Monday, March 31, 2014

Pennsylvania Man Gets 9 Years Probation for Death of Infant Daughter

G. Scott Davis
G. Scott Davis pleaded guilty Friday, March 28, 2014, to charges he accidentally shot and killed his infant daughter on Dec. 24, 2013.

The East Lampeter Township man who was charged with involuntary manslaughter in the shooting death of his infant daughter late last year will not face prison time.

The Lancaster County Clerk of Courts confirmed that G. Scott Davis, 35, pleaded guilty earlier Friday to involuntary manslaughter, a second-degree felony; recklessly endangering another person, a second-degree misdemeanor; and endangering the welfare of a child, a misdemeanor of the first-degree.

Judge Dennis E. Reinaker sentenced Davis to 6 years probation for the involuntary manslaughter charge and another 3 years of probation for the endangering the welfare of a child offense, which will be served consecutive to the 6 years of probation, according to the clerk's office.

Davis said faith, family and friends have helped him cope with the tragedy. His lawyer told the judge Davis had contemplated suicide, according to The Associated Press.

Lancaster County District Attorney Craig W. Stedman previously told Lancaster Online that Davis on Dec. 24 brought a newly purchased Springfield 9mm handgun downstairs to show his father-in-law in Davis's home in the 2100 block of Old Philadelphia Pike.

Stedman also told Lancaster Online that Davis thought the weapon was unloaded when he intentionally pulled the trigger and shot his 2-month-old daughter Kestyn Davis as she was she sitting in a glider nearby. The infant died within minutes.

Davis may not own a gun again, and his lawyer said he has no desire to do so.

The district attorney said in January that Davis was a novice with firearms, having only fired handguns twice.


  1. Even if he thought the gun was unloaded why would he point it at her and shoot? Unless people like this start going to jail these kind of incidents will not lesson.

    1. That's lessen, and these incidents are already very rare.

    2. They're not rare enough, Greg. And I happen to disagree with Anonymous. A guy like this does not need to be incarcerated to send the right message. What we need to do is disarm people who demonstrate their inability to safely handle gun ownership.

    3. The law is not only for the punishment of one person, but to impress upon the public that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. I don't use spell check for this blog, if that is your main concern by all means make that point instead of a real point. What has rare got to do with it? Does that mean you think it's just fine that a grown man points a gun at a child and shoots because only a few others have done the same?

    4. Mike--he was convicted of a felony--he is now a prohibited person. What you're demanding has happened.

    5. The point about rare is that this isn't something requiring onerous laws to correct. Mikeb and apparently you want to impose gun control to burden millions for the actions of a handful. I say apparently because you never propose anything.

    6. "onerous laws"
      The guy pointed at and shot his gun at a little girl? And you think a law against that act is overbearing for the public in general and unfair?

    7. Anonymous, my idea is when someone loses their own child due to their own negligence, it's not necessary to punish them further. The removal of guns is sufficient.

      Simon, I know that. I was approving of the way this was handled.

    8. Here goes Anonymous again, using his favorite tactic of twisting words to mean what he wants. We already have a law against shooting a little girl. That's called murder or manslaughter or whatever other appropriate term gets used. You knew that I was talking about gun control laws.

    9. So you think probation is good enough for killing a child. Here goes GC again excusing murder.

    10. Here goes Anonymous again, misrepresenting what Greg is saying to try and smear him.

      Anonymous, if you have a problem with Greg here, you have it with Mike too, which shows that your problem isn't a gun control vs. gun rights issue, but a problem of you apparently wanting harsher sentences than they want.

      As for this guy getting probation rather than jail time, this is fairly common in manslaughter cases where courts and juries feel the parent has been punished enough without needing to spend time in prison--a good example of this are the tragic cases where a parent forgets their child in the car and the child dies from the heat.

      If you have a problem with these outcomes (manslaughter conviction with probation rather than prison) then try to get the law changed, but don't bellyache about how the only reason people oppose you is because they're hateful gun people--that doesn't even make sense on an issue where you find Mikeb agreeing with us.

    11. Simon,
      My problem with Greg is he is a proven liar and criminal according to his own words. Maybe you were not around months ago when I proved that.
      He says there are already laws on the book, but those laws are not being enforced. And yes, Mike has already stated that he disagreed with me that the father who shot his daughter should not go to jail, which I explained, he should. It's not changing the law, it's enforcing the laws already there. It's laughable that you say I should change the law within our process when that's exactly what guys like Greg refuse to do. Kurt came right out and stated he was not a law abiding citizen. This kind of thinking is criminal. If they disagree with the law, they should do as you tell me to do, but they refuse and just claim those laws are unconstitutional and do not have to be followed, they can just be ignored because they have deemed them unconstitutional, no matter what a court says. Preach your "change the law" process to them, not me.

    12. Anonymous,

      "He says there are already laws on the book, but those laws are not being enforced."
      Then he's right about them being on the books, and your energy should be aimed at improving enforcement rather than passing new laws that the same people will likely not enforce.

      As for your statement that you don't need to change the law, just enforce the manslaughter laws, maybe I need to clarify: I meant change the laws regarding sentencing--mandatory sentences for manslaughter, etc. You could do that, or you could work, D.A. office to D.A. office to lobby them to not make deals with no jail time in these cases.

    13. Simon.
      Please cite your proof that I'm smearing Greg. I used his own words to prove he promotes criminal activity and lies. Please show me where I twisted his words.
      I said the laws were not being enforced, and it's not my job to enforce them because I am not a DA, and yes I do "lobby" them to do a better job enforcing the law. "Lobby" is your word, which to me means a paid advocate. I do send letters, as any good citizen. Which is better than some of the pro gun readers here who have stated they are not law abiding citizens and refuse to work within the system we have to change laws and communicate to our authorities. Like Greg stating he would hunt down a drug dealer instead of calling the police.

  2. Buy a gun, and you get nothing but trouble. Either you will intentionally shoot someone innocent, or your kid will shoot you or himself, or there will be an accident. Regardless, the NRA is happy because they have sold a gun to a moron.