Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Pierce Co. charge filed in neg. child death; new law not necessary

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Pierce Co. charge filed in neg. child death; new law not necessary

    Charges in Pierce County show new gun law not needed in WA

    When Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist filed criminal charges against the mother of a Tacoma toddler who accidentally shot himself earlier in March, he demonstrated not only that gun owners can be held responsible for negligence under existing law, but also sent a message to the Legislature in Olympia that new restrictions are not necessary.

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...-not-needed-wa

  2. #2
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836

    What is wrong here

    They have charged this guy already !! But the cop that left his loaded gun in the glove-box with the same outcome they are still investigating?? the incident where they have charged him already happened after the cop incident. How thin is this BLUE LINE.
    I truly Love my Country, But the government scares the he!! out of me.

    DEMAND IT
    Congress SHALL NOT receive A salary greater than any service member and will be given EQUIVELANT insurance as any service member

    I came into this world kicking and screaming covered in someone else's blood. And if necessary to protect the Constitution of The United States of AMERICA. I will go out the same way

    All hail the Domain of Neptunus Rex

  3. #3
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    Charges in Pierce County show new gun law not needed in WA

    When Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist filed criminal charges against the mother of a Tacoma toddler who accidentally shot himself earlier in March, he demonstrated not only that gun owners can be held responsible for negligence under existing law, but also sent a message to the Legislature in Olympia that new restrictions are not necessary.

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...-not-needed-wa
    Oh, but was it a negligent death? That is the question. Kid was strapped into his child seat? Gun was Under the drivers seat? I hope these two get a good jury...I would be of the opinion, this was an accident caused by Dr Spock and his view of not disciplining children. If you wish to call that negligent, 90% of the US is negligent.

    Edited to add: Think car instead of gun: Child is told not to run out into the street...child does run out into the street and is hit by a vehicle traveling a legal manner....is that negligence? on who's part> kid is just as dead.
    Last edited by hermannr; 03-28-2012 at 07:27 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    So exactly why are the cases "not ... the same so far as specifics are concerned"? Other than one child belonged to a cop and the other didn't? I don't see that evidence that there is much other difference from the News Tribune's revelations.
    It will be interesting to learn that.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    Oh, but was it a negligent death? That is the question. Kid was strapped into his child seat? Gun was Under the drivers seat? I hope these two get a good jury...I would be of the opinion, this was an accident caused by Dr Spock and his view of not disciplining children. If you wish to call that negligent, 90% of the US is negligent.

    Edited to add: Think car instead of gun: Child is told not to run out into the street...child does run out into the street and is hit by a vehicle traveling a legal manner....is that negligence? on who's part> kid is just as dead.
    I was thinking of this the other day, sometimes bad unfortunate things happen. What if the parents just moved and hadn't put locks on the cabinets where all the poisonous things under the kitchen sink are kept? What if the kid found the machete in the garage and decided to play medieval games? What if the kids climbed in an unlocked car and moved the gear shift and ran over another child? Are these things negligent? I suppose so, but should the parents be charged for a momentary lack of judgment? I would think the pain of loosing a child would be plenty of punishment.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327
    They have charged this guy already !! But the cop that left his loaded gun in the glove-box with the same outcome they are still investigating??
    Different county; different case; different prosecutor; etc.

  7. #7
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I'm still thinking about this: So what does state law actually say about a gun in your vehicle when you are not there?

    (2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

    It says when the licensee is away the vehicle must be locked and the weapon out of sight from the outside. It appers the law is more concerned with preventing theft from the outside, then handling by someone inside. It does not say the weapon has to be locked up, just the vehicle.

    When most people (at least that I know) go into a convience store after/or while/filling up, they just push that handy little button on their key and lock the door to the vehicle. As the charge was not about properly locking up the vehicle or the weapon, I would assume the vehicle in question was locked. The child was in a child's restraint seat (and presumably buckled up) so where is the negligence? I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

    I also agree, maybe even more so to say, that if this guy is negligent with a 3 year old strapped into a car seat, what about the cop with a 7 year old? That 7 year old is much more likely to exit the restraint than a 3 year old I would think? In the cops defence. the law does not say the glove box has to locked, only that the weapon is out of sight and locked up, which locking the vehicle would cover. That is, there was a lock between the outside and the weapon.

    Good reason to leave the weapon on your hip (as I have always done) I would think...

  8. #8
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    (2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

    It says when the licensee is away the vehicle must be locked and the weapon out of sight from the outside. It appers the law is more concerned with preventing theft from the outside, then handling by someone inside. It does not say the weapon has to be locked up, just the vehicle.
    That is one way to look at it.
    I can see it being read differently. Yes, that word within can be read to mean that this statute say's that you can simply throw the weapon under the seat and lock your car and you would be legal. But it can also be read as meaning that the Pistol must be locked up as it does not say that the vehicle must be locked.

    Then again, maybe they are ignoring the RCW 9.41.050 as a violation of this section is only a misdemeanor.
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050
    And be looking more into the RCW 9.41.230 (1) For conduct not amounting to a violation of chapter 9A.36 RCW, any person who: (c) Except as provided in RCW 9.41.185, sets a so-called trap, spring pistol, rifle, or other dangerous weapon,
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.230
    Which if a death occurs, can be charged under RCW 9A.32.055 as a Class A Felony
    Homicide by abuse
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  9. #9
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    If a prohibited person can gain possession of the pistol and either walk off with it or kill someone with it, without having to pass any locks to do so, was that pistol locked up anywhere? NO. Instead of the shooting happening inside the car, the prohibited person (the child) could just as easily have unlocked the car door and walked away with the pistol in hand.

    Personally, I think all 4 adults (the two in Tacoma, and the cop and wife in Stanwood) should be charged with a felony violation of RCW 9.41.080:
    I had even given that one some thought, but when looking at what the inelliglble list in RCW 9.41.040 and what little that includes, I don't know that could be used. Here is the RCW 9.41.080 then click the 9.41.040 link within it to see that one.. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.080 From 9.41.040 (1)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, if the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm after having previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any serious offense as defined in this chapter.

    I seem to recall that one of the two in Tacoma had a prior felony conviction so that might apply there. What of the Cop and his wife though? I don't think it could be used against them.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  10. #10
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Look further down in RCW 9.41.040:
    The OR at the end of (iii) means that only one element in that list needs to be met, that singular element in both of these cases is "the person under eighteen years of age". None of the exceptions in RCW 9.41.042 apply. There is no exception to this law for cops. Cops are exempt from RCW 9.41.050.
    I might disagree, as to me, the and/or refers to (iv) If the person is free on bond or personal recognizance pending trial, appeal, or sentencing for a serious offense as defined in RCW 9.41.010 below it.

    Which still has me wondering about how they might apply this as a charge against the cop and his wife.

    I heard a reference on the news last night to Criminal Negligence leading to the death. If that is the case, then it is most likely not going to revolve around any gun law and could be charged against both. That charge leads to a gross misdemeanor penalty
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  11. #11
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    If you use 9.41.040,,, then the guilty persons are the children that have guns unlawfully.

    If you use 9.41.050,,, then the guilty persons are the adults that left the guns unlawfully unattended.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  12. #12
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    As we all know, when a prosecuter files charges he generally likes to grab any and all that he feels may have to slightest possibility of sticking and throws them all the person being charged hoping at least one will stick. Right?

    So, this case is very interesting in that these people are being charged only with neglegent homocide....and no charges out of RCW 9.41.XXX. I think the reason for this is the procecutor does not think he can get any of the 9.41 sections to stick (I agree) with any confidence level. You know if you get charged under RCW 9.41, and are aquitted, the state has to pay you for your lost time, your lawyer..etc...etc...

    This case will be prosecuted strickly on negligent homocide...and the question will be, were they negligent? If they are judged in fact negligent, I would hope the cop would be tried too...if they are not, he will not either. it will look very bad if this couple is charged, convicted and sentenced, and the cop never goes to trial...negligent homocide is not something LE is immune to.

    As for a prohibited person...no, that was the kid that took his mom's boyfriend's pistol to school...the mom was a prohibited person, the boyfriend was not. None of the 4 in these two cases was prohibited.

    Two latest other cases that I remember (one in Clark Co. WA and one in ID) where a cops child was killed by their parents duty pistol, while the parent was off duty, by the action of the child..both cops lost their jobs...but that was it.
    Last edited by hermannr; 03-29-2012 at 01:23 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    If you use 9.41.080 then the guilty persons are the adults who delivered the gun to the children that had the guns unlawfully according to 9.41.040....
    LOL Where is my can of flamible liquid to throw on this fire.. LOL
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    (2)(a) A person, whether an adult or juvenile, is guilty of the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree, if the person does not qualify under subsection (1) of this section for the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree and the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm:

    (i) After having previously been convicted or found not guilty by reason of insanity in this state or elsewhere of any felony not specifically listed as prohibiting firearm possession under subsection (1) of this section, or any of the following crimes when committed by one family or household member against another, committed on or after July 1, 1993: Assault in the fourth degree, coercion, stalking, reckless endangerment, criminal trespass in the first degree, or violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from a residence (RCW 26.50.060, 26.50.070, 26.50.130, or 10.99.040);

    (ii) After having previously been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment under RCW 71.05.240, 71.05.320, 71.34.740, 71.34.750, chapter 10.77 RCW, or equivalent statutes of another jurisdiction, unless his or her right to possess a firearm has been restored as provided in RCW 9.41.047;

    (iii) If the person is under eighteen years of age, except as provided in RCW 9.41.042; and/or

    (iv) If the person is free on bond or personal recognizance pending trial, appeal, or sentencing for a serious offense as defined in RCW 9.41.010.
    See that colon at the end of (2)(a)? That colon means that a list of conditions follows. That list of conditions is (i); (ii); (iii); AND/OR (iv). That means that any one or more of the conditions following the colon will complete the violation if "the person does not qualify under subsection (1) of this section for the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree and the person owns, has in his or her possession, or has in his or her control any firearm". Rules of grammar dictate that the AND/OR can be substituted for the punctuation seperating the elements of the list: (i) and/or (ii) and/or (iii) and/or (iv).
    LOL
    I see what you are saying. I know that the " : " does not mean that all below it have to apply, that any one can apply for this statute to be used.
    ~~~ However, in (iii) it does imply that it will apply to those under 18 "if" the exceptions of RCW 9.41.042 do not apply AND/OR that (iv) is an integral part. I come to this conclusion because it specifically uses the AND/OR argument rather than simply ending with " ; " Meaning that (iii) could not stand on its own normally unless (iv) can apply to this use of it as well. Showing this in another way would be to say, (1) and/or (2) and/or (3) and/or AND/OR (4) are you following where there is an extra and/or in the the RCW which to me means that an additional has to apply.

    Am I wrong?
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  14. #14
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    LOL I'm so cornfused.. LOL
    Whatever the correct reading is, I will be following the events leading each case through to closure to see just how each ends up and to watch to see if they try to pull an end run around the laws currently confirming our rights.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  15. #15
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Sooo,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    LOL I'm so cornfused.. LOL
    Whatever the correct reading is, I will be following the events leading each case through to closure to see just how each ends up and to watch to see if they try to pull an end run around the laws currently confirming our rights.
    Now that the off topic wrangling about " ; " and " and/or " is over.

    Should we now charge the child that is still alive with
    violating RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii)... Unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree?

    Or should we now charge the Dead children TOO?
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  16. #16
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    Now that the off topic wrangling about " ; " and " and/or " is over.

    Should we now charge the child that is still alive with
    violating RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii)... Unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree?

    Or should we now charge the Dead children TOO?
    No one here ever said we should! The discussion was based upon our speculation of what the parents of the children/victims would ultimately be charged with so that we might watch for our rights to be further infringed by those who would use such unfortunate circumstances for their own nefarious purposes.

    Makes, me wonder, where a thought so ridiculous would even come from?

    Care to enlighten us.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  17. #17
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    To me that SCREAMS CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE!

    Understood and agreed. If you look back at my post #13 you will see where I mentioned hearing that Criminal Negligence would be charged.
    I know that here in PC the DA is saying there is no need for additional gun-laws, which is good, but I am going to be watching for the other counties and how they act.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •