Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Blind Ohio Gun Owner Charged in His Daughter's Accidental Shooting

Local news reports

Bond was set at $100,000 yesterday for a legally blind Toledo man charged with accidentally shooting his toddler.

Michael C. Reyes, 27, was arraigned in Toledo Municipal Court on charges of possessing weapons while under disability and negligent assault in the weekend shooting of Kaylee Reyes.

The shooting occurred about 1:45 p.m. Saturday in the family’s residence, according to police. The toddler was admitted to the pediatric intensive-care unit of Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center.

Reyes told police he was holding the handgun when it went off and a bullet struck his 3-year-old daughter, according to court documents.

34 comments:

  1. Those darn felons.....

    "Records show Reyes and his girlfriend, Solana Mendoza, 24, each were convicted of aggravated assault in Lucas County Common Pleas Court in 2009. The conviction meant they were prohibited from owning, possessing, or using a firearm."

    http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2015/02/23/Blind-man-charged-in-girl-s-shooting.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any interest SS in knowing how people prohibited from owning guns, got the guns?

      Delete
    2. Not very "hidden", was he?

      I wonder what this is, though:

      ...on charges of possessing weapons while under disability...

      Does Ohio actually follow MikeB's dream of disarming the disabled?

      Delete
    3. First cousins to you lawful gun owners. After all, ex-felons have a right to self defense too - at least if you believe in that "natural, human right business."

      Delete
    4. First cousins to you lawful gun owners.

      More like siblings to felons who don't own guns--maybe fraternal twin siblings.

      Delete
    5. "After all, ex-felons have a right to self defense too - at least if you believe in that "natural, human right business."

      An interesting point Mike. I grew up in a time when becoming a felon meant you lost the whole shebang permanently. No voting, guns, etc. The only way back was by a pardon. I honestly have no idea when that started to change.
      Back then though, the loss of these rights actually seemed to mean something, at least in my mind. Sort of a form of administrative banishment.
      So currently, some rights you get back. Others, you get them on the state, but not the federal level. As for the right to self defense, ex-felons get that, just as any other citizen. However, current law limits them to what tools they can legally use to accomplish this in light of their past behavior.
      I had thought you posted this as one of the examples of speedy arrests after accidental shootings. Notice how he tries to distance himself somehow from the event? He admits having the gun in his hand, (a felony) and it "went off".

      Delete
    6. "Any interest SS in knowing how people prohibited from owning guns, got the guns?"

      That information rarely makes it into the news unless its a high profile case like the shooting of two police officers up my way recently. Keep in mind that we cant even keep track of people who are here illegally, much less pieces of metal with serial numbers on them.

      "The Hill Air Force Base in Utah came up short as a case containing approximately 12 M-16 fully automatic capable rifles has been reported missing and is under investigation.
      According to the report, the Air Force might have to bone up to the fact that "the case of 12 rifles may have fallen out of a truck during transport."

      http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/255767#ixzz3SpGrFxAP

      "Twenty-six AK-74 assault rifles and one Dragunov sniper rifle were stolen from a supply warehouse at Fort Irwin in San Bernardino County on July 15, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says in a statement."

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/30/27-rifles-stolen-from-california-military-base/

      And of course, we did a wonderful job of keeping track of the firearms that the ATF let go south over the border. The police might be able to find out, but we likely wont hear.

      Delete
    7. TS,

      I've seen that language before in news stories from various jurisdictions. It's just a term of art in those jurisdictions with the same meaning as possession by a prohibited person.

      Delete
    8. SSG,

      Your description of the state of the law is spot on. It also started at a time when felonies were serious business instead of things like importing wood that hasn't been planed down enough in the country of origin or picking up an eagle feather off the ground.

      Delete
    9. This story has several interesting angles. The blind thing, of course, as well as the immediate arrest for the exact same behavior that often doesn't result in any arrest at all. In other words, accidentally shooting someone is no big deal but owning a gun when you sholdn't is.

      Delete
    10. Thanks for the info, SJ.

      Delete
    11. " Keep in mind that we cant even keep track of people who are here illegally, much less pieces of metal with serial numbers on them."

      That's part of the gun problem. We should have the ability to track guns used in crimes and murders. We should be able to know where the gun came from and how the criminal got a hold of the gun. The rest of your examples only show me even more, that we need to be able to track guns. If those guns that fell out of the truck fall into bad guys hands we should be able to track those guns to that shipment, and maybe find out they didn't just fall out of the truck. I hope you support the idea of stopping guns getting into bad guys hands and stopping the theft of guns.
      The basic ability to shoot a gun is sighting. So I can't support blind people having guns. And yes, that puts them at a disadvantage. Many people with disabilities have disadvantages due to their disabilities, which is why we classify them as disabled. .

      Delete
    12. "So I can't support blind people having guns. And yes, that puts them at a disadvantage. Many people with disabilities have disadvantages due to their disabilities, which is why we classify them as disabled."

      In this case, the blindness is moot because he was also a prohibited person. However, we also run into the differences between owning and carrying in public. As much as I'm loathe to compare it to cars, it isn't illegal for a blind person to own a car. He simply cant get a license to drive on public roads.
      Just like its legal for a blind person to own a gun, but in most states he likely cant get a carry permit. For example, Ray Charles owned his own plane. He just couldn't fly it legally.

      http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/singer-ray-charles-wearing-earphones-while-in-his-private-news-photo/50585202

      Delete
    13. Fine, let blind people have a gun, but if they use it, whatever happens is on them, and a blind person just shooting at a person should be a crime. They have no clue who, or what they are shooting at. If a burglar is in their home and they start shooting they could easily kill their children, or spouse. We have sighted people who have shot their own family members thinking they were crooks.

      Delete
    14. A blind person shooting a person who isn't a threat should be, and is a crime. Keep in mind that people who are legally blind arent necessarily completely blind. We actually discussed this situation back in August.

      http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/09/blind-florida-man-shoots-intruder-turns.html

      I'm not seeing any final outcome on this event. Anyone else hear anything?

      Delete
    15. " As much as I'm loathe to compare it to cars, it isn't illegal for a blind person to own a car. He simply cant get a license to drive on public roads.
      Just like its legal for a blind person to own a gun, but in most states he likely cant get a carry permit."

      If I were you I'd be loathe to use that comparison too.

      Delete
    16. "Fine, let blind people have a gun"
      I rescind that comment.
      There is no reason for a blind person to have a gun, they cannot possibly use a gun properly.

      Delete
    17. There is no reason for a blind person to have a gun, they cannot possibly use a gun properly.

      Wrong. If a person says, "Let's forbid blind people from having guns," within the range of hearing of a to-be-disarmed blind person, said blind person can shoot at the sound of the statist thug's voice (not to mention that, as SSG observed, "legally blind" doesn't necessarily mean unable to see at all), thus cleansing the gene pool of an obscene filth, and making the universe a better place.

      Delete
    18. BS, and proper shooting is not shooting at sounds.

      Delete
    19. BS, and proper shooting is not shooting at sounds.

      "[P]roper shooting" results in dead rights violators, no matter what senses guided the bullet where it needed to go.

      Delete
    20. Sorry looniest gun loon, the blind have no idea what they are shooting at and will probably kill an innocent person. What does a rights violator sound like?

      Delete
    21. "What does a rights violator sound like?"

      He sounds like someone who has entered your home without consent. So the sounds are usually something along the lines of broken glass or kicked in door. If you go to the link I cited about the blind Florida man, you'll see a pretty good example.
      Again Peter, in this case, the man had a negligent discharge so there isn't even a suggestion that there was a defensive gun use.

      Delete
    22. What does a rights violator sound like?

      Well, frequent use of the fabricated, fanciful term "gun loon" is a dead giveaway, as is advocacy of denying Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights of the individual, based on physical infirmities. Yep, Peter--listen to yourself, and your question is answered.

      Delete
    23. A blind person cannot adhere to the basic safety rules. Case closed.

      Delete
    24. Case closed.

      It's not in your authority to "close" this "case"--for which all of humanity should be grateful.

      Delete
    25. A blind person can adhere to the basic safety rules- they just have additional challenges (just like they do for many other activities).

      Delete
    26. What does consent sound like? Is it your kid coming home late, or an unknown entering your home?

      Delete
    27. Is it your kid coming home late . . .

      Since I have no kid, I kinda doubt it.

      Delete
    28. "is it your kid coming home late, or an unknown entering your home?"

      That is their responsibility. If there is no one authorized to be in the house, i.e. no kids, no GF, no one who has been given a key, etc., then that isn't an issue.

      Delete
    29. "A blind person can adhere to the basic safety rules- they just have additional challenges (just like they do for many other activities)."

      That is the worst example of biased pro-gun bullshit I've ever heard - and that's saying a lot given some of the nonsense you guys pour onto this blog.

      How can a blind guy possible be sure of his target and what's behind it? And, unless the situation is extremely controlled, which it often is not in a dangerous moment, how could he be sure to maintain muzzle control at all times.

      Answer to both - he could not.

      Delete
    30. How can a blind guy possible be sure of his target and what's behind it?

      Do you ever intend to address the point, raised repeatedly in this discussion, that legally blind does not necessarily mean completely sightless?

      Blind people's Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights are no less Constitutionally guaranteed or fundamental than anyone else's. Anyone who tries to deny them of those rights deserves the consequences.

      Delete
    31. MikeB: " And, unless the situation is extremely controlled..."

      Oh, you mean unless it's one of those situations where 99.9something% of all gunfire takes place? Remember this video? Was Jimmy Kimel grossly irresponsible in arranging this?

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=upFWxf5F-qQ

      The alternate which you speak of is maintaining safe handling during a dangerous life or death situation. That is of course vastly different. I'm not super concerned if a mother of three in a frantic rush to get the gun out during a home invasion sweeps her own foot or has her finger on the trigger a little early. And the rule about being absolutely sure of what's behind your target usually gets thrown out the window when the alternative is to die or suffer great bodily harm. I would say almost all self-defense shootings (including police) did not follow this rule to the same standard that is required during practice.

      Delete
    32. "Do you ever intend to address the point, raised repeatedly in this discussion, that legally blind does not necessarily mean completely sightless?"

      I ignored taht stupid and unnecessary point because we all know that legally bliind does not necessarily mean totally blind. So? Does that change the point I made? No, it doesn't.

      Delete
  2. It is not necessary that a legally blind person is actually blind. He may see little and what if he shoots somebody? Won't he be charged with the offense of killing someone? The firearms laws are strict but I personally think they need to be revised.

    Regards,
    Jacky

    ReplyDelete