This photo provided by the Brighton, Ala., Police Department shows Marquis Rashad Abernathy of Midfield. Police have issued two warrants against Abernathy, whose stolen gun was linked to a 4-year-old boy's accidental shooting. Lt. Ray Hubbart of the Brighton Police Department said Wednesday, May 8, 2013 Abernathy is charged with receiving stolen property and reckless endangerment. The boy's mother and another adult were watching television Saturday when they heard gunfire in another room and discovered the boy had been shot. (AP Photo/Brighton Police Department)
The Republic- further to our earlier report.
A 4-year-old boy who was accidentally shot in the head when a gun discharged at a home was responding Wednesday to voices and squeezing nurses fingers at Children's of Alabama hospital in Birmingham, police say.
While the boy remains in the Intensive Care Unit in critical condition, his relative, Marquis Rashad Abernathy of Midfield, is wanted on warrants for reckless endangerment and receiving stolen property. Police say he left on a bed the pistol that discharged. It was found by the boy who was shot and his 4-year-old female cousin, police said.
Brighton Police Department Lt. Ray Hubbart said the boy's mother, who is the girl's aunt, dropped by a relative's home to change a diaper. Abernathy wasn't there, but had spent the night there and left the handgun in a back bedroom.
As the mother chatted with a relative in the living room, the children went into the bedroom to prepare to change clothes. The adults heard a "pop" and the little girl ran out of the room. The boy's mother ran to the bedroom and called 911. The boy was rushed to the hospital and doctors determined a bullet had entered and exited his head, said Hubbart.
Well, I hate to point out the obvious, but a guy who looks like that just cannot leave a gun lying around without being held accountable for it, not in Alabama, anyway.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The part about receiving stolen property, of course, had nothing to do with it....
ReplyDeleteWow, Greg, what are the elements of the crime "receiving stolen property"? Let's use this statutue:
Deleteit a crime to
buy,
sell,
receive,
conceal, or
withhold
property which you know to be stolen.
Using the facts: "Police say he left on a bed the pistol that discharged. It was found by the boy who was shot and his 4-year-old female cousin, police said."
How does that tie into an accidental discharge of a weapon?
As I keep telling you, you make a lot of ignorant comments.
Is common sense not part of your analysis?
But, you seem to believe that any bullshit you want to spout is OK as long as you say it in a higfallutin way and use big words you don't seem to understand.
And you call ME a piss artist.
Methinks thou protesteth too much.
You're ignorant, but you are too ignorant to catch it. And not willing to admit that you have been caught out.
OR
DeleteMaybe you are implying that these were criminals (looking at the picture we can tell he is obviously a criminal--right, Greg? Nevermind the niceties of "innocnet until proven guilty").
Well, as they say.
When guns are outlawed, only criminals will accidentally shoot their children.
At this point, we see loads of "law abiding" types, in addition to the otherwise law abiding types, shooting their kids.
After all, Greg, criminals are "otherwise law abiding citizens"--it's just those pesky laws that make them criminals.
Laci, stop being an idiot. Mikeb implied that this man was only arrested because he was black. I've been pointing out for a long time that when there's some kind of criminal activity associated with the accident--in this case, receiving stolen property--the police arrest someone. That was my point here, as any intelligent person could see.
DeleteI don't blame gun owners.
ReplyDeleteI blame the government, for its wanton recklessness and irresponsibility, in allowing an armed society.
The government ALLOWED this man (or quite possibly a women? It is American after all, and so you really can't tell) to be armed. If the State would properly perform it's duty to create and maintain a monopoly on the ability to wield deadly force (achieved by the collection of civilian-possessed weapons, and prohibitive firearm and non-explosive weapon laws)
It seems I should clarify my response to Greg since he will say that I did not properly document how he is ignorant.
ReplyDeleteAfter all this is the man who asked why he needed to know the rules of statutory construction to interpret the Constitution.
Well, Greg, it IS a legal document. And it was written to those rules.
That is a comment which is the equivalent of why do I need to know grammar when I write? Why do I need to know the rules of chess?
An even shorter simpler answer, Greg, anyone who watches crime TV shows knows more about the law and legal method than you do.
Back to the above.
His comment is a nonsequitur.
The statement
"The part about receiving stolen property, of course, had nothing to do with it."
Demonstrates ignorance on a multitude of levels.
Let's start with:
"is wanted on warrants for reckless endangerment and receiving stolen property."
1) There are two types of arrests:
--arrest generated: self-explanatory to everyone except a Greg: they caught the person in the act.
--Warrant generated: The police arrest someone based on probable cause that they have committed a criminal offense. However, the police do not file the charges. They simply provide reports and evidence to the prosecuting attorney, who then decides whether or not charges should be filed, and if so, what charges.
The fact that he has a warrant does not make him guilty of the crime if you believe in "innocent until proven guilty".
No convictions are mentioned in this report.
2) The crimes charged: reckless endangerment and receiving stolen property.
--There is are two charges mentioned here one is an actual crime of violence and the other is a property crime.
Which one did Greg choose?
THE PROPERTY CRIME!
The more appropriate charge would be reckless endangerment.
Although, it still makes Greg's comment a nonsequitur.
After all, why is a criminal able to get guns other than because people like Greg help to make it easy for them to do so?
Which would be the response if I weren't totally bemused by Greg's ignorance.
The problem is that Greg's comments about legal matters are so obviously WRONG.
I would be spending a lot of time, which I don't have because I need to be in court dealing with people who DO know the law.
In short, Greg, get a very basic understanding of how the law works before you go making statements about legal matters.
It must be great fun to be opposing counsel on any case that Laci is working.
Delete