lemmon on Dec. 22, the Allen County Sheriff's Department said in an affidavit Tuesday. According to the affidavit, Plumadore, 39, said that after beating Aliahna to death, he stuffed her body into trash bags and hid her in his freezer.
He later chopped up her body, stuffed her remains into freezer bags and hid some at his trailer and some at a nearby business, he alleged told authorities.
Police spokesman Cpl. Jeremy Tinkel said a judge ordered Plumadore be held without bail or bond at an initial hearing Tuesday. He has yet to be formally charged in Aliahna's death.
Aliahna Lemmon, 9, had vision, hearing and emotional problems and suffered from attention deficit disorder.
He had been watching Aliahna and her two sisters when she went missing Friday, was being held on a murder charge. He and Aliahna's family lived in the same mobile home park in Fort Wayne.
"He was a trusted family friend," Aliahna's step-grandfather, David Story, told The Associated Press late Monday.
Allen County Sheriff Ken Fries said Plumadore told investigators on Monday where the girl's body could be found, ending the hopes of authorities that Aliahna would be found safe.
"It did come to a horrible conclusion," Fries told WANE-TV. "We have somebody in custody now who can pay the price for it."
On Monday, FBI agents descended on the rundown mobile home park where Aliahna lived and was last seen. It's a known haven for registered sex offenders, though Plumadore is not on Indiana's registered sex offenders list. He has a criminal record in Florida and North Carolina that includes convictions for trespassing and assault.
Story: Missing Indiana girl found dead, babysitter held No active search was done Sunday for Aliahna, though more than 100 emergency workers searched for her Saturday around the mobile home park. Allen County sheriff's spokesman Cpl. Jeremy Tinkel said the same size search could not be sustained because of the Christmas holiday.
Aliahna had emotional, physical problems
Aliahna's mother, Tarah Souders, told The Journal Gazette on Sunday that her daughter had vision, hearing and emotional problems and suffered from attention deficit disorder. Aliahna and her sisters were staying with Plumadore because their mother had been sick with the flu and Aliahna's stepfather works at night and sleeps during the day.
"This was a child with the face of an angel," Story told the newspaper. "She truly believed everybody had good in them, it just had to be found."
Plumadore told the newspaper Sunday that he left the three girls in his mobile home about 6 a.m. Friday and went to a gas station about a mile away to buy a cigar. Authorities have said the store's surveillance video shows him there about that time.
"I had dead-bolted the door," he said. "When I got back, all the girls was here."
He said he smoked his cigar and went back to sleep, then woke up about 10 a.m. when Aliahna's mother called. After that call, he realized the door to the home was unlocked and that Aliahna was gone. He said Aliahna's 6-year-old sisters told him Aliahna had left with her mother.
Plumadore said it wasn't until he talked with Aliahna's mother about 8:30 p.m. that they realized she was missing and police were notified. Souders said the miscommunication caused the delay in determining that Aliahna had vanished.
Megan Lehman, center, stands among a crowd of over 50 people who gathered Monday night for a candlelight vigil for Aliahna Lemmon in Fort Wayne, Ind.
"The story just didn't make sense to our investigators or to me when I first heard it," Fries said. "I thought this is the guy we needed to focus on. If we are going to find her, he's going to be the one who has the answers for us."
Elizabeth Watkins, who lives nearby, said residents are cautious and keep to themselves in part because of the number of sex offenders living in the mobile home park. According to a state website, 15 registered sex offenders live in the park that numbers about two dozen homes. Watkins and she didn't know Plumadore and was shocked when told of the girl's death.
"I'm numb, I'm totally numb. I don't know what to think," she said.
In 40% of crimes, or 40% of all crimes involving guns?
ReplyDeleteYou insist on getting these fractions wrong.
So is it your reasoning that the girl's parents should be held responsible for putting their girl in this person's care? That is what you say about loaning a gun right? Maybe in this case it would be the brickyard that made the brick used to kill the girl - they should be held responsible? Surely someone else is responsible for this murder besides the guy that actually killed this girl right?
ReplyDeleteYou reported this story why? As you said, no firearm seems to be involved. It is an illustration about how stupid or evil people will act accordingly, regardless of the tools that they have at hand.
ReplyDeletePlease post a link to your document or at least the date it was published that supports the 40% you speak of.
ReplyDeleteDog gone,
ReplyDeleteIs it your claim that borrowed guns are used in 40% of crimes?
MAgunowner said...
ReplyDeleteDog gone,
Is it your claim that borrowed guns are used in 40% of crimes?
It is my claim that loans, gifts, sales, or guns taken through either negligence or a presumed consent account for 40% of all guns used in crimes, with guns purchased specifically FOR the criminal by someone in a straw purchase accounts for another 10%.
That includes some guns which are borrowed, but obviously not all are borrowed. They are however all legal guns that are transferred by legal owners into the hands of people who commit crimes, which means that those people did not exercise sufficient care, including knowing in many cases the previous criminal conviction status of the person to whom they passed their legal gun.
I can think of a lot of people I have known who were not objective about the irresponsibility and impulsive violence of their family and/or friends, including where firearms are concerned.
Or are you going to try to deny the statistics? The guns start out as legal; the guns used in crimes do not start out as illegal, nor are they all stolen. Clearly at least 50% are not, with another 10% of guns used in crimes not identified by origin.
That means a significant number of the owners of guns used in crimes are clearly not taking sufficient care.
And you contribute to the number of guns used in crimes every time you obstruct measures that would reduce guns getting into the hands of criminals, or which would hold people accountable for what they do with their firearms.
Jim wrote:Jim said...
ReplyDeleteSo is it your reasoning that the girl's parents should be held responsible for putting their girl in this person's care?
Yes; given his background it was negligent. They share in the culpability and responsibility for what happened.
Greg Camp said...
You reported this story why? As you said, no firearm seems to be involved. It is an illustration about how stupid or evil people will act accordingly, regardless of the tools that they have at hand.
It is an illustration of how poorly people check out other people before entrusting them with people or things of importance. It is a measure of the kind of failed judgment that puts firearms in the hands of criminals; in this case that put children in the hands of a criminal.
If people are that careless of who has their kids, is it surprising they are careless of who has their guns? Do you really believe people are more careful about checking the possible criminal background of who has access to their guns than they do regarding the care of their children?
Someguy, I've been providing the link right along:
http://www.dontlie.org/FAQ.cfm
"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street."
and they in turn provide this link to the specific stats:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
Or did you think the criminals had fairy gun mob godmothers who provided them?
First you wrote this:
ReplyDelete"We have discussed here the issue of gun owners who allow their guns to get into the hands of people who subsequently use them in 40% of crimes. "
Then you wrote this:
"It is my claim that loans, gifts, sales, or guns taken through either negligence or a presumed consent account for 40% of all guns used in crimes, "
Then you tried to change the subject (along with a classic "wall of text") to distract from your obvious mistake, and continued misunderstanding of fractions:
"And you contribute to the number of guns used in crimes every time you obstruct measures that would reduce guns getting into the hands of criminals,"
Thanks for the laugh. You must have lived a sheltered life to think you can prevent the homeboys in my town from getting guns. Here's the thing: they are smarter than any measure you can propose.
dog gone: "Someguy, I've been providing the link right along:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dontlie.org/FAQ.cfm"
thank you
Forty percent of guns used in crimes come from family or friends--presuming that number is accurate, what percentage of total guns in this country does it represent? My prediction is that we're talking about a small percentage. In other words, bad guys are passing guns back and forth, while the great majority of gun owners do nothing wrong, either shooting someone or giving a gun to a person who will, with their guns.
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp asked,
ReplyDelete"Forty percent of guns used in crimes come from family or friends--presuming that number is accurate, what percentage of total guns in this country does it represent?"
I can get us very close. I recently did the deep dive on crime statistics using 2010 FBI Uniform Crime reports. Please note that I am only using 2 "significant digits" to keep the numbers easy to follow. They are quite accurate and will give us the order of magnitude.
There were 1.2 million violent crimes reported to police agencies in the U.S. in 2010. Firearms were used in about 30% of those. That means there were 360,000 violent crimes where the criminals used firearms. Now we have to make some assumptions. Let's say that every crime was a single event and that every event was the handiwork of a different criminal. And thus each event involved a unique firearm not used in any other violent crime. (This is the best case number from the gun-control perspective.) Now dog gone asserts that friends/relatives irresponsibly supplied (loaned and/or transferred) the guns used in 40% of those crimes. Thus 40% of 360,000 violent crimes is 144,000. And to restate the earlier assumptions, each of those were a unique gun in the hands of a unique criminal -- which probably isn't true but is the best case scenario for gun control advocates.
Various sources claim there are about 200 million firearms in the U.S. Thus, since a different improperly loaned/transferred firearm was used in 144,000 violent crimes in 2010, that is about 0.072% of all guns in existence.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people. It does help put things in perspective if we look at some numbers.
By the way ... while extremely low percentages are admirable, we still have to look at the number of people that firearms harm. As I stated, criminals used firearms in about 360,000 violent attacks in 2010. Of those attacks, about 9,950 were murders. And as the gun control crowd indicates, there were something like 17,000 suicides with firearms in 2010. While that represents a fraction of a percent of all firearms that exist, we are still talking about 10s of thousands of victims of "misused" firearms.
ReplyDeleteOf course I advocate that firearms have a huge benefit in preventing even more such injuries and murders but that is a different matter of debate. I also contend that any registration system and/or laws to prevent transfers will be circumvented a lot. Nevertheless, I believe we should consider them.
The real question in my mind is real world cost and real world benefit. While it is impossible to assign a dollar cost to a human life, we can estimate the cost to implement and enforce any method. And we can estimate the real world benefit. For example: let's say we implement whatever registration system and laws that the gun control side wants and figure out the cost to implement and enforce them ... and we estimate how many aggravated assaults and murders they prevent. Then let's say we were to implement some "early intervention" program in schools and figure out the cost to implement that ... and we estimate how many aggravated assaults and murders that prevents. We don't have an infinite supply of tax revenue so we choose the method that prevents the most aggravated assaults and murders for the least expense.
This takes irrational fears, unfounded concerns, and even "rational" emotion out of the equation and puts us on a path to maximize human life with finite financial resources.
dog gone said "including knowing in many cases the previous criminal conviction status of the person to whom they passed their legal gun."
ReplyDeleteSo, how many guns are transferred with the consent of the ATF via NICS?
"It is a measure of the kind of failed judgment that puts firearms in the hands of criminals"
And how many of these "40%" came from a criminal family member? You know, someone that was in illegal possession of the firearm to begin with. Kinda of like a gang bangin drug dealer that stole the gun and then loaned it to his gang bangin drug dealing brother to go commit another felony.
Or maybe, this "40%" came from righteous, upstanding folks who just passed along their heater to they brudda who needed to borrow it for a minute.
I'm curious, did you actually read the BJS study, or are you just regurgitating someone else's information?
There is a gun connection. That guy could easily buy a gun on Craig's List. That's thanks to gun-rights advocates everywhere protecting people's rights.
ReplyDeleteCapn Crunch,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the good work. Dog Gone claims to be led by facts, but that apparently doesn't apply to the ones that are inconvenient for her arguments.
Oh, and here is another number that we should consider. How many firearms owners who obtained firearms legally turned around and supplied guns irresponsibly/illegally to friends and/or relatives?
ReplyDeleteVarious sources claim that there are about 80 million adults who possess firearms in the U.S. Assuming that number is accurate, and that criminals improperly obtained 144,000 "legal" guns from friends/relatives to commit violent crimes in 2010, then the number of firearms owners who acted irresponsibly to hand over guns to criminals was 144,000 / 80 million == 0.18%
So there you have it. Something like 0.18% of totally legitimate firearms owners annually supply firearms to untrustworthy people who use them to commit violent crimes. For anyone who struggles with percentages, 0.18% means about 1 in 500 people who legally owned firearms in 2010 transferred a firearm irresponsibly to a friend or relative who in turn used that firearm to commit a violent crime.
Now for an editorial comment. My intuition tells me that it is next to impossible for a screening method to detect 1 in 500 people consistently.