• 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.

Macomb Twp. dad who shot daughter, 12, charged

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
Good point and we have NO idea whats really happened, yes he made a grave mistake, but what bothers me more is the many who judge with no facts.... Too many in here give credit to those who describe us as heartless gun nuts. To judge a man based on zero facts other than he daughter was shot is a bit myopic.

We have a very GOOD idea of what happened! A man shot his daughter while cleaning his gun because of his own negligence! It doesn't get much more serious than that. Yes, people make mistakes, and sometimes they are fatal ones. Fortunately that wasn't the case here. He committed a criminal act through his own negligence, injuring his own daughter and all you think he should get is to say "I'm sorry"?!? What if, God forbid, he had killed her? Would the fact that it was an accident make him any less guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide? I don't think so. I would not and could not support anyone so careless with a firearm. I think whatever punishment he receives is justified. There have to be consequences for acts like this or why have any laws at all? What if she had been shot by a stray bullet from a neighbor's gun? Would you still feel the same? She would still be shot, regardless of who pulled the trigger, even if it was an accident. It's incidents like this that give the Anti's more ammo to fight us with. Then to insist on setting the law aside and not punishing this man for his negligence would really inflame them, and rightly so. We cannot apply the law/laws when we feel like it. They apply equally across the board to all of us, all the time, thank God. I wonder how many people die every year due to accidents like this. Whether shot by a family member accidentally or by a stranger accidentally, how do you think those family members feel? If it were me, I would want to see someone punished for my child's injury or death. This person, more than likely, will not own any more firearms; he probably will get rid of them voluntarily. I am not for depriving him of his 2A rights, I don't believe in that, but he may have no choice because of what he has done. I believe that in most states shooting someone, even accidentally is a felony and if so, he will lose his guns and his right to own any.
 

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
We have a very GOOD idea of what happened! A man shot his daughter while cleaning his gun because of his own negligence! It doesn't get much more serious than that. Yes, people make mistakes, and sometimes they are fatal ones. Fortunately that wasn't the case here. He committed a criminal act through his own negligence, injuring his own daughter and all you think he should get is to say "I'm sorry"?!? What if, God forbid, he had killed her? Would the fact that it was an accident make him any less guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide? I don't think so. I would not and could not support anyone so careless with a firearm. I think whatever punishment he receives is justified. There have to be consequences for acts like this or why have any laws at all? What if she had been shot by a stray bullet from a neighbor's gun? Would you still feel the same? She would still be shot, regardless of who pulled the trigger, even if it was an accident. It's incidents like this that give the Anti's more ammo to fight us with. Then to insist on setting the law aside and not punishing this man for his negligence would really inflame them, and rightly so. We cannot apply the law/laws when we feel like it. They apply equally across the board to all of us, all the time, thank God. I wonder how many people die every year due to accidents like this. Whether shot by a family member accidentally or by a stranger accidentally, how do you think those family members feel? If it were me, I would want to see someone punished for my child's injury or death. This person, more than likely, will not own any more firearms; he probably will get rid of them voluntarily. I am not for depriving him of his 2A rights, I don't believe in that, but he may have no choice because of what he has done. I believe that in most states shooting someone, even accidentally is a felony and if so, he will lose his guns and his right to own any.
There is no greater punishment then to have injured or killed a loved one.Ask someone who knows.Accidents have no intent.There is no room for PC.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
There is a HUGE difference in an accidernt, and an intensional act, and the punishments, (if any) should be metered accordingly. Should the parent who turned quickly, and burned their child with a pan, or cigarette be punished equally as the one who burns their child for a "punishment" ? Should the person who crashes into someone in a car injuring or killing someone else, be punished with the same strength of law, that a drunk or a fleeing felon deserves? Why then, should we as gun owners, suddenly turn on one of our own for what is no different?
 

Ruckus

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
208
Location
Chesterfield, Michigan, USA
•(8) KEEP IT ON-TOPIC: All gun rights discussions not directly related to open carry should take place in the "General Discussions" forum and topics that are not related to gun rights at all should take place in "The Lounge". Please police your own posts before posting them and help keep OCDO strong and focused.

I did have my reservations about posting the link here as it is not directly oc related, but with the seemingly increase of firearm related stories in the local media lately, I wondered if it was not best for us to stay on top of what we can. But, I do concur, this link was off-topic and was more appropriate for the General Discussion or The Lounge. Next time.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
I did have my reservations about posting the link here as it is not directly oc related, but with the seemingly increase of firearm related stories in the local media lately, I wondered if it was not best for us to stay on top of what we can. But, I do concur, this link was off-topic and was more appropriate for the General Discussion or The Lounge. Next time.

I wouldn't worry about it much. You can always hit the "!" inside the triangle icon to report a thread/post that does not meet the Forum Rules (even on your own threads/posts!). This goes to the Admins quicker than a PM does (according to Mike). I did this for this thread, we will see if it gets moved to the Lounge. I used to post about the Forum Rules to people, but decided the Admins are quite capable of doing their jobs and just report items as I feel the need (normally only when personal attacks are on-going).

BTW - John and Mike are not militant about the rules and threads I have thought should be deleted/moved have not. Since it is "their house", I have no issues with that. If I really feel a need to discuss it with a specific person, I tend to send a PM which of late I do not do much.
 

COMMANDER1911

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
129
Location
Flintstone, GA
1. Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
2. Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3. Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

To err is human. To break ALL THREE of the simplest gun handling rules on earth, at once, is COLOSSALLY STUPID. If he had simply followed any ONE of the rules, the girl would not have been hurt (the rules are designed to be redundant that way).

This was negligence resulting in harm, we have laws to deal with it, and the guy deserves the full measure of the penalties prescribed by law. I have daughters as well, so I feel for the guy . . . but that's part of the reasons why I observe the safety rules religiously and won't ever be in the position this guy is in.

What good is an unloaded home defense system? My weapon stays locked and cocked and on my hip at all times. I go by the FIVE saftey rules I learned in the Marine Corps, and I've yet to have an incident. An unloaded gun scares me more than a loaded one.

1.Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2.never point the weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3.Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until ready to fire.
4.keep weapon on safe until you intend to fire.
5.Know your target and what lies beyond.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Well I hope your weapon never has an extractor failure when you pull the slide back and maybe what other things that maybe happens that we are Monday Morning quarter backing on........

Yes, mechanical failures could result in unforeseen discharges when handling a gun. See Rule #1 for ensuring that that doesn't result in harm to yourself or others. I'm not faulting the guy for something out of his control, I'm faulting him for something that was in his control . . . namely adhering to the three simple rules, especially Rule #1 if this was an AD due to pure mechanical failure.

We disagree. They have been punished enough to make them possibly homeless after he can't pay Lawyers fees isn't an answer.... Explain that to his daughter...

I, along with many other gun owners, say that gun control laws should be abolished and, instead, enforcement of laws which punish actual harm caused by criminality or negligence with guns is all that is needed. I'm not about to be hypocritical now about that, so yes we disagree.

Whether the mechanical discharge itself was negligent or accidental, the fact that the gun was pointed by the guy in a direction which proved to be unsafe during the handling at the time of discharge is PURE negligence on his part. Let the rule of law prevail and it's consequences be meted out by due process, and it is up to him (not me) to explain all of this to his daughter.

Maybe we can draw and quarter him while we are at it? He is a gun owner not a bank robber that I read, or a gang banger doin a drive by....

No clearly thinking critic, including me, is suggesting his punishment should be disproportionate to his negligence. He broke at least Rule #1. He is responsible for the harm to some degree, greater or lesser. Let his punishment be commensurate to his responsibility, as determined by due process.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
What good is an unloaded home defense system?

I presume you are referring to the rule #3 I mentioned, "Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use."

Depends on how and when you define "ready to use". For me, I'm ready to use my weapon unless I'm about to clean it or take it onto a gun range which requires it to be unloaded. Therefore, my gun is loaded except for mainly those two occasions.

Some folks may have more or less times or occasions when they consider their gun not "ready to use". That's the beauty of this rule. It is a good rule for safety which is flexible to each individual's practices when it comes to when their gun is "ready to use".

Whenever you consider your "home defense system" in a "ready to use" state, then you may have it loaded. When it's not in a "ready to use" state, for example (like me) if you are about to clean it or allow your child to handle it during a supervised training session with them, then it's a good idea to follow rule #3 and unload it.
 
Last edited:

COMMANDER1911

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
129
Location
Flintstone, GA
I presume you are referring to the rule #3 I mentioned, "Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use."

Depends on how and when you define "ready to use". For me, I'm ready to use my weapon unless I'm about to clean it or take it onto a gun range which requires it to be unloaded. Therefore, my gun is loaded except for mainly those two occasions.

Some folks may have more or less times or occasions when they consider their gun not "ready to use". That's the beauty of this rule. It is a good rule for safety which is flexible to each individual's practices when it comes to when their gun is "ready to use".

Whenever you consider your "home defense system" in a "ready to use" state, then you may have it loaded. When it's not in a "ready to use" state, for example (like me) if you are about to clean it or allow your child to handle it during a supervised training session with them, then it's a good idea to follow rule #3 and unload it.

Ah I understand what you meant now. thanks for clarifying.
 

Bailenforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,077
Location
City
Why do they lynch each other in public? Because it is much easier to pass judgment on others than to look in the mirror, and realize ones own faults. Lynching others in a public forums bears no consequences, and provides a great diversion hopefully to direct others attention away from oneself.

Whether one believes in GOD, Karma, or what comes around, goes around, I know that every dog has his day. I started competition shooting 41 years ago in the NRA JR, program and I can say without fear of contradiction, literally everyone I have watched and even those who are so self righteous, make critical weapons handling errors, and NOT ONE person on this site can say with any confidence they have never made such mistakes. Many times it was that fleeting inattention when someone called their name and they turned unaware that for a brief second that weapon in their hands was pointed at someone. If they tell you otherwise they are either a liar, or they are clueless. And with children who leap, jump and run like mad through the average home or even sneak up on a parent who was engrossed in something they were doing the potential is always great.

I still take exception to the lynch mob feeding frenzy that I see all too often here. Quick quick judge judge. Yep he made a grave mistake and will pay for it for the rest of his life if he has any love for his child. But all this hang em high mentality shows the true colors of a persons soul or lack there of.



There is a HUGE difference in an accidernt, and an intensional act, and the punishments, (if any) should be metered accordingly. Should the parent who turned quickly, and burned their child with a pan, or cigarette be punished equally as the one who burns their child for a "punishment" ? Should the person who crashes into someone in a car injuring or killing someone else, be punished with the same strength of law, that a drunk or a fleeing felon deserves? Why then, should we as gun owners, suddenly turn on one of our own for what is no different?
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
everyone I have watched and even those who are so self righteous, make critical weapons handling errors

. . . and if someone is harmed, the laws and process which determine responsibility and accountability come into play. No one gets a free pass from due process, correct?

NOT ONE person on this site can say with any confidence they have never made such mistakes.

. . . and if someone is harmed, the laws and process which determine responsibility and accountability come into play. No one gets a free pass from due process, correct?

that fleeting inattention when someone called their name and they turned unaware that for a brief second that weapon in their hands was pointed at someone.

. . . and if someone is harmed, the laws and process which determine responsibility and accountability come into play. No one gets a free pass from due process, correct?

a parent who was engrossed in something they were doing

. . . and if someone is harmed, the laws and process which determine responsibility and accountability come into play. No one gets a free pass from due process, correct?


. . . lynch mob . . . hang em high mentality

Mischaracterizing calls for application of the rule of law and due process in such ways does not make it so. However those may apply to the facts of this case is what should prevail, correct?
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
If I recall correctly, the man had pointed the gun down, at the table when he pulled the trigger(as is, apparently, required with a Glock) when he accidentally shot the girl.

So it is, perhaps, be a bit unfair to say that he was pointing it at the girl when he pulled the trigger, unless you are to claim that he has, or should have, x-ray vision.
 
Last edited:

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
There can be no punishment greater, or to effect a more positive outcome, than the one that was doled out by circumstance already.

I absolutely understand that sentiment. But it is not justification for unequal application of the law. The law must be applied equally to all people given the same set of facts, degrees of control and responsibility, and feelings of remorse.

If he is convicted of something, to the extent that the penalty range can properly reflect factors of the perpetrator's degree of responsibility and remorse, of course it should. But to suggest that application of the law should be abridged based on a strong feeling that a perpetrator probably feels really, really terribly bad about harm that he is at least partially responsible for is ludicrous.
 
Last edited:

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI
i agree with Danm, he broke the rules of safe handling of firearms. all the rules are redundant on all the others. break one, you break them all, and in this case harm to a person was the result. its beyond me to sugest a proper punishment, i don't have all the facts of the case nor do i have a law degree from anywhere.

this will fall into the anti's hands to use against us as one more statistic of how careless we all are, even though we as lawful owners know this as an untrue statement.

nothing good can come of an negligent/accidental discharge of a firearm.

i will take a step forward and away from my own post, and say now i believe that he should have his day in court so that all the facts can be presented, he can try to explain himself. i can't say that its a good thing that this will be done but i can say its what i believe is what now should be done.

if i say he shouldn't go to jail or face the full extent of the law then i am saying he should get special treatment, and he shouldn't!

an example of that would be a wealthy man being given special treatment because hes wealthy

a gun owner shouldn't be given special treatment because hes a gun owner! the law applies to all equally, or it should.

so let him have his day in court. thats what my unattached no emotion legal side says.

my father, gun owners sympathetic side says take it easy on him he's suffered enough and so has his family side, says give the guy a break if warranted.

which is right, which is wrong? i wish i knew for certain.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
This is true. Key to this phrase is that it implies that justice is applied. And in our system, justice is applied through equal application of the law. However, it seems that some folks are suggesting that not be done.

Since "justice" usually refers to "righting a wrong", I don't see it's application here.

So I ask: What are other reasons for having "law"?
If one says that it is to keep "order" in a civilized society, then by prosecuting this father are we achieving that end? I personally don't see where someone is going to say "Gee, I might be prosecuted for negligently shooting my daughter, son, etc so I better follow the cardinal rules of gun safety".... so are we achieving this goal?

If you say law exists to provide a sense of normative behavior; once again, is this achieved by prosecution? I would suppose that this person not only has seen some form of these "rules" posted when he purchased the gun, read "firearm" magazines, etc... he probably saw them when he looked through the gun manual. I don't believe this man thought that purposefully cleaning his pistol with the muzzle pointed at his child would be correct behavior. If we were talking about actions that clearly would be considered "negligent", such as practicing a "fast draw" with a loaded firearm and his daughter in the line of fire... then I might feel differently. Although I was not there and neither was the prosecutor nor any posters here, the facts don't seem to be disputed.

Another issue is that the term "negligence" is used in the law... but was it "negligence"? Negligent behavior is that which is judged to be... by what the average person is to believe constitutes "negligent actions".

Negligence is legally defined as conduct that is reprehensible because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to shield another individual from foreseeable risk." (cited from my understanding and from my search in Wikipedia, Blacks Law Dictionary, and 7 other legal websites.) Basically, there would be no toher outcome to be expected than soemone being injured. Since cleaning pistols is a good thing, and I don't believ that he thought pointing a pistol at soemone while cleaning it was what he had in mind, was the foregone conclusion that his daughter will most likely be injured from me cleaning my pistol?

In my searching for the legal definition, a number of writers posted that "negligence" is much more than "carelessness"... the issue being the ability to predict or foresee that the actions involved had a "very probable" or "nearly certain" outcome.
A belief of "Negligence" stresses "Was the shooting 'foreseeable'"? Any such determination certainly has a large amount of subjectivity present in the forming of any opinion as to whether the outcome was "foreseeable". Would you want the general public to decide what constitutes "negligence"?

Also, the original notion of prosecuting for "negligence" was to get monetary support for the care of the victim from the perpetrator...from Wikipedia; Blacks Law Dictionary. As a father, is he not already paying the medical expenses involved?

Without any other information than that shown, I agree with William Blackstone who said: "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". If there is a doubt as to whether the average person could "foresee", or "reliably predict" that the father's actions would necessarily result in the injury of his child, I feel that the prosecutor should do the correct thing and drop the charges.


PS, let me address the notion of "equal" application of the law. I think that in order to argue the application of "equal-ness", the assumption is that he be prosecuted like similar people in similar situations. Have there been any cases with similar facts which have NOT been pursued by a prosecutor...have there been any such cases in Michigan as a whole?
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
We have laws to make our society better, and safer, lets not forget the "why" we have laws. Since this individual has learned his lesson and is not going to repeat the crime, the purpose of the law has been fulfilled, so exercising it would not only be redundant, but an abuse of it. Perhaps a suspended sentence?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The man unsafely handled his firearm in a way that put his child in deadly danger. He was reckless, violating the most fundamental of safety laws.

He should be convicted.

The law exists to protect us from those who would wantonly or recklessly put us in danger. Some laws are harsher because they are designed to protect the more helpless among us, including our children.

We have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We have the responsibility to do so in a way that does not put others in unnecessary danger. This man needs to be held responsible for the reckless way in which he exercised his right.
 
Top