News and Record further to our report at the time of the incident.
Authorities will wait to be sure a toddler has recovered from his injuries sustained in an accidental shooting with his parents’ gun before they decide if charges will be filed.
“We want to make sure the child is out of the woods,” Hill said. “He’s scheduled to have surgery later this week for a broken jaw.
“We want to make sure he continues to improve,” Hill said. “We’ll wait until the conclusion of the investigation to determine if charges will be filed.”
The 2-year-old found a gun in his parents’ bedroom Saturday afternoon and picked it up. Capt. Derrick Hill of the Randolph County Sheriff’s office said the gun went off and hit the child in the face.
They've got it ass-backwards. The gun owners should have been in jail the night of the incident. I don't understand this waiting to see if the kid is out of the woods first before deciding if charges will be be brought. Charges should be brought immediately upon determining who the responsible person is.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
All child/unsecured firearm shootings $250,000 fine, no ifs, and or buts.
ReplyDeleteYes! Jail the parents the night of the accident! The kid doesn't need them at the hospital--he can scream and cry to the doctors and nurses!
ReplyDeleteI was thinking dad should go to jail.
DeleteWhy not the mother? Your prejudice prevents you from being a feminist and believing that a woman might own a gun?
DeleteWhether or not this is a criminal negligence case, can you not see that the kid needs both parents at his side in the hospital that night rather than going through the added trauma of asking why daddy isn't there? As Sarge points out, it's not like the father is going to flee as soon as the kid starts getting a little better.
Delete"Why not the mother?"
DeleteI was thinking the same thing. Mike suggested that both parents are responsible by using the plural when suggesting that both should have been jailed that very night. The video in the original article did mention that the father was the owner of the gun.
http://www.wxii12.com/news/local-news/piedmont/2yearold-accidentally-shoots-self-in-mouth-in-randolph-county/-/10703612/20211804/-/6qeelf/-/index.html
Mike,
ReplyDeleteWhat are the reasons for an arrest? I'm not a lawyer, and I dont play one on TV, but my understanding is to secure before seeing a judge in order to prevent further offences, and to prevent flight to avoid prosecution. Not to punish quicker. The punishment will come, though in reality it has already started.
Both parents have likely not left the hospital. They likely wont be leaving a gun laying about there, and they arent going to flee.
You could consider it a self imposed pretrial punishment because they are now dealing with the effects of their negligence up close and personal 24 hours a day. Is that better, or worse than sitting in a jail cell?
Also, as the law enforcement rep said, right now, everyones priority is on the child. The boy is hurt and frightened and its a no-brainer that his parents' presence will help in that regard.
ss, you don't know anything about the parents and their devotion to the kid. Except, that is, that they left a loaded gun around for him to play with. Some of the people who do that are the worst parents in the world. Why would you paint them in the most sympathetic light possible? They've already proven their disregard for the kid's welfare.
DeleteIf there was a danger of either reoffence or flight to avoid prosecution, then the police or the prosecutor would already have him in jail. I'm inferring where the parents are and how they are feeling because that is what I would be doing and feeling if one of my children were hurt and in the hospital for whatever reason. Why are you inferring the opposite?
DeleteAnd as I said earlier, the parents attending to their son and seeing the results of their negligence is much more effective than any victim impact statement after the fact.
Why would you paint them in the most sympathetic light possible?
DeleteMaybe he was raised to assume the best about people--yes, even (gasp) gun owning people--until they've proven the worst.
They've already proven their disregard for the kid's welfare.
Poor judgment does not equal "disregard," or lack of devotion.
Leaving a gun around so a kid can stick it in his mouth and almost kill himself is just "poor judgment," is that your idea, Kurt?
DeleteLeaving a gun around so a kid can stick it in his mouth . . .
DeleteI'm not at all convinced that was their motive for leaving the gun there. If I am wrong about that, I would certainly withdraw my claim of "poor judgment," and replace it with something far harsher.
You're right. I put that is the way you often do with a bit of spin on it. Of course, the guy didn't leave the gun with the intention that his kid would do that, but in the very least the gun owners is guilty of criminal child endangerment. Agreed?
Delete. . . but in the very least the gun owners is [sic] guilty of criminal child endangerment. Agreed?
DeleteI'm no legal expert, and am even further from expertise on North Carolina law, but based on the information we know so far, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that charge is warranted.
Still, I don't see how that is incompatible with my characterization of it as "poor judgment." And I still don't believe that anyone has remotely established that the parents are anything less than deeply devoted to their child, and devastated with guilt.
Finally, I don't see what offends you about some of us presuming that level of devotion, pending some proof of its absence. In my view, we are simply observing the logical extension of the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt--something that we owe the parents.
All that to say, "...based on the information we know so far, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that charge is warranted."
DeleteThanks for agreeing, however reluctant it was and regardless of how many qualifiers.
All that to say, "...based on the information we know so far, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that charge is warranted."
DeleteExcept that's not all that I said, because there was more that needed saying.
And now that I take another look (how did I miss this?), I see another grave problem (emphasis added):
. . . but in the very least the gun owners is [sic] guilty of criminal child endangerment.
So you've already convicted the gun owner, eh? That "presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt" thing is just another of the sneaky ways we gun owners "shirk responsibility," right?
It's funny to watch Mikeb parroting the language of conservatives. Back in the 80s and 90s, it was law-and-order types who ran against the technicalities that let criminals go free.
DeleteWhy do you insist on being mulish?
ReplyDelete1. The identity of the responsible person is precisely part of an investigation. You want anyone who has a gun accident treated like an Afghan whose neighbor was looking for a buck.
2. The nature of what happenes is also relevant to the charges. What level of incident occurred? That has to be determined before a specific charge can be made.
To Anonymous, when you pay a fine for the stupid exercise of your free speech rights, we'll talk.
They treat these offenders like we used to treat drunk drivers, let them off the legal hook. It's not the law that is lacking, but public will and the need to accept we have a deadly problem.
ReplyDeleteDo we wait for worse charges to be filed in other cases? NO, we arrest and charge, then add further charges at the hearing.
Leaving a loaded gun where such a young child can get a hold of it, is negligence; the fact that the child will live, or die does not change that.
We allow Social Services to take children from the home on ONLY accusations of mistreatment (no facts of actual mistreatment) yet we will allow a child to remain in a home where negligence and injury HAS happened.
You guys are missing the point. The instant a kid gets shot, Mikeb wants someone in jail. Preferably a white male--sadly not likely in this case--but as long as some gun owner goes to jail--right now all is right with Mikeb's world.
ReplyDeleteNope. no crime and this probably counts as one of the 2 Million uses per year the NRA and gun nuts claim (with no citations with no links to reports or news stories) of guns being used to save lives.
ReplyDeleteThis counts? Your source on that would be?
Delete