Hope this guy gets the max.....

[Bigpapa]

Man, I would hate to be in his shoes. Sad!

 

[Vitaeus]

Court of Appeals to hear arguments on the 3rd degree assualt charge in the Armin Jahr shooting

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2012/nov/25/hearing-monday-over-assault-charge-in-armin-jahr/

 

[slapmonkay]

Update to the OP. There will not be a second trial after the first was split.

A mistrial was declared Nov. 13 after jurors were split in Carlile’s trial. Seven jurors wanted to acquit while four wanted to convict. One juror was undecided.

The prosecutor's office said Wednesday it will file a motion to dismiss the manslaughter charge.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Officer-derek-carlile-no-second-trial--181214621.html?c=n&fb=y&can=n

 

[Freedom1Man]

Update to the OP. There will not be a second trial after the first was split.



http://www.king5.com/news/local/Officer-derek-carlile-no-second-trial--181214621.html?c=n&fb=y&can=n

I am glad that there will not be a second trial. There should not have been.

To understand something though, I personally think he is guilty and should have gotten a harsher punishment than a normal citizen.

I am still happy to hear that he is not being tried twice though.

 

[hermannr]

I am glad that there will not be a second trial. There should not have been.

To understand something though, I personally think he is guilty and should have gotten a harsher punishment than a normal citizen.

I am still happy to hear that he is not being tried twice though.

Be careful what you wish for, it could happen to you.

Agreed, there should be no second trial. There never should have been a first.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Be careful what you wish for, it could happen to you.

Agreed, there should be no second trial. There never should have been a first.

He is a cop and as a cop thinks he is better than normal people and thinks he is above the law.

If cops did not think they were above the law all the time and were punished more often for their screw ups. I would have been all for cutting the guy some slack and said losing one child over this mistake is enough punishment.

 

[hermannr]

He is a cop and as a cop thinks he is better than normal people and thinks he is above the law.

If cops did not think they were above the law all the time and were punished more often for their screw ups. I would have been all for cutting the guy some slack and said losing one child over this mistake is enough punishment.

I do not care if he is a cop...the legal principle will hold with everyone...do you really want to be held responsible for someone else's unauthorized use of something you own? Doesn't have to be a kid with a gun, even more damage can be done with the family car.

It is the principle of the thing...are we responsible for someone else's actions? reverse this an think about THIS....

The US Supreme Court in Prouse V Delaware stated that random stops an searches of automobiles are illegal, even if the driver is require to be licensed...do you know what that also means? It means random stops and searches of your openly carried firearm are also illegal, even when a license would be required. You need to look deeper into what the "unintended consequences" of a court ruling may be.

In WA there are three people being prosecuted (persecuted) for firearms misuse by someone else right now. This was the first. It came out OK. Now for the other two? The Good Lord willing (for everyone's safety) they will also fail.

 

[gogodawgs]

Update to the OP. There will not be a second trial after the first was split.


http://www.king5.com/news/local/Officer-derek-carlile-no-second-trial--181214621.html?c=n&fb=y&can=n

I am going to guess that the prosecutor realized the jury thought that the mere charging of the parent in this case was not criminal. Kudos for the jury realizing that all things are not criminal in nature.

 

[skeith5]

He is a cop and as a cop thinks he is better than normal people and thinks he is above the law.

If cops did not think they were above the law all the time and were punished more often for their screw ups. I would have been all for cutting the guy some slack and said losing one child over this mistake is enough punishment.

I know Derek, I don't think he believes he is better than normal people or above the law.

Scott

 

[jsanchez]

I was listening to Borry Monsoon's radio program on my way to work, Jury split 7 to 4. Guess the 7 were ex law enforcement or bleeding hearts. Borry did question the prosecutor from Snohomish about why the couple from tacoma is going to prison for the same thing. I guess the law applies differerntly to different people, thats a shame.

 

[JoeSparky]

He is a cop and as a cop thinks he is better than normal people and thinks he is above the law.

If cops did not think they were above the law all the time and were punished more often for their screw ups. I would have been all for cutting the guy some slack and said losing one child over this mistake is enough punishment.

Just one point here for Freedomman to ponder. Yes, many cops seem to think they are above the law to use your words but what evidence do you have that suggests this particular cop feels he is above the law?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Just one point here for Freedomman to ponder. Yes, many cops seem to think they are above the law to use your words but what evidence do you have that suggests this particular cop feels he is above the law?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think he was making a generalization, and pointing to this case to make a point. If this was a non cop would it have turned out the same?

 

[Freedom1Man]

I think he was making a generalization, and pointing to this case to make a point. If this was a non cop would it have turned out the same?

Spot on.

 

[gogodawgs]

I was listening to Borry Monsoon's radio program on my way to work, Jury split 7 to 4. Guess the 7 were ex law enforcement or bleeding hearts. Borry did question the prosecutor from Snohomish about why the couple from tacoma is going to prison for the same thing. I guess the law applies differerntly to different people, thats a shame.

The charge was 2nd degree manslaughter. I am neither ex law enforcement nor a bleeding heart. Yet I would not of convicted either.

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

The elements required for jury consideration are:

WPIC 28.06 Manslaughter—Second Degree—Criminal Negligence—Elements

To convict the defendant of the crime of manslaughter in the second degree, each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) That on or about __________, the defendant engaged in conduct of criminal negligence;
(2) That __________ died as a result of defendant's negligent acts; and
(3) That any of these acts occurred in the State of Washington.
If you find from the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty.
On the other hand, if, after weighing all of the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to any one of these elements, then it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.

At no time was the officer's conduct of 'criminal' negligence. We do not have a safe storage law, hereby criminalizing his storage technique. We do not want one.

Furthermore:

The statutory definition of criminal negligence is written in terms of failing to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur. See RCW 9A.08.010(1)(d); WPIC 10.03, Recklessness—Definition. For the crime of manslaughter, however, the Supreme Court's opinion in State v. Gamble, 154 Wn.2d 457, 114 P.3d 646 (2005), suggests the application of a more particularized analysis of criminal negligence. InGamble, the court held that recklessness involves disregarding a substantial risk that a death may occur, whereas the usual definition of recklessness involves disregarding a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur. State v. Gamble, 154 Wn.2d at 467–68 (in the context of analyzing whether first degree manslaughter is a lesser included offense of second degree felony murder with assault as the predicate felony). By analogy, criminal negligence for manslaughter would correspondingly involve failure to be aware of a substantial risk that a death may occur. Accordingly, for a manslaughter case, the definition of criminal negligence from WPIC 10.04 should be drafted by filling in that instruction's blank line with “death” rather than by using “wrongful act.” For further discussion of Gamble, see the Comments to WPIC 10.03 (Recklessness—Definition) and 10.04 (Criminal Negligence—Definition).

9A.08.010

(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

I think you will find many gun owners who have firearms in their cars that are out of the reach of their children but not necessarily locked up. While traveling I shot this picture of a loose firearm in the door of a vehicle while the owner was getting her oil changed. So you see it is quite common.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I think you will find many gun owners who have firearms in their cars that are out of the reach of their children but not necessarily locked up. While traveling I shot this picture of a loose firearm in the door of a vehicle while the owner was getting her oil changed. So you see it is quite common.

RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.


(1)(a) Except in the person's place of abode or fixed place of business, a person shall not carry a pistol concealed on his or her person without a license to carry a concealed pistol.

(b) Every licensee shall have his or her concealed pistol license in his or her immediate possession at all times that he or she is required by this section to have a concealed pistol license and shall display the same upon demand to any police officer or to any other person when and if required by law to do so. Any violation of this subsection (1)(b) shall be a class 1 civil infraction under chapter 7.80 RCW and shall be punished accordingly pursuant to chapter 7.80 RCW and the infraction rules for courts of limited jurisdiction.

(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.

(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

(3)(a) A person at least eighteen years of age who is in possession of an unloaded pistol shall not leave the unloaded pistol in a vehicle unless the unloaded pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

(b) A violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor.

(4) Nothing in this section permits the possession of firearms illegal to possess under state or federal law.

There is your criminal act.

Plus neglect.

 

[gogodawgs]

There is your criminal act.

Plus neglect.

I appreciate this point, but we do know that the firearm was concealed from view. The vehicle may of been locked as well, thus nullifying the clause you quoted. Personally I think that the law you quoted is in violation of Article I Section 24 of our state constitution.

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Thus jury nullification is perfectly acceptable, which is what the jury may well have done. I applaud their decision. There was no intent (mens rea) in this case whatsoever and a crime absent intent is not a crime.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I appreciate this point, but we do know that the firearm was concealed from view. The vehicle may of been locked as well, thus nullifying the clause you quoted. Personally I think that the law you quoted is in violation of Article I Section 24 of our state constitution.




Thus jury nullification is perfectly acceptable, which is what the jury may well have done. I applaud their decision. There was no intent (mens rea) in this case whatsoever and a crime absent intent is not a crime.

No one in the car had a license to carry. Sorry that is another(?) criminal charge.

Transfer of a handgun to a minor.

 

[gogodawgs]

No one in the car had a license to carry. Sorry that is another(?) criminal charge.

Transfer of a handgun to a minor.

No the firearm was not 'transferred.'

Do you want there to be more invented crimes against gun owners?
Do you want a gun storage law?
Do you want to be criminally liable if your room mate, neighbor, burglar takes your firearm without your permission?
Do you want to have more laws that violate the Washington Constitution?
Do you just hate cops?

 

[5918mike]

No one in the car had a license to carry.

Where is that requirement. Sorry you are just making stuff up now. (iii) does not restrict other occupants from being in the vehicle where the firearm is left.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Where is that requirement. Sorry you are just making stuff up now. (iii) does not restrict other occupants from being in the vehicle where the firearm is left.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.040
(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:

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

I hope that helps.