OT: Another Washington Kid Shot

ARADCOM said:

So, 2 weeks ago a 9 year old boy got a gun from his mothers cars glovebox and accidentally shot a 8 year old girl.

"Although this incident is being treated as an accident, the third grader who had the backpack with the gun in it was booked into a juvenile detention center on charges including third-degree assault and unlawful possession of a gun."

An arrest warrant was issued for his mother for allowing the boy to have access to a gun.

Will be interesting to see if the Police Officers son is charged along with the Police Officer himself.

"At this time we are all extremely concerned for the well-being of one of our department family members," said Marysville Police Chief Rick Smith.

Doesn't sound like he's to concerned about any laws being broken in this case.

Just sayin.

Click to expand...

Funny how that works huh? Well no it's not funny at all.

I am sure they are very carefully crafting what direction they go with this situation. My money is on a reprimand only. 'equal justice for all' I doubt it. The gun owner should be charged with RCW 9.91.060. If the vehicle was running there should be a charge for that also. After all if Joe Public commits these crimes...

Daughter of Marysville officer accidentally shot by sibling dies

I have seen some leave their children in a hot car while the mother and friend went into shop, it was already 95 out and I stopped them at the front door and told them to either get the children or I call the police, I did it then and will again it comes to the safety of a child that cannot defend or care for themselves.

Both parents should answer in a court for this death.

There is something different in this incident than the other in Bremerton. It's the relationship. I believe the emotional trauma in this family will deal far more punishment than anything our justice system can lay upon them. Is rubbing salt in the wound the answer in this case?

DCKilla said:

I believe the emotional trauma in this family will deal far more punishment than anything our justice system can lay upon them.

Click to expand...

But that should NEVER be a factor in the mind of an LEO when it comes to investigation and arrest. Or in the mind of a DA when it comes to filing charges and prosecuting.

Otherwise you just throw impartiality out the window and drag in overt bias.

Yes, legally, they are the same.

Justice is blind, so hang'm all.

Dave_pro2a said:

You mean the guy who should have KNOWN it was against the law?

LEO are citizens. They ought not be exempt or given special protection. Intrusive laws ought to be applied evenly -- so everyone hates them equally.

Click to expand...

He was an officer in a completely different jurisdiction... different laws....

The catch is/was..... The 8 y/o could be in there unsupervised, but the 7 y/o couldn't...... If she was 12 (I think it was) she would be able to 'supervise' the 7 y/o, since it was family...

So, legally, he only got in trouble for leaving ONE of them in the car, a year apart, when they were both playing a game with each other....

Totally BS.

The brother was younger than the victim.....no charges will be filed against him.

No charges against the mother should be filed, even if it is her firearm. Better to leave the kids with mommy at a minimum. Instead of the state taking them, or ordering them into the custody of relatives.

Did that vehicle have a glove-box with a key lock?

The father is a cop, 'should/must' know better, and is presumably 'knowledgeable' on any applicable laws that he would likely hold the average citizen to if he were a responding officer to a similar incident.

But!....he IS a cop and the wheels of justice will be the size of the average matchbox car, with the same weight applied to the 'offender', whoever that may be.

Unless some wild hair gets up somewhere, on someone, nothing of consequence will happen to anyone. Other than the fact that little brother killed big sister with 'Daddy's or Mommy's gun'. that'll be tough to workout down the road.

If you're gunna be stupid, ya better be tough.

TechnoWeenie said:

He was an officer in a completely different jurisdiction... different laws....

The catch is/was..... The 8 y/o could be in there unsupervised, but the 7 y/o couldn't...... If she was 12 (I think it was) she would be able to 'supervise' the 7 y/o, since it was family...

So, legally, he only got in trouble for leaving ONE of them in the car, a year apart, when they were both playing a game with each other....

Totally BS.

Click to expand...

Oh so he only broke the law a 'little.' Yeah, cops should totally get a pass for that.

But seriously. Until the intrusive law is off the books -- it should be applied evenly.

Your friend seems like a total moron imho, and got exactly what he deserved. He could always quit his job, be a lot less hypocritical, and no longer support the broken system by abusing the rights of others as his have been abused. Failing that, he gets no sympathy from me.

OC for ME said:

The brother was younger than the victim.....no charges will be filed against him.

No charges against the mother should be filed, even if it is her firearm. Better to leave the kids with mommy at a minimum. Instead of the state taking them, or ordering them into the custody of relatives.

Did that vehicle have a glove-box with a key lock?

The father is a cop, 'should/must' know better, and is presumably 'knowledgeable' on any applicable laws that he would likely hold the average citizen to if he were a responding officer to a similar incident.

But!....he IS a cop and the wheels of justice will be the size of the average matchbox car, with the same weight applied to the 'offender', whoever that may be.

Unless some wild hair gets up somewhere, on someone, nothing of consequence will happen to anyone. Other than the fact that little brother killed big sister with 'Daddy's or Mommy's gun'. that'll be tough to workout down the road.

If you're gunna be stupid, ya better be tough.

Click to expand...

That is sexist.

'Mommies' should be held to the fire exactly like Daddies -- if there is a law broken. To advocate for the immoral, unethical and preferential treatment of women in the legal system is called....

"Family Court."

That unfair and biased outlook should not make its way to criminal court.

I feel bad for the boy but the dad can go to prison I hope but we know he will still be a cop bummer.

This thread has wandered a bit from the original topic, but is still about leaving kids alone in the car. I find it interesting that in 51 posts, and all the talk about calling the police/ laws/ etc, not a single person has brought up calling the Fire Dept. and making it a medical emergency.

If the day is warm whatsoever and a baby is in a locked car, it becomes a medical emergency and I start breaking windows and calling the Fire Dept., not the police. I can make a pretty good case for a possible medical emergency and the need for an evaluation.

Older kids, not so much, as has been stated already. Unless there is an obvious problem. But I would never have thought to call the police.

Coming out to find your car windows broken, and multiple fire apparatus surrounding it, will likely cause the parent/parents to think about it the next time they do that.

Heck, I could make a pretty good case for hypothermia in the winter time too.

You can't legislate stupidity, and this is a topic I've thought quite a bit about. Even if, as Nick said, they were going in to get their paycheck, if you leave your kid/kids in the car out of your sight you are being stupid. But there are ways to drive your point home without invoking the nanny state.

OlGutshotWilly said:

This thread has wandered a bit from the original topic, but is still about leaving kids alone in the car. I find it interesting that in 51 posts, and all the talk about calling the police/ laws/ etc, not a single person has brought up calling the Fire Dept. and making it a medical emergency. Because no one has described a medical emergency. You are assuming it is hot outside or too cold outside. But simple observation would probably not lead a reasonable person to conclude there is a medical emergency. If there is a clear medical emergency then call 911.

If the day is warm whatsoever and a baby is in a locked car, it becomes a medical emergency and I start breaking windows and calling the Fire Dept., not the police. I can make a pretty good case for a possible medical emergency and the need for an evaluation. If it is a 'hot' day then perhaps, a warm day...not so much. The parent might just return from picking up there paycheck because of your swift action and turn you in for attempted kidnapping. What is so wrong with gathering more information and finding the parent?

Older kids, not so much, as has been stated already. Unless there is an obvious problem. But I would never have thought to call the police. Are you calling the non emergency police number or just simple 911. Most likely 911 where a dispatcher will decide who is sent and more likely than not the first responder will be the police.

Coming out to find your car windows broken, and multiple fire apparatus surrounding it, will likely cause the parent/parents to think about it the next time they do that. You would damage someone's personal property based your assumption that there is a medical emergency. If you did that to me, I would sue you.

Heck, I could make a pretty good case for hypothermia in the winter time too. I doubt this claim as hypothermia takes time. Absent some observation that you can see the symptoms of severe hypothermia (not mild or moderate) as you claimed an 'emergency' your case would be hallow.

You can't legislate stupidity, and this is a topic I've thought quite a bit about. Even if, as Nick said, they were going in to get their paycheck, if you leave your kid/kids in the car out of your sight you are being stupid. But there are ways to drive your point home without invoking the nanny state.

Click to expand...

I don't know that getting their paycheck and talking with their boss for 15 minutes is stupid. I simply don't have enough information. I would need to observe. I would likely check on the nearby businesses and try to identify the parent and then make an evaluation. Everyone wants to jump to the conclusion that there is a child in jeopardy yet the descriptions above do not lead me to that conclusion at the outset.

NavyLCDR said:

Here's an interesting note... the officer CANNOT be charged with a firearms violation because he is exempt from the applicable statute. The applicable statute would be RCW 9.41.050 in regards to leaving a loaded handgun in an unlocked vehicle. The officer himself is exempt from that requirement under RCW 9.41.060:



Now, if it can be proven that the wife left the gun in the van, she can be charged. I'll bet you a paycheck we see no criminal charges filed against either parent.

Click to expand...

Another travesty of 'rule of law' and then encoded as law.

gogodawgs said:

I understand your progression from age 19 to now...views, responsibilities, etc can mature and grow.

Did it ever occur to you to go find the parent? Go to the business and express your concern?

I didn't say there wasn't reason to call the police, but it is definately not the first thing that I would consider. If I had more information then perhaps it would, i.e. the temperature put the health of the baby in jeopardy.

Click to expand...

Considering the parent is in the bar, whatever they might be doing in the bar, I opted to contact the police. Would I do that again, contact the police, yes. I have called the police when a dog is locked in a car in the summer time. Call it what you will but the time that I sat there waiting for the police to show, the aprent might not have been in the bar drinking but they were hanging out in the bar none-the-less, leaving their kid in the vehicle.

Dave_pro2a said:

The police do not have a duty (or legal obligation) to protect any individual -- including that child.

It's not a nice way to learn that lesson, but at least it was learned without anyone dying.

Click to expand...

I am well aware that the police have no duty.

Two issues:

Parent is in the bar. I don't know if they are in the bar tanked. If they don't have enough sense to not leave their kid in the vehicle, then they are likely in the bar drinking.

I believe it would be a safer bet to call the police than to storm into a bar (I was nineteen, to young to enter a bar), and look for a parent that might not be as considerate to my pointing out their error than an officer.

It is funny what people freak out about here on the thread about me calling the police. As if I could scoop the child up from the vehicle, no thanks! I count on any person who is bugged by my post to not call the police if they ever see a baby in a car seat, alone, during the afternoon of the summer, parked in front of a bar, hell, a grocer.

NavyLCDR said:

Here's an interesting note... the officer CANNOT be charged with a firearms violation because he is exempt from the applicable statute. The applicable statute would be RCW 9.41.050 in regards to leaving a loaded handgun in an unlocked vehicle. The officer himself is exempt from that requirement under RCW 9.41.060:

Now, if it can be proven that the wife left the gun in the van, she can be charged. I'll bet you a paycheck we see no criminal charges filed against either parent.

Click to expand...

Very interesting indeed. Now there's a law that should be changed. I hope anti-guns fight to make police as accountable as 'regular' citizens -- to avoid more children of LEO dying needlessly.

Maybe Officer Carlile will start a campieng or lobbying effort to get that law changed -- like so many other parents try to do after a child dies from avoidable negligence. If he cares about his fellow officers, and their children, he will try to get them subject to the same 'reasonable' laws and restrictions that the rest of us face.

http://media.pnwlocalnews.com/images/600*357/2305marysvilleN-Carlile.2.Kirk_web.jpg

Derek Carlile was sworn into the Marysville Police Department in September of 2009, and has been placed on administrative leave for an investigation into Jenna's death.

The young girl – who died on Sunday, March 11, at a Seattle hospital – was shot on Saturday, March 10, by her sibling, who found a loaded gun in the family's van as it was parked near the Stanwood City Hall, while their parents were nearby but outside of the vehicle.

Click to expand...

His facebook page, apparently http://www.facebook.com/people/Derek-Carlile/100001558985473

If the day is warm whatsoever and a baby is in a locked car, it becomes a medical emergency and I start breaking windows and calling the Fire Dept., not the police. I can make a pretty good case for a possible medical emergency and the need for an evaluation. If it is a 'hot' day then perhaps, a warm day...not so much. The parent might just return from picking up there paycheck because of your swift action and turn you in for attempted kidnapping. What is so wrong with gathering more information and finding the parent?

Click to expand...

First, it's a baby in a locked car on a warm day. In my world, that is wrong and is a potential harm to the child. Let's not even get into the possibility of the baby being taken. It the kid is alive and kicking, then I would simply wait a reasonable amount of time ( as you suggest ) for the parent to return, with "reasonable" being subjective.
Kidnapping wouldn't stick. As I stated, I could make a very convincing case for a medical emergency, and the legal justification would be "implied consent" in the case of a medical emergency. WA also has a very solid Good Samaritan law: RCW 4.24.300

Coming out to find your car windows broken, and multiple fire apparatus surrounding it, will likely cause the parent/parents to think about it the next time they do that. You would damage someone's personal property based your assumption that there is a medical emergency. If you did that to me, I would sue you.

Click to expand...

Respectfully Nick, no, ultimately you wouldn't. You use the term "your assumption". I can guarantee you that I could sit in a deposition or a court and give solid evidence that I had reasonable grounds to suspect a medical emergency existed.

As to a lawsuit for damages, once again, 4.24.300 states:

RCW 4.24.300 - Immunity from liability for certain types of medical care.(1) Any person, including but not limited to a volunteer provider of emergency or medical services, who without compensation or the expectation of compensation renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency or who participates in transporting, not for compensation, therefrom an injured person or persons for emergency medical treatment shall not be liable for civil damages resulting from any act or omission in the rendering of such emergency care or in transporting such persons, other than acts or omissions constituting gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. Any person rendering emergency care during the course of regular employment and receiving compensation or expecting to receive compensation for rendering such care is excluded from the protection of this subsection.

Click to expand...

Older kids, not so much, as has been stated already. Unless there is an obvious problem. But I would never have thought to call the police.Are you calling the non emergency police number or just simple 911. Most likely 911 where a dispatcher will decide who is sent and more likely than not the first responder will be the police.

Click to expand...

If I feel I have to call 911 at all, I don't let the dispatcher decide who to send. I tell them who I need and why.

I see the point you are making about parents just running off leaving their kid in the car and who plan on being back momentarily. There are so many instances of kidnapping and car theft in those instances, not to mention tragedies such as this current thread and others, that I personally think leaving your kid in the car and going where you can't keep an eye directly on them is negligent, to say the least. But I also agree that the Police have no duty to protect in those instances, and no nanny state laws will change or dissuade people from doing that.

As gun owners, we are ALL dedicated to safety around our kids and grandkids and others children. I would think we all would have strong concerns about the safety ramifications of leaving kids in cars alone as well.

Vitaeus said:

i still swear by this product instead of a gun lock.

http://www.safetybullet.com/

Teaching firearm safety at an early age is good too. My three year old already knows not to touch a gun and to go get an adult.

Click to expand...

I know this is off topic, but I have to ask - why both with the "safety bullet" in a semi-auto instead of a snap cap? They are much cheaper, most likely have them already, and do the exact same thing (require you to cycle through them). In a revolver, I see the attraction - it locks the gun. But in a semi-auto, they say to simply cycle it twice. I got 5 snap caps for under $10... the cheapest I found these was $24 on eBay (used!). On a side note, while Googling for more info on them, ran across this.

--
Peace. ~G

GuidoZ said:

I know this is off topic, but I have to ask - why both with the "safety bullet" in a semi-auto instead of a snap cap? They are much cheaper, most likely have them already, and do the exact same thing (require you to cycle through them). In a revolver, I see the attraction - it locks the gun. But in a semi-auto, they say to simply cycle it twice. I got 5 snap caps for under $10... the cheapest I found these was $24 on eBay (used!). On a side note, while Googling for more info on them, ran across this.

--
Peace. ~G

Click to expand...

That's some funny stuff. That fake lawyer letter is a crock. Opinions and critical information is still free speech. You can register a domain that contains part of another companies name -- perfectly legal. Like www.cokeisbetterthanpepsi.net and you can use it to host information critical of the company. You just can't post false information.

Anyways, a snap cap isn't designed to temporarily 'lock' in the barrel when the hammer strikes it. The product that http://www.safetybullet.com/ sell does lock up in the barrel and needs to be driven out of the chamber from the barrel end with a rod.

It's a spectacularly stupid idea imho. It will likely get someone killed. It's hard to get dumber than Israeli carry, but damn it looks like those guys managed to do it.