Thursday, August 8, 2013

Nicholas Barbee Gets 5 Years for Killing a Kid - Sort Of

Local news reports here's our original post

Did you get that throwaway line at the end? He'll be eligible for "shock probation" after 30 days and that's something the judge said he'd consider. What the hell is that? Is that the way gun-friendly hillbilly judges really give people a slap on the wrist for killing kids with their fetish items?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

11 comments:

  1. I had to look it up, since I was baffled too. The concept seems to be that after your first body cavity search and your honeymoon with your cell mate, you'll see what an unfun place prison is. A variation of the scared straight program.
    While I can see the utility of such a program in some situations, I can't say this is one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As long as young Nick never touches another gun legally again, I'm happy. Yet, a month in jail doesn't seem like much for killing a kid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the life taken isn't worth punishment, so long as he's never armed again? You have one bizarre set of priorities.

      Delete
    2. No, not at all. In cases where the shooting was unintentional and the shooter seems to be extremely distraught and remorseful, jail sentences can be suspended. But, idiot gun owners like this should never own guns again.

      Delete
    3. In other words, as long as the negligent person cuts up an onion before going in front of the judge, it's all good.

      Delete
    4. Of course some guys will try to fake their remorse. But, the judge would make a determination. I've always said when a stupid gun owner kills his own kid either by a negligent discharge or by letting the kid have access to a gun, he's suffered enough and may not need to spend years in the slammer. This case was a bit different as it wasn't his kid, but a pretrial investigation including several interviews should be sufficient for the judge to make a good determination.

      Are you just arguing for argument's sake?

      Delete
    5. My point, as I already said, is that you have odd priorities. You don't care about punishing someone for ending another's life. Your only concern--at least, the only one you go on and on about--is taking away gun rights.

      Delete
    6. But I don't want to take away gun rights per se. I want to take away gun rights from those who prove themselves incapable of handling guns safely. I want to do that to prevent these guys from second and third offenses. In some cases they should do some time. In others no.

      Delete
    7. Mikeb, you're not quite as communicative as a Microsoft help screen. Again, you don't care about the person killed, so long as the shooter loses his gun rights. Are we clear yet?

      Delete
    8. That's from Argument School 101 - accuse your opponent of that which you yourself are guilty of. You're the one who doesn't care about kids getting killed, first of all because there aren't enough of the dead ones to make a serious percentage and secondly because these are just accidents that can happen to anyone.

      Delete
  3. I don't believe that probation would have any effect of the conviction itself, so he would still be a prohibited person.

    ReplyDelete