Parkside Chief John Egan said police were called to the couple's home shortly before 4 a.m. Saturday and found 43-year-old William Wanko at the bottom of a set of a basement stairs with a single gunshot wound to his upper chest, just below his Adam's apple.
He was transported to Crozer-Chester Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at 4:21 a.m. Egan said.
Wanko's wife, Michele, 42, told police that she and her husband began drinking lemonade and vodka around 9 p.m. Friday and about six hours in to the drinking session Michele Wanko, a stay-at-home mom, told her husband she wanted to learn how to use a weapon in case someone tried to break in to their home while he was away, Egan said.
William Wanko took out several weapons he had in a locked safe in the couple's basement and was showing his wife how to properly use them, according to police. As he was getting another gun out of the safe, Michele Wanko allegedly picked up a semi-automatic pistol, pulled the slide back as her husband had showed her and the gun went off, striking William Wanko.
Michele Wanko was charged with involuntary manslaughter and related offenses Saturday night but has since been released on bail, Egan said.
You see, that's not so difficult. The guilty party can be arrested and charged immediately prior to a lengthy investigation and with noviolation of due process. I never understood why in many other cases thay can't do the same.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The same way a drunk driver can be arrested on the spot? Mikeb, your trouble understanding is that you yearn to punish anyone with a gun, despite what the law says.
ReplyDeleteNo, not ANYONE with a gun, just those who misuse them.
DeleteYou say that, and yet you claim that half of us are unfit, and you propose laws that would make it nearly impossible for anyone to own a gun legally, much less carry one. You praise Australia for confiscations. But more than that, I can't recall the last time you named any gun owner that you do regard as fit.
DeleteNo, Greg, I propose laws that would disarm about half of you. Maybe your problem is that you're afraid you'd end up in the wrong half.
DeleteSo are you denying and repudiating your past support for the Australia plan?
DeleteMikeb, you keep claiming that what you propose would disarm only half, but you're just guessing there. You have no evidence. I've shown you repeatedly that your proposals would make legal gun ownership so difficult that legal gun owners would be few and far between. You praise Australia. You praise Japan. Why can't you ever be honest?
DeleteOh, what I say about a future, hypothetical situation is without evidence, but what you say about it has value for some reason? Please explain.
DeleteT., I never said we should do in the US what was done in Australia. I've pointed out how you guys are wrong about various things you say using Australia as an example. When guns are removed, crime rates go down. By disarming the unfit and irresponsible folks, perhaps 50% of the current gun owners, we could accomplish crime reduction and maintain the freedom of the qualified.
DeleteWhy do you keep making me repeat myself? Your continual attempts at catching me is really becoming a drag.
Mikeb, I can look at what you propose. The burdens that you want to dump on good citizens would make legal ownership, much less carry, all but impossible. That's based on the clear implications of the laws you desire and on evidence of human behavior.
DeleteBy contrast, your assertion that half of all gun owners--some 50,000,000 people--are unfit, flies in the face of what we know about human beings, but it also violates the basic principle of our system of government, a system that depends on the idea that good citizens are worthy of their rights.
I keep bringing Australia up because you have spoken favorably of their model in the past, and just last week, Laci was pushing it here on your blog, saying, "If Australia can do it, the US can too." You bounce between denying that you want the Aussie Model, to letting others promote it on your blog that bears your name.
DeleteMaybe you mean it when you say that you don't want the Aussie model, but you certainly have been sending mixed signals.
Plus we have to remember that it used to be called "MikeB's famous 10%". Now it's quadrupled.
DeleteT., you're doing that thing again, that refusing to back down, refusing to admit you might have been wrong.
DeleteMy co-bloggers have, at times, differing opinions than mine. My allowing their posts is not the same as sending mixed messages. I've always been clear about my positions and I really wish you would stop trying to catch me in these little what-you-see-as contradictions.
"I never understood why in many other cases thay can't do the same."
ReplyDeleteCan you share what cases you're referring to?
Are you joking? Or are you just trying to make this discussion as tedious as possible? Almost every day I post stories which include the description "no charges."
Delete