I lean toward the “fucking idiot” hypothesis, given how often I’ve seen variations on this story. Idiot points an “unloaded” gun at someone and playfully pulls the trigger, “unloaded” gun goes off killing the victim.
When people insist on treating guns like toys, this kind of thing is just what happens.
You are not a nut. I don’t own a gun, but even I know you should always assume a gun is loaded and never aim it if you don’t intend to shoot it. I lean towards the negligent idiot hypothesis.
People always say this in these kinds of situations, but I’m not buying it. Seems like a way for someone to get away with murder to me.
If everyone was mandated to carry guns, then we’d be taught gun safety in schools and situations like this would be prevented.
or
The girl probably screamed when she saw the gun, which startled him and made him pull the trigger. If guns were more prevalent in our society, she wouldn’t have been scared.
or
Death is the price we pay for freedom. Emily wouldn’t have wanted it any other way.
I came in to comment on this very thing. Sounds like something weird was going on to me.
Wouldn’t a more accurate title for this post be “Man kills 18 year old daughter through stupidity”? I see no accident here.
I honestly feel like pointing a gun at someone, whether you “know” it’s unloaded or loaded or whatever you “know” is at the very least threatening someone with deadly force (whatever that official charge would be), and at worst is automatically just attempted murder. Actually pulling the trigger is outright attempted murder as far as I’m concerned.
For it to be attempt murder or murder, you have to prove that the guy pulling the trigger intended to kill.
Please don’t flame me. I’m posing a hypothetical, not saying this is what happened.
What if one of her friends comes forward with allegations of molestation against the father? Like, maybe on the day before the shooting, Emily told one of her friends she was going to report her father to the police. Would the police still treat this as a “tragic accident”? Or would the existence of a potential motive change the nature of the investigation?
I can understand why you might not want to store your gun unloaded, with a trigger locked, in a safe, with the ammunition in another safe in a different room like some of the ant-gun folks want, but is it really necessary to have a round in the chamber? I can’t imagine a situation where you don’t have time to rack the slide, and this would prevent “my gun went off when I was “cleaning” it / horsing around / my kid found it” type accidents. Even though I don’t have kids I keep the chamber empty of my personal defense rifle, as I don’t feel comfortable with a round in the chamber, safety on or no.
No, you don’t. Deliberately aiming a gun at someone and deliberately pulling the trigger without checking whether the gun is loaded is literally the textbook example of depraved-heart murder.
Death By Stupidity. Criminal negligence at the least, and as he has proven he can’t handle a gun properly, no more guns for him, ever. Or for anyone else that has proven they don’t know how to handle one.
What do you think the word “accident” means?
Seems no matter how stupid it was, it still falls within several definitions of “accident.”
Where did you study law?
These situations occur far too often. it’s is my opinion that in situations such as this the shooter (if they are an adult) AND the owner of the gun (if it’s not the same person) should be charged with murder. I support responsible gun ownership. THIS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP.
Literally, the first three rules I learned about guns (and I am of the understanding this is fairly universal) were:
[ul]
[li]All guns are loaded[/li][li]You do not point a gun at anything you are not ready to destroy[/li][li]You do not put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot[/li][/ul]
That shit is just basic. Elementary school kids are taught better. This guy, if it was in fact an accident, is either so mentally incompetent he should be living in a group home, or so negligent he should NEVER be in possession of a gun. I think he should be charged with murder, not because his losing his daughter isn’t enough punishment, but because there needs to be a clear message in society that we will not tolerate irresponsibility with deadly weapons.
Legal definitions don’t necessarily coincide with the literal meaning of a word. As long as the result was unintentional, this falls under the dictionary definition of an accident, no matter how stupid, careless, or negligent it was.
The problem is that if you asked this guy the week before he killed his daughter if he was a responsible gun owner, he would almost certainly have said yes. Nobody thinks they’re irresponsible with their firearms any more than anybody thinks they’re a shitty driver.
Exactly. Whether it was accidental or not, whether and what he can be charged with, and what punishment one thinks he should be hit with in one’s idea of a just Universe, are only somewhat related.
In rare agreement on my part with the philosophy of the folks on the pro-gun side of things, I concur that in such situations, the existing laws ought to be enforced to the max: the D.A. should charge him with every last applicable statute, and go for the maximum sentence for each.
Three reasons for this:
Kids aren’t their parents’ private possessions. Crimes are crimes against the state and the citizenry as a whole, not just against the actual victim. He has lost his daughter, but a lot of other people lost her too. It’s not just a private loss, and the law should not treat it as entirely or primarily his private loss.
It’s always worth seeing whether, if it became normative to throw the book at those responsible in such accidents, it would change the behavior of what one might describe as fatally ditzy gun owners.
It would be a test of the pro-gun side’s theory that enforcing existing laws would make a difference.