Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: OT: Marysville Investigation Complete

  1. #1
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764

    OT: Marysville Investigation Complete

    Just saw this.
    http://www.king5.com/news/local/Inve...148096135.html

    From the link-

    STANWOOD, Wash. – Snohomish County sheriff’s detectives have completed their investigation into the shooting death of a Marysville police officer’s daughter with the officer’s gun.

    The Everett Herald reports the case was handed over to prosecutors Wednesday with no recommendation from detectives on whether charges should be filed.

    Deputy prosecutor Lisa Paul reportedly would not say how long it would take to make a charging decision.
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    I can't imagine how they wouldn't charge him...(yes, that is intended as a sarcastic, cynical remark, knowing full well that the law doesn't apply to special people and all).

  3. #3
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Ok, since stupid is not a criminal offense, but negligent is another thing. Investigators will seek charges faster than Obama can print money against a school kid or parent when a gun is brought to school. But no charges when a loaded gun is negligently left unattended and a kid dies, and clearly because of that negligent action? I hope the prosecutor’s office sees things differently when reviewing.

    Last edited by jbone; 04-19-2012 at 02:49 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by decklin View Post
    The Everett Herald reports the case was handed over to prosecutors Wednesday with no recommendation from detectives on whether charges should be filed.
    Would it have turned out the same way if the negligent party were a mere mundane, rather than a fellow brother-in-blue?

    I doubt it.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  5. #5
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836

    the other case

    The same circumstance as the case in Tacoma with A "mere mundane" happened two days after the marysville incident and the guy was charged A week ago. Tell me they don't protect their own its horse shite.
    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

  6. #6
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Just for the heck of it, why don't we wait and see what the prosecutor does. Who knows, he may throw the book at this guy if he can get a conviction.

    If it does make it to court, just remember that the Jury won't be comprised of Police Officers.


    I'd rather have something to gripe about before griping. What are you all going to say if he is charged?????


    Hopefully we'll hear soon from the prosecutor.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    I'd rather have something to gripe about before griping. What are you all going to say if he is charged?????
    I'm going to say kudos to the prosecutor, but shame on the department for not having the integrity to recommend charges against one of its own, when such charges are clearly warranted.

    At the very least, they could have made an easy decision on RCW 9.41.050(2)(a), which the officer clearly violated.

    RCW 9.41.050

    Carrying firearms.
    (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.
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 04-19-2012 at 03:35 PM.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Ummm really? Look at RCW 9.41.060:



    Police officers are exempt. They can leave their loaded guns in plain view in their unlocked vehicles all day long.
    I stand corrected.

    ETA: I am sure glad law enforcement officers use their liberty responsibly, unlike those pesky citizens.
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 04-19-2012 at 08:07 PM.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  9. #9
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Ummm really? Look at RCW 9.41.060:



    Police officers are exempt. They can leave their loaded guns in plain view in their unlocked vehicles all day long.
    Or even a select fire M4, fully loaded on the trunk lid, and then drive around town that way. You can't even put your kids Single Shot 22, loaded, on the trunk lid, or in or on any other part of your car either.

    What the officer was negligent in doing was training his kid...not how he secured, or did not secure the weapon. If he is prosecuted, I hope he is found not guilty, just like I hope the civilian in Tacoma is found not guilty.

    Any bets that the Marysville persecutor waits until the other case is final?
    Last edited by hermannr; 04-19-2012 at 11:34 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    I'm going to say kudos to the prosecutor, but shame on the department for not having the integrity to recommend charges against one of its own, when such charges are clearly warranted.
    Remember, this incident occurred in Stanwood and involved a Marysville officer. Other than being a LEO, he wasn't exactly "one of their own.

    Also, it's up to the Prosecutor to charge, not the Police. They just gather the evidence and details.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Remember, this incident occurred in Stanwood and involved a Marysville officer. Other than being a LEO, he wasn't exactly "one of their own.
    Being an LEO is all that matters. Go check out the officer.com forums some time and you'll see what I mean

    Also, it's up to the Prosecutor to charge, not the Police. They just gather the evidence and details.
    True, but as the article states, the police can offer a recommendation to prosecute, based upon their investigation. They declined to do so.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  12. #12
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Many speculations have been made some may need some hot sauce to down the crow .
    Law Enforcement general refers cases to the prosecutors office for review and some interpret this as recommending charges, charges being filed is left to the prosecutors office, law enforcement is the investigating portion of it.

    Marysville police officer charged with manslaughter in daughter's death

    A Marysville, Wash., police officer is being charged with second-degree manslaughter after his daughter was shot and killed by a sibling using the officer’s gun. That's according to Officer Derek Carlile's attorney.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  13. #13
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    I think they should have went with Reckless under 1st degree.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317
    Investigation time to charges, officer 10 weeks, non-officer 2 weeks.
    Both are within a reasonable window of time, but I will say that 2 weeks seems fast.

    Both are facing the same charge: second-degree manslaughter.
    Although the non-officer's girlfriend is also charged when the officer's wife is not, I would think, while not the primary one responsible they played their part.

    We know there was negligence in both cases, but does it rise to criminal negligence? (see below)

    I would say (in my opinion only) that it probably does rise to to criminal negligence.
    While they did not follow reasonable safety / handling of their handgun, and should both receive punishment, the question is how much?

    RCW 9a.20.021
    1) b) For a class B felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for a term of ten years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of twenty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine;

    I also feel that the loss of a child and how that affects the family is punishment enough.
    It will be interesting to see the outcomes of the trials and compare the sentences.

    RCW 9A.32.070
    Manslaughter in the second degree.

    (1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when, with criminal negligence, he or she causes the death of another person.

    (2) Manslaughter in the second degree is a class B felony.


    RCW 9A.08.010
    General requirements of culpability.

    (1) Kinds of Culpability Defined.

    (a) INTENT. A person acts with intent or intentionally when he or she acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.
    (b) KNOWLEDGE. A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when:
    (i) he or she is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense; or
    (ii) he or she has information which would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by a statute defining an offense.
    (c) RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.
    (d) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

    (2) Substitutes for Criminal Negligence, Recklessness, and Knowledge. When a statute provides that criminal negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally.

    (3) Culpability as Determinant of Grade of Offense. When the grade or degree of an offense depends on whether the offense is committed intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, its grade or degree shall be the lowest for which the determinative kind of culpability is established with respect to any material element of the offense.

    (4) Requirement of Wilfulness Satisfied by Acting Knowingly. A requirement that an offense be committed willfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further requirements plainly appears.
    "Guns are not the problem … crazy is the problem” ... “We cannot legislate our society to the craziest amongst us.” - Jon Stewart
    “I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." - Tolkien

  15. #15
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I will be on neither jury, but if I were I would vote "not guilty". While we can do resonable things to prevent tragic incidents like these were, it is impossible to prevent all of them, no matter what happens.

    What is the difference between the boy shooting the girl, then what happened to me as a kid? My sister purposly pushed me, and then her dall carriage down the stairs on top of, after me, in our home when I was a child. I would have died from the injuries of that fall if we did not live across the street from the regional hospital.

    Now were my parents negligent by leaving my sister and me upstairs alone? (our bedrooms were upstairs) If I had died, would my parents have been negligent to the point of being charged with manslaughter?

    The only difference here is that this other insident wasn't an "accident" because the weapon was a gun, rather than 15" of staircase.

    Or, how about the kid that kills his/her sibling with an automobile? or an ATV? or any other method other than a firearm? All of the others would be classed as an "accident" and the parents would not be held responsible.

    I keep the keys to all of our vehicle on a key hanger by the front door. Let's say one of the grandkids (one of the ones that is not old enough to drive legally), gets one the keys off the hanger for one of my vehicles...then procedes to back that vehicle over a younger (or even older) sibling...Am I negligent because those kids took my vehicle and back over their sibling? I doubt it.
    Last edited by hermannr; 05-22-2012 at 11:01 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    I will be on neither jury, but if I were I would vote "not guilty". While we can do resonable things to prevent tragic incidents like these were, it is impossible to prevent all of them, no matter what happens.

    What is the difference between the boy shooting the girl, then what happened to me as a kid? My sister purposly pushed me, and then her dall carriage down the stairs on top of, after me, in our home when I was a child. I would have died from the injuries of that fall if we did not live across the street from the regional hospital.

    Now were my parents negligent by leaving my sister and me upstairs alone? (our bedrooms were upstairs) If I had died, would my parents have been negligent to the point of being charged with manslaughter?

    The only difference here is that this other insident wasn't an "accident" because the weapon was a gun, rather than 15" of staircase.

    Or, how about the kid that kills his/her sibling with an automobile? or an ATV? or any other method other than a firearm? All of the others would be classed as an "accident" and the parents would not be held responsible.

    I keep the keys to all of our vehicle on a key hanger by the front door. Let's say one of the grandkids (one of the ones that is not old enough to drive legally), gets one the keys off the hanger for one of my vehicles...then procedes to back that vehicle over a younger (or even older) sibling...Am I negligent because those kids took my vehicle and back over their sibling? I doubt it.
    Anytime it can be shown that an event causing death or injury could have been prevented, it usually involves some form of negligence. The level of negligence is what determines whether a charge is filed. Leaving a loaded gun under the seat of a vehicle filled with kids certainly meets the criteria of negligence. The Prosecutor saw it the same and filed the charges.

    In your situation it's almost amazing that someone didn't sue the contractor that built the stairs, the buggy manufacturer for improper design, and depending on her age, the schools for not teaching her it was wrong to try and kill her brother.

    In reality, charges are filed regularly, all over the country, in the same scenario you described. When you arrived at the hospital, if it had been today, a report would most likely have been submitted to CPS or DSHS, as well as the local PD.

    Lastly, if a gun was used by your little sis, rather than a staircase, chances are you wouldn't be here today.
    Last edited by amlevin; 05-23-2012 at 12:19 PM.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  17. #17
    Regular Member jbone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    The only difference here is that this other insident wasn't an "accident" because the weapon was a gun, rather than 15" of staircase.
    I'm sure the anti's are thanking you for promoting their position; the gun is responaible, not the reckless man.

  18. #18
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    I get what hermannr is trying to say but I don't think it applies to this situation. There is a difference between a 15' staircase and a loaded gun left unsecured in a car full of children by a man that most definitely should have known better.
    I have mixed feelings about whether charges should be filed in this situation as well as the other non-officer ones. My first instinct is to say it was an accident and losing a child is punishment enough. Then I think that leaving a loaded gun in a car with kids is just stupid. It's not like he forgot it was there. Who the hell forgets where they put their gun?
    Additionally this is not just an accident where a kid ended up getting hurt. An accident is leaving the stove on and your kid puts his hand on it and gets burned. An accident is leaving the basement door open and your kid falls down the stairs.
    This guy was too stupid to lock it up or have it on him. He also was apparently too stupid to teach his kids not to play with a gun if they find one.
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  19. #19
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I grew up around firearms in the 40's and 50's...nobody had gun safes, nobody stopped their your children from handling the firearms, yes there were rules, and most partents would be charged with child abuse these days if you did not follow those rules...and guess what, very rarely did a kid (or their parent) get in any kind of legal problems because of all those unsupervised firearms.

    Any child is curious, and any child knows a lot more than any adult gives them credit for knowing. Is a 3 year old responsible? yes and no. A properly trained and disiplined child at 3 knows what he should and should not do. As my wife used to say when very young..."am I supposed to do this?...no...but I'm going to dood it anyway" Did she get a wooping for "dooding" it? You bet,but you knew the price before you did it.

    The whole thing with firearms and very young...they want to know everything, they are learning at a rate you cannot even comprehend under normal circumstances...my very young daughters (3 and 1) could speak German as well as they could speak English within days of moving into a rural area in Germany. Adults can only wish they could do that...it took me longer to get my German back (that I learned as a child but then never practiced after my grandparents died and dad quit preaching in German in the 50's) then it took or daughters to pick it up in the first place. My oldest daughter was even correcting her German teacher in High School, and he was native Schwabish German...he would answer her...yes Sheila, that is how it is said in Schwabia, but this is classic German.

    If this guy was negligent at anything, it was training his kids, or maybe disciplining his kids, but it had nothing to do with how he handled his firearm. Anybody that buys into that is siding with the Brady bunch.

  20. #20
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836
    That cop can't be guilty everyone knows that An evil gun will jump out of its resting place and go off by itself. (way to much sarcassam)
    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

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    I feel a great deal of sympathy and compassion for both of these men. I cannot imagine how they must feel; their children are dead and their negligence is the reason. Whether they are convicted or not, their lives are over; their marriages may be over as well.

    But-unintentionally they each took a life. The LEO especially should have known better. There are no do overs in life, unfortunately. I believe that they should be treated equally under the law, LEO or not. These two events were not accidents, they were caused by negligence and could have been prevented. I would vote to convict, but with lesser sentences. Their convictions will not bring back the kids but it will send a message. People with firearms and children need to DILIGENTLY practice gun safety at all times. What if it had been someone else's kid that was killed? What if someone else besides a parent killed these children negligently? Do you doubt there would be a conviction then? Why do the children of these parents not deserve the same justice?

    Who in their right mind leaves a 3 year old alone with a loaded gun?!? What about the children that died? Three years of life was all they got! While I feel sorry for the parents, we have a system of laws for a reason. I will grant you that a lot of them don't make sense and some are unnecessary, but without consequences for actions, society as a whole would break down completely. I also belief in there being some leniency, as I'm sure these parents have suffered a lot already.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    But-unintentionally they each took a life.
    I absolutely reject this thought. If I give my child the keys to my car and then have an accident and kill someone...I am the person that took that life? I don't think so...even more so if my child took my car, without my permission, and an accident that killed someone...I took that life??? no sir, not in my book.

    The owner of the giun did not kill anyone, and the gun did not kill anyone by itself...the child killed someone (himself in one case, his sibling in the other). So you say the child is "not responsible"..under the law, no the child is a child. but that in no way make the owner the person that did the killing.

    Come on, lets lock up all the cars...lock up all the boose...lock up teh kitchen utentials, the cleaning supplies and make sure no kid has any access until they are at least 18 years old...they might kill themselves or someone else and then we, as adults, would be responsible for those deaths and go to jail...bull.

    And oh yes, lock the bathroom door, they might drown in the bathtub. Bah Humbug
    Last edited by hermannr; 05-24-2012 at 01:44 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    So, then, your six year old child comes over to my house and they play cowboys and indians. I give your kid a plastic bow and plastic arrows to play indian. I give my six year old kid a loaded black powder revolver to play REAL cowboy with. My child shoots your child and kills them. All good in your opinion, eh?
    That doesn't make any sense. If you give your kid a loaded gun to play cowboys & indians there is only one possible outcome.
    Hermannr was talking about letting his kid use the car and possible consequences.
    In your example you should be arrested. In hermannr's he should not.
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    I absolutely reject this thought. If I give my child the keys to my car and then have an accident and kill someone...I am the person that took that life? I don't think so...even more so if my child took my car, without my permission, and an accident that killed someone...I took that life??? no sir, not in my book.

    The owner of the giun did not kill anyone, and the gun did not kill anyone by itself...the child killed someone (himself in one case, his sibling in the other). So you say the child is "not responsible"..under the law, no the child is a child. but that in no way make the owner the person that did the killing.

    Come on, lets lock up all the cars...lock up all the boose...lock up teh kitchen utentials, the cleaning supplies and make sure no kid has any access until they are at least 18 years old...they might kill themselves or someone else and then we, as adults, would be responsible for those deaths and go to jail...bull.

    And oh yes, lock the bathroom door, they might drown in the bathtub. Bah Humbug
    Yes, you would LEGALLY be responsible, ESPECIALLY if you give your child the keys. Parents are LEGALLY responsible for their children until they reach the age of majority. A three year old child, because of limited understanding at that age cannot be held liable, especially for his own death. Parents ARE responsible for the actions of their children, whether you like it or not. I would think that because most parents love their children they try to keep them from harm. If you are aware that something would endanger your child's life, why in the world would you expose them to that danger?!? Your post sounds as if you want to shirk your responsibility; I hope you are not a parent and never become one; with your attitude your children are/would be completely on their own. The rest of your post makes no sense and just goes downhill. Did you really give this any thought or check the laws regarding child endangerment?!?
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    Yes, you would LEGALLY be responsible, ESPECIALLY if you give your child the keys. Parents are LEGALLY responsible for their children until they reach the age of majority. A three year old child, because of limited understanding at that age cannot be held liable, especially for his own death. Parents ARE responsible for the actions of their children, whether you like it or not. I would think that because most parents love their children they try to keep them from harm. If you are aware that something would endanger your child's life, why in the world would you expose them to that danger?!? Your post sounds as if you want to shirk your responsibility; I hope you are not a parent and never become one; with your attitude your children are/would be completely on their own. The rest of your post makes no sense and just goes downhill. Did you really give this any thought or check the laws regarding child endangerment?!?
    Being legaly LIABLE is different than being leaglly RESPONSIBLE...totally different concepts.

    So you want to go with the Brady Bunch Eh? Keep those firearms away from all kids at all costs...that is child endagerment...Male Bovine Excreetment.

    Give a 3 year old a loaded real gun to play cops and robbers, giving a 3 year old a real skill saw and some wood to cut, that may be child endagerment..but having a real gun in a car, and a kid in a car at the same time is NOT child endagerment.

    There was a cool article on some pigmy people in Africa in teh Smithsonian mag a couple months ago. The anthropoligist was having a hard time with what they allowed their children use as tools...the picture was a 2 or 3 year old kid, cutting some food up with a Machete (Yes, on his own)...and doing just fine thank you very much.
    Last edited by hermannr; 05-24-2012 at 03:42 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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