3 year old shot in head in Indy

[the1kidd03]

What brand gun was used? Barrel length? Caliber? Trigger pull? After all this forum is for firearms discussion.. Yeah I know, but this thread went off track long ago.

1911

 

[Yup!]

1911

It obviously wasn't a Glock or an "assault rifle" otherwise the media would have used those terms. Since 1911 isn't a hot button for news, they leave it out because it will confuse people.

 

[bwframe]

...Of course, nobody here would be because everyone on INGO is beyond making mistakes....

When "everyone" is at fault, it's time to start looking in the mirror.

 

[the1kidd03]

When "everyone" is at fault, it's time to start looking in the mirror.

Whatever helps you rationalize it.

WWII was also preventable, IF given the right decision prior. Analyzing after the fact is EASY. Dealing with the cards your dealt at the time are life long decisions we must live with.

 

[Trigger Time]

Whatever helps you rationalize it.

WWII was also preventable, IF given the right decision prior. Analyzing after the fact is EASY. Dealing with the cards your dealt at the time are life long decisions we must live with.

i don't understand how you rationalize negligent as only being a gun left unattended out of sight or reach? Negligent can also be having a loaded gun tucked into your waistband and the kid grabbing it and shooting themself. Your thinking is flawed. I don't know if your trying to play it this way because your related to this family or your some sort of representative for them or what and trying to prevent them from losing custody of their other child or facing charges? I don't know what you do. But my beat advice to you if you do represent their interest in ANY way is to shut up now and stop posting teasers and adding to the speculation. Until you can add something credible or factually new to the issue stop posting things like "can't at this time say anymore" Ect, (paraphrasing). Your NOT helping this family by posting here if that's what you think your doing.
Also the fact that earlier you posted about wanting to ask this grieving family if it was ok to post intimate or further details on a gun forum just shows how disconnected you really are from reality. If I was that parent and you asked me that question I think you'd be tossed out of my house. I just don't think your seeing this correctly because either your too close or you've been paid to represent their interests? Just my opinion on how your posts have came across to me.

 

[the1kidd03]

i don't understand how you rationalize negligent as only being a gun left unattended out of sight or reach? Because it was NOT negligent. After learning more details tonight, I'm even more confident in stating this. The physical evidence from the investigators should corraborate this as well when it comes to light.

Negligent can also be having a loaded gun tucked into your waistband and the kid grabbing it and shooting themself.
That is not "negligent" as defined because you did what you reasonably could to keep danger from others. You did not NEGLECT the presence of a danger. Your measures simply failed.

Your thinking is flawed.
Your assumptions are flawed.

I don't know if your trying to play it this way because your related to this family or your some sort of representative for them or what and trying to prevent them from losing custody of their other child or facing charges? I don't know what you do. But my beat advice to you if you do represent their interest in ANY way is to shut up now and stop posting teasers and adding to the speculation.
I'm doing nothing more than pointing out people's assumptions which media reports are misleading them to in their phrasing. Reading anything more into it than that is not my fault, or problem.

Until you can add something credible or factually new to the issue stop posting things like "can't at this time say anymore" Ect, (paraphrasing).
I've added plenty of credible thought to this thread. It just doesn't fall in line with your predetermined assumptions. I cannot help that.

Your NOT helping this family by posting here if that's what you think your doing.
*you're....and since as we've seen in several recent cases the court of "public opinion" is indeed a powerful motivator. Attempting to eliminate biased assumptions is certainly not hurting their case. I find it incredibly..."funny" that so many gun owners are so adept at giving their impervious advice and solutions to issues, yet when it comes to matters which can affect the community as a whole it's every man for themselves, and all based on media reports. Your willingness to believe media proves you to be no less a sheep mentality than the rest of our society.

Also the fact that earlier you posted about wanting to ask this grieving family if it was ok to post intimate or further details on a gun forum just shows how disconnected you really are from reality. If I was that parent and you asked me that question I think you'd be tossed out of my house. I just don't think your seeing this correctly because either your too close or you've been paid to represent their interests? Just my opinion on how your posts have came across to me.
Well, you're welcome to your opinion, albeit incorrect. I know what I can/cannot ask somebody I know. If that is your reaction, then that tells me how much you are motivated by emotion rather than logic. Which would also further support your specific biased in this situation to want to place blame somewhere out of empathy for the child. Empathy is not something I'm good at, although I understand the concept and how to address it from my psychology experience.

Answers above. Believe the media all you want. Makes no difference to me. I'm trying to help them during these times and that's the priority. Dealing with blind assumptions from misleading media reports is just a side effect of gun related things which make the news. I've played their game before and know how they work. Apparently, better than most.

 

[Trigger Time]

Answers above. Believe the media all you want. Makes no difference to me. I'm trying to help them during these times and that's the priority. Dealing with blind assumptions from misleading media reports is just a side effect of gun related things which make the news. I've played their game before and know how they work. Apparently, better than most.

Thanks for the spelling correction. I love it when people who don't like having their opinions questioned use it to try and discredit others. I understand the difference in the two words but typing an appropriate and fast response to your flawed perspective caught me in a mistake.
your answer to my gun in the waistband comment gives me all the information I need to form an educated opinion on your level of firearms safety. Wow!

 

[the1kidd03]

Thanks for the spelling correction. I love it when people who don't like having their opinions questioned use it to try and discredit others. I understand the difference in the two words but typing an appropriate and fast response to your flawed perspective caught me in a mistake.
your answer to my gun in the waistband comment gives me all the information I need to form an educated opinion on your level of firearms safety. Wow!

Your interpretation of "negligent" is all I need to understand your comprehension of legal proceedings. Wow!

Any further one liners?

FWIW, it was a simple correction. Not an attempt at discreditation. Making more assumptions it seems.

Again, like others your example involving the holster warrants the same response:

This is no different than saying gun owners are responsible for the crimes committed with guns which were stolen from them. The gun owner takes measures which they deem are reasonable to prevent unauthorized usage/incident, but that doesn't mean it's fool proof. Were they then negligent and at fault because their reasonable measures failed unexpectedly?

So, quite obviously yes details DO matter a great deal. Nothing will bring the child back. The family knows this and will forever have to deal with that. Therefore, placing blame on them, which I'm sure they already do, accomplishes nothing more than further stroking your own ego and demonstrating your feelings of exemptness from mistakes in life. That is unless one's intent is to promote charges being filed, in which this will be a very difficult case for them to win if they chose to do so.

To reiterate, keeping it secured in a holster is taking the acceptable measures YOU deem REASONABLE to keep others away from danger. What others do in reaction to that, is NOT within your control. You've done what is reasonable to prevent foreseeable dangers. We're human and not psychic. Therefore, we cannot predict EVERY possible risk that COULD present itself at any moment as you are suggesting. This defines the difference between "negligent" and a legit accident.

 

[88GT]

i don't understand how you rationalize negligent as only being a gun left unattended out of sight or reach? Negligent can also be having a loaded gun tucked into your waistband and the kid grabbing it and shooting themself. Your thinking is flawed. I don't know if your trying to play it this way because your related to this family or your some sort of representative for them or what and trying to prevent them from losing custody of their other child or facing charges? I don't know what you do. But my beat advice to you if you do represent their interest in ANY way is to shut up now and stop posting teasers and adding to the speculation. Until you can add something credible or factually new to the issue stop posting things like "can't at this time say anymore" Ect, (paraphrasing). Your NOT helping this family by posting here if that's what you think your doing.
Also the fact that earlier you posted about wanting to ask this grieving family if it was ok to post intimate or further details on a gun forum just shows how disconnected you really are from reality. If I was that parent and you asked me that question I think you'd be tossed out of my house. I just don't think your seeing this correctly because either your too close or you've been paid to represent their interests? Just my opinion on how your posts have came across to me.

How much more secure can you expect someone to keep a firearm? A holster would be ideal, but isn't "on my person" the gold standard of "inaccessible" to children?

I have a suspicion that on the countertop had previously been a safe location because the toddler couldn't physically reach up there. I also suspect that the ability to reach up there was only recently acquired and barely successful inasmuch as the child can only reach just over the edge of the countertop. And it's probably likely that the realization that Junior could reach up there came with this incident. There have been many a times when my boys "informed" me of their new skills by doing something I would have preferred they didn't do. Like jumping from the top step. Or climbing the playset without assistance. So parents operating on the assumption that Junior can't reach up there were not being negligent in their placement of the firearm based on the intel they had at the time. You can't judge negligence based on hindsight and information not available at the time the decision was made. Negligence by definition requires that the individual has a reasonable expectation that the consequence of his actions could/would result in bad things happening. I'm not convinced the parents had any information to support this.

I also think that any "preventable" action which resulted in the injury/death of a child would be labeled negligent, which is beyond ridiculous. Like I said above, everything is preventable if you have no qualifiers on circumstances. The parents could have given up their firearms. That would have prevented it. They could have not put the chocolate milk on the countertop. That would have prevented it. They could have not allowed their kid in the kitchen. That could have prevented it. Did the parents have any reason to believe that Junior would or could reach up there to grab at it?

Don't confuse less than the most prudent with negligent.

 

[Manatee]

You forgot to add: IANAL

Your definitions are your own and don't fit with case law, common law or Websters.

 

[the1kidd03]

You forgot to add: IANAL

Your definitions are your own and don't fit with case law, common law or Websters.

Which case? Please elaborate.
No crime in fatal accident | The Journal Gazette

Regardless, the details of this case will show negligence to not be an issue here; regardless of who's definition you're using. That's not to say they won't attempt it from media induced outcry, but it will be a very difficult one for them to prove/win.

 

[OWGEM]

According to Merriam-Webster negligent is defined as

1
a : marked by or given to neglect especially habitually or culpably
b : failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances
2
: marked by a carelessly easy manner

No mention of "requires that the individual has a reasonable expectation that the consequence of his actions could/would result in bad things happening."

Just because a child can't reach does not mean they can't climb. Just saying.

 

[88GT]

You forgot to add: IANAL

Your definitions are your own and don't fit with case law, common law or Websters.

If that was to me, how else would it be defined? Using the reasonable man standard, I don't see how the element of potential/possible foreseeable harm can be eliminated from the definition. Something isn't negligent just because. It's negligent because there's reasonable expectation that the consequences could/would be harmful.

 

[OWGEM]

Leaving a firearm laying around in a room with a 3 year old is not reasonable expectation that the consequences could/would be harmful?
Can not reach does not mean can not climb. Just saying.

 

[DOYOUFEELLUCKYPUNK]

Just a horrible situation, prayers go out to the family

 

[88GT]

According to Merriam-Webster negligent is defined as

1
a : marked by or given to neglect especially habitually or culpably
b : failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances
2
: marked by a carelessly easy manner

No mention of "requires that the individual has a reasonable expectation that the consequence of his actions could/would result in bad things happening."

Just because a child can't reach does not mean they can't climb. Just saying.

Legally negligent requires a bit more. The law understands that we can't haphazardly convict people who were acting in good faith without the benefit of clairvoyance. It's why parents don't get criminally charged when other "preventable" accidents happen that result in the death of children. How many child drownings results in mom or dad being charged?

 

[88GT]

Leaving a firearm laying around in a room with a 3 year old is not reasonable expectation that the consequences could/would be harmful?
Can not reach does not mean can not climb. Just saying.

The child was not unsupervised, IIRC. Reasonable man standard. Going with what we know at the time. Not what we know was possible after the fact.

Your argument presupposes that the parents would have let the child climb without stopping him. Had the parents not been in the same room with the child, I would agree that merely sitting on the countertop is potentially negligent. But I can't fault the family for operating on what they assumed was good intel (assuming my suspicions are representative of what happened).

EDIT: no, I don't believe having a firearm in a room with a toddler is sufficient grounds for concluding that the consequences of having that firearm in the room could/would be harmful. It takes more than just proximity of toddler to firearm to reach that level.

 

[OWGEM]

I did not say "having a firearm in a room with a toddler". I said "Leaving a firearm laying around in a room with a 3 year old". Big difference. If you wish to continue to justify that behavior, so be it. I don't think a "reasonable" person would think that a good idea.

 

[Trigger Time]

UPDATE: I just seen in the news the parents have been arrested and charged in this case. So yep there was more to the story alright. But not the way it was being portrayed by the family "friend" in this thread, who assured us it could have easily been us that did this.
its tragic that this child is dead and Nothing will bring him back but it serves as a harsh lesson for all gun owners who have children or children who visit Ect.

 

[churchmouse]

I saw parents pics on the news. Did not here the story they told. Mom and dad looked a bit like mountain folk.
They also showed the dad who left a loaded rifle out so a child could get it and kill his older brother. Dad said he was not aware the rifle was loaded.........