An accidental shooting was reported this morning in the 100 block of Rosebud Road in Marshall.
According to the Harrison County Sheriff's Office, Larry Watkins stated that he accidentally shot his wife in the abdomen.
"Upon arrival, Marshall EMT found a white female
in a bedroom with a gunshot wound through her stomach and side,"
Lieutenant Jay Webb informed in a press release. "Her husband, Larry
Watkins, stated he was allegedly placing a loaded 7.65 MM rifle in the
gun case and it discharged, one time striking his wife, who was standing
in the closet. When deputies arrived, the gun and case were on the bed
in the master bedroom."
Webb said the wife was transported to the local hospital and is in stable condition.
"At this time, it appears that her injuries are not life threatening, however severe," he said. “This case is continuing to be investigated and an interview will be conducted with the victim, when she is able."
The real problem here is that we don't take so-called accidental shootings seriously enough. ANY misuse of a gun should be taken seriously, but when it results in injury or death there should be no question or hesitation.
Webb said the wife was transported to the local hospital and is in stable condition.
"At this time, it appears that her injuries are not life threatening, however severe," he said. “This case is continuing to be investigated and an interview will be conducted with the victim, when she is able."
The real problem here is that we don't take so-called accidental shootings seriously enough. ANY misuse of a gun should be taken seriously, but when it results in injury or death there should be no question or hesitation.
In this case there is no question who is responsible. It was either an accident, as has been reported, or something worse. In either case the guilty, bumbling gun owner should be charged appropriately and disarmed.
Should drivers lose their right to drive if they cause an accident? You're very critical and have no sense of proportionality. My L1s understand this stuff better than you.
ReplyDelete-LawProfessor
Drivers who run people over certainly should. Just like gun owners who shoot people. What's disproportionate about that?
DeleteBy your standards a driver who runs a red light once should lose driving rights forever.
DeleteLawProfessor
"Certainly should", you say- but they don't. You can even be drunk and kill someone, and you'll still get your driver's license back. You're always trying to point out that gun accidents are treated with disproportionate leniency, but they're not.
DeleteNo, I don't think the most minimal gun misuse is equivalent to "running a red light. Besides, we're not talking about driving misuse, we're talking about guns.
DeleteTS, I don't think you have a tenable position there. Drunk drivers who kill people pay a heavy price even though there was no intention to harm anyone. Gun owners who kill people "accidentally" often pay no price at all.
MikeB: “No, I don't think the most minimal gun misuse is equivalent to "running a red light.”
DeleteYou’ve said anyone who ever drops a gun should lose their right. That’s pretty minimal.
Mike: “Gun owners who kill people "accidentally" often pay no price at all.”
As drivers who kill people accidently often pay no price at all. It’s not just drunk drivers who kill people, you know.
C'mon, TS, how often do drivers who kill people pay no price at all? Not nearly as often as gun owners who claim either accident or syg. I know I shouldn't bring up the fact that some gun owners get away with improper shootings by claiming syg. I don't think you ever acquiesced to that. But, just the gun accidents add up to much more than the car accidents. In fact I can't imagine anyone gets away with killing someone with a car and claiming it was just an accident.
DeleteWhat do you think happens to drivers who cause an injury or fatal car accident? Just a regular accident because they lost control of the vehicle or weren't paying attention (not drunk or drag racing, etc.). Do you think they go to jail? Do you think they lose their driving privileges for the rest of their life?
DeleteIronically, if you do commit a felony with a car (like kill someone drunk driving) you will lose your gun rights for life, but NOT your driver’s license for life. And your point is that guns are treated extra special nice…
DeleteMike: “In fact I can't imagine anyone gets away with killing someone with a car and claiming it was just an accident.”
DeleteHow about this story which made some press:
http://pagesix.com/2014/02/26/art-director-ian-cuttler-sala-dead-in-sami-hayek-car-crash/
Sami Hayek was not arrested, but police say he was driving a 2006 Ford GT on the wrong side of the road and collided with Alvin Gomez, 20, an LA resident who was driving a 2011 Toyota Tacoma truck.
Why wasn’t Sami Hayek arrested? There must be a safety rule like “drive on your side of the road” which he violated, don’t you think?
Ian was the passenger in a sports car being driven by Sami when it crashed Sunday on Sunset Boulevard.
And you must be stunned to see the reporter’s use of passive voice, normally reserved for gun accidents. Yeah, blame it on the car- it just crashed by itself, right?
C'mon, TS, how often do drivers who kill people pay no price at all?
DeletePerhaps not so many "pay no price at all," but the price is often pretty minimal:
Under Pennsylvania law, careless driving is a summary offense committed when the driving was “in careless disregard for the safety of persons or property.” If anyone is seriously injured or dies as a result of the careless driving, then the driver is subject to state fines ($500 for death, $250 for bodily injury), but, otherwise, there is no penalty.
[ . . . ]
Oregon penalties are also relatively mild: careless driving is usually a Class B traffic violation, and at worst a Class A (when injuries occur), meaning individuals may face traffic safety courses, community service and education requirements, and a fine.
Obviously, I'm not going to research the rest of the states for you--if it's that interesting to you, you can look it up yourself. I should mention, though, that I didn't cherry pick the data--I used the first link a Google search turned up, and described the careless driving penalties for the two states for which that information was provided. The point has been made, though--bad driving, even to the extent of causing death, is often punished with nothing more than a fine (and not much of one), and perhaps a temporary license suspension.
Furthermore, the "no price at all" that so offends you about shooters who unintentionally cause grievous harm ignores the civil court problems they often find themselves in (as they should).
Here’s another interesting article on car accidents, this one centered around cycling fatalities. Only two out of 27 fatal cases resulted in arrest (and 40% of the time, there wasn’t even a ticket, as in “no price at all”). My emphasis at the end:
DeleteBut there were 27 times when a cyclist died, or was thought likely to die in NYC—that's how police categorize cases for record keeping. The NYPD tells WNYC of those 27 cases, two drivers were arrested. Looking at all cases where a driver kills someone -- pedestrian, cyclist, other motorists, themselves -- forty percent of the time, there’s not even a traffic ticket. Explaining why not, gets complicated.
I asked the police to explain how they determine when to make arrests, when to issue a ticket, and when to just let the driver go in a fatal crash with a cyclist. In an email, they said a motorist needs to break two traffic laws to rise to the level of criminal.
“Speeding alone will not produce criminality” the statement reads. “Passing a stop sign only will not provide for criminal charges. They will result in a speeding summons and a stop sign summons only, but together we have established a criminal charge of Criminally Negligent Homicide or higher.”
You'd need both to slap cuffs on a driver. And the police would need to witness speeding to prove it in most cases, they point out.
“There are times where the factual situation that is presented to us doesn’t rise to a crime," McCormack said. "And it’s important to realize that the reason it doesn’t rise to a crime is that society has made that decision that it doesn’t want it to be a crime.”
http://www.wnyc.org/story/283394-killed-while-cycling-why-so-few-fatal-bike-crashes-lead-to-arrest-in-nyc/
Amazing how idiot gun loons refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. Did he have any idea where the barrel was pointing when he was handling the gun? He should have. Just basic gun handling.
ReplyDeleteActually the gun community is pretty harsh with people who disregard the three rules of safety. Keep living in that fantasy world though.
Delete-LawProfessor
That's total bullshit. The "gun community" that comments around here always supports the nonchalant view that's usually taken about so-called gun accidents.
Delete"Accidents" are always negligence and they always involve the violation of basic safety rules. Yet, usually there's no accountability because "it was only a tragic accident."
In this case his not knowing got his wife shot, yet, he got off. He was negligent because he did not follow basic gun rule-know where your barrel is pointing. And getting off is not being harsh with someone who disregarded that rule. You obviously live in the fantasy world of dishonestly.
DeleteAmazing how idiot gun loons refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.
DeleteDo you have any evidence, Anon, that this alleged "gun loon" has made any effort to duck his responsibility for the grievous harm he has caused?
The evidence is this story fool, as I described above. He's not taking responsibility for his negligence of not knowing where his barrel was pointed, he's calling it an accident, bullshit.
DeleteThe evidence is this story fool, as I described above.
Delete"Fool," Anon? Coming from you, that's the acme of hilarity. A true master of irony are you.
He's not taking responsibility for his negligence of not knowing where his barrel was pointed, he's calling it an accident, bullshit.
Oh? Where in the article is he quoted as calling it an accident?
Furthermore, from what . . . remarkable source did you get the idea that the word "accident" rules out negligence, stupidity, irresponsibility, etc.? Certainly not the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance
I think we know who the "fool" here is, Anon, and it ain't me.
""Her husband, Larry Watkins, stated he was allegedly placing a loaded 7.65 MM rifle in the gun case and it discharged"
DeleteDid you miss that part, Kurt, where he blamed the gun? Anonymous is right.
Why do you have such difficulty admitting when one of your opponents gets something right? Is that because you're so honest and never ever lie?
That's not presented as a direct quote of what Watkins said--after all, he probably didn't say "allegedly," either--but even if it were, to say in the passive voice that "the gun discharged" is not to rule out that intelligent, responsible handling of the gun would have prevented the discharge.
DeleteOh, really. Are you falling back on that old pro-gun canard, mechanical failure? That's pretty weak.
DeleteKurt, just face it. You were shown to be wrong once again.
"Lieutenant Jay Webb informed in a press release. "Her husband, Larry Watkins, stated he was allegedly placing a loaded 7.65 MM rifle in the gun case and it discharged,"
Lieutenant Webb said it, so it doesn't count? He was reporting what he was told first hand by the bumbling idiot you so desperately want to defend.
"Intelligent, responsible handling of the gun" would indeed have prevented this incident.
Mechanical failure? I seriously doubt it. Possible, sure, but it's far more likely that Watkins did something idiotic. I'm not defending the shooting--merely pointing out that I've yet to see evidence of him "refus[ing[ to take responsibility" for it.
DeleteLieutenant Webb said it, so it doesn't count? He was reporting what he was told first hand by the bumbling idiot you so desperately want to defend.
Again, the account given by Lt. Webb is not presented as a direct quote of Watkins. You do know that if it were a direct quote, there would be little elevated comma-looking things before and after the quoted text, right? You're not really trying to claim, are you, that Watkins said, "I was allegedly placing a loaded 7.65 MM rifle in the gun case and it discharged"?
And again, even if his wording was that "the gun discharged," that's not necessarily a denial that the discharge was his fault.
That being the case, I'm going to note the fact that I have shown myself to have been right once again.
I'm waiting for the idiot gun loon to step up and admit his negligence instead of letting it go as an "accident."
DeleteBoy, looks I've been missing an interesting debate. Sorry for showing up late. First off, its a negligent discharge. As a rule, putting a loaded firearm into anything not designed to take a loaded firearm is bad mojo.
ReplyDelete"911 dispatchers received a call around 10:15 a.m. alerting them to an accidental shooting at 108 Rosebud Road in the Sugar Creek subdivision in Marshall. The caller, Larry Watkins, told 911 operators that he had accidentally shot his wife in the abdomen."
http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/police/woman-stable-after-shooting-officials-report/article_d6797708-7d5d-57e9-a3ca-e1cf8b6cb781.html
Him saying accidental on the phone just meant it wasn't intentional. Or maybe they got that information from the 911 operator asking him. That kind of thing will set the tone of how the police arrive.
Police usually have pretty good BS detectors, and if the story seems to match what they see, an unintentional shooting, then priority becomes medical aid.
Nobody has gotten away with anything!! The police are investigating, which means they have the gun and they obviously don't think he's going anywhere besides the hospital to be with his wife because they didn't arrest him.
Any detention is supposed to at least what I've always believed is to insure public safety and to prevent escape. At least prior to a conviction. Then you get to punish him.
If during their interview with the wife, she says anything that leads them to think its intentional, I'm sure they'll pull him in.
Anon, he called the police to get help for his wife. How exactly is he avoiding responsibility? No mention of him hiding evidence, he assisted in providing a living witness to the event. Though my guess is his intent was nothing more to get aid for his wife.
Only four days have gone by and nothing will likely be determined quickly.
"Nobody has gotten away with anything!!"
DeleteHow can you say that? I post stories every day where gun owners "get away" with their negligence by calling it an accident.
"How can you say that? I post stories every day where gun owners "get away" with their negligence by calling it an accident. "
DeleteYes, you do post them. The problem is that you commonly suggest that there is some problem with the system because they are waiting for things like evidence and probable cause before throwing anyone in jail.
Part of that you don't have any control over because the final accounting one way or another is usually long past the attention span of news reporters. You don't often hear the final verdict in these cases unless its a very notable event, and sometimes not then.
Keep in mind, that the decision to arrest, even if its fairly obvious that negligence was involved, such as in this case, is another aspect of police discretion. Something that you seem to be in favor of as long as it involves Chiefs of Sheriffs denying applications for carry permits.
ss, just today I posted one, and not an unusual case, in which the decision to NOT bring charges was made because it was just an accident. Many of the others end up that way after the lengthy investigation.
Delete"just today I posted one, and not an unusual case, in which the decision to NOT bring charges was made because it was just an accident."
DeleteVery true Mike. And as you know, I'm not big into calling these events accidents. However, what happens to the negligent person, is the responsibility of our justice system. And if you have a beef with how the system is run wherever you happen to be, there's something in place to change that.
You want people to lose their gun rights permanently for misuse of a gun? There is already an avenue for that. Its called making it a felony.
We also currently have something in place to address those unhappy with how crimes are prosecuted. At least in Minnesota they do. Its called the voting booth.
"There is already an avenue for that. Its called making it a felony."
DeleteThat's not the only avenue. Misdemeanor domestic abuse does it in some states, right? By the same token, if we took gun safety seriously, we could make any violation of the 4 Rules sufficient to remove guns.
Of course he did, SS. He truly believes he did nothing wrong. But he had his barrel pointed at her and never even realized it. If he did everything correct, why did she end up shot? Is this the level of training you give about how to handle guns?
Delete