Local news
The state's attorney will decide whether to charge a Monroe father
who accidentally shot his 11-year-old son in the cheek, police
said Monday.
Vincent Pizzolato, 44, was putting the gun away in a safe Sunday
afternoon when it fired a round that passed through a wall, striking the
boy in the cheek, Monroe Police Capt. Michael Flick said. The boy was being treated Monday for a non-life-threatening gunshot wound at Yale-New Haven Children's Hospital.
Pizzolato had a valid permit for the 9 mm pistol, Flick said, and the weapon is being sent to the State Police forensics lab for analysis, he said.
"Possible charges in this type of incident are unlawful discharge of a
firearm and risk of injury to a minor, but once the investigation is
complete we'll forward everything to the state's attorney, who will
decide whether or not charges will be filed," Flick said.
This is sort of an interesting version of the event because it sounds like someone actually talked to a person as opposed to just copying a press release which most of the other articles that I saw seemed to do.
ReplyDelete"Lt. Keith White of the Monroe Police Department says the homeowner was securing his 9mm handgun when it accidentally discharged and struck his son while both men were in the basement.
“The round had come through the wall from an adjacent area of the basement struck him while he was a family room couch,” Lt. White said.
Police are still determining if the firearm is registered and if there were additional guns inside the home.
Police will also examine the 9 mm involved to determine if the misfire was caused by a mechanical or human error.
Lt. White says the incident re-enforces a gun holder’s responsibility to operate a firearm safely.
“You always have to be aware of where that gun is pointing, and you always have to take the responsibility for what happens with that gun,” said Lt. White."
http://foxct.com/2015/03/08/accidental-firearm-discharge-in-monroe-strikes-11-year-old-boy-in-the-cheek/
Yeah, maybe it was a mechanical error.
DeleteIt's more likely to be finger on the trigger syndrome. However, they have to eliminate that possibility. Or at least should to prosecute.
DeleteA finger on the trigger when not intending to shoot is negligence, isn't it?
DeleteThe police are required to maintain some impartiality in the investigation. Mike and I have actually agreed previously that the majority of accidental discharges are actually caused by finger on the trigger syndrome. In the same light, I also tend to believe that most "dropped" guns involve the same issue and that claiming it was dropped merely an attempt to somehow make it seem less like the owner's fault.
DeleteThe police are doing the right thing sending it in to the lab where the possibility of mechanical issues will be confirmed or eliminated. We actually discussed such a case here a while back where the gun was sent to a lab and charges were dropped as a result. Something that is very rare.
That's nice, but didn't answer my question.
DeleteOf course that's your guess (opinion) it hasn't been proven that all dropped guns that go off are actually finger on the trigger syndrome, or accidental discharges are either. I wouldn't accept that catch all excuse without proof and surely there have been enough incidents like that over the decades to have some proof.
Love the way they always describe these "accidents" as if the gun went off by itself. Laughable, if kids were not getting shot.
ReplyDeleteThe word accident does not imply no fault of the user. Do you think the phrase "car accident" means the car crashed itself?
DeleteNow you're talking, TS. Accident (almost always) = negligence.
DeleteAccident (almost always) = negligence.
DeletePerhaps, but that obviously means there's nothing inaccurate--and certainly nothing dishonest--about referring to an unintentional shooting caused by negligence as an accident.
MikeB: "Now you're talking, TS. Accident (almost always) = negligence."
DeleteFor guns, yes. For cars, no. Just about every car accident will be because of a mistake of some kind, but not necessarily rising to the level of a negligent mistake (like drunk driving, drag racing, reckless speeding (not just common speeding)). Examples of non-negligent gun accidents would be mechanical failures, freak ricochets, etc. Those are far less common than "oops, I was pointing the gun at my buddy's head and next thing you know- BOOM!"
Really this means gun are inherently safer to operate than cars. Usually it takes someone being a reckless idiot in order for an accident to occur.
Mike,
DeleteWe've said that Over and Over again. Why act like it is some big change in our position?
"Really this means gun are inherently safer to operate than cars. Usually it takes someone being a reckless idiot in order for an accident to occur."
DeleteAaaahahahahahahaha
This is the new greatest quote from you. I love it. The White House spokesmen could take some lessons from you.
"Perhaps, but that obviously means there's nothing inaccurate--and certainly nothing dishonest--about referring to an unintentional shooting caused by negligence as an accident."
DeleteI always use the words "accident" and "accidentally" facetiously. You may very well be able to argue that there's nothing dishonest about calling these negligent acts accidents, but as usual you'd be dead wrong. As TS mentioned above, "accidents" would be mechanical failures or freak ricochets.
MikeB: "This is the new greatest quote from you. I love it. The White House spokesmen could take some lessons from you."
DeleteI knew you would flip out over that line. There are 30,000 accident fatalities with cars compared to 600 with guns, and like I said, a strong majority of those 600 involved someone being incredibly stupid. You wouldn't call that safer to operate?
MikeB: "TS mentioned above, "accidents" would be mechanical failures or freak ricochets."
As I said on the other thread, the word "accident" has to do with intent. Accidents caused by negligence is still an accident- unless it was murder and the shooter claims it was an accident.
"when it fired a round"
ReplyDeleteMeaning the gun itself, fired itself.
It did not say the human fired the gun.
Maybe it was a ghost gun.
Sammy, law enforcement has to report what they observed, and nothing more. Since they didn't observe it, they have to work at staying impartial. Especially since the gun is going in for testing. This will not be resolved very quickly. Depending on the turnaround time at the lab.
Delete"It did not say the human fired the gun."
DeleteYes, they did:
The state's attorney will decide whether to charge a Monroe father who accidentally shot his 11-year-old son in the cheek, police said Monday.
Pay attention.
Most reporting uses the straight passive voice with no attempt to involve the human involvement.
DeleteTS, Where?
DeleteSS, If they don't know yet, then why call it an accident? Doesn't sound impartial to me.
They are likely speaking to intent. Which doesn't speak to negligence. Most auto accidents are called that and involve negligence on the part of driver. If it rises to te level of criminal negligence they can prosecute, which will likely be decided after the report from the lab comes back.
DeleteMost reporting uses the straight passive voice with no attempt to involve the human involvement.
DeleteWhich is a classic example of "blaming the gun," rather than the human at fault.
"TS, Where?"
DeleteThe very first line of the post.
"likely" SS? Thanks for your guess.
DeleteTS, see quote I posted above from the article. Pay attention.
The use of the word “it” in a different sentence does not cancel out that this reporter clearly attributed this accident to the father: “a Monroe father who accidentally shot his 11-year-old son”. That’s what you want them to say, right? You missed it when you read it, no big deal. This desperate attempt to save face is silly though. Hell, you used the word “it” right here:
Delete“It did not say the human fired the gun.”
Are you saying the article wrote itself? That there wasn’t a human writing it? Maybe it was a ghost writer?
TS, is IT really a matter of what the meaning of IT is?
DeleteI didn't think you were such a fan of Clinton to use his ridiculous excuse. Laughable.
You have this tendency to levy a criticism without taking enough care to notice that you are guilty of the same thing, sometimes in the very same thread- even the same sentence (like the time you criticized my spelling). When I point this out, your defense is that it is a silly thing to criticism someone for. Do you ever stop for a minute and try to look at yourself objectively?
DeleteFor the record, my criticism of you is not your use of the word "it" or misspelling "too". It's that you rail on others for doing this while you do the same- and on top of that, when you get called on on it, you act like you weren't the one making petty complaints in the first place.
And you TS have a tendency to be ridiculous, to an extreme of a typical gun LOON, which means I don't listen to what you say, I just laugh at whatever you say. A normal reaction to your extreme BS. Now on with your "IT" definition. I laughed at your spelling criticism because you were complaining about the same mistake by others, you yourself are OFTEN guilty of. It's called hypocrisy.
Delete"I laughed at your spelling criticism..."
DeleteYou weren’t using your “Peter” name when we had that exchange. If you are going to keep the ruse up, at least put some minimal effort into it.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2015/02/guns-dont-kill-people-people-kill-people.html