Friday, August 3, 2012

Accidental Shooting of Denver 2-year-old - Parents Charged

The Denver Post reports

Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey formally charged two people Thursday in connection with the accidental shooting of their 17-month-old son. 

Iesha Paris , 21, is charged with child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury and misdemeanor child abuse. Darryl Hunter , 26, is charged with accessory to child abuse and possession of a weapon by a previous offender. 

Allegedly, Paris left her son and 2 ½-year-old child alone in a room where there was access to a gun on July 27 in their home on Baltimore Court.

Every day we read stories just like this where no charges are even considered or where the investigation will later determine IF the parents will be charged. Then we have those cases where someone is charged immediately.

Do you see the pattern. Black and brown people are more likely to be charged with this terrible crime of negligence than their white counterparts.

What else could explain it?

Please leave a comment.


  1. This incident occured on July 27th. Usually your post will come out the day of or maybe the next day after an incident and report no charges filed. No charges were filed in this case until yesterday. So, have you gone back to look into the rest of your posts to see if four days later charges have been filed when you originally reported no charges?

    1. Yes, I watch them bùvery closely, but I wouldn't mind some help from you.

  2. Do I see a pattern?

    1. Many efforts at gun control have had the motive of keeping minorities from being armed.

    2. In lots of these cases in which the parent is charged, we find out that the person in question is a prohibited person.

  3. Black on black crime is a distinct problem, especially within certain age groups.

    Some states are much better about their laws requiring firearms to be stored safely and protecting children; Greg wouldn't be compliant with Minnesota laws in that regard for example.

    No one is interested in keeping minorities unarmed; we're interested in restricting firearms to the level necessary to drastically reduce our death, injury, crime and threat rates (as in partner / domestic violence where intimidation rather than actual injury with firearms occurs).

    It isn't minorities who are the classic member of the NRA. The NRA and gun manufacturers have tried very hard to market firearms to minorities, they just haven't succeeded yet.

    They are also perfectly happy to market weapons to terrorists, crazy people, criminals and drug users, despite their prohibited status. All the gun manufacturers care about is their bloody money.

    1. Dog Gone, look up the Army and Navy revolver law in Tennessee during the Reconstruction period. Look at how in the days before shall-issue, politically connected people--read, rich and white--could carry guns because they were friends with the sheriff--read, donated to his campaign--but if you were black, good luck.

      You say that I wouldn't be in compliance with Minnesota's laws regarding storage. How so? My doors are locked, and I have no children. The storage law relates to leaving a gun where a child is likely to have access to it. No child comes into my home. But that's not good enough for you.

    2. "Black on black crime is a distinct problem, especially within certain age groups."

      Yep, that makes up about 1/2 of the violent crime rate

      "It isn't minorities who are the classic member of the NRA."

      So let my try to understand your 'critical thinking'. You blame the NRA for the violent crime, but 1/2 of the violent crime is committed by a demographic that are not NRA members, not marketed to by the NRA and have most likely not read NRA literature. But it's still the NRA's fault. I understand, not.