Awww, it’s such a heartwarming scene, right? Dad and Junior hauling the guns out of the safe Friday night, getting everything ready for their big weekend hunting trip. A little cleaning, a little lore about the big one pop got when he was the kid’s age and, of course, a little talk about the proper care and feeding of firearms. But that talk should probably exclude dad pointing one of the bangsticks at the kid’s head. “An 11-year-old Missouri boy survived being accidentally shot in the cheek by his father who was teaching him about gun safety, police said,” . . .
It sounds like the kid (not pictured above) — not to mention Dad — was pretty damned lucky. As in run right out and buy a lottery ticket lucky.
From upi.com:
(Detective Richard)Shelton said the bullet first struck the boy’s hand, which was resting on his face, potentially slowing the bullet enough to prevent deeper damage.
“We actually found the boy up walking, and he was able to walk to the ambulance,” Shelton said. “He was transported to Heartland, where they decided to taken him by air ambulance to Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City for further treatment. The projectile was still lodged back below his jaw.”
Pop probly oughta wait until the tyke’s released from the hospital to get that lottery ticket, though.
Dad may have some legal ‘splainin’ to do once Det. Shelton and the DA are finished dertermining just exactly what the facts is. Not to mention some awkward moments persuading mom to let the kid tromp through the woods with the pater familias and a loaded gun again.
And while we’d love to send pop an IGOTD trophy to cheer up Junior’s hospital room, the local yokels are doing a good job of keeping dad incognito. Oh well.
“DUMBASS”!!!!
Cue the Anti’s in 3…2…1….
Well, dad did teach junior an invaluable lesson about gun safety. Mama ought to teach dad an invaluable lesson about fucking with her cub. And throw in the 2 grammas the boy has and dad will probably be safer in a cell with bubba.
I am glad the kid survived!!! But someone really needs to neat some sense into his dad, real soon!
Jeeeeeez…so, the kid’s net learning about gun safety, “Never trust my old man with a gun ’cause he don’t know gun safety from Shinola!’ Great job, fella!
Glad the son wasn’t killed and hope his wound heals with minimal scarring and no long term injury.
God must love stupid people because he made so many of them.
That or he loves a good laugh.
I really hate reading stories like this.
Me too, although I don’t like the negligent discharge stories from police either. Although having safety reminders without the pain of the mistake is a good thing.
+1
Pisses me off too. This county needs a punch patrol…
I just don’t get people who demonstrate safety by performing unsafe actions with the tool/weapon in question. I guess it shows the strength of the “it could never happen to me, I’m experienced” fallacy, but tragic outcomes from this kind of idiocy are both predictable and completely avoidable.
Ummm walked to the ambulance!? That crew may not have been as negligent as dad but I sure as hell would have reamed them a new one if I was their supervisor.
Yea, I went there, despite the more serious problem of the story. I just dont know what to say about that. If it wasnt a kid, Id say something smart. Im also that guy who yells at stupid hollywood medics on TV.
You know, “further investigation” and “turning it over to the DA” are ways to avoid holding gun owners responsible for their negligence. In places like Missouri they love to exonerate people with the “it was just an accident” crap.
The guy should be locked up that very night, bailed out the next day, and charged with felony negligence. Nothing else is right.
1. Felony Negligence isn’t a thing. “Negligence” is a tort (civil offense), and thus can never be a Felony. I don’t know how you do things in Italy, Mike, but here in the US, you don’t go to Jail when you get sued.
2. Do you even know what a DA is? DA stands for District Attorney. A District Attorney is generally in charge (through their office/Assistant District Attorneys) of all prosecutions in their jurisdiction. The Police collect evidence and give it to the DA’s office. The DA then decides what, if any, charges to file.
3. Once a charge has been filed, it can be difficult for the prosecutor to increase or decrease the severity of the charge if the material facts have not changed.
4. The Police’s primary duty is to investigate potential crimes. In general, they can only arrest people without a warrant if they’ve witnessed a crime, or they have probable cause to believe that a felony has occurred, and the person they’re arresting committed that felony.
5. Generally, negligently injuring someone (even with a deadly weapon) is not considered to be a felony. You rear end someone on the highway (Cars are considered deadly weapons, and rear ending someone is generally considered to be caused by your negligence), and they’re injured (but not dead), you might get a misdemeanor charge (likely with no possibility of jail time), but you’re not going to be charged with a felony.
6. From Wikipedia. “An accident or mishap is an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance” Seems to fit pretty well. Unless you’re claiming the father intentionally shot the son. In which case, I must ask why you haven’t gone to the police with your evidence showing the father’s intent.
7. Nowhere in the news article does it say anything suggesting that the father was not charged with a crime.
8. In places like Italy, they love to exonerate people with the “she was wearing Jeans, so it must be consensual” crap. See, I can make disparaging regional assumptions, too. Though, I have a source for mine (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/277263.stm). Where’s your source showing that Missouri classifies intentional acts as accidents to free criminals?
I’ve got 8 major flaws with your argument. Including your carriage return, there are 7 lines in your post. I could actually go on deconstructing the problems with your argument, but I guess I should let you respond. Please try to respond to all 8.
FLAME DELETED
Dominated.
Dan, I am not worthy.
I hate linking to anything other than my own blog, but just to show that your point number 1 is total bullshit, here it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence
I’m sure the rest of your ranting is as worthless as that.
Mikey you and I and everyone else on here knows Wikipedia is horse crap!! Anyone can add to or take away the definition of something on there very easily.
Cite a more reliable source, maybe go Missouri’s website and read what the legal definition of criminal negligence is.
BTW: I don’t live in Missouri but your general biased and prejudiced statement about places like Missouri is bullshit and you know it.
Criminal Negligence is not a crime. It is an element in certain crimes, like “Criminally Negligent Homicide.”
If you had bothered to read the article you linked, you’d know that.
From the article *you* linked.
“In criminal law, criminal negligence is one of the three general classes of mens rea (Latin for “guilty mind”) element”
“To constitute a crime, there must be an actus reus (Latin for “guilty act”) accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence).”
Negligence alone is not a Crime. Criminal Negligence is Committing a crime through negligence. There has to be a crime committed to be arrested for Criminally Negligent X. You can’t be arrested for just “Criminal Negligence.”
You’re 0 for 1, with 7 more elements of my post to go. You going to try again, or are you going to keep lying to yourself and pretend you didn’t read the whole thing.
But there is a crime in almost any case of gun negligence in which someone gets hurt. You’re nit picking and ignoring the real point which is gun owners need to be held accountable for their actions.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the manner in which deadly force is applied is entirely irrelevant.
Bearing that in mind, are you saying that anyone who accidentally injures another with a deadly weapon should be convicted of a Felony?
Because an Automobile is a deadly weapon. So is a knife. People accidentally injure each other with Cars and Knives every day. Why should they become Felons?
By the way, try to find a legal document that includes the term “gun negligence.”
Finally, tell me which statutorily defined crime (that includes the element of negligence) that you think this man can and should be convicted of. Since you’re post specified a Felony, try to make sure you find an applicable Felony.
Here’s the Missouri Revised Statutes for you.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/statutes.htm
Be sure to cite the law properly so we can find it to verify your findings.
If you feel that my first of 8 points is too nitpicky, you’re free to try to address the 7 other major deficiencies in your argument that I pointed out.
Let me consult my Missouri law books and I’ll get back to you. You said “statutorily defined crime” right? OK, just hang on.
And nowhere in your original post did you say anything so moderate as “Gun Owners should be ‘held accountable’ for their actions.” You said he should be charged with (and, I assume, convicted of) a Felony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony#United_States
Generally, unless someone dies, there are no accidental Felonies, because a Felony conviction will ruin your life, and generally, that’s considered over the top for an accident.
Same thing. Anything less than a felony conviction for gun misuse would be insufficient.
So Mike, given that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the manner in which deadly force is applied is entirely irrelevant, why do you believe that the party at fault in a car accident that results in bodily injury should be convicted of a Felony?
Why do you believe that someone who accidentally drops their knife in someone else’s foot should be convicted of a felony?
A car, a knife, and a gun are all examples of the application of deadly force. All applied accidentally. Why is the gun different when the Supreme Court says it isn’t?
Mike, I linked you the Missouri Revised Statutes. Those are the complete set of Missouri state laws. No need to go to a law library. You claim he should be convicted of some Felony. Time to tell us which one.
P.S. The United States isn’t a common law country. All crimes are defined by statute.
To be clear, unlike the case in a pure common law country, the Supreme Court has ruled that, to be enforceable, a crime must be defined by statute.
Technically, due to the prevalence of case law in other aspects of the law (besides defining crimes, that is), the US is a Common Law country. But I’m being nitpicky about myself to head off another tangent from you, Mike.
So, Mike. Now that we’ve cleared up why your attempt to invalidate my first point are bull, care to start in on the other 7?
You didn’t make anything clear with that double-talk. And no, I don’t want to bother with the rest.
No doublespeak, Mike. Just explaining the difference between Civil Law systems, Common Law systems, and why the US has aspects of both despite being considered to have a Common Law system.
So, as every crime in the US must be described by statute, please find what statute you think this man should be charged under.
As for the rest, I guess you’re admitting that they’re all legitimate impeachments of your “argument”.
The statute is called, being-another-asshole-with-guns. The only discussion we should be having is how rare is he. But, instead of that you want to insist on legal technicalities that you know I have no interest in and won’t waste my time looking up. That’s your big victory.
Legal technicalities help keep us a civilized society. How’s that work in Italy?
What’s Italy have to do with anything, Robert. I though you left those really inane remarks to your friends.
So, Mike, in what way is deadly force applied by firearm different from deadly force applied by an Automobile or Knife? Keep in mind that the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s not.
Given that the method by which deadly force is applied is legally irrelevant, why do you think the person at fault in a Car accident should be charged as a Felon?
By the way, Mike. Italy’s legal system is based on Civil law. Every offence in Italy must be codified in law or it cannot be charged. So, you should be used to the fact that you can’t charge someone for “being an asshole with a gun” anymore than you can charge someone for “being an asshole with an automobile” or “being an asshole with a knife.”
The Law is not a “Legal Technicality.” It’s the entire basis of the legal system in any country not ruled by dictatorial fiat.
Basically what you are saying is that you think people from “places like Missouri” are irresponsible beer swilling, gun-hugging fools who shrug off accidental shootings with a wink and a nod.
Nothing like broad malicious generalities in the morning with a sprinkling of negative stereotypes to start your day.
Have you ever been to Missouri? Do you know anyone from there? Do you have any evidence to support your prejudice?
You’re putting a lot of words on my mouth. What’s your contention, then. Missouri is the pinnacle of educational and cultural achievement?
Sorry to hear of a kid getting shot by his dad. The father should get down on his knees and say THANK YOU! to the diety of his choice for not having killed his son, then he should be severly bitch-slapped until he can correctly recite the 4 rules of gun safety. When I read stories like this, I realize just how many people sit on their brains.