Mass Shooting in Michigan High School

Page 12 of 21 [ 322 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 21  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,788

05 Dec 2021, 4:10 pm

demeus wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Children Under 10 Now Allowed To Hunt In Michigan
https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01 ... -michigan/

Image


Wait...so 11 year old babies can walk around with a loaded gun?? seriously that's nuts.


They can't just walk around with guns. They are supposed to be under adult supervision and the guns are supposed to be locked up when not in use for their permissible purpose.


Supposed to and actually doing it are two different things. I follow US news and I can download literally hundreds of articles about children getting hold of their parent's guns and shooting somebody in their family or one of their friends. When you hold a child responsible for taking care of a gun you are literally playing Russian roulette with chance. And for what? because George Washington thought it would be a good idea to allow settlers to be armed in case the red coats or Indians attacked??



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,081
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

05 Dec 2021, 5:12 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
Michigan law also clearly states:
“You may be criminally and civilly liable for any harm caused by a person less than 18 years of age who lawfully gains unsupervised access to your firearm if unlawfully stored.”

What you cite is a police warning, not a law.

The prosecutor: "We don't have a safe storage law. We’re not legally required to store your weapon in a safe manner".
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... inadequate


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,081
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

05 Dec 2021, 5:21 pm

demeus wrote:

But was Ethan doing either hunting or at a shooting range at any time he possessed the gun? If not then under law, he was not allowed to possess the gun period and the parents should have reasonably made sure that he did not possess it outside of those activities and outside of their supervision

There is no such law that requires the parents to store the gun in a way that prevents others from accessing it.

People have guns to defend themselves, they don't want to store it in such a way that they cannot easily access it if an intruder breaks into their home.

The opposite could be argued, it could be argued it's negligence to store the gun in a way that it cannot be easily used against an intruder, as that puts your family at risk.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 746

05 Dec 2021, 7:03 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
demeus wrote:

But was Ethan doing either hunting or at a shooting range at any time he possessed the gun? If not then under law, he was not allowed to possess the gun period and the parents should have reasonably made sure that he did not possess it outside of those activities and outside of their supervision

There is no such law that requires the parents to store the gun in a way that prevents others from accessing it.

People have guns to defend themselves, they don't want to store it in such a way that they cannot easily access it if an intruder breaks into their home.

The opposite could be argued, it could be argued it's negligence to store the gun in a way that it cannot be easily used against an intruder.


I was hoping someone would play the "muh home defense" card. Wasn't the gun supposed to be the KID's gun? But now it's the DAD's gun, for home defense.

If it's for home defense, there's no need to leave it unsecured and loaded when you're NOT home, cos you're NOT home, to defend it. If someone did break in, you're not there to shoot them. If they find the gun while rummaging through your things, as thieves do, now they have a free gun. It should be locked when nobody is home.

A gun tucked away in a drawer is not going to help you with "muh home defense" unless you're either already right there, or can magically get there before the "bad guys" get you first. "Hold on mr criminal, while I go to my dresser and withdraw my gun." Or do criminals announce themselves first, now? And if you're really serious about situational readiness, then you shouldn't own a firearm that you expect to use unless you actually KNOW how to use it. Take a class, get some training.

They make biometric trigger locks that drop off in less than a second once an authorized fingerprint touches the pad. The pad is located in the standard rest spot for the index finger while holding a firearm safely, so the action to release it is part of the normal process.

They make biometric lock boxes that release once they read an authorized fingerprint, and eject a drawer that places the firearm right underneath the hand that just unlocked the box. It takes about a second to gain access to. Faster than opening a dresser drawer.

Keep all the rounds and magazines locked up except for one live mag kept in daddy's pocket. Lock the mag up when daddy leaves the house. It's already an improvement from leaving the whole gun in a drawer, cos you at least have half of it on you already. Keep the whole gun in your pocket, loaded. Then you have actual physical control over it, and you actually HAVE it already, (preparedness!) for the theoretical intruder or assailant. Get a concealed permit, so you can always have it on you, and always be prepared! But again, I thought this was supposed to be the KID's gun. But now also for rapid response self defense. So they kept it loaded and unlocked for rapid preparedness, but leave it in a drawer where you might not be able to get to it in the first place. Brilliant.

If you're that serious about preparedness, then take it seriously, not use it as an excuse to be lazy.

"Duty of care"
n. a requirement that a person act toward others and the public with the watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would use. If a person's actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts are considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence.

If you buy a firearm, you have a reasonable duty to keep it in a manner which prevents unnecessary risk, such as mishandling by a child. It is not unreasonable to expect a parent to secure a firearm to prevent a minor from accessing it when they are not present. It may not be illegal to be irresponsible in and of itself, but that doesn't mean you can't still be held accountable if something bad happens and people get hurt or die as a result.

Negligence doesn't have to be illegal for it to be a contributing factor to an act that was illegal, or even simply causes harm. It IS illegal for a minor to have a firearm when not being supervised by a parent or guardian - as it stated in the part of my post you omitted - and while it is not illegal to leave a firearm unsecured, if the fact that it was left unsecured contributes to the illegal act, responsibility can be shared, as the adult is supposed to be the responsible party for the child.

I own multiple firearms, and that is how I care for them. Most of them live secured and unloaded, but can be accessed and readied in a second or so. If it's not secured and unloaded, it's both loaded and on my person, in my direct control. In my own home or on my property, if it's loaded, it's never more than 3 feet away from me, in direct line of sight. Loaded firearms do not get "left in places". They stay with ME. I have a concealed carry permit, and I live-carry. I keep my firearm on my direct person, under my direct control. It requires very little effort, and ensures that at least certain dumb mistakes are less likely to happen. A bare minimum of caution along with actual practical preparedness.

When it comes to "preparedness", there is SO much more to it than simply having a loaded gun "somewhere". I've seen countless people who concealed carry for "self defense" that took 10, 20, 30 seconds to actually fully retrieve their firearm and present it ready for use. Guns floating in pockets and purses that need to be fished out and manipulated into grip. People that talk of preparedness, but then slack off completely when it comes to anything beyond "Buy guy, Load gun, Leave gun in sock drawer". Fully prepared for imminent threats that give advanced warning, so they can go and fetch that gun they never practice fetching, and fire the gun they've barely ever fired, in their home that despite their desire to defend it, don't actually have a plan, nor ever make one, that says something like kids stay in their room and get on the floor do if daddy misses it doesn't go thru the drywall and hit the kid, or spends even the briefest second doing any tactical planning, like recognizing bad firing angles where misses might go out a window and into a neighbor's house, or safe firing angles so as to prevent collateral harm by accident. Y'know, PREPAREDNESS.

I am by no means an expert. I am an amateur. But I DO take firearms seriously. So when someone tells me that it's not ILLEGAL to be an irresponsible muppet and leave guns laying around where a kid can get at it, I don't think to myself "oh, well then, carry on", I think "dear god, that's terrifying".

But yes. Buy gun, load gun, leave gun in drawer. "Prepared".



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,841
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Dec 2021, 7:49 pm

demeus wrote:

The prosecutor brings charges and argues said charges in trial. It is up to the judge and/or jury to decide if those charges have merit either through motions to have charges dismiss because a crime was not committed (re Kyle Rittenhouse and the curfew and gun carrying charge) or by a jury trial (re Kyle Rittenhouse, self defense argument).


In this case in particular, we can see a longstanding flaw in our justice system colloquially referred to as "the process is the punishment" in that the prosecutor threw this heavy manslaughter charge at the parents and demanded and got a high bail, high enough that they're unlikely to be able to raise it themselves. As we saw with Rittenhouse, these trials can take a while, over a year in that case, so these people could be in jail for a year or more before having been convicted of anything on what I personally consider to be an extremely tenuous charge, giving the prosecutor enormous leverage in extracting a plea bargain to get out of jail, and kneecapping their ability to mount a defense as they'd have to do it from jail. These people were not accused of a violent crime, they're accused of negligence, so there really isn't a public safety argument for jailing them, it's all process as punishment.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 683

05 Dec 2021, 9:16 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
demeus wrote:

But was Ethan doing either hunting or at a shooting range at any time he possessed the gun? If not then under law, he was not allowed to possess the gun period and the parents should have reasonably made sure that he did not possess it outside of those activities and outside of their supervision

There is no such law that requires the parents to store the gun in a way that prevents others from accessing it.

People have guns to defend themselves, they don't want to store it in such a way that they cannot easily access it if an intruder breaks into their home.

The opposite could be argued, it could be argued it's negligence to store the gun in a way that it cannot be easily used against an intruder, as that puts your family at risk.


You are correct that there is no requirement for the parents to lock the gun up and if that were the only issue, the prosecutors would have said to have the civil court handle it. The problem in this case is that the gun in the open is not the only issue. They are also looking at the actions of the parents up to this point. Purchasing the gun and advertising that it was for the teen. Their attitude regarding the issues the school had informed the parents of. I have a feeling there is more to this than we know (investigators do not release all of the evidence to the parents) so there might be evidence that suggests that in this case, it is more than civil negligence. Again, this is not simply a case of a gun not being stored properly.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 683

05 Dec 2021, 9:26 pm

Dox47 wrote:
demeus wrote:

The prosecutor brings charges and argues said charges in trial. It is up to the judge and/or jury to decide if those charges have merit either through motions to have charges dismiss because a crime was not committed (re Kyle Rittenhouse and the curfew and gun carrying charge) or by a jury trial (re Kyle Rittenhouse, self defense argument).


In this case in particular, we can see a longstanding flaw in our justice system colloquially referred to as "the process is the punishment" in that the prosecutor threw this heavy manslaughter charge at the parents and demanded and got a high bail, high enough that they're unlikely to be able to raise it themselves. As we saw with Rittenhouse, these trials can take a while, over a year in that case, so these people could be in jail for a year or more before having been convicted of anything on what I personally consider to be an extremely tenuous charge, giving the prosecutor enormous leverage in extracting a plea bargain to get out of jail, and kneecapping their ability to mount a defense as they'd have to do it from jail. These people were not accused of a violent crime, they're accused of negligence, so there really isn't a public safety argument for jailing them, it's all process as punishment.


First off, the actions of the parents resulted in the high bail. Had they simply turned themselves in, the DA would not have been able to prove that they were a flight risk to begin with. Also, manslaughter is a violent crime, even if the parents were not directly involved, their actions could have very well contributed to the murder.

In fact, many states have statutes that can hold bar and store owners criminally liable for serving an obviously intoxicated person or allowing said person to leave by driving a car and the intoxicated person later kills someone in a car accident. Even without the statutes, it is possible that the bar or store owner (and maybe even the bartender) can be charged with involuntary manslaughter if they knew that their own actions could lead to a death. Many states do not follow up on the charges preferring to have the civil courts deal with it but it is quite possible.

And yes, I know that prosecutors do overcharge and are not held responsible when the charges to not hold and I know many lives are ruined by the prosecutors actions. My question to you is, are you willing to protest the actions of the prosecutor in this case? Would you be the juror willing to nullify the law simply because you don't agree with the charge? There was a reason why Rosa Parks was chosen as the African American to rally around regarding the bus seating laws rather than another woman. You have to pick you battles carefully and this is not a hill worth dying for to end prosecutor's overcharging.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 683

05 Dec 2021, 9:35 pm

cyberdad wrote:
demeus wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Children Under 10 Now Allowed To Hunt In Michigan
https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01 ... -michigan/

Image


Wait...so 11 year old babies can walk around with a loaded gun?? seriously that's nuts.


They can't just walk around with guns. They are supposed to be under adult supervision and the guns are supposed to be locked up when not in use for their permissible purpose.


Supposed to and actually doing it are two different things. I follow US news and I can download literally hundreds of articles about children getting hold of their parent's guns and shooting somebody in their family or one of their friends. When you hold a child responsible for taking care of a gun you are literally playing Russian roulette with chance. And for what? because George Washington thought it would be a good idea to allow settlers to be armed in case the red coats or Indians attacked??


How many of these cases happen per year vs the number of gun owners in the USA? Also, how many of those cases were legal gun ownership? There are many guns that are in the hands of people not legally allowed to own a gun. Even in states such as New York which has strict gun control laws. You only see what the news wants you to see. I am sure no one would drive a car if the news had shown every vehicle injury accident.

Most people I know who have guns (including many in my own family) are responsible. The guns are locked up properly so that the children cannot access them. I know of one case where a gun was purchased for a person who was not allowed to own one in my family but even in that case, the purchaser stored the gun on their property and person who it was purchased for could only use it under the purchasers permission. Don't bother to look it up because since the purchase, the person who purchased the gun had their hunting rights restored by a judge and the gun is a long gun.

But looking at this case, the parents actions suggest something more than simply a parent leaving their gun out and their child innocently using it. That is why the criminal charges in the first place.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,788

05 Dec 2021, 9:39 pm

demeus wrote:
But looking at this case, the parents actions suggest something more than simply a parent leaving their gun out and their child innocently using it. That is why the criminal charges in the first place.


It may transpire the parents encouraged him to carry the loaded weapon which he took to school. Hence their guilt leading them to run.



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 43,991

05 Dec 2021, 9:43 pm

I thought schools have metal detectors?

Are students allowed to carry guns?

This is so messed up it's unbelievable.


_________________
sleep-deprived storyteller and Customer Service flunkee


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,788

05 Dec 2021, 9:57 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
I thought schools have metal detectors?

Are students allowed to carry guns?

This is so messed up it's unbelievable.


Perhaps this school didn't have one.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,936
Location: temperate zone

05 Dec 2021, 10:22 pm

Dox47 wrote:
demeus wrote:

The prosecutor brings charges and argues said charges in trial. It is up to the judge and/or jury to decide if those charges have merit either through motions to have charges dismiss because a crime was not committed (re Kyle Rittenhouse and the curfew and gun carrying charge) or by a jury trial (re Kyle Rittenhouse, self defense argument).


In this case in particular, we can see a longstanding flaw in our justice system colloquially referred to as "the process is the punishment" in that the prosecutor threw this heavy manslaughter charge at the parents and demanded and got a high bail, high enough that they're unlikely to be able to raise it themselves. As we saw with Rittenhouse, these trials can take a while, over a year in that case, so these people could be in jail for a year or more before having been convicted of anything on what I personally consider to be an extremely tenuous charge, giving the prosecutor enormous leverage in extracting a plea bargain to get out of jail, and kneecapping their ability to mount a defense as they'd have to do it from jail. These people were not accused of a violent crime, they're accused of negligence, so there really isn't a public safety argument for jailing them, it's all process as punishment.


Why does it matter if theyre not a "public safety risk"? What matters is that they are a FLIGHT risk. And they have demonstrated that they are that...by already trying to flee.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,841
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Dec 2021, 10:38 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Why does it matter if theyre not a "public safety risk"? What matters is that they are a FLIGHT risk. And they have demonstrated that they are that...by already trying to flee.


Then put ankle monitors on them and make them put up high collateral, like their house or something, jail should be reserved for people believed to be a danger to the community.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,841
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Dec 2021, 10:40 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
I thought schools have metal detectors?

Are students allowed to carry guns?



Some schools have metal detectors, but it's not standard, and no, students are not allowed to carry guns.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,841
Location: Seattle-ish

05 Dec 2021, 10:52 pm

demeus wrote:
First off, the actions of the parents resulted in the high bail. Had they simply turned themselves in, the DA would not have been able to prove that they were a flight risk to begin with.


Maybe, but given the lack of competence and political showboating already on display here, I'm not going to take that as a given.

demeus wrote:
Also, manslaughter is a violent crime, even if the parents were not directly involved, their actions could have very well contributed to the murder.


Not as charged in this case it isn't, they're basically being charged over cavalier gun storage, not actually committing any violence themselves, so as previously stated there is no community danger rationale for jailing them.

demeus wrote:
In fact, many states have statutes that can hold bar and store owners criminally liable for serving an obviously intoxicated person or allowing said person to leave by driving a car and the intoxicated person later kills someone in a car accident. Even without the statutes, it is possible that the bar or store owner (and maybe even the bartender) can be charged with involuntary manslaughter if they knew that their own actions could lead to a death. Many states do not follow up on the charges preferring to have the civil courts deal with it but it is quite possible.


I know, I have a bartending license from my restaurant days, but this is a complete red herring, as it's irrelevant to my point about the punishment being the process and setting very high bail for non-violent offenders. Those cases do come up from time to time, IIRC they usually result in financial penalties rather than jail time, and I certainly wouldn't expect to see a combined million dollar bail set for such a charge.

demeus wrote:
And yes, I know that prosecutors do overcharge and are not held responsible when the charges to not hold and I know many lives are ruined by the prosecutors actions. My question to you is, are you willing to protest the actions of the prosecutor in this case? Would you be the juror willing to nullify the law simply because you don't agree with the charge? There was a reason why Rosa Parks was chosen as the African American to rally around regarding the bus seating laws rather than another woman. You have to pick you battles carefully and this is not a hill worth dying for to end prosecutor's overcharging.


I have principles, and I don't abandon them just because they also protect unsympathetic people. You seem to be saying "ignore this injustice because these people seem like jerks", which isn't much of a principle at all.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 43,991

05 Dec 2021, 10:55 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Not as charged in this case it isn't, they're basically being charged over cavalier gun storage, not actually committing any violence themselves, so as previously stated there is no community danger rationale for jailing them.



I actually heard that Michigan doesn't have specific laws about gun storage.


_________________
sleep-deprived storyteller and Customer Service flunkee


cron