[NavyLCDR]

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Marysville-police-officer-charged-with-manslaughter-in-daughters-death-152640455.html

What do you think? Proper charge? Guilty or no? Is the loss of the child enough "sentence served"?

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.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;

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.

[steveno]

the tragic loss is enough of a sentence. that will be really tough to think about every morning when he gets up

[dprice3844444]

i hope they hang him for his negligence

[BCCL]

Leaving your kids unattended in a car is bad enough, leaving them with a loaded gun AFTER your wife said something about it, is doubly negligent...........sad as it is, I think dad does have to face some punishment from the system.

[Old Fuff]

According to charging documents, Carlile had his personal .38 revolver in the van. It was in a holster that holds a strap over the gun. Normally the holster is affixed to the ankle with a Velcro strap, but Carlisle allegedly told police he didn’t have it on his ankle because he was in a hurry. Police say the gun was fully loaded and the safety was not on, although it had an internal safety feature.

When the couple made the stop in Stanwood, they locked the doors so the kids would not get out, but police say Carlile did not remove the gun, activate the safety or lock the gun in the door compartment.

I am going to stick my neck out and say the “38 revolver,” (If that what it was) was likely a Smith & Wesson, Taurus or Ruger equipped with an internal lock (which in the conventional sense) is a storage devise, not a safety.

Current double-action, hand ejector revolvers have mechanical safeties that do not require user intervention, but internal locks do. Looking at this situation I’d say one lesson is: If your personal handgun has such a device you’d better use it when the gun is not under your personal control. Further if there is one and you remove it, consider what the consequences might be if you were in a similar situation. Of course if the gun never had one this issue might be moot.

The alleged shooter was a 3-year-old boy, and I find it hard to believe he could have had the hand strength to pull a long (probably) 9 to 11 pound double-action trigger all of the way back. More likely he was able to use both hands to cock the hammer because the revolver wasn’t (or hadn’t been altered to) double-action-only. For this and other reasons the modification should be given some serious thought.

Last but not least, I would say that anyone who leaves a loaded, unsecured firearm where it can be accessed by small children (not to mention some older ones) in an environment where there is no adult supervision; is without question being negligent. The possession and use of firearms will always entail substantial and unavoidable responsibilities. A judge and jury will have to decide if he has suffered enough.

[smalls]

Very unfortunate, and really sad.

I think most LEO's are pretty responsible people, but they might need a reminder to not be so careless, or negligent. So, even though I'm sure the loss of his child is punishment enough, I have to think he should be made an example of. Doubly so due to the fact that he was LE, and I believe they need to be held to a "higher standard" of behavior, on and off the clock.

[alsaqr]

That man is simply industrial strenth dumb. He should be charged with manslaughter, found guilty and sentenced to ten years in prison. If this policeman had responed to an incident where a civilian father did the same exact thing he would have thrown the book at that person; and rightly so.

[NavyLCDR]

That man is simply industrial strenth dumb. He should be charged with manslaughter, found guilty and sentenced to ten years in prison. If this policeman had responed to an incident where a civilian father did the same exact thing he would have thrown the book at that person; and rightly so.
Well, it's not the police officer that "throws the book" at people... however, your point is well taken:

http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-toddler-killed-from-accidental-selfinflicted-gunshot-at-tacoma-gas-station-20120314,0,183716.story

It only took two weeks for police to investigate and prosecutor to file manslaughter charges against civilians in almost EXACTLY the same circumstances. And...I'll bet this couple were not on "paid administrative leave" while the investigation took place.

the tragic loss is enough of a sentence. that will be really tough to think about every morning when he gets up

Would you feel the same way if the bullet exited the vehicle and killed your child? Just because criminal negligence only affects the family involved, is that grounds for negating legal consequences?

[ScottieG59]

I wish these tragedies were not as often played out as they are. There are some things about which one may never be sloppy. It just does not matter if you are in a hurry.

Leaving the kids in the car is very bad and, in some places, it is child endagerment.

Parent are faced with safety decisions all the time. Some get lazy or inattentive.

Leaving guns around kids is all too common.

I feel for the family, but I expect they were not as open to self doubt before the tragedy. Many parents live a heartbeat away from tragedy in ignorant bliss.

Remember, we are not just observers in life; we are participants. It is worth considering how our actions or omissions play out in our own families. None of us have guardian angels.

[NavyLCDR]

I don't know if the Moderators want to move this to another sub forum, I think it is a good discussion to keep going, even if it isn't specific enough for legal.

[cassandrasdaddy]

it took less than a month to file charges. is that too long? and cop caught exact same charge as the other guy

[NavyLCDR]

it took less than a month to file charges. is that too long? and cop caught exact same charge as the other guy

The civilian case of the boy shooting himself in Tacoma happened on March 14th. Manslaughter charges were filed against the civilian parent and boyfriend on March 28th.

In the police officer's case of the boy shooting his sister in Stanwood (where I live, BTW), the shooting happened on March 17th. The police officer was not charged with manslaughter until May 22nd. Meanwhile, between March 17th and May 22nd, the officer was still drawing a paycheck on administrative leave (and still might be).

Both cases were almost EXACTLY the same circumstances! Granted, different counties are involved.... but 2 weeks for a civilian couple verses over two months for the police officer, while he continues to draw his city provided paycheck?

[Frank Ettin]

I don't think it's very helpful to try to make comparisons of the timelines for two different cases in two different counties. Each case is different and can present different evidentiary issues. And the respective decision makers in each case are subject to different demands on their time and different schedules.

[lloveless]

Ok they throw the book at him, he goes to jail for 27 months. Where will the money come from to sustain his family? What will the jail time accomplish? Will he be able to work in Law Enforcement ever again? Those that are all for crucifying this man have to realize he will never, ever forget his negligence. Children can do more in 30 seconds than we give them credit for.
ll

[ilbob]

Ok they throw the book at him, he goes to jail for 27 months. Where will the money come from to sustain his family? What will the jail time accomplish? Will he be able to work in Law Enforcement ever again? Those that are all for crucifying this man have to realize he will never, ever forget his negligence. Children can do more in 30 seconds than we give them credit for.
ll
Do the crime, do the time.

I am amazed that anyone these days would leave an unsecured and loaded firearm laying around, especially around children.

Cop, not cop, don't matter. Just plain stupid. Especially given how cheap and easy it is these days to secure a firearm from children accessing it.

[Dain Bramage]

I also live near the area where this occurred. It's a tragedy all around, and I pray for the family to recover as best they can.

However, there are other considerations going on. This case happened during a cluster with two other child shootings in the Puget Sound area around the same time. The Tacoma case discussed here was under almost identical circumstances, except the father was not a police officer.

The cases have been fodder for several contingents. One, the antis were trying to get gun-storage legislation enacted saying the current laws don't make the leaving of guns in cars with kids "illegal". Clearer heads pointed out that prosecutors have several charging options to choose, from "none", to negligence and up to manslaughter. Charges in all three cases have proven this correct.

Second, there were worries, from past local history, that the LEO would gain preferential treatment. With the recent charging news, this seems moot, but is being looked at closely by the public. Having similar cases in close proximity is not giving prosecutors much wiggle room. There have been some sticking points, like the long investigation in the Stanwood case, involving the LEO, and the fact that the Stanwood Police closed the investigation without a prosecution recommendation.

[Godsgunman]

Horribly sad and probably excruciatingly painful for the father. To me jail time would be a walk in the park compared to living with the realization that my negligence led to my daughters death. According to the article it is my belief that he was very negligent long before this happened. It says that the 3 yr old had toy guns AND a BB gun. I have a 2 yr old daughter myself and I have a strict rule that there are no toy guns around and she is taught to NEVER touch a gun. Look I am all for teaching kids about guns and gun safety, but at the age of 2 or 3 they cannot comprehend well enough, they are just really learning right and wrong and pushing thier boundaries. I first handled a BB gun when I was about 8 and the "fear of God" was installed into me first before ever handling it. Guns should never be seen as "play things" but as tools and tools that can be very dangerous unless handled correctly. Its gun safety 101.
I really feel for the guy but it looks to me like a culmination of many many negligent actions.

[Mp7]

I´m not sure he shpuld be punished, as punishements obviously don´t teach anyone, but just satisfy revenge-feelings in the victims or their relatives.

They are the relatives. That´d be double punishment.

Thinking that someone thate stupid and careless is a cop gives me the shivers.
Let´s hope there´s not too many like him.

[NavyLCDR]

To me jail time would be a walk in the park compared to living with the realization that my negligence led to my daughters death.

You do realize we are talking about a police officer who was responsible for his own little girl's death going to jail with criminals who probably ALL hate police officers and MOST would even have a big problem with the death of the little girl....I don't care what else the guy is dealing with, I don't think it would make that jail time to be any less painful.

I'm sure the state would consider that, though, and put him up in a minimum security, private condo-jail with free cable TV, therapy and conjugal visits.

As far as support for the family, I would imagine the police officers' union(s) will probably cover his legal expenses and maybe help with the living expenses of the family.

[rajb123]

These are his kids, so the situation in a car should not have been unique to him since he is dealing with this situation at home constantly. The mother is also equally negligent if she was at the scene too and she should also be charged with the same criminal act.

Why would you leave 4 kids in a locked car? That is dumb enough without leaving a loaded pistol ready to go BANG there too.

I suppose, mom and pop are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[hermannr]

I cannot believe the self righteous people that are posting on this thread. If I were on the jury of either of these guys, I personally would vote not guilty.

Tell me what socially positive purpose incarceration would serve? None. It will not bring the child back...it will not prevent another accident from happening.

Think about you child in your home...now, let's say this is a two story home with a long wooden staircase...two small kids upstairs (these were young kids remember)...one pushes the other down the stairs and the that one that falls dies? Is it negligence that you were not there watching your kids because they were on the second floor? Or how about the kid that puts any metal object into an electrical socket?

No, you guys are all blood thursty antis..convict the poor parents so WE don't look bad. It was an accident, maybe caused partly because the parents did not teach their kids how to handle firearms, maybe not.

Let the person that has NEVER left their child unsupervised, even for a moment, and I will show you someone that has no children.

[rooter]

i hope they hang him for his negligence
Calling for the murder of a police officer?
Why is this individual not banned from the forum?

I have to think he should be made an example of. Doubly so due to the fact that he was LE, and I believe they need to be held to a "higher standard" of behavior, on and off the clock. but 2 weeks for a civilian couple verses over two months for the police officer, while he continues to draw his city provided paycheck?
So, society should be tougher on police officers simply because they are police officers? Funny how civies hold PO's to higher standards for purposes of behavior and discipline, yet those same civies cry when we get better pensions and labor contracts. You don't get it both ways! How many civies will also have their career flushed over such an incident? This man could. All this must be taken into consideration. Also, why shouldn't this man be on paid leave, he hasn't been found guilty of anything except on this forum.

You do realize we are talking about a police officer who was responsible for his own little girl's death going to jail with criminals who probably ALL hate police officers and MOST would even have a big problem with the death of the little girl....I don't care what else the guy is dealing with, I don't think it would make that jail time to be any less painful.
I'm sure the state would consider that, though, and put him up in a minimum security, private condo-jail with free cable TV, therapy and conjugal visits.
As they should, IF they incarcerate. I think he'll get probation. Why? Because he is held to a higher standard than you and should receive special treatment because of it!

As far as support for the family, I would imagine the police officers' union(s) will probably cover his legal expenses and maybe help with the living expenses of the family. Hopefully.

Navylcdr, the fact that you have to proclaim you are not anti cop in your sig line says enough. You know what you are, you know what you're not....and I wouldn't be too Navy proud...it just means you couldn't make it as a Devil Dog.

[DAP90]

If I were on the jury of either of these guys, I personally would vote not guilty.

But he is guilty of negligently causing the death of his daughter. Feeling bad for him doesn’t change that. It would have taken him 10 seconds to secure that gun. He absolutely knew better than to do what he did. He received prior warning from his wife to secure it moments before.

Tell me what socially positive purpose incarceration would serve? None. It will not bring the child back...

I agree with this statement but that is irrelevant. He is responsible for that death. If his child had been killed while visiting with another family whose father had left the gun out in similar circumstances don’t you think he’d want that parent to go to jail? Don’t you think that parent would go to jail? It doesn’t make it any better because it’s his child.

It was an accident, maybe caused partly because the parents did not teach their kids how to handle firearms, maybe not.

It was not an accident. It was a foreseeable, easily preventable outcome. No 3 year can be trusted with a loaded firearm unsupervised, under any circumstances, ever!

I think he'll get probation. Why? Because he is held to a higher standard than you and should receive special treatment because of it!

On the job he has special protections. Off the job he is just another “civie” with the same legal responsibilities as the rest of us – as it should be.

How many civies will also have their career flushed over such an incident?

Pretty much anyone who's convicted of a felony and serves a 27 month sentence would get their career flushed.

[hermannr]

But he is guilty of negligently causing the death of his daughter. Feeling bad for him doesn’t change that. It would have taken him 10 seconds to secure that gun. He absolutely knew better than to do what he did. He received prior warning from his wife to secure it moments before.



I agree with this statement but that is irrelevant. He is responsible for that death. If his child had been killed while visiting with another family whose father had left the gun out in similar circumstances don’t you think he’d want that parent to go to jail? Don’t you think that parent would go to jail? It doesn’t make it any better because it’s his child.



It was not an accident. It was a foreseeable, easily preventable outcome. No 3 year can be trusted with a loaded firearm unsupervised, under any circumstances, ever!



On the job he has special protections. Off the job he is just another “civie” with the same legal responsibilities as the rest of us – as it should be.



Pretty much anyone who's convicted of a felony and serves a 27 month sentence would get their career flushed.
I absolutely disagree that either the Marysville officer, or the other guy was neglegent, or that their supposed neglegence caused the death of the child.

It may be because I am old, it may be because of my own personal experiences as a child, as a parent of 5 children myself, and as a grandparent of 14...no, IMHO neglegence on the part of the parent does not enter into either situation.

Child (by definition) "borrows" the parents automobile (let's say this child takes the keys out of the mother purse while the mother is occupied with...annother child???), and takes it for a joy ride...Child is too young to control the vehicle so the child crashes tha car and sibling that went along for the "joy ride" dies...Is that neglegence on the parents part?

Edited to add: Comparable law now...everyone must have a safe to lock up all car keys when not in use. All cars must be garaged ina garage with electronic locks, and the gas tank empty, and the gas locked up in another building???? then the parents would not be neglegent...sorry...neither idea is sane or practicle.

[rajb123]

So the wife is an adult and she was in the car before they both left the children alone in the car with the loaded pistol?????

Where is the DA's charge of manslaughter against her? She is at least as guilty as the husband.

Selective prosecution is a BAD thing. When the media gets involved it is even worse.

I love the concept of JURY NULIFICATION.

It is a hallmark of American justice and it sometimes eliminates the impact of unjust laws that are wrongly applied to members of our society (O.J. Simpson's criminal charge is a classic case of jury nulification but it was incorectly applied by the jury in that case - IMO).

Anyway, in this subject case, both parents should be held fully accountable under the law.

[DAP90]

I absolutely disagree that either the Marysville officer, or the other guy was neglegent, or that their supposed neglegence caused the death of the child.

The standard (legal and otherwise) in our society is that you do not allow toddlers access to loaded firearms unsupervised.

Is no one responsible for this death? Certainly the 3 year old is not.

As a police officer he has likely seen similar tragedies on the job. I wonder how many people he has arrested for similar things.

[Double Naught Spy]

By and large, I am not a big fan against many of the gun law requiring the securing of weapons so that they cannot be accessed by children. That doesn't seem to be the focus here, but does seem to be the direction of people's attitudes who felt the guy should "hang." It is a standard in our society that we don't allow kids access to guns? Yet it seems to be a standard in our society that we allow kids access to toilets and bathtubs.

I can honestly say that I have never been in a single person's home that had kids that did not have numerous lethal dangers that were not firearms. I know it seems like a joke, but toilets and bathtubs account for several drowning deaths of children each year. Various chemicals and medications ingested account for a bunch more. Then there are all the kitchen utensals and tools kept for home maintenance. All such incidents can be prevented, but nobody puts child safety locks on toilets, buckets, and bathtubs. Some people do have some locked counters in which they keep some of their chemicals, to certainly not all of them. I don't see too many houses with child safety locks on the kitchen drawers either.

My point is that I think they are making a big deal out of the kid's death because he was an officer and the child died by gunshot. If they followed the same legal pursuit with parents whose kids died as a result of dangers in the home, then we would see a lot more parents in jail for manslaughter. I don't think the law is being applied evenly or fairly across society and I think that is wrong. I am not against appropropriate prosecution. Regardless of how badly the parent might feel as a result of a child's (or anyone's) death, I don't think they should get a walk on the appropriate punishment. It seems that not all parents are thrilled about the children they have and they certainly may not endure the same level of grief as parents who cherish their kids.

[NavyLCDR]

With regards to children.... don't we have to draw the line somewhere between accidental and negligent? Can I leave a can of rat poison opened and sitting on the floor for kids to find and eat and not be negligent? I can just leave all my guns loaded and laying around all over the house to play with and not be negligent? How about if I leave the car running and go shopping with my kid left in the car? I was watching out for them, I left the car running so they would have air conditioning and not get heat stroke. Is that REALLY what we are advocating here?

Does there not have to be a line drawn somewhere? And if we do away with all the negligence boundaries, then how about if your child comes over to my house and eats the rat poison I left out or plays with my guns and shoots themselves, or the kids shoot each other. Is that what we are really trying to say?

[Arkansas Paul]

Tough crowd. Wow! That being said, I'm not sure where I stand.

This kind of thing is precisely the reason I switched my bedside gun when my daughter was getting old enough to be curious. I had a Ruger GP100 on the nightstand and was scared of her getting ahold of it and accidentally firing it. I switched to an auto with a magazine laying beside it. If she could figure out how to insert the mag, she still wouldn't be able to rack the slide. At least it made sense tome. Looks like I was right to question the safety of a DA revolver though.

I kind of hope he doesn't go to jail. Yeah, he should have known better, but I can't imagine living with the fact that I was responsible for my daughter's death. That's plenty of punishment IMO.

[hermannr]

I had access to guns all my life. Before the CGA68 all kids had access to guns, I was given my first (as my own gun) gun at 12.

Guns are bad and children should not have access to them, and any parent that does allow the slightest chance of any child accessing a firearm is being neglegent is GCA68 antigun mentality. excuse me but that is just male bovine excetement.

The loaded gun was not put in the child's hand and told here, play with this...now that I would agree is neglegence.

All you "lock up all the guns or your neglegent" types should just go where you belong....with the brady bunch...because that is how you think.

Children, especially very intelligent children, are going to investigate, and if you lock it up, they WILL figure out a way to open it. Think about the "child proof" medicine bottle caps...How many have you had a child, or grandchild open one of them FOR YOU...because you could not do it yourself???? Eh????

I know what I did when I was a kid, and no safe was safe from me if I wanted to know what was inside...sometimes I had plenty of time to do that because for several years I could not walk (polio) but I could still use my hands, my eyes and my mind. Mom and Dad would give me old clocks, watches and radios that did not work just to occupy me.

I would be of the opinion that a 3 year old strapped into a car seat would normally be pretty secure...but not some...the old saying "couriosity killed the cat" did not come from lazy ignorant kids...

Kids are never too young to be allowed to handle a real gun. As soon as they show interest their couriosity should be satisfied, and then they should be taught that if they want to handle your real gun, they need to ask...will that stop all accidents? No, but it would help reduce them.

[NavyLCDR]

Let me ask you this, hermannr.... what benefit can be gained from leaving loaded guns accessible to children under 10 years old left alone locked in a car (or left alone in a house)? So they can defend themselves?

Just how difficult is it to at least unload the guns when you are leaving them unattended in the house or car? What benefit is gained from leaving unattended gun loaded, ESPECIALLY if you are leaving <10 year old kids unattended with the guns?

[pseudonymity]

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

Since this is Legal, I want to ask this - if I was on the jury, what would my instructions be regarding "wrongful act"? To my non-legal mind, wrongful implies knowing right from wrong, and I can not see how the 3yo would be capable of a wrongful act in that sense.

Aside from the Legal aspect, this is one of those cases where I am not sure what really leads to justice. If the father is truly changed and does not act with negligence again, then a sentence really punishes the family as much if not more than the father. If he is still engaging in risky behaviors, then placing him somewhere where he can not put his family at risk would be justice in some sense. Without knowing the character of the man, I just can not be sure what is justice in this case.

As far as I am concerned, the fact the father is LEO is completely irrelevant in this case.

[smalls]

Yeah, children should be introduced to firearms, and taught safetey first. Supervision is absoluteley neccessary. But this kid was 3! You do not have the comprehension skills at 3 to understand that if you pull the trigger, a bullet comes out and if it hits someone they may die. You cannot trust a 3 year old with a loaded gun, that's more than negligence, that's stupidity.

Why should police officers get special rulings because of their job? There is still a dead child because this officer left a loaded handgun within reach of a child, who may or may not understand what a gun is or what it does, and certainly has no comprehension of life or death.

I will, however, agree that accomodations should be made in prison so that he doesn't get killed.

[Old Fuff]

This kind of thing is precisely the reason I switched my bedside gun when my daughter was getting old enough to be curious. I had a Ruger GP100 on the nightstand and was scared of her getting ahold of it and accidentally firing it. I switched to an auto with a magazine laying beside it. If she could figure out how to insert the mag, she still wouldn't be able to rack the slide. At least it made sense tome. Looks like I was right to question the safety of a DA revolver though.

Of course leaving the revolver unloaded with cartridges in a speed-loader didn't come to mind... :scrutiny:

But revolver vs. pistol isn't really the issue here. What is, is leaving a loaded gun (any kind) in an environment where children can get access to it.

Let's move on and say that doing this is legally negligent or worse. Clearly, we all have a stake in preventing these all-too-often incidents. This one is by no means unique or ever unusual.

So answer this question: "What can we do to help end these threads because there is no longer an issue to drive them?"

[DAP90]

I was given my first (as my own gun) gun at 12.

Really? Not at 3 years old?

The loaded gun was not put in the child's hand and told here, play with this...now that I would agree is neglegence.

That is a very thin hair to split. He was left in the car with it in plain sight and 3 year olds can get out of car seats. I think the article says a booster seat, which he shouldn’t be in at that age, which are even easier to get out of. That could be incorrect info.

Kids are never too young to be allowed to handle a real gun. As soon as they show interest their couriosity should be satisfied, and then they should be taught that if they want to handle your real gun, they need to ask...will that stop all accidents? No, but it would help reduce them.

Agreed, but handling under controlled circumstances is very different from what went on here. Even if that is going on a toddler cannot be trusted to follow those instructions yet. It's prep work for the future.

10 seconds to dump the rounds in his pocket and we’re not having this discussion. It’s his gun – he’s the adult – he needs to take responsibility for it and for the safety of his kids. He can’t protect them everything but he could have and should have protected them from this.

I feel bad for the guy but as I said before, that’s not really relevant.

[hermannr]

let me give you and example of what a 3 year old is capable of...when I was three my parents went to a conference in Nelson. BC. We lived in Creston at the time. It is about 50 miles to the ferry across Kootney Lake, and the another 20 miles from the ferry landing to Nelson.

I knew where my parents went, I knew the route and I knew about the ferry, yes, I was 3 years old. I did not like the lady that was baby sitting so I took off to get to my parents in Nelson....do you know where the RCMP found me??? Trotting along the road ditch 6 miles out of Creston, headed for that ferry. And, Oh yes, I knew exactly what I was doing....don't ever kid yourself.

I am very aware of what children can do...we raised 5, and we now have 14 grandkids...and EVERY ONE of my guns around this house are loaded. Always. There is never a question if something is loaded here or it is not loaded....it IS loaded, treat it as such. You know what, I practiced what I preach...as soon as the child shows interest. let them investigate...unload, yes, let them see what happens to a soda bottle, yes, watermellon, yes...but let them investigate...when their couriosity is satisfied, and they know dad (grandpa) will let them investigate more any time they ask...guess what, I have never had a problem...ever and I have kids that are quite a bit over 40, and grandkids that are married..

There is access, and there is access. If you put a loaded gun in a child's hand...that is one thing. In that case you should be there to supervise....If you have a holstered weapon in a catchall in your car...and a child in the car seat...that is a completely different matter.

Do I think that weapon should have been in that catchall? No, but I also don't think the man was negligent by not locking it up.

Why does everyone think that every person that dies unnaturally, there should be someone else held accountable...ypou don't think that way when it comes to an automobile...it is called an "accident" (unless there is a DUI involded)

There is no common societal purpose served by persecuting these guys...both of them, the cop or the regular guy. None at all.

[smalls]

Either way, even if you want to leave little kids alone with loaded guns, the law says he was in the wrong, and he should be punished for breaking the law! This isn't letting a cop off with a warning for a speeding ticket, his child is dead! Dead because of his stupidity.

[DAP90]

I am very aware of what children can do...we raised 5, and we now have 14 grandkids...and EVERY ONE of my guns around this house are loaded. Always.

I’m glad that practice worked out for you. It doesn’t always. Personally, I won't risk it.

it is called an "accident"

I don’t agree that this was an accident because I don’t think the outcome qualifies as unexpected, but I also don’t think we’re going to come to an agreement so I’ll let it go.

There is no common societal purpose served by persecuting these guys...both of them, the cop or the regular guy. None at all.

Well, it’s meant as a punishment and a deterrent more than anything; right or wrong, effective or ineffective as doing so may be.

[hermannr]

Either way, even if you want to leave little kids alone with loaded guns, the law says he was in the wrong, and he should be punished for breaking the law! This isn't letting a cop off with a warning for a speeding ticket, his child is dead! Dead because of his stupidity.
Can you quote the law he broke...chapter and verse so I can look it up? RCW????

[NavyLCDR]

Can you quote the law he broke...chapter and verse so I can look it up? RCW????
It's already been provided. Just because you don't think his actions were negligent does not change the fact that his actions fit the legal definition of criminal negligence contained in RCW perfectly, especially in his very specific case and set of circumstances.

[NavyLCDR]

Since this is Legal, I want to ask this - if I was on the jury, what would my instructions be regarding "wrongful act"? To my non-legal mind, wrongful implies knowing right from wrong, and I can not see how the 3yo would be capable of a wrongful act in that sense.

Washington State Criminal Jury Instructions:
http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cite=UU%28Ief9e89e0e10d11daade1ae871d9b2cbe%29&db=130417&findtype=l&fn=_top&pbc=DA010192&rlt=CLID_FQRLT35721211822235&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault.wl&rs=WEBL12.04&service=Find&spa=wcrji-1000&sr=TC&vr=2.0

In cases of manslaughter, the WA Supreme Court has ruled that "death" be substituted for "wrongful act". All that is necessary, therefore, for the "wrongful act" element to be proven is to prove that a death occurred.

For manslaughter, the definition of criminal negligence is likely more particularized than is the general statutory definition. The statutory definition is phrased in terms of failing to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur, whereas in the manslaughter context, the Supreme Court has implied that criminal negligence involves a substantial risk that a death may occur. In State v. Gamble, 154 Wn.2d 457, 467–68, 114 P.3d 646 (2005), the Supreme Court analyzed the related definition of recklessness, holding that recklessness in a manslaughter case requires proof of a substantial risk that a death, rather than simply a wrongful act, may occur. By a similar rationale, criminal negligence in the manslaughter context would require proof of a substantial risk that a death may occur. Accordingly, for a manslaughter case, the instruction above should be drafted using the word “death” rather than “wrongful act.” The Gamble court gave no indication as to whether more particularized standards would also apply to offenses other than manslaughter. Accordingly, the first paragraph of the instruction above is drafted in a manner that allows practitioners to more fully consider how Gamble applies to other offenses. If the instruction's blank line is used, care must be taken to avoid commenting on the evidence.

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

The cases have been fodder for several contingents. One, the antis were trying to get gun-storage legislation enacted saying the current laws don't make the leaving of guns in cars with kids "illegal". Clearer heads pointed out that prosecutors have several charging options to choose, from "none", to negligence and up to manslaughter. Charges in all three cases have proven this correct.

It was a Police Officer, the one kind of person that they think should only have guns.

Calling for the murder of a police officer?
Why is this individual not banned from the forum?

Executions through the Justice System to someone that deserves it isn't murder. His gross negligence caused the death of a 7 year old girl. That's very unbecoming of an Officer to me.

[smalls]

Thank you, Navy. His actions are textbook negligence. And as Navy has said, the chapter and verse have already been stated.

What if...

He was not an offficer.

Or, what if...

The bullet hadn't killed his child, but exited the vehicle and harmed someone else? Perhaps a family member of yours? Or you? I 100% guarantee you'd feeel different.

Nothing changes because he is an officer. Actually, yes it should. He is a public servant, therefore he should be held to a higher standard, because it's it's job to keep people safe, yet his negligance can't even keep his own family safe.

[Davek1977]

I feel the charges are justified. Many of us feel bad about thing\s we have done in the past. that doesn't mean remorse should ever replace jail sentences and other punishments. If you don't want to live with the consequences of doing something monumentally stupid, maybe you shouldn't do such stupid things. This went beyond stupidity and into the realm of criminality. He deserves as heavy of a sentence as the judge is allowed to give for such negligence


Why does everyone think that every person that dies unnaturally, there should be someone else held accountable... becasue, in this case, its clear that the man's actions...leaving a loaded pistol in a car full of children...were directly responsible for the death. Its only comparable to a car crash if someone cut the brake lines or did something else to drastically increase the odds of there being something bad happening. As gun owners, we have certain responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is keeping weapons out of the hands of those too young or otherwise unable to safely handle them. leaving a pistol in a center console..loaded...in a car full of children...is negligent. How can you argue otherwise? When someone is grossly negligent and causes death, a crime has occurred. THAT is why we feel the need to "hold someone accountable". His actions directly lead to the loss of innocent life. why should he NOT be punished for that?!?!?!?!? As for the societal purpose....maybe its to remind people that loaded guns and unattended children can be an awful mix resulting in fatal results? Society punishes those that break its norms and/or laws. giving an unattended child access to a weapon isn't just stupid..its criminally negligent. unless you sincerely believe that the entire rule of law should be rewritten to redefine negligence and what constitutes it, your argument is weak and has little to stand on. While it may not meet your personal definition of negligence, it certainly meets the law's standard, and should thus be prosecuted as such.

[Bonesinium]

The debate in this thread is exactly why there are supposed to be fair trials with a jury of people who likely have different and conflicting opinions. That shouldn't be hard to tell when in this very thread opinion vary from that he shouldn't even be charged to that he should be hung.

I am inclined to agree with Double Naught Spy. Would he be charged with the same crime, if say, the three-year-old had strangled to death on a seatbelt?

So my question is, of what magnitude of negligence or mistake should be prosecuted and what shouldn't? Only negligence that leads to death? What about serious injury? What about a minor injury? What about the same scenario, except the child discharged the gun into the seat, and there were no injuries?

[alsaqr]

The guy was a cop who knew better. He left his kids unattended in a locked car: This alone would get one arrested in many US cities. He ignored the concerns of his wife about the loaded gun in the car.

Get arrested for leaving kids in a locked car with a loaded gun and see where that goes. In many jurisdictions the kids would be in temporary foster homes: The mother and father having been adjudged unfit parents.


i have no sympathy for the guy.

[Greg528iT]

The MAN (as in individual cop, no cop) in question appears to be negligent. Let the prosecutors and defending attorney plead their cases.
I suspect if I was called on the jury (and could be as I live in Snohomish County, same as Marysville) I would find him guilty. Though I do now have shown a predisposition to his guilt and may be nullified. This single thread is exactly WHY I would NOT want to be on that jury. Some defending him and want no punishment, some saying hang him.

As for if you thought a 3 YO capable of pulling the trigger. It doesn't matter, the other kids in the car were certainly old enough.

YES, many household situations are deadly. Generally speaking, NONE are as instantaneously deadly as a firearm is. I believe firearms should have extra precautions put on them.
I would find a parent just as culpable for a child's death for a gun shot as rat poison left out on the kitchen floor. Jail time should be served in both cases. Their kid, a neighbors kid. Apply the law evenly.

If I was convicted of anything.. I lose my job, it's written the employment contract I signed. My career is OVER.

[Clipper]

State law requires firearms to be kept secure from children, and provides for criminal charges for the owner of a firearm if it is accessed and misused by a minor.

Follow the law.

P.S. If this guy is that slack with his gun around his own family, I don't EVEN want him being a cop and carrying that thing around me and mine.

[rajb123]

I was given my first rimfire rifle at age 6. I was taught gun safety at an early age.

So what?

In the subject case, mom and pop are BOTH guilty of negligence and should be prosecuted for manslaughter. My hope is that each would serve at least 10 years in the pokie. The children who are still alive should be orphined to a good home, hopefully where gun safety is taught early in life.

[NavyLCDR]

State law requires firearms to be kept secure from children, and provides for criminal charges for the owner of a firearm if it is accessed and misused by a minor.

Follow the law.

P.S. If this guy is that slack with his gun around his own family, I don't EVEN want him being a cop and carrying that thing around me and mine.
Really? You will be able to provide a Washington State law that requires this? Probably not, because there isn't a Washington State Law that requires it.

The closest law in Washington is:

RCW 9.41.080
Delivery to ineligible persons.

No person may deliver a firearm to any person whom he or she has reasonable cause to believe is ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm. Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony, punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

[csa77]

Just leaving the kids in the car would you arrested in my state and probably a visit by the DCF. Im not at all surprised that this guy is a police officer, they are typically above the law so what does it matter if he locks his kids in the car with a loaded gun...probably standard operating procedure.


He's Guilty. I've love to be on that jury.

[Clipper]

I feel like an idiot...There's a Marysville here, and for some reason I convinced myself it was that one. Michigan does indeed have the statutes I mentioned. Sorry.

[andrewstorm]

.......in the 1890,s.........

[NavyLCDR]

I feel like an idiot...There's a Marysville here, and for some reason I convinced myself it was that one. Michigan does indeed have the statutes I mentioned. Sorry.
Honest mistake. You just didn't notice that I posted RCWs instead of MCLs :-)

[BaltimoreBoy]

Well...he probably shouldn't be a cop.

That said, does it make sense to cage him? At taxpayer expense?
And put his family on welfare? At taxpayer expense?
Would the situation be improved by jailing his wife?
Then we could put the kids in the state foster care system.

Someone in the thread asked the rhetorical question about what if it was your daughter? Again, what does the caging get you in that case? The old germanic Weregild makes more sense.

Clearly we do not have mens rea here - though we do have a case of mens vacante.

It's a ghastly thing. Jailing the guy isn't going to help anyone or deter anyone. A truly conservative mind recognizes that sometimes there isn't any good solution.

[ultratec1]

Wow I sure in the heck dont want any of you for my jury, you've already strung the rope and tied the noose. Sure is a good thing times have changed because if it hadnt people like yourselves would be running around with your six shooter strung to your hip and asking people if they were feeling lucky.


In MY OPINION this is a tragic event that could have been easily avoided, the father in this situation had that "it wont happen to me" attitude and unfortuantely it did . However in this case, what will happen if he is found guilty and sentenced to 10yrs in prison??

So your saying take him away from his other kids so that way they grow up with out a father?

How are you going to defend this.. by saying "good they are better off with out him?" How do you know what type of father he is? This is one circumstance where the outcome was the worst possible outcome there could have been. He could be the best father out there and had one horrible thing happen to him and his family.

[mljdeckard]

I do not agree at all the the wife is just as guilty as the husband. MAYBE if he wasn't a cop. But he is. He holds a higher level of responsibility for safety and security than a regular citizen. I can see that the charge is justified, but if I were involved in the process, I would encourage a plea bargain.

[Davek1977]

How do you know what type of father he is? This is one circumstance where the outcome was the worst possible outcome there could have been. He could be the best father out there and had one horrible thing happen to him and his family Pretending he is father of the year is just as presumptuous as thinking he is a poor father. For all we know, a prison sentence may be keeping his OTHER children out of harm's way. He failed.,..to an extreme.... at a father's number one job-making sure his family is safe. I agree there isn't enough info to make a determination either way, but assuming he is SuperDad is just as silly as assuming he's a scumbag.

[Double Naught Spy]

That said, does it make sense to cage him? At taxpayer expense?
And put his family on welfare? At taxpayer expense?

If found guilty, he should receive the appropriate sentencing for the conviction. If potential future hard luck of 3rd parties to the convicted person was an issue for sentencing, we would have a lot more criminals out on the street

MAYBE if he wasn't a cop. But he is. He holds a higher level of responsibility for safety and security than a regular citizen.

I have always thought that holding part of the population to a higher legal standard was stupid. It certainly isn't a Constitutional provision that law enforcement, government officials, etc. be held to a higher standard, or that such folks should be cut some slack that would not apply to the rest of the population.

Assuming he is held to a higher standard because he is a cop that then results in a conviction, do you then sentence him to much less time, maybe none at all, because he is a copy who has spent years providing a community service and because his crime wasn't against the community in general?

How is it determined as to what the higher standard should be? Are you talking about charges being filed that would not otherwise be filed? Less evidence for conviction? A lower level of transgression producing a higher level of sentencing?

[smalls]

He's held to that higher responsibility because WE pay him to.

[BaltimoreBoy]

"If potential future hard luck of 3rd parties to the convicted person was an issue for sentencing, we would have a lot more criminals out on the street."

Granted, but the point is that the man is not a "criminal" as we ordinarily understand the term any more than someone who backs up over their toddler with fatal results. Nothing is gained for anyone by putting him in jail.

[NavyLCDR]

"If potential future hard luck of 3rd parties to the convicted person was an issue for sentencing, we would have a lot more criminals out on the street."

Granted, but the point is that the man is not a "criminal" as we ordinarily understand the term any more than someone who backs up over their toddler with fatal results. Nothing is gained for anyone by putting him in jail.
From all indications, this man violated RCW 9A.32.070, his actions fitting all of the elements of the crime perfectly. If he is found guilty by a jury, it certainly does make him a criminal, a felon in fact. The fact that he is a police officer, with "extra training" in the handling of firearms, lends further proof that he should have known that a substantial risk exists when you leave children unattended with loaded firearms within view and reach, ESPECIALLY since testimony exists that the child in question has played with and shown interest in handling firearms in the past, including pointing toy firearms at their siblings previously.

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.

(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.

[bikemutt]

May be worth it to keep in mind that just because he has been charged does not mean he will necessarily go to jail or prison. He still must be convicted of the crime and sentenced. There's a chance for a jury of his peers to weigh in, and the judge may well go easy on him come sentencing.

As far as what he deserves, well if I did what he did (or failed to do) and I was convicted and faced sentencing for the crime, then whatever I'd get is what I'd expect him to get.

[hermannr]

How many here think that a person who has a firearm stolen and then used in a crime should be prosecuted???

Think about it a bit...

[Dlowe167]

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Marysville-police-officer-charged-with-manslaughter-in-daughters-death-152640455.html

What do you think? Proper charge? Guilty or no? Is the loss of the child enough "sentence served"?

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.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;

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.
Get rid of mpd. Get more sherriffs,they cost less

[jscott]

I lived in Marysville, where this officer worked, for several years. I still own a house there. I was a deputy for Snohomish County, the agency that investigated. I have worked shifts patrolling the streets of Stanwood, where the incident occurred. I know Mark Roe, the prosecutor, personally - I am not a fan.

That being said, the right charging decision was made in this case. Officer Carlisle knew better. He was reminded by someone (his wife) who should have known less than him, but ignored the warning. He locked his kids in a vehicle with an easily accessible, loaded firearm, in plain view and within easy reach. To top it off, he was fully aware of his child's fascination with firearms and repeated attempts to gain access to them even when they were secured.

He was negligent. Criminally negligent.

He will be tried and I have little doubt that he will be convicted. He should be. Surely any private citizen would be as well.

Arguments to the effect of, "haven't they suffered enough," "who will pay the bills," etc. simply ring hollow. When a drug dealer is arrested for peddling crack do the kids not lose their source of support? Do we decline to press charges against someone because their arrest will cause emotional stress and be a financial burden upon their family, or the taxpayers for that matter? No, tragically the offender has created an entirely separate set of victims. That is not the fault of the prosecutor or the criminal justice system. The burden lies with the offender alone. That is the nature of crime. One person offends and should bear the burden but many others pay the consequences. I hate the fact that families suffer as a result of criminal actions but that does not excuse the offense nor justify the declining of charges.

This child died as a direct, and indirect result, of Officer Carlisle's actions. Based upon the direct actions for which he should have forseen the possibility of deadly consequences, he is guilty of a crime. Because some of the actions were not direct and his intent could never be argued as an intent to kill, it is not murder but manslaughter.

The charges are appropriate, though tragic.

[MyGreenGuns]

I live/work in the Marysville area. There was much discussion about this when it happened, as well as the incident in (Tacoma?)

Everyone asked me what I thought, since I am the "Gun Nut". I said this then, I'll say it on this forum.

FIRST: A few questions

Would you consider it "reasonable" to leave children unattended in a car?
Would you consider it "reasonable" to leave children with a loaded gun?
Noone ever said, "YES" to those questions.
So a "reasonable" person sees this as dangerous.

Would you consider combining those dangers a "substantial risk"?
Noone ever said, "NO" to that question.
So a "reasonable" person sees this as a "substantial risk".

-=-=-=-
SECOND: Lets look at the LAW.

(1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when, with criminal negligence, he or she causes the death of another person.
Was there a "death of another person"?
No doubt, a child no less!

Was it criminal negligence?
Let look at the LAW.

(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.

He failed to acknowledge the potential dangers a reasonable person should.
YES, this is clearly "criminal negligence".

-=-=-=-
THIRD: the punishment

First of all, ignore the fact that he was a Police officer.

"Criminal Negligence" is a felony. It should carry all the weight it does for any other felon.
(I Am Not A Lawyer: but I dont think "let them go, I'm sure they're sorry" is the standard.)

-=-=-=-=-
OTHER COMMENTS:
How many here think that a person who has a firearm stolen and then used in a crime should be prosecuted???
Think about it a bit...
If you fail to report a stolen firearm, you may be the first place the police look. If you cannot prove you were somewhere else when the crime occured, you may well be prosecuted. Our system isn't perfect.

May be worth it to keep in mind that just because he has been charged does not mean he will necessarily go to jail or prison. He still must be convicted of the crime and sentenced. There's a chance for a jury of his peers to weigh in, and the judge may well go easy on him come sentencing.^I think people to hold to a higher standard those who make and enforce the laws. That same higher standard also buys higher sympathy. Our system isn't perfect.

[mljdeckard]

Police are held to a higher standard for several reasons.

For firearms, their training is documented and articulated. There is paper that can be shown in court that shows that they knew better. They are in positions of public trust. They are the ones we look to for order and organization when there is a crisis. Being armed professionals, they are the standard for safe firearm handling. They have a DUTY to confront danger, where the rest of us have a right to protect ourselves FROM danger. They are trusted with the benefit of the doubt when weighing our rights against the need for safety and justice. If an individual shows that he cannot be trusted with this responsibility, it's time for him to go.

[BaltimoreBoy]

"From all indications, this man violated RCW 9A.32.070, his actions fitting all of the elements of the crime perfectly. If he is found guilty by a jury, it certainly does make him a criminal, a felon in fact."

Understood - but "the man is not a "criminal" as we ordinarily understand the term" my original quote stands.

Remember there are whole lots of 'felony' offenses on the books that would have astonished Americans of bygone eras. Just because they are on the books doesn't mean that they are right or judicious. That's the point I'm actually trying to make.

[Davek1977]

I understand "criminal" to be someone who has committed an action outside of the law. To define it any other way is mere semantics and often emotion-based. While there are some laws out there I don't see a need for, criminal negligence, espeically in a case so blatant, isn't one of those laws. He was stupid...criminally stupid...and as such, was charged appropriately in my view....ESPECIALLY when a nearly identical case was prosecuted previously, involving a non-officer.

[NavyLCDR]

How many here think that a person who has a firearm stolen and then used in a crime should be prosecuted???

Think about it a bit...
Why don't you try comparing apples to apples? How many people here think that a person who leaves a loaded handgun unattended, within sight and easy reach of a known felon should be prosecuted when that felon takes that gun and commits a crime with it?

We already know, hermannr, that you don't believe in the concept of negligence. We get that. 99% of us don't agree with you.

[Old Fuff]

We already know, hermannr, that you don't believe in the concept of negligence. We get that. 99% of us don't agree with you.

Agreed... Beyond question.

But no one seems to be interested in what might be done to reduce such incidents in the future.

[NavyLCDR]

Agreed... Beyond question.

But no one seems to be interested in what might be done to reduce such incidents in the future.
At what point do you stop and say, "We've done all we can to prevent this. No we just need to enforce the measures we have put in place."

No matter what laws and restrictions we put into place, there are always going to be those that violate them. And if we continue to exclaim, "He has suffered enough, there is no need to prosecute or punish!" then those laws and restrictions become completely meaningless and without any chance of preventing anything.

The prevention, in this instance, would have been for the police officer to exercise just the smallest amount of common sense and not leave small children locked in the car unattended with a loaded handgun in sight and within reach. Less than 2 minutes of extra action, unloading the gun and locking it up, would have prevented this.

[jim in Anchorage]

Ok they throw the book at him, he goes to jail for 27 months. Where will the money come from to sustain his family? What will the jail time accomplish? Will he be able to work in Law Enforcement ever again? Those that are all for crucifying this man have to realize he will never, ever forget his negligence. Children can do more in 30 seconds than we give them credit for.
ll

Thats unbelievable. So if a trunk driver kills some one DWI he should not be prosecuted because he will lose his license and never drive a truck again? Who will support his family? It was a accident, after all. He never meant to hurt anyone.

[7thCavScout]

This same situation happened in my wife's family. Her uncle was an LAPD homicide detective. He left his service weapon on the fireplace mantel. Their five year old son shot and killed his three year old sister. It tore that family/marriage apart.

[FourTeeFive]

But no one seems to be interested in what might be done to reduce such incidents in the future.

In the words of Ron White, "You can't fix stupid"

What happened was directly due to the actions of an individual who lacked common sense and did not follow very basic rules of gun safety. It only makes matters worse that he was "trained" to be a professional who handles a gun on a daily basis.

What do you do to reduce such incidents in the future? I'm not sure that common sense is a requirement for a LEO job.

And when I say "stupid" I am being High Road. It is legitimate to call someone as such when their actions clearly indicate a lack of intelligent thought.

[Carl N. Brown]

....the 3-year-old often tried to get into the home safe that holds Carlile’s guns, that he has his own air soft gun and a toy revolver and that Carlile has shot a BB gun with the boy. During a court ordered interview with police, the 5-year-old allegedly said the 3-year-old always wanted his mother to “get him guns” and that when he played his toy guns, the 3-year-old “Pretends to shoot us.”

I recall letters from parents in the NRA journal American Rifleman who wrote that they did not believe in toy guns and would not allow their kids to play games where they shot at each other. They were taught the responsible use of real weapons as soon as they were old enough to realize the consequences.

[Old Fuff]

In the words of Ron White, "You can't fix stupid"

Actually, sometimes you can.

For example, if every law enforcement officer or agent reading this thread called it to the attention of the department or agency training officer (or whoever might be in charge) a simple briefing might jog the thinking of someone who frankly hadn't thought about it. Short articles in professional magazines wouldn't hurt.

Firearms instructors of all kinds could include this in their presentations.

Outside of law enforcement discussing this incident with friends and associates might clue someone in, especially so at gun clubs and at gun shops.

Ultimately the solution to ignorance is education and knowledge. If this prevented just one similar incident the effort would have been worth it. Simply pointing fingers and doing nothing else is the embodiment of stupid.

[NavyLCDR]

Hopefully hearing, "Hey, did you hear that Joe got 10 years for leaving his gun in the car with his kids?" in the locker room will help to prevent future occurrences.

[Old Fuff]

Hopefully hearing, "Hey, did you hear that Joe got 10 years for leaving his gun in the car with his kids?" in the locker room will help to prevent future occurrences.

Maybe, but specific, positive, constructive instructions on how to best secure a handgun when it isn't under their direct control might work better.

[Frank Ettin]

...The prevention, in this instance, would have been for the police officer to exercise just the smallest amount of common sense and not leave small children locked in the car unattended with a loaded handgun in sight and within reach. Less than 2 minutes of extra action, unloading the gun and locking it up, would have prevented this....Ultimately the solution to ignorance is education and knowledge. If this prevented just one similar incident the effort would have been worth it.I can not believe that the officer did not how to avoid the risk of this sort of tragedy. He had all the knowledge he needed. But he failed to act on that knowledge.

[Tony_the_tiger]

I have sympathy for the family. It is one of the hard facts of life that sometimes you just can't take it back. I pray they will overcome the tragic loss of a loved one.

[bikemutt]

The excerpt below from an article in today's Seattle Times really knocks this guy down a notch in my eyes. I'm surprised they didn't add witness tampering to the list of charges.

Snohomish County recently used a special inquiry to compel the testimony of the 5-year-old daughter of a Marysville police officer after she saw her little brother shoot her older sister with her dad's gun. The officer, who now faces a manslaughter charge, had refused to let the girl speak with investigators.

Full article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018290663_specialinquiries26m.html

[mljdeckard]

There's stupid and then there's stupid.

I took my noob sis-in-law out this weekend, and I gave the safety briefing. I kept control of the kids' weapons, but when she picked them up to shoot, she flagged me more than once. I corrected her, and she got frustrated, because it's so simple, but she forgets to do it anyway. I calmed her down, telling her, I have had to correct 20+ year 'professional' military members who have heard the safety briefing a thousand times. SHE is still trainable.

[stickhauler]

Quote:
I have to think he should be made an example of. Doubly so due to the fact that he was LE, and I believe they need to be held to a "higher standard" of behavior, on and off the clock.
Quote:
but 2 weeks for a civilian couple verses over two months for the police officer, while he continues to draw his city provided paycheck?
So, society should be tougher on police officers simply because they are police officers? Funny how civies hold PO's to higher standards for purposes of behavior and discipline, yet those same civies cry when we get better pensions and labor contracts. You don't get it both ways! How many civies will also have their career flushed over such an incident? This man could. All this must be taken into consideration. Also, why shouldn't this man be on paid leave, he hasn't been found guilty of anything except on this forum.

IMHO, if one segment of society who is considered a "professional" is held to a higher standard than regular citizens, all should! I'm a trucker, in any interaction I have ever had with law enforcement in the course of my profession, it's stressed to me that "You should know better, you're a professional driver." The fine structure for traffic violations for professional drivers are more severe than those for regular motor vehicles, again, because we're considered "professionals."

Perhaps citizens complain about the "better" pension plans and labor contracts of public service workers because the taxpayers basically are blackmailed into going along with pretty much whatever police and fire fighters demand. If their demands aren't agreed to, we hear the threats that service will be affected. Your house will burn down, or the criminals will victimize you UNLESS we get what we want. Oh, that, and the fact your unions bankroll the campaigns of candidates who will approve most anything you ask for. Public service unions are the only employees who actually have a choice in who negotiates their contract from the management side and union side.

But in this case, yes, I feel we should be holding this cop to a higher standard than a typical citizen, or even his wife. He's the one who, if it's a regular citizen who makes such a glaring error as this, reads through the law books to throw every possible charge they can on the idiot who left a loaded gun in the car. He's also the guy who, if he finds a regular citizen locking their kids in the car will most certainly cite them for child neglect, and child endangering.

What bothers me even more in this case is his being off on administrative leave, with pay, while awaiting the decision to charge him.

You ask how many civilians would lose their profession if they were charged in a case like this? I'd say a good many, because they'd be jailed a lot faster than this. You don't think this is ENOUGH of a lapse of judgement to warrant this guy never being allowed to serve as a police officer? If not, clearly you must be the police union "rep", or their President.

Odd, how cops can be so judgmental towards civilians who display their stupidity in such a manner, yet so supporting of their fellow officers if they show how stupid they are.

[ilbob]

Just following the NRAs 3 gun safety rules would have prevented this mess. The gun is not in use, it is unloaded.

I don't much care for either the "I am a cop so I can do no wrong" or the "He is a cop so he should be subject to extra penalties" camp.

This is about what appears to be clear negligence on the part of someone who should have (and probably did) know better. He seems to have deliberately chosen a course of action that he had to have known was a poor choice and it resulted in an innocent person's death.

This is no different than a death caused by a drunk driver IMO. The drunk chose to drink and drive knowing full well that his actions dramatically increase the risk to others. This guy did the same thing. If someone dies from your deliberate choice to do something that puts innocent lives at a much heightened risk for no good reason, you need to do some time.

[rajb123]

My hope is that the wife/mother is also charged and convicted of manslaughter. It just seems like the right thing to do. ...some call it justice.

[brickeyee]

Not a lot of difference to leaving the baby in the child seat in a locked car in the summer.

The fact that it causes an easily foreseen death is what makes it rise to criminal negligence.

Time for a stay at the gray bar hotel.

It may not teach him anything (he is likely a real 'big guy' if even after this wife said something he continued.

Maybe it will slow down his further reproduction (we know the dead child is not going to have any children).

There comes a time when simply punishing the offender is called for, and this would appear to be one of those cases.

Sometimes you only get to make a mistake once.

[hermannr]

Agreed... Beyond question.

But no one seems to be interested in what might be done to reduce such incidents in the future.
Judgement and penilty will go far beyond this case if the man is conviced. The legal theory that this man was responsible for his sons overt action in this case will set precident and you will hear calls for manditory gun locks, and manditory gun safes and insurance...everything leading to what the anti's want...price people out of gun ownership.

If someone is to be restricted from handling any weapon, it should be the person that performed the act, not the owner of the tool. I don't care the kid was three, when the law restricting gun access, it will effect everyone, not just the one.

The second this is the theory that a person can be criminally charged for the actions of someone else...that is a very dangerous theory...I realize most, if not all of you guys don't agree with me, but you are not looking deep enough.

As I said, If the dad had handed this child a loaded handgun, and then the child shot his sister, I would agree it was neglence (but still not homocide) on the part of the parent...but not in this (or the one in Tacoma) case. There was no overt act on the part of the parent that led to the child picking up the gun and firing it.

[Jim NE]

Most guns at my house are in the locked safe, but some have gravitated to another more convenient location. I used to thing a padlocked carrying bag was good enough for guns not in the safe, but now I at least use a padlocked strong box or ammo box for handguns. Only guns that are left out are a few bolt actions with the bolts removed and locked away. All ammo locked away.

I'm about 5 to 10 times safer than my dad was with his guns when we were growing up, but there's just too much to lose.

I feel more sorrow than resentment for this poor man who lost his daughter, but that shouldn't be the sole consideration for his punishment. Judge has to do what he can to keep it from happening to someone else. In truth, I don't know how I feel about his sentence. Conflicted.

[NavyLCDR]

If someone is to be restricted from handling any weapon, it should be the person that performed the act, not the owner of the tool.

Here is what you absolutely positively cannot understand:

The person who performed the act WAS LEGALLY RESTRICTED FROM HANDLING THE WEAPON (especially under the circumstances under which they handled the gun)! The person who now has charges filed against them ILLEGALLY PROVIDED THE GUN TO THE RESTRICTED PERSON!

How hard is that to figure out.

The child violated 18 USC 922 (x)(2). The parent violated 18 USC 922 (x)(1).
The child also violated RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) and the parent violated RCW 9.41.080.

RCW=Revised Code of Washington. USC=United States Code.

[Frank Ettin]

...If someone is to be restricted from handling any weapon, it should be the person that performed the act, not the owner of the tool. I don't care the kid was three, when the law restricting gun access, it will effect everyone, not just the one...The officer was charged under well established, long standing law relating to one's criminal liability for his own gross negligence. This isn't breaking ground.

...The second this is the theory that a person can be criminally charged for the actions of someone else...He's not being charged for the actions of another. He's being charged for his own actions, i. e., leaving a dangerous instrumentality unsecured and available to someone likely to misuse it.

[NavyLCDR]

He's not being charged for the actions of another. He's being charged for his own actions, i. e., leaving a dangerous instrumentality unsecured and available to someone likely to misuse it.

And illegal to possess it, too.

[Davek1977]

The legal theory that this man was responsible for his sons overt action in this case will set precident and you will hear calls for manditory gun locks, and manditory gun safes and insurance...everything leading to what the anti's want...price people out of gun ownership.

Maybe so, but I don't think the solution is ignoring the law any time a conviction may threaten gun rights. The "bigger picture" cannot be used to justify ignoring a crime, especially one so easily avoided. While you cannot wrap your head around it, the man violated established law. One's belief that this law should not be so does absolutely nothing to justify overlooking a crime or allowing a criminal to go unpunished. As strongly as I want something, wanting alone doesn't make it so. You can campaign to have the laws repealed, but a belief that the law is wrong doesn't mean that the legal ideals behind the law are invalid or wrong. You have a strong OPINION on the issue, which you seem to be confusing with fact. the facts are, the man violated the law, and its my personal opinion he should be prosecuted for doing so, regardless of impact. If we start questioning whether or not to charge someone based on the potential public reactions of a conviction, we might as well throw away our law books and start over, as the law has lost all its power and/or meaning.

I realize most, if not all of you guys don't agree with me, but you are not looking deep enough.
So, what you're saying is that you're right, and anyone who disagrees is too dumb to see why? real highroad there..... maybe, just maybe, we have studied the issue just as intently as you have, and have come to entirely different conclusions based on that research. To assume that you're the only one who can understand the issue is rather elitist don't you think? Isn't it possible that someone can fully understand, yet disagree with, your opinions that the law should virtually be ignored in light of the potential bigger picture in relation to the issue of gun rights?

[rajb123]

It is like the women who took a loaded Regminton 700 and pointed it at a horse trailer and then attempted to unload the gun. The gun fired and killed her 8 year old son who was standing on the other side of the rig.

Simply, you can FIX stupidity.

I say charge both parents with manslaughter and hope they spend teh next couple of decades in the slammer.