Gun discharged at IKEA

[Trigger Time]

Arrest the kid. He is the proximate cause. No one was in danger until he pulled the trigger.

Or or was this one of the dangerous guns that kills people of its own accord?

Or hold the parents accountable for their kid. As parents should be anyways.

 

[Fargo]

Why is it that every accident or bad thing that happens have to be a criminal matter? I am really failing to understand where this idea is coming from that the criminal law is designed to or able to remedy really any of the issues present in this case.

By the standard of this case, keeping in mind that someone actually being hurt legally doesn't matter, I would wager that damn near everybody on this board is theoretically guilty of criminal recklessness within the last 12 months. Ever texted while driving? Ever left your car keys where kids could get them? Ever merge without fully checking your blind spot? Never take your eyes off the road while driving?

People do way more reckless crap every day resulting in way more actual damage with vehicles in countless car accidents. Why the hysteria because this guys slip up involved a gun not a car?

 

[HoughMade]

Hold up.

This was less of a "negligent discharge" and more of a "negligent dispossession."

You can only follow the 4 rules if you have the ACTUAL gun in your possession.

I'm going to have yo know the age of the child and his or her knowledge about guns before I can assess whether there was also a negligent discharge.

In this jurisdiction children under the age of seven are conclusively presumed to be incapable of contributory negligence; children between the ages of seven and fourteen are rebuttably presumed to be incapable of contributory negligence; and absent special circumstances, children over the age of fourteen are chargeable with exercising the standard of care of an adult.

Mangold ex rel. Mangold v. Indiana Dept. of Nat. Resources, 756 N.E.2d 970, 976 (Ind. 2001), citing, Creasy v. Rusk, 730 N.E.2d 659, 662 (Ind.2000).

 

[Trigger Time]

Why is it that every accident or bad thing that happens have to be a criminal matter? I am really failing to understand where this idea is coming from that the criminal law is designed to or able to remedy really any of the issues present in this case.

By the standard of this case, keeping in mind that someone actually being hurt legally doesn't matter, I would wager that damn near everybody on this board is theoretically guilty of criminal recklessness within the last 12 months. Ever texted while driving? Ever left your car keys where kids could get them? Ever merge without fully checking your blind spot? Never take your eyes off the road while driving?

People do way more reckless crap every day resulting in way more actual damage with vehicles in countless car accidents. Why the hysteria because this guys slip up involved a gun not a car?

You are right. This is why I dont make the big bucks

 

[Fargo]

If following someone too closely with a tanker truck, rear ending them and causing their being crushed to death isn't legally reckless, I'm struggling to see criminal liability here...


https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/2002/11130201-mpb.html

 

[Fargo]

You are right. This is why I dont make the big bucks

LOL that makes two of us (on the big bucks)!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

At least in this one, it was only the gun owner herself hurt. I'm guessing cheap holster contributed to this one:

https://www.jacksonsun.com/story/ne...en-gun-goes-off-lexington-wal-mart/747239002/

 

[EdC]

I'm going to have yo know the age of the child and his or her knowledge about guns before I can assess whether there was also a negligent discharge.

Mangold ex rel. Mangold v. Indiana Dept. of Nat. Resources, 756 N.E.2d 970, 976 (Ind. 2001), citing, Creasy v. Rusk, 730 N.E.2d 659, 662 (Ind.2000).

The child in this case was reported to have been 6 years old (see comment #82 above). As for the child's knowledge about guns, can't help out there - have no idea.

BTW, thx for providing the case, it was very instructive, especially this language:

[FONT=&amp] "A person engages in conduct ‘recklessly' if he engages in the conduct in plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm that might result and the disregard involves a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct." Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2. "Proof that an accident arose out of the inadvertence, lack of attention, forgetfulness or thoughtfulness of the driver of a vehicle, or from an error of judgment on his part, will not support a charge of reckless homicide." Beeman v. State, 232 Ind. 683, 690, [/FONT]115 N.E.2d 919[FONT=&amp], 922 (1953).

I think that IKEA man's conduct is fairly considered to have arisen from inadvertence, lack of attention, forgetfulness or (lack of) thoughtfulness, but wouldn't rise to the level of recklessness according to the Indiana Supremes. Again, as Guy Relford said, it's not against the law to be a knucklehead.[/FONT]

 

[rugertoter]

Behold, the many victories of pocket carry!

Moron carrying in the pocket should have kept their awareness level up....I do.

 

[bwframe]

Just let the stupid foolish sloppy gun handler go about his normal business until someone gets killed. Then we'll do something about it...

 

[Fargo]

Just let the stupid foolish sloppy gun handler go about his normal business until someone gets killed. Then we'll do something about it...

Go lobby your Monroe County legislators to regulate which kinds of holsters we can use. I'm sure they will be happy to get all up in the business of regulating carry and firearms. You know, "common sense gun control".

 

[Indy317]

I guess the question is why criminalize any reckless behavior if this sort of behavior is OK. Without any sort of punishment at all, the message becomes “It’s OK to be an idiot with a firearm.” I don’t think it should be a felony, but more like DUI. If you didn’t physically harm anyone, misdemeanor charges. If someone else is harmed, then charge the felony. I see both sides. Maybe this is the type of behavior that should be left in civil courts unless an innocent person ends up sustaining physical injury then file felony level criminal charges?

 

[churchmouse]

Moron carrying in the pocket should have kept their awareness level up....I do.

I know if my keys are not in my pocket. How can you loose a gun and not know it. How.

 

[jamil]

Why is it that every accident or bad thing that happens have to be a criminal matter? I am really failing to understand where this idea is coming from that the criminal law is designed to or able to remedy really any of the issues present in this case.

By the standard of this case, keeping in mind that someone actually being hurt legally doesn't matter, I would wager that damn near everybody on this board is theoretically guilty of criminal recklessness within the last 12 months. Ever texted while driving? Ever left your car keys where kids could get them? Ever merge without fully checking your blind spot? Never take your eyes off the road while driving?

People do way more reckless crap every day resulting in way more actual damage with vehicles in countless car accidents. Why the hysteria because this guys slip up involved a gun not a car?

I can see him getting the snot sued out of him, but criminal? No.

 

[jamil]

LOL that makes two of us (on the big bucks)!

You wanna make the big bucks lawyerin’? Gotta call Saul.

 

[LP1]

I guess the question is why criminalize any reckless behavior if this sort of behavior is OK. Without any sort of punishment at all, the message becomes “It’s OK to be an idiot with a firearm.” I don’t think it should be a felony, but more like DUI. If you didn’t physically harm anyone, misdemeanor charges. If someone else is harmed, then charge the felony. I see both sides. Maybe this is the type of behavior that should be left in civil courts unless an innocent person ends up sustaining physical injury then file felony level criminal charges?

A non-felony alternative is a common sense approach.

For those who suggest a civil suit - who sues? Who pays the up-front legal costs? And most importantly, how does one actually collect the damages? I suspect that most of our less-responsible citizens have minimal assets.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I guess the question is why criminalize any reckless behavior if this sort of behavior is OK. Without any sort of punishment at all, the message becomes “It’s OK to be an idiot with a firearm.” I don’t think it should be a felony, but more like DUI. If you didn’t physically harm anyone, misdemeanor charges. If someone else is harmed, then charge the felony. I see both sides. Maybe this is the type of behavior that should be left in civil courts unless an innocent person ends up sustaining physical injury then file felony level criminal charges?

Criminalizing conduct and if something is ok are different.

Marijuana is illegal. A large chunk of the population thinks it's ok.
French kissing and groping your significant other on a park bench in a crowded park is legal. A large chunk of the population thinks it's not ok.

Laws only work when there is public buy-in and the culture supports it. You want to change gun safety violations? Change the culture. Someone who lacks the forethought to carry in such a way they can leave a gun in a couch isn't going to have the forethought to think "I could be charged criminally if..." Someone who leaves it on the toilet tank forgot it and isn't going to remember it because of the law.

Where's all the normal "you can't legislate morality" and "gun control laws don't prevent crime" messages we see whenever "they" introduce the notion that a new law will affect gun violence? So now you want to criminalize an accident? Or base the charges on things outside the control of the individual? If I drop my gun and a responsible adult finds it, no harm no foul, but if a kid finds it I'm a criminal?

Let's see some of the ideas of how we can potentially restrict and hamper all lawful gun owners based on this guy, and then explain why it's any different than gun-grabber proposals. C'mon, you can do it. Mandate carry insurance since we can't be sure they'll pay up in a civil suit. Mandate government approved carry equipment. Loss of carry rights based on "stupid". Gun registry so we can track the owner of found guns. It's for the kids. We have to do something.

Old guys sits on sofa, gun slides out of his pocket, we need more laws.
Old guy sits in a hotel room with a bunch of rifles with bumpstocks and kills about 60 people and injures hundreds more. Laws wouldn't have prevented this. My rights.

 

[Fargo]

Criminalizing conduct and if something is ok are different.

Marijuana is illegal. A large chunk of the population thinks it's ok.
French kissing and groping your significant other on a park bench in a crowded park is legal. A large chunk of the population thinks it's not ok.

Laws only work when there is public buy-in and the culture supports it. You want to change gun safety violations? Change the culture. Someone who lacks the forethought to carry in such a way they can leave a gun in a couch isn't going to have the forethought to think "I could be charged criminally if..." Someone who leaves it on the toilet tank forgot it and isn't going to remember it because of the law.

Where's all the normal "you can't legislate morality" and "gun control laws don't prevent crime" messages we see whenever "they" introduce the notion that a new law will affect gun violence? So now you want to criminalize an accident? Or base the charges on things outside the control of the individual? If I drop my gun and a responsible adult finds it, no harm no foul, but if a kid finds it I'm a criminal?

Let's see some of the ideas of how we can potentially restrict and hamper all lawful gun owners based on this guy, and then explain why it's any different than gun-grabber proposals. C'mon, you can do it. Mandate carry insurance since we can't be sure they'll pay up in a civil suit. Mandate government approved carry equipment. Loss of carry rights based on "stupid". Gun registry so we can track the owner of found guns. It's for the kids. We have to do something.

Old guys sits on sofa, gun slides out of his pocket, we need more laws.
Old guy sits in a hotel room with a bunch of rifles with bumpstocks and kills about 60 people and injures hundreds more. Laws wouldn't have prevented this. My rights.

When you’re right, you’re right...

 

[KMaC]

Now the nation knows what rubes we are. This guy isn't soft selling it. We shouldn't have guns.
https://www.newstimes.com/news/media/Indiana-Gun-Laws-Lead-to-Kids-Shooting-Inside-of-1287057.php

 

[Trigger Time]

Now the nation knows what rubes we are. This guy isn't soft selling it. We shouldn't have guns.
https://www.newstimes.com/news/media/Indiana-Gun-Laws-Lead-to-Kids-Shooting-Inside-of-1287057.php

Ok I listened to 40 seconds of his whiney ***** nasaly voice before I had to turn it off. Not to mention the dumb storytelling and gun statistics.