# Should this man be charged with a crime? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 10, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342 "2009-10-10T21:04:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/41 "2009-10-11T18:30:56Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > You’ve just convinced me to revise my stance on arbitrary gun control laws. I think there should be a complete arbitrary law in all fifty states prohibiting **Frylock** from owning a gun, any form of edged or puncturing implement, heavy tools, sharp sticks, or indeed, anything more hazardous to someone else’s health than a bowl of Jello™. Great job ending the quote _right before_ the part that addresses the concern you just voiced. :rolleyes: Anyway, I’m probably just giving the guy too much credit. I assume he had good reasons to think his wife was in the bed, for example, but maybe I’m wrong about that. I assume the noises he heard weren’t just noises but the clear sound of a person walking down the hall. But maybe I’m wrong about that too. I assume the guy is like my brother and is absolutely consciously meticulous about making sure his doors are locked every night–but I could be wrong about that. I assumed a lot. So did everyone else in this thread who assumes the contrary positions. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/42 "2009-10-11T18:33:02Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > But whining by gun-control websites, that will suit you, will it? Do your own bloody research. Kellerman actually withdrew his original study and resubmitted a modified study that revised his original estimate by an order of magnitude. As **Martin Hyde** has stated, none of the studies and metastudies cited by either side have really held up to statistical rigor and scrutiny. > > Are you congenitally incapable of reading comprehension? I didn’t say that “accidental shootings shouldn’t count.” However, Kellerman conflated legitimate and justifiable uses of a firearm against intrusion or violence with the use of a firearm against a household member or “associate” (which, under the definition applied, could be one gang-banger plugging another one over a drug deal) by an aggressor or in a negligent or accidental context. And Kellerman ignores unreported uses of a firearm to deter crime–reasonable, as the survey documentation for such used by Keck, et al is suspect at best–but tends to undervalue the benefit of owning a firearm as a defensive weapon. > > As for home invasion being “a stroke fantasy that never happens,” I guess I should be writing into Penthouse, 'cause not only did it happen to me one one occasion (in which I, as a 14 year old, used a handgun to drive back and out an adult male aggressor nearly twice my size) but I have several friends who have experienced some level of “home invasion” on multiple occasions. The full-on “armed thugs blowing in to rape and kill the wife, kids, and dog,” may be vanishingly rare, but an intruder who doesn’t realize that someone is home is a non-uncommon circumstance, and intrusion stemming from domestic situations is unfortunately common, as any peace officer can relate. > > It is clear you have a very personal, emotional objection to firearms ownership, and that’s fine. You’re entitled to your own opinion. But don’t pretend that this is a rational position backed up by hard statistical data and peer-reviewed studies that are widely accepted by the forensic and criminology community. > > Stranger I do not object to gun ownership. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/43 "2009-10-11T18:41:13Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I would be interested in knowing if this is still true in countries like Switzerland where (most? all?) people are required to receive proper training in the use of their firearms as defensive and offensive tools. Being trained to call out and identify your target before shooting could substantially change this (probably trumped up) number. Just to head this off before it becomes an issue, while there is compulsory military service in Switzerland for all males (and voluntary for women) a substantial fraction of those end up being logistical or non-combat positions who are not required to keep a weapon at home or undergo annual certification. Weapons and ammunition kept at home (the Sig SG 550 assault rifle for most infantry reserves) is pretty strictly controlled; it is not intended for use in personal defense, and the ammunition box is sealed and annually inspected. Active members of the reserves are required to qualify with rifle on an annual basis, but this is basic marksmanship qualification, not tactical or battlefield simulation. Gun control laws in Switzerland vary by canton, and cover the range from permissively regulated to highly restrictive. In general, private firearms ownership in Switzerland is comparable or slightly less prevalent than in the United States, although higher than in the rest of Western and Southern Europe. Switzerland also has a more homogeneous population in terms of educational and socioeconomic opportunity and a generally higher median level of income, and thus, expectedly has a lower level of crime, so any comparison between defensive gun use in Switzerland and the United States should take this in account. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/44 "2009-10-11T18:46:27Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Great job ending the quote _right before_ the part that addresses the concern you just voiced. :rolleyes: You stated that it was a “no-brainer” to fire upon an unidentified target that did not present an immediate threat or (from what we know of the story) give any indication of being in the commission of a crime. That is a gravely irresponsible position to take, and is at odds with all safety and tactical rules intended to prevent negligent and friendly fire casualties. The correct thing to do in this scenario is to take cover and issue a verbal challenge, or conceal and wait for positive identification of the presumed threat. Anyone who doesn’t understand this basic process has no business owning or carrying a firearm for defensive use. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/45 "2009-10-11T18:54:12Z")
Ignoring all the stuff in between and just answering the OP; Yes. Don’t give me this “punished enough” shit. If you don’t know what you’re shooting at, YOU DON’T SHOOT. Geez, guys killing their friends and own children hunting, people killing their fiances. All complete fucking morons. Don’t think for a minute I’m anti-gun. I’m a CCW holder and Benefactor Member of the NRA. Five times I’ve displayed a firearm to dissuade someone from breaking into my house while I was there, once in a remote wayside rest to prevent myself from being mugged, and while I was working armored, drew and displayed my weapon four times to dissuade someone from their (already initiated) thoughts about robbing me. But you shoot someone because you were too goddamned stupid to know what you were shooting at, and I have no support or sympathy for you. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/46 "2009-10-11T19:00:32Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Ignoring all the stuff in between and just answering the OP; > > Yes. > > Don’t give me this “punished enough” shit. > > If you don’t know what you’re shooting at, YOU DON’T SHOOT. Yup, the weapon could’ve been a bow and arrow, a throwing knife or a potted begonia. The problem isn’t the fear or the gun, it’s the person who uses deadly force too quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/47 "2009-10-11T19:02:00Z")
If the facts are exactly as claimed, then this is a textbook example of negligent homicide, and should be prosecuted as such. This man did not exercise the responsibility he held by virtue of ownership and use of a gun, and as a result of him not exercising his responsibility, someone ended up dead. If this isn’t negligent homicide, then what is? Of course, that’s assuming that the facts are exactly as claimed. There’s certainly a possibility that this was not negligent homicide, but premeditated murder, and I hope and expect that the police are investigating that possibility. Quoth **Martin Hyde** : > [@](#): > > I should also say that despite being a strong supporter of gun rights I would probably lean towards thinking they are, in the aggregate, a greater cause of accidental death than they are the cause of a self-defense killing (by citizens.) > > However since I’m not a utilitarian I don’t believe you can look at the morality or the policy based on things like that. ATVs cause many deaths each year, and I don’t think they should be banned either. Life is dangerous if you aren’t responsible, guns are just one microcosm of that truism. For that matter, life is relatively dangerous even if you are responsible, the people that think we can legislate that away are self-delusional. From a moral perspective it is totally irrelevant how dangerous it is to own guns in the aggregate, all that matters is how safely an individual chooses to exercise gun ownership. In the case of the man in the OP he acted immorally by not being a responsible gun owner. That may be, but it also means that you can’t argue for allowing guns on the utilitarian basis of self-defense, either-- I imagine that you argue for allowing gun ownership on the basis of freedom in general being a worthy goal, and that the default position of the law on any topic should be to allow it? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/48 "2009-10-11T19:21:06Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > But when fear causes you to abdicate the responsibility assumed by owning a gun, it is. A post I agree with, and which, given FDR’s original statement from which **FI** derived his username, is a contender for “Most Ironic Username/Post Content Combo, 2009” ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/49 "2009-10-11T19:34:55Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Switzerland also has a more homogeneous population in terms of educational and socioeconomic opportunity and a generally higher median level of income, and thus, expectedly has a lower level of crime, so any comparison between defensive gun use in Switzerland and the United States should take this in account. > > Stranger That wasn’t really my point. And I suppose that Switzerland wasn’t really necessary to have made it, but I would wonder if proper training reduces the number of accidental home shootings. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/50 "2009-10-11T19:52:38Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > ATVs cause many deaths each year, and I don’t think they should be banned either. I’m no fan of ATVs, but I would suspect the vast majority of people suffering ATV injuries were operators or willing passengers. ATVs are not really comparable to something that inflicts deadly injuries on others by design. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/51 "2009-10-11T20:00:48Z")
Missed the edit window, but I don’t believe the OP meant this thread to be a referendum on gun control and I’m sorry if I contributed to a continuing hijack, but some people seemed awfully eager to introduce anti-gun control arguments. For the record, although I can’t prove it, I don’t believe this death would have occurred had the shooter been armed only with a pot of begonias. To directly address the OP, people are prosecuted and convicted for mistakes and bad decisions all the time. Drunk drivers don’t set out deliberately to kill anyone, yet they are excoriated by multitudes, including people who have driven under the influence themselves and simply been luckier. Some form of manslaughter charge seems appropriate. If convicted, prior record and expression of remorse should be mitigating factors in sentencing. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/52 "2009-10-11T20:09:43Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > That wasn’t really my point. And I suppose that Switzerland wasn’t really necessary to have made it, but I would wonder if proper training reduces the number of accidental home shootings. Sure. Appropriate tactical training with instill in the trainee the _correct_ decision responses in a defensive situation. In such conditions as the wielder believes himself or herself to be in sincere danger to life and limb, higher cognitive activity becomes naturally detached from action-directing processes occurring in the midbrain, so making the right decisions in such circumstances isn’t so much being smart or rational as being sufficiently well-trained to act correctly in autonomic response and being experienced enough to exert rational control in a situation that most people would freeze or panic in. In other words, you need to figure out how you would respond beforehand, and then train as you would fight until those responses are natural and require no conscious decision-making. Decision trees should be “If A, then B, else C” not “If it might be A then I should contemplate the results of D, E, F, G, I, pi, and the conjunction of Saturn and Neptune.” This is what modern tactical and combat training does, and it has resulted in both higher firing rates on battlefield, and a higher rate of appropriate use of force by police officers; in the past, the basic marksmanship training performed in military basic training and police training would often result in soldiers and peace officers failing to discharge their weapons even when vital to their own self-preservation, and discharging weapons wildly in panic fire. Good tactical training results in more controlled fire in appropriate circumstances. But, again, the basic marksmanship qualification required of Swiss Army Reservists isn’t this. Nor do most police agencies require regular training and requalification under tactical scenarios. You’d have to look at combat-oriented units–like Army Rangers or Marine Ground Combat elements–or police special tactics units to see this distinction. Basic firearm safety training will reduce purely accidental discharge of weapons from errant mishandling (provided that all persons in the household who have access to the weapons are so training) but isn’t going to contribute significantly to improved efficacy on the battlefield or tactical scenario. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/53 "2009-10-11T20:15:28Z")
Answering the OP, I believe that the proper course should be to present the full evidence about the incident to a Grand Jury (presuming this to have happened in a Grand Jury state – or to the Grand Jury-equivalent preliminary hearing elsewhere). The Grand Jury could then decide whether to bring a true bill or no bill based on the full evidence. Based on the information at hand, I’d say that (a) charges pending Grand Jury review should be at the discretion of the prosecutor, and probably should not be filed, but the man earned not to leave the jurisdiction, and (2) unless there are exculpatory factors not yet posted, an indictment for criminally negligent homicide should result. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/54 "2009-10-11T20:17:43Z")
> [@TWDuke](#): > > Missed the edit window, but I don’t believe the OP meant this thread to be a referendum on gun control and I’m sorry if I contributed to a continuing hijack, but some people seemed awfully eager to introduce anti-gun control arguments. For the record, although I can’t prove it, I don’t believe this death would have occurred had the shooter been armed only with a pot of begonias. > > To directly address the OP, people are prosecuted and convicted for mistakes and bad decisions all the time. Drunk drivers don’t set out deliberately to kill anyone, yet they are excoriated by multitudes, including people who have driven under the influence themselves and simply been luckier. > > Some form of manslaughter charge seems appropriate. If convicted, prior record and expression of remorse should be mitigating factors in sentencing. I don’t mind the hijack, but no, it really isn’t germaine to the question(s) I asked. Your last 2 paragraphs are pretty much exactly in line with my own reasoning. As such, I’m perplexed as to why Mr. Tabutt wasn’t taken into custody, and what, exactly the police chief thinks he means when he called the shooting an “accident”. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/55 "2009-10-11T21:02:01Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Your last 2 paragraphs are pretty much exactly in line with my own reasoning. As such, I’m perplexed as to why Mr. Tabutt wasn’t taken into custody, and what, exactly the police chief thinks he means when he called the shooting an “accident”. To be criminal, he had to be negligent or reckless. Let’s look at two examples: 1. He gets up and grabs his gun and starts walking down the hallway, nervous. Suddenly a shadow attacks him and he fires! 2. He gets up and grabs his gun and starts walking down the hallway, nervous. A shadow moves, he points his gun and fires. In the first example, he is innocent. He had reason to have his weapon out and drawn, and any reasonable person would fire if suddenly a shadow seemed to lunge at them. But in the second example, he is potentially guilty of manslaughter. The shadow was not attacking him, he made no attempt to identify himself or ascertain who the shadow was, he simply opened fire based on an assumption. The description of these two possibilities is almost identical. A minor change in wording goes from innocence to guilt. And the only evidence we have is his own description of the event. Without knowing exactly what he said, we can’t judge his guilt. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/56 "2009-10-11T21:09:34Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That may be, but it also means that you can’t argue for allowing guns on the utilitarian basis of self-defense, either-- I imagine that you argue for allowing gun ownership on the basis of freedom in general being a worthy goal, and that the default position of the law on any topic should be to allow it? Keep in mind I’m talking about ethics and morality. Which I feel to a degree _must_ influence one’s policy position. Owning a gun is morally and ethically neutral, and thus I cannot see a morally justifiable reason for government to restrict it. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/57 "2009-10-11T21:10:37Z")
> [@TWDuke](#): > > I’m no fan of ATVs, but I would suspect the vast majority of people suffering ATV injuries were operators or willing passengers. ATVs are not really comparable to something that inflicts deadly injuries on others by design. Inflicting deadly injury on someone is not ethical, and is rightfully illegal (excepting cases of self defense, when such violence is both ethical and legal.) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/58 "2009-10-11T21:15:28Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I don’t mind the hijack, but no, it really isn’t germaine to the question(s) I asked. > > Your last 2 paragraphs are pretty much exactly in line with my own reasoning. As such, I’m perplexed as to why Mr. Tabutt wasn’t taken into custody, and what, exactly the police chief thinks he means when he called the shooting an “accident”. It probably means that the opinion of the officers who investigated the scene don’t believe premeditated murder was what occurred. Police officers are paid to make determinations like this; and there is nothing wrong with them having an initial opinion. I do think they need to continue their investigation of course and cross all their t’s and dot their i’s so that we can be sure it wasn’t a cleverly conducted murder. Once the police are reasonably sure they know _what_ happened I imagine it’s more up to the prosecuting attorney to decide if they forward with charges. There are accidents and then there are accidents caused by criminal negligence. There are accidents that can kill another person and yet not be a crime. Based off the light amount of information we were given in the OP I stand by my opinion that _based on the facts as I know them_, the guy seemed very irresponsible to the point of what I feel is criminal negligence. However if this guy ultimately isn’t charged I won’t be outraged. Primarily because I trust people who are professionals in the law and criminal investigations and who have first hand direct knowledge of the case over my own gut reaction. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/59 "2009-10-11T21:18:43Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > You stated that it was a “no-brainer” to fire upon an unidentified target that did not present an immediate threat or (from what we know of the story) give any indication of being in the commission of a crime. That is a gravely irresponsible position to take, and is at odds with all safety and tactical rules intended to prevent negligent and friendly fire casualties. The correct thing to do in this scenario is to take cover and issue a verbal challenge, or conceal and wait for positive identification of the presumed threat. Anyone who doesn’t understand this basic process has no business owning or carrying a firearm for defensive use. > > Stranger Thanks for the advice. Am I certified now? Can I have my gun back? ETA: In other words: Fuck, I don’t know about this kind of crap. I don’t have a gun, and don’t ever plan on having one. I’m just using my imagination. Read my other posts to see what kinds of explicit assumptions I lay out about the guy’s situation. And before you fucking talk about whether I “understand a basic process” or “have any business” doing something or not, wait and find out what would fucking happen if I did go and get the proper fucking training, you judgmental fuck. And read my posts with some goddamn charity. It’s what I do and it makes me a generally happy person. Shit! You are being an _idiot_ today, **Stranger**. You usually don’t do that. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342/60 "2009-10-11T21:25:23Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Without knowing exactly what he said, we can’t judge his guilt. Agreed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-this-man-be-charged-with-a-crime/513342.md?page=4)