Mother accidentally shoots and kill teenage daughter

[trixare4kids]

For some people, being punished in some manner actually provides a catharsis. You recall the female officer who accidentally killed a black man in a road stop. No question in my mind she thought she was shooting her taser. But you could see the relief in her face when she was sentenced five years.

Yeah, true.
That was a lot different than a mother shooting and killing her daughter though.

I was thinking no jail time, a year probation and 200 hours community service which she should happily comply with.

I can sort of see that. She might actually go along with it to ease a tiny fraction of the lifelong guilt she will suffer. I think living with what she did is punishment enough in reality though. Let her be a lesson to all parents though. Somehow that has to be conveyed so something like this doesn't happen again. I dunno.

 

[LouC]

Production started on those in 1990 so it’s designed with safety features.

Obviously they are not retard proof.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

How many lives would need to be saved as a result of mandatory firearm safety training before it felt less infringe-y?

Given the standard of how to determine if something infringes the right to keep and bear arms or not...
Mandatory firearms training could guarantee no one would ever die from a gunshot a again, and it would -still- infringe on the right.

The right to keep and bear arms and the protection afforded to it are not subject to a means-end test.

 

[StarvedForChange]

Tennessee mother accidentally shot, killed teen daughter while rummaging in purse for keys: police

A Tennessee mother told Nashville police that she accidently shot her 13-year-old daughter when her pistol discharged in her purse while she was searching for her keys.

www.foxnews.com

My heart goes out to the mother because I'm positive it was an accident. However, charges should be brought because it was gross negligence with a lethal weapon.

So tragic!

 

[Noodlegawd]

Its foolish for people to carry guns or keep them in home.

Why?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Negligence requires that someone ignored an obvious risk or acted with disregard for the safety of others.
If you're the DA, do you think you can prove either?

Easily. No reasonable person would keep a loaded, unholstered gun in a purse.

 

[LostInSeattle]

She is still law-abiding. This is the text book definition of an accident. There is negligence but the actual act was not intentional. No law was broken.

Think about what you're saying. Imagine your daughter was friends with her daughter, and they were all in the car together. But it was your daughter who was accidentally shot and killed. Is "Oops, my bad!" going to cut it?

If that isn't illegal, don't you think it sure as **** as should be? Because if not, then we have a culture in which people can just make stupid ass mistakes with deadly weapons and not be held accountable. Because it was an "accident."

Just because someone doesn't mean for something bad to happen doesn't necessarily mean it isn't criminal behavior. If I rob a bank, using an unloaded handgun because I'm bluffing and I have zero intention for anyone to get hurt, but someone in the bank drops dead from heart attack from fright - that's my fault, even though that was the last thing I wanted to have happen.

This woman carried a loaded handgun in her purse with a child in the car. She did not have the weapon properly holstered - a deliberate choice - thereby creating a hazardous situation. As a result of that situation she created her child was killed, even though that was not her intention.

But no crime was committed? Then our laws are insufficient to our situation.

 

[Glitch]

Yeah, true.
That was a lot different than a mother shooting and killing her daughter though.

I can sort of see that. She might actually go along with it to ease a tiny fraction of the lifelong guilt she will suffer. I think living with what she did is punishment enough in reality though. Let her be a lesson to all parents though. Somehow that has to be conveyed so something like this doesn't happen again. I dunno.

I disagree. She needs to be charged with manslaughter for her negligence. It is not enough that she is wracked with guilt, her negligence needs to be held accountable. Just like Alec Baldwin.

 

[Glitch]

Think about what you're saying. Imagine your daughter was friends with her daughter, and they were all in the car together. But it was your daughter who was accidentally shot and killed. Is "Oops, my bad!" going to cut it?

If that isn't illegal, don't you think it sure as **** as should be? Because if not, then we have a culture in which people can just make stupid ass mistakes with deadly weapons and not be held accountable. Because it was an "accident."

Just because someone doesn't mean for something bad to happen doesn't necessarily mean it isn't criminal behavior. If I rob a bank, using an unloaded handgun because I'm bluffing and I have zero intention for anyone to get hurt, but someone in the bank drops dead from heart attack from fright - that's my fault, even though that was the last thing I wanted to have happen.

This woman carried a loaded handgun in her purse with a child in the car. She did not have the weapon properly holstered - a deliberate choice - thereby creating a hazardous situation. As a result of that situation she created her child was killed, even though that was not her intention.

But no crime was committed? Then our laws are insufficient to our situation.

A crime was certainly committed. The exact same crime that Alec Baldwin was charged with: Involuntary Manslaughter.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Its foolish for people to carry guns or keep them in home.

It’s foolish for untrained people to have handguns and carry them about.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I don’t quite understand this.

The average handgun has a trigger pull weighted so simply rummaging about for keys should not set it off.

If you’re carrying a gun in a purse why would you not have one with a rolling block safety. An internal safety that isn’t exposed externally on a lever that could get accidentally bumped into the fire position?

Was it carried cocked? If so, why? Had it had its trigger pull doctored to reduce its pull weighting to make it require less tension on the trigger to fire?

It’s not impossible but very unusual unless it was being carried unsafely.

 

[Glitch]

I don’t quite understand this.

The average handgun has a trigger pull weighted so simply rummaging about for keys should not set it off.

If you’re carrying a gun in a purse why would you not have one with a rolling block safety. An internal safety that isn’t exposed externally on a lever that could get accidentally bumped into the fire position?

Was it carried cocked? If so, why? Had it had its trigger pull doctored to reduce its pull weighting to make it require less tension on the trigger to fire?

It’s not impossible but very unusual unless it was being carried unsafely.

Single-action revolvers typically have a trigger pull weight between 3 and 5 pounds. While a double-action revolver will typically have a trigger pull weight between 8 and 12 pounds. Pistols typically have a trigger pull weight between 4 and 7 pounds.

It would require a significant thrust of the arm into her purse to fire either a single-action revolver or a pistol, but it is possible. That is the primary reason why you keep a single-action revolver with an empty chamber, to prevent an accidental discharge. That would be the equivalent of keeping one in the chamber for pistols. Not a smart idea if you are just carrying and not actually using the pistol. At the very least the pistol or revolver should have been contained within a holster to prevent such accidents.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Gun zealots oppose ALL gun laws, they don't just want to oppose those unnecessary ineffective, and/or violate the constitution laws.

Since gun control focuses on trying to produce laws that are simultaneously unnecessary, ineffective, and unconstitutional, those are the laws that we focus on opposing.

It also should not have a round chambered or be off safety

It was probably a Glock or a gun based on the same principles of a Glock. Such guns have no safety, and are regularly carried with a round in the chamber.

where simply "looking for ones keys" can fire the weapon.

The gun should have been kept in a holster so that would not have happened.

Why would/should anyone support unnecessary ineffective, and/or unconstitutional gun laws?

Who is doing that?

The entire gun control movement is doing that.

"Violating people's civil liberties for no reason" is the only thing that gun control people care about.

That is the thing, Zealots don't or won't compromise.

And rightly so.

Should black people compromise with the KKK?

The gun control movement is just as vile as the KKK is.

If what has been reported is true then she is a total gun retard.
It was reported to be a semiautomatic, so she would have to have put a magazine in, and racked a round into the chamber, and not have a safety or not have activated a safety, in order to have fired the gun be accidentally pulling the trigger, while looking for her keys.

Glocks don't have safeties. At least not in the sense that you are using the term. Her mistake was to not keep the gun in a proper holster.

That said, even if it had been a gun with a safety, having the gun jiggling around in her purse could easily result in a safety being accidentally disengaged if it was bumped or snagged the wrong way. So again her mistake was to not keep the gun in a proper holster.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Negligence requires that someone ignored an obvious risk or acted with disregard for the safety of others.
If you're the DA, do you think you can prove either?

I think that is provable. The gun seems to have not been in a proper holster.

Carrying a gun w/o a round chambered is a great way to get yourself killed.

If I carried a SIG P320 I'd carry it in condition 3. Too many cases of the guns firing on their own.

Of course, I would not carry a SIG P320.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crap like this is what's going to bring down 'infringements', more than mass shootings or school shootings.
Sam and Janet Devening and their cul-de-sac neighbours don't really believe that mass shootings happen in the places they go but random rage addicts having a rolling gunfight at highway speed worries them. Mothers accidentally shooting a gun in their purse at the mall worries them. They don't think there's the kind of psycho students in their children's school that brings an AR and bag of magazines to kill as many as possible but when a six-year-old brings a pistol and shoots his teacher, that worries them. When a dumbass lays a rifle on the back seat with one in the chamber and his dog fires it by stepping on it, killing the guy in the passenger seat, that worries them.
Sam and Janet don't worry about mass shooters, they worry about dumbasses with guns and rage addicts with guns. And when Sam and Janet and their cul-de-sac neighbours get worried, phone calls get made.

Who are Sam and Janet Devening?? Random names as a stand-in for generic voters??

It doesn't matter what they think. They don't matter.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The average person is, on average, more likely to hurt themselves or others unintentionally by keeping a gun on/near them than they are to use it successfully against a criminal. Making it statistically smarter for the average person to not carry a gun or keep one accessible in their home.

Nonsense. All you need to do is practice proper gun safety.

But those are averages. It can obviously be not just smart to carry a gun but down right foolish not to depending on individual personal risk factors.

Thus the reason why police officers carry guns.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Its foolish for people to carry guns or keep them in home.

Nonsense. Is it also foolish for police officers to carry guns?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would mandatory training help mitigate the frequency of these types of accidents?

Are they really all that frequent? But yes, training would probably reduce some occurrences.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's certainly where they keep their manhood.

This namealling is a poor substitute for a compelling argument.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

She is still law-abiding. This is the text book definition of an accident. There is negligence but the actual act was not intentional. No law was broken.

Negligence and recklessness are both crimes when they result in death.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't care if it was an accident or not, it wouldn't have happened without the gun. And no matter how many of these accidents happen, gun zealots will oppose all gun safety laws.

Bathtub drownings don't happen without bathtubs.

Fatal falls down stairways don't happen without stairways.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if it was (and I accept there is some apparent negligence here) there is no point in charging the mother. Doing so would be cruel.

If she committed manslaughter, she should be charged thusly.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) cats are evil.

 

[LouC]

Since gun control focuses on trying to produce laws that are simultaneously unnecessary, ineffective, and unconstitutional, those are the laws that we focus on opposing.
<Snipped>

Are you a Gun Zealot?

 

[LouC]

It was probably a Glock or a gun based on the same principles of a Glock.

Speculation.

Such guns have no safety, and are regularly carried with a round in the chamber.
<Snipped>

Speculation.

But what is not speculation is that the manner in which Radley carried her weapon, unholstered and loose in her purse, no doubt with a chambered round, was unquestionably unsafe and unquestionably deadly.

 

[LouC]

The gun should have been kept in a holster so that would not have happened.
<Snipped>

Unfortunately it wasn't.

A gun should have been kept out of the hands of such an ill prepared person to be carrying a weapon, that it has been proven Ms. Radley was.

 

[LouC]

The entire gun control movement is doing that.

Are they?

"Violating people's civil liberties for no reason" is the only thing that gun control people care about. <Snipped>

Proof of that?

 

[LouC]

And rightly so.

Should black people compromise with the KKK? <Snipped>

Are black people the Zealots or would that be the KKK?

 

[LouC]

The gun control movement is just as vile as the KKK is.
<Snipped>

I believe in reviewing, changing, and likely adding more controls on guns, and some people's access to them.

Are you placing me in the pigeon hole of being as "vile as the KKK is."

 

[LouC]

Glocks don't have safeties. <Snipped>

So?
Last I checked the gun in question had not been identified as being a Glock.
Still, had her weapon not had a chambered round, a lack of a safety would not have been an issue.

 

[LouC]

Her mistake was to not keep the gun in a proper holster.
<Snipped>

Radley's mistake was not being experienced and informed enough to be carrying that weapon.

It was a hugely deadly mistake.

But, hopefully she will go purchase a proper holster now, so she doesn't shoot and kill any of her other children or anyone else.

 

[samiam5211]

Given the standard of how to determine if something infringes the right to keep and bear arms or not...
Mandatory firearms training could guarantee no one would ever die from a gunshot a again, and it would -still- infringe on the right.

The right to keep and bear arms and the protection afforded to it are not subject to a means-end test.

Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of the 2nd amendment.

 

[LouC]

That said, even if it had been a gun with a safety, having the gun jiggling around in her purse could easily result in a safety being accidentally disengaged if it was bumped or snagged the wrong way.

True. But that is speculation. What is not speculation is had there not been a chambered round, her jiggling in her purse searching for her keys might have caused the trigger to be similarly engaged, but the hammer would have fallen and the firing pin strike air and not a live round's primer.