• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OT: Marysville Investigation Complete

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
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.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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:

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
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.
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
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?!?
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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:

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
Y'all do realize that almost every law on the books has an exception for LEO. This one won't be charged as they are held above the law and can get away with anything they want.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
On KXLY they have an open comment question every day. Today's is not about guns, but it fit's this discussion perfectly because the thought process is the same.

Person driving a car.... while reading a text message...hit two motorcyclists...the motor cyclist's are injured, and they sueing the guy that hit them....AND the person that sent the text messge in the first place....

edited to add...same thought process when the Brady Bunch were sueing the firearms manufacturers and wanted to hold them responsible when a firearm they manufactured was missused.
 
Last edited:

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
Whatever. Leave your loaded guns with your kids. You just better hope none of the bullets hits me or a member of my family.

You need to reread what I wrote. At no time did I condone leaving loaded weapons lying around. I was talking about specific examples. One of those examples was posted by you.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Whatever. Leave your loaded guns with your kids. You just better hope none of the bullets hits me or a member of my family.

Civilly not criminally, we are over criminalizing everything. Accidents, negligence, etc, happens, should people be held accountable? Absolutley! But not to the state, to the people they damaged/harmed.
 

xxx.jakk.xxx

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
467
In my opinion, when it comes to this kind of thing it can't be a "one rule fits all" kind of thing. I think that the negligence comes with the lack of knowledge on the subject matter. If a child does not know that weapons can harm people because they were never taught anything about them, they can't truly be held accountable because they don't know that what they did was wrong. They can be punished to show them that it was wrong and will have consequences, but without prior knowledge of the outcome of the situation, the child would not benefit from being held completely accountable for it. On the other hand, if a Parent were to have taught the child about the dangers of mishandling weapons and taught them weapon safety and the child knowingly mishandled that weapon and caused injury or death, then the child should be held accountable but we'd have to base the punishment for that child on the age and development since not all children, even knowing the dangers, can fully understand the end result of their actions. The parent may be partially responsible if they had left the weapon completely in the open and the child had access to it, but by attempting to keep it away from the child by placing it in a place they didn't believe the child would get it, I think that the child would be the only party at fault.

It does suck for the families and friends, and even communities, of the victims, but in some instances there just can't be a person to administer justice on. If the child can't fully recognize the gravity of their actions, how can we condemn them? Yes, we can punish them and teach them that what they did was wrong, but they can't be held fully accountable. At the same time, if the parent were to try to be responsible and teach their child about weapons and then try to keep them away form the child, then the parent can't be held accountable. Not every case can have a bad guy, some just have a victim and we will have to deal with the fact that there won't be a neck in that noose at the end of the day.

I know I'll probably catch some flak on this one since I don't think I'm agreeing with most, but oh well. Also, I'm not a parent that wants to remove responsibility, I'm a 23 year old that is hoping to not go through the wonders of fatherhood. I'm also a firm believer in punishing a child when they've done something wrong. It worked on me, I never shot or stabbed anyone.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Not every case can have a bad guy, some just have a victim and we will have to deal with the fact that there won't be a neck in that noose at the end of the day.


Well said sir, well said. +1000

What I find disgusting that principle is applied to public employees but for some reason often forgotten when it comes to the general public. When the exact opposite should be applied, public "officials" should be held more accountable than free men.
 
Top