Friday, June 7, 2013

Texas 19-Year-old Gets Away with Manslaughter When his Gun Negligence Kills his 13-Year-old Step-sister



Newser

Another tragic accidental shooting, this one in Texas: Emilee Bates was accidentally killed by her step-brother on her 13th birthday Tuesday. Police say Austin McCord, 19, was clearing his AK-47 at the time. He ejected two dummy rounds that were above the loaded magazine, then pulled the trigger in what he believed was a safe move, NBC 5 reports. The sheriff explains that "once you've emptied the weapon, it's always safer to get the pressure off of the trigger, and that's what he thought he was doing." But McCord forgot about the loaded magazine, and the gun went off, shooting Emilee in the stomach.

"He believed he was making the weapon safe by pulling the trigger to drop the bolt on an empty chamber," the sheriff's office said in a statement obtained by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Police were called to the home around 8:30pm, where the step-siblings were alone; Emilee had been studying. The seventh-grader died in a Fort Worth hospital around 10pm. The case is considered an accident, and police say no charges will be filed.

I have no words for this kind of horrible nonchalance. This is Texas at its best.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment. Please tell us why it's right that no charges should be filed.

28 comments:

  1. I am generally in favor of prosecuting people for manslaughter in any negligent death, whether the cause of death was a gunshot, ax, electricity, explosion, lawn mower, automobile, water (drowning), fire, gravity (falling objects), or whatever.

    Based on what I read in this post, this example is no different and I wish the local prosecutor would go forward and prosecute.

    - TruthBeTold

    ReplyDelete
  2. We've explained it to you before, but you don't listen. Plenty of accidents of all kinds happen in which no charges are filed. You're obsessed with guns, so you lack perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg, TruthBeTold is on your side and with his reasonable comment above shows how whacky you are.

      Delete
    2. TruthBeTold said to treat all forms of negligence that results in death the same way. I agree. How is he reasonable, but I'm whacky?

      Delete
    3. Tell us, Mike. If you are driving down a two lane highway in a thunderstorm, hydroplane, spin into the oncoming lane, and an occupant in the other vehicle you hit is killed, should you be arrested at the scene, and then prosecuted for negligence?

      For the terms of this thought experiment, you are completely sober and were not traveling above the speed limit, but you are, of course, still considered to be the one at fault for the accident--it was caused by your negligence.

      Delete
    4. Maybe. Some car negligence might merit such severe treatment. But we're talking about guns. Cars really have nothing to do with it.

      Delete
    5. Cars really have nothing to do with it.

      You have to understand, Thatmrgguy, that Mikeb hates analogies between guns and cars, except when he makes the analogy himself between guns and cars, boats, and real estate(?).

      Delete
    6. The treatment of negligence is what it's all about unless you can make an extremely persuasive argument for treating guns differently than other extremely dangerous items and activities.

      By saying that Some car negligence might merit such severe treatment, you've still acknowledged that not all negligence with a vehicle should be treated in this way.

      That is why not every gun accident needs to be treated in the way you demand--with an immediate arrest and 100% guaranteed prosecution. Only those which rise to the level of criminal negligence, etc.

      Delete
  3. Your protestations that the traumatized brother "got away" with it sound, to those unfamiliar with you, like cries for justice to be done. However, for those who have been here for a while, we know that you don't give two shits whether the boy spends a night in jail or has the rest of his life ruined by such a conviction--the only thing that you are focused on is making sure that he never is allowed to touch a gun again.

    It would be one thing if you were advocating for more enforcement of all negligent homicide laws like TruthBeTold. That would be a legitimate policy discussion we could have based on what is being enforced, what should be enforced, how resources are allocated, etc.

    Of course, none of that matters in your framework. There is no concern for justice, no reallocation of resources, etc. There is just the advancement of gun control by making sure that everyone who has any type of negligent discharge gets prosecuted so that you can take their guns away forever. Sorry, Mike, but we're not buying it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong, T. I would like people to be held accountable for their negligence. Part of the proper sanctions for negligently killing someone with a gun is that you lose your gun rights. In some cases there should be jail time too, but the guns have got to go.

      I believe that someone who has proven in the most graphic way possible that he is irresponsible with guns, should never have a chance to become a repeat offender. Further, I believe these sad cases that make the news are not the first misuse of a gun. There's no reason the think it would be the last one.

      Why would you dispute this? Are you that biased? What I'm saying is perfectly consistent with what TruthBeTold said. What exactly are you arguing with?

      Delete
    2. "Why would you dispute this? Are you that biased?"

      Says the man who just presented a baseless assertion about what he believes about the unknown histories of the people involved in cases like this. A belief that goes against the experience of some of us who comment here.

      As for the legal issue at hand, please answer the question I posted above under Greg's branch of this thread--it will enable me to answer your question in an accurate and understandable way.

      Delete
    3. Mike B, then according to your logic, the hypothetical accident that Tennessean proposed would mean that you would lose your ability to drive a car for the rest of your life.

      Delete
    4. Not just an accident. Any negligent act--if you were speeding, you were operating the vehicle at an unsafe speed--de facto negligence. Someone could have been killed!

      Delete
  4. Off topic, but it appears that the "Gun Nut" who sent the latest ricin letters was a psycho trying to frame her husband, not a real pro-second amendment activist. So much for laying that one at our feet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I saw that. At least it wasn't a gun-control person, like Kurt says.

      Delete
    2. At least it wasn't a gun-control person, like Kurt says.

      What are you talking about--"like Kurt says" where?

      My only previous comment on this thread, which you have apparently (and bafflingly) judged to be inappropriate, said nothing about "a gun-control person."

      So again, what are you talking about? I genuinely have no idea.

      Delete
  5. Mikeb, it's been a while since we last discussed this, so I'll post the link here:

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/07/189540607/reports-husband-cleared-wife-arrested-in-latest-ricin-case

    Turns out, I was right, even though

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/05/gun-nut-sends-ricin-to-mayor-bloomberg.html

    you called me dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forgot that Mike called you dishonest. I wonder if an apology will be forthcoming or if we'll get some kind of spluttering about you just "getting lucky."

      Delete
    2. Greg, you got lucky on this one. Your knee-jerk defense of guns and gun nuts turned out to be right. What a long shot that one was.

      What I said was, "Greg, have just a shred of honesty when you comment, will you please?" for which I apologize.

      Delete
    3. You labelled the sender of those letters as a gun nut. I said that an investigation was necessary. I added that it was possible that the letters were sent by someone trying to appear to be something else.

      The point here, as I've told you many times, Mikeb, is that when you rush to judgement, you often get things wrong. If you would slow down your reactions to these stories, you'd look more reasonable.

      Delete
    4. I don't know how much of the first paragraph is self parody based on my comment, or how much is real. However, I'll just address the idea of this being a long shot.

      Given that Ricin attacks are very uncommon, that mailing Ricin is very unlikely to harm the intended target, if it harms Anyone thanks to the mail screening we've all known about for 10+ years now, it seems like a truly stupid way to attempt to assassinate someone.

      However, it does seem like a great way, due to the terrifying nature, to conduct a false flag attack, whether by a rogue in the government trying to gin up a crisis without deaths, or by an individual trying to frame someone they despise.

      Since we had just seen a case of the latter, it wasn't much of a stretch to say: "Hey, let's wait and see if this is really by some evil bastard on the pro gun side, or if it is a copycat who was inspired by the Alabama letters just a month ago.

      Delete
    5. Rushing to judgment has its risks, but it's fun. Please remember we're only talking on a blog. My assumptions about gun nuts have no legal or judicial power. We're just talking. So, lighten' up, will ya?

      Delete
    6. Rushing to judgment has its risks, but it's fun.

      Wonderful. It's "fun" to falsely accuse people of heinous crimes, simply because your sick prejudices compel you to the presumption of guilt pending proof of innocence.

      Why should we "lighten up," Mikeb? Why shouldn't we call into question every assertion you make, based on your propensity to make assertions supported not by a shred of evidence, but only by your prejudices? Why shouldn't we constantly remind readers that you think it's "fun" to not allow inconvenient niceties like honor and integrity to limit what you say about the people whom you reflexively despise?

      Please remember we're only talking on a blog. My assumptions about [decent people who are nevertheless the targets of my irrational vitriol] have no legal or judicial power.

      Oh? So potential jurors of the future don't read blogs? Perhaps blog posts about an incident involving guns, that eventually culminates in a trial in which they serve on the jury? Perhaps on some level, maybe a subliminal level, causing them to absorb some piece of the blog author's bigoted assumptions about the near-automatic guilt of gun owners?

      Delete
    7. Mikeb, the fact that you regard making wild and unsubstantiated accusations as fun, while I require logic and evidence, says a lot about our respective characters.

      Delete
    8. "Wonderful. It's "fun" to falsely accuse people of heinous crimes"

      Kurt, you're doing that hysterical exaggerating thing again. I jumped to the conclusion that the ricin letters were sent by a gun nut. I admitted my mistake and apologized to Greg for something I said to him.

      Are you so desperate for a gotcha that you can't let it go? You're even bringing in future potential (fantasy) jurors into it.

      Delete
    9. Kurt, you're doing that hysterical exaggerating thing again.

      Before I can do "that hysterical exaggerating thing again," I would have to do it once, and I have not yet noticed you point to a valid example of such conduct on my part.

      I jumped to the conclusion that the ricin letters were sent by a gun nut.

      And just off the top of my head (because I know you're offended by my doing too much "research"), I can think of this recent example. Or how about the time you posited that the young man in West Virginia, who was punished for wearing a shirt well within the dress policy rules, was too old for the eighth grade, and must have been held back at least once. That didn't work out so well for you, either.

      Or how about all the times your automatic assumption is that any American not from New England or the west coast is an uneducated rube?

      You're even bringing in future potential (fantasy) jurors into it.

      And you justify forcible disarmament (for life) of anyone who so much as drops a gun, because of "future potential (fantasy)" mishaps that might result in injury.

      Delete
  6. Again we see the gun nuts have no concern for life. Someone gets shot and killed and they say let him go. A real sign of the ultimate selfish American.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now here we have an example of a person who should never ever be allowed to own or possess a firearm. Felon or not. Idiots should not be allowed to have guns once they perform and prove they are stupid.

    ReplyDelete