Felony Manslaughter for Not Securing a Gun?

Factual Questions
1

In the Michigan elemetary-pupil homicide case, the DA is charging felony manslaughter.

But negligent use of a firearm onself that results in kiling a person is only misdemeanor negligent homicide in Michigan, as is negligent use of a motor vehicle that does same.

Can negligently only allowing access to a firearm which results in another’s death, which would seem a less severely negligent act than either of these, then be a felony?

Though I’m for extremely stringent gun control, and freak at a case like this, including the alleged context of housing the child, this case bothers me on more general terms – those of revenge as justice: The prosecutor has said, according to the above article:

A statement like that makes less sense than Nixon’s saying, “I am not a crook.”

Ray

2

I’m sure a lot of it is because it was a broken family, the guy had a criminal background and the gun was stolen.

If the person who had left the gun out was a mother of 5, PTA president, pillar of society, baker of apple pies, NRA member, target sportswoman, driver of mini-van, churchgoer, the charge would be a lot less.

3

I’m against it for reasons I and other people have posted on other threads.

As to the OP, there is a law in California that holds people criminally liable if they have not “properly secured” a firearm and a child gets it and hurts someone with it.

4

Knowing your great love for the legal system, Nanobyte, it is unsurprising that you have, once again, managed to present a problem of some complexity and interest. :slight_smile:

I don’t know the law in Michigan, so if someone does, and can correct any errors which may follow, please feel free.

Unless there’s a specific statutory or caselaw definition to the contrary, involuntary manslaughter, as a matter of common law, arises from, inter alia, the failure to perform a legal duty expressly required to safeguard human life or from the commission of a lawful act involving a risk of injury or death that is done in an unlawful, reckless, or grossly negligent manner.

I suspect there is, in Michigan, a legal duty of care with respect to safeguarding firearms, so that the failure to perform that duty may give rise to a charge of manslaughter.

But here’s the interesting part – there is also a law, quoted by Nanobyte, which provides that in the specific case of a firearm being negligently discharged by a person, which kills another, the offense is a misdemeanor. So, Nano reasons, how can this make sense? You shoot someone yourself and it’s a misdemeanor, you leave your gun out and it’s a felony.

Unfortunately, the legislature has the power to do just that. They may impose a more serious punishment for what may seem a lesser crime. They may even impose a greater punishment for a lesser-included offense.

I remember a case a while back in which gay men were targeted for soliciting sex outside public park restrooms.

In the jurisdiction in question, sodomy was a felony, as was offering to commit sodomy. But offering to commit sodomy for money, prostitution, was a misdemeanor.

One man convicted of a felony for offering oral sex to an undercover officer appealed his conviction, pointing out that if he had offered the oral sex for money, he’d have a misdemeanor on his record; because he stopped short of doing that, and offered it for free, he was now a felon.

No dice, said the appeals court. The legislature has every right to define and punish crimes, even in the inconsistent manner here.

So, too, I would imagine, in Michigan.

  • Rick
5

Thorny situation, but you could look at it like this:
You accidentally shoot someone. You lost control of the thing for a moment and someone got hurt. Misdemeanor.
You leave a gun out where ANYone can get it. You have given up all control over that dangerous item and there’s no way to know how many people could get hurt. Felony.

Sure, I’m all for moderation – as long as it’s not excessive.

6

I’m not much on law, and I hate referring to an out-moded document such as the Constitution, but. . .

It would appear to me that that would appear to violate the proscription on “bills of attainder” in the Constitution–that is, charging one person with a crime committed by another.

7

Nanobyte: Perhaps you’d care to address how the following factors into this case: The gun was stolen. Now is that a misdemeanor?

8

This sort of unproves the lame philosophical theory that we are all responsible only for our own actions.

9

In general (and I don’t know Michigan criminal law), there are varying degrees of “negligence” that a criminal may be charged with, resulting in differeing degrees of crimes (particularly homicide).

(This falls under the part of criminal law known as “mens rea” under which the degree of “guilty mind” a person has is relevant to the type or level of crime committed.)

In involuntary homicide (i.e. there was no intention to kill someone), there are often three levels depending on how negligent the perpetrator was.

The most serious is a killing after an action taken with “depraved indifference to human life” in which case the charge would be murder. A typical example of this is a killing in which someone shoots into a crowd of people and kills someone.

Less serious is a killing that is “reckless” in which case the charge would be manslaughter. An example might be firing a gun into the air where the bullet descends and kills someone.

The least serious charge is criminally negligent homocide, in which the killing is merely “negligent.”

In this case manslaugher, which requires recklessness, is more serious than negligence, and a more serious penalty could therefore be warranted.

However, as a legal matter, I don’t think manslaughter can be sustained, because as neglegent as allowing a six-year old access to a firearm may be, I don’t think it would legally rise to the level of recklessness.

10

I don’t see what the status of the gun owner or source of the gun have to do with the charge. This crime began when someone left a gun where a child could get it. The history of the gun and/or of the idiot who made it available do not impact the final outcome of the act itself. One child dead, another a killer.
Anyone, whether soccer mom or lowlife, should be held fully responsible for their negligence.
Peace,
mangeorge

I only know two things;
I know what I need to know
And
I know what I want to know
Mangeorge, 2000

11

I’m not following. A person is negligent to the point where he makes a stolen handgun available to a 6-year-old who then shoots a classmate. And you think that that is a less serious offense than a gun accidentally discharging (say, during cleaning) and killing someone? I think that they were charged with the right crime. If it was a legal firearm that was normally secured but accidentally became available there would be different charges filed if any were filed at all.

12

The guy arrested in the shooting here in Michigan deserves to be locked up. First, the gun was stolen. Also, the 6-year-old has reportedly told police that the guy has fooled around with the gun in front of the kid, pretending to shoot people and things like that. After our guy left the gun loaded on the kitchen table, the kid took it to school (supposedly he just wanted to scare the girl). All in all, this man seems to have been disgustingly negligent in his handling of the gun. I’m glad he’s being charged.

–It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats.

13

All this time I was wrong…I thought crackheads made good mothers and fellow crackheads made equally good babysitters…damn I feel foolish now

14
      • Well really, as Clinton himself would say, what’s that got to do with anything here? Little kids are dying, who cares about some old Constitution? - <|^P - MC
15

MC, THANK YOU!!! :slight_smile:

and Handy, HIS action was to leave that gun were a child could get it.

Anybody really believe that another law will prevent something like this from happining again. Yeah, I would like to kick all those maggots in the teeth, but that emotional response to do something does not make it the correct thing to do.

16

Billdo said:

Assuming the facts are that he simply left the loaded gun out… I agree.

But it would be nice to see some pattern jury instructions for Michigan on the subjects of “reckless” and “negligent” :slight_smile:

  • Rick
17

[quote]
I’m not much on law…['quote]

Errr… Yup! 'Fraid so.

No, that’s intentionally punishing an innocent person (a family member) for a crime committed by another responsible adult.

The shooter in this case is a child, a child so young, in fact, that there’s not a lot of difference between this case and the case of a man keeping a man-killing dog.

Negligence is negligence. I don’t know enough of the facts to say to what degree the father in this case was negligent, but if, to take an extreme hypothesis, he left a loaded and unsecured gun lying on a living-room coffeetable for days on end in a house with a curious child, then that’s certainly negligent, and I’d go so far as to call it reckless.

The idea isn’t to punish him for the shooting, but to punish him for being such a damstupid jerk.

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

18

I’m not sure what you’re not following, Mojo.
Since your post immediately followed mine, I’m going to assume that maybe you didn’t follow my reasoning. So, I’ll reply.
The negligence became a crime the moment the little boy got ahold of the gun. From there on legal status of the gun and the character of the person who left it available should make no difference. That person is responsible and should be charged. Being a law-abiding citizen does not relieve a person of the responsibility to keep a gun (or any other danger under his/her control) away from children.
It would be the same if an adult left a car up on a jack, unattended, and one kid had dropped it on another.
The persons character can be considered when it comes to sentencing.
Peace,
mangeorge

19

What about the fact that the guy was a ward of the state at the time the crime was committed. He had no control of the gun at the time it was taken. He was in jail.

20

The guy was a “ward of the state” at the time of the killing. At the time of the crime, he’d left the gun loaded and available to a child giving the quite credible belief that the guy had “reckless disregard for human life.” If the child had accidentally shot himself and then died, who would you say is responsible?