The fatal shooting of a Mount Airy woman in late March has been ruled accidental, a city detective said Friday when additional details also were released indicating that the death resulted from a “perfect storm” scenario.
Darlene Jeanette Combs Tate, 57, died from a single gunshot wound to the abdomen on the night of March 29 during a family gathering at her home at 338 Austin Drive, an investigation showed.
The official classification of the death as accidental was based on an investigation at the scene, including interviews with witnesses, and the results of an autopsy.
“It was just a family get-together,” James said of what preceded the incident, during which Tate’s husband, Edgar, who is wheelchair-bound, was present. He was in possession of a .22-caliber derringer at the time, although no explanation has been given for his being armed.
Family members were helping Edgar Tate get out of his wheelchair so he could go to bed. “And the weapon fell from his person,” possibly from the man’s lap, James said.
“It just hit the floor and discharged,” the detective added of the gun, with the bullet striking Mrs. Tate. He described the situation as resulting from an unlikely set of circumstances that “you probably couldn’t duplicate.”
Police Chief Dale Watson said early on in the investigation that the failure to properly secure the weapon appeared to be the main culprit in the death.
Friday’s ruling closes the case, with no charges to be filed.
But, failure to secure the firearm is not a crime? That's the problem. That's the special treatment.
Start demanding strict criminal liability for failure to maintain control of a vehicle and charges of negligent injury or homicide in every auto collision, or get off this boring tack of screaming "special treatment" when rules applied in all other accidents are applied in gun cases. It's not the treatment you want, but there's nothing special about it.
ReplyDeleteBumbling gun owners are too often not held to account for their bumbling actions - even when someone fucking dies as a result. That's special treatment for civilian gun owners.
DeleteAgain, the applicable rules are the same rules we use in car accidents and other accidents. There's nothing "special" about the treatment when they are applying the same rules.
DeleteWe also don't always hold bumbling drivers to account for their bumbling actions even when someone dies--only if the driver's actions rise to the level of gross negligence or recklessness. Equivalent treatment.
A bumbling car driver cannot be compared to a bumbling gun owner. A gun IS a weapon. Although a car CAN be, it's not. For that reason alone, gun owners need to be held to a higher standard than car drivers.
DeleteThe fact that "accidents" with guns are generally met with nonchalance is special treatment for civilian gun owners.
Then try to change the law so that negligence with a weapon has different rules than negligence with anything else. We'll see how many agree.
DeleteHowever, until such a law is on the books, cops, DA's and courts can't act as though it were. There's nothing special about how they're treating gun owners--they're just treating them according to the applicable standards which you dislike.
Well stated, Simon. Apparently, Mikeb believes that the U.S. prison system is insufficiently populated with clumsy people who had no criminal intent.
ReplyDeleteOh, and about this:
But, failure to secure the firearm is not a crime? That's the problem. That's the special treatment.
If that's not a crime, it's not "special treatment," unless you believe that not prosecuting people for actions that are not criminal in that jurisdiction is treating them "specially." Which, for all I know, is perhaps precisely what Mikeb does believe.
Actually, Kurt, your conveniently forgetting that I usually don't favor incarcerating you bumbling gun owners who do shit like this. But I damn sure want you disarmed.
Delete. . . you bumbling gun owners . . .
DeleteWhat do you mean by "you bumbling gun owners"? I have never "bumbled" with a gun. I bear precisely zero responsibility for this guy's negligence/clumsiness/poor judgment.
But I damn sure want you disarmed.
So you want me, personally, disarmed, do you? Not surprising, of course, but I don't think I've seen you come out and admit it before.
Your problem is my hands, Mikeb. They aren't cold or dead yet.
Molon labe, tough guy.
I, I, I, I, is the claim when it's obviously a stupid act, otherwise it's my "side" when they win a point. The separation is convenient and hypocritical.
DeleteBoth times I said "you" in that comment it was plural. But, in order to play your tough guy game, you took the second one to mean you specifically. "But I damn sure want you (you bumbling gun owners as mentioned in the previous sentence) disarmed."
DeleteWhen I address a group like "you gun owners" or "you bumbling idiots," I realize that some of the listeners might not be implicated. When I talk to "hidden criminals," I know you're there, but I have no way of knowing if you've ever dropped a gun or ever forgot you had a round in the chamber or ever had a negligent discharge. So if the shoe fits wear it, other wise, don't get your panties in a bunch, tough guy.
Hear we have a gun loon with so much fear he has to bring his gun to a family diner party. Then of course we have the dropped gun go off, which according to your pro gun readers, told me was not possible. They amended that statement later when they were proven wrong.
ReplyDeleteStop lying.
DeleteSpur triggered derringer. That is precisely one of the types of guns I have said can go off when dropped.
DeleteCheck your own comments. You were the one who told me dropped guns don't go off GC. Live with your own words. It's not my fault you will lie to try and get that gotcha point.
DeleteAnonymous, Show us where Greg supposedly said that no dropped guns can go off.
DeleteCheck the archives, do your own homework.
DeleteSorry, Anon. If you're going to try to convince us Greg did something we've never seen him do, you're going to have to ante up some proof or be considered a slanderer.
DeleteHaven't we been to this rodeo before? Anonymous, provide a URL to any comment where I said that it's not possible for a dropped gun to go off. What I have said is that modern guns are designed not to go off if dropped. Older designs do not have those safety features. And any gun can suffer mechanical failure. But what is more common is for someone to grab at a falling gun and set it off.
DeleteIt's there in print, that's proof enough and a whole lot more proof than the lies you tell about me daily. You will just say I lied, so it's on you to do the work. By the way, please prove the lies you have accused me of, with my own words. By lazy liar. I posted GC's lies so often Mike refused to post them anymore, ask Mike.
DeleteAnother example of how the most dangerous person is not some random wack with a gun, it's the gunsuck who shares your house. People with guns in the house are 47x more likely to be killed by a gun than those without.
ReplyDeletePeople with guns in the house are 47x more likely to be killed by a gun than those without.
DeleteYou really need to update your meme, Pissed On Lib. Even Kellerman himself has been forced to back way off that "47x" figure (I mean, by a factor, I think, of something like ten).