a different twist on ND.... felony charges

[SSN Vet]

Here's something else to think about when handling your firearms... that ND could land you in jail. Not sure of all the details associated with this ND...

But they are confirming no drugs or alcohol, yet they are pursuing felony charges.

I know of at least one time when the Dover PD pursued a firearms related witch hunt (targeting a popular city counselor bent on cutting spending and taxes).

I'm having a hard time thinking up a scenario that would aggregate the event to the level of a felony.

Here's the link....
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101210/GJNEWS_01/712109902

Here's a few partial quotes......

DOVER — A Hough Street man is facing felony charges for accidentally discharging a firearm and causing a superficial gunshot wound to another man last month.............
The victim was grazed in the neck by the bullet.............
Police...........determined Purington was not drinking or using any illegal drugs at the time, but said the reckless use of the gun would cause the charge to be felonious.

 

[mbogo]

If the guy was reckless (disassembling a loaded gun with his finger on the trigger) and someone was injured, it doesn't surprise me that he is being prosecuted. A felony? I do not think it rises to the level of felonious behavior.

He needs a sharp lawyer to bargain it down to a misdemeanor at worst. His lawyer should bring up the number of NDs by police officers to show that <removed by moderator> happens, and this is an unwarranted prosecution.

mbogo

 

[Tim the student]

I'm having a hard time thinking up a scenario that would aggregate the event to the level of a felony.

I'd guess its because he shot somebody. I'm not sure if I really have a problem with that either actually.

 

[george30]

First of all the guy is an idiot and his friend is very lucky he just got grazed near his neck. They charged him with a felony so that he would plea down to a misdemeanor. The lawyer just needs to show the tape of the police officer in florida that shot himself in the foot while teaching a group of young students about guns. A good lawyer will get it down to a misdemeanor with a hefty fine and probably no jail time. It seems like a witch hunt but his stupidity almost got someone killed.

 

[William Lee]

I agree with Tim. Felony might be a bit harsh, but I don't see a problem with charges being filed. If Maine has some sort of reckless or negligent injury law, it would probably fall under that. I mean, the no alcohol or drugs thing kind of makes it even worse that he had an ND doesn't it?

 

[SpentCasing]

When will people ever agree that just throwing cops and laws at a problem is NOT a solution. Premise goes far beyond guns.:banghead:

 

[Frank Ettin]

When will people ever agree that just throwing cops and laws at a problem is NOT a solution. Premise goes far beyond guns.

But let's stay focused on this situation. What do we do about grossly stupid gun handling resulting in injury to someone?

Do you think that mandatory safety training and qualification should be required before someone can have a gun? You'll find a lot of folks around here who don't like that idea.

Maybe you think the guy ought to be financially responsible for the damage he caused? Well actually, he already is. But he probably has no money, so sticking him with the bill is a pretty hollow gesture.

People need to understand that they must not handle guns (or other potentially dangerous instrumentalities) in a reckless manner. So when someone nonetheless is reckless with a dangerous instrumentality and actually hurts another person, perhaps some judicially imposed attitude adjustment is in order.

As for being charges as a felony, the bullet grazed the poor victim's neck. So a couple of inches in the wrong direction, and he would have been a corpse as well as a victim. Charging as a felony doesn't really seem out of line, although, as other have pointed out, it may be dropped to a misdemeanor as part of a plea deal.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

I know just as many cops (compared to to non-LE) that have accidentally discharged firearms. Governing institutions ought to consider that the next cop, politician, or bureaucrat might be the next one charged for a similar incident.

 

[Tim the student]

When will people ever agree that just throwing cops and laws at a problem is NOT a solution.

I share your general sentiment, but when someone gets shot - I think it is generally time for the law to be involved. It may not be time to throw him in prison, but it is time to think about some possible punishments, IMO. I am no lawyer, but I'd guess that they went felony so they can come down if they want to.

Governing institutions ought to consider that the next cop, politician, or bureaucrat might be the next one charged for a similar incident.

Absolutely. But shooting someone (even out of negligence, or stupidity, or whatever) is not quite the same as having a ND/AD.

 

[Art Eatman]

A negligent accident should be a civil matter, not criminal.

The actual subject of this thread should be concerning what laws were broken by the shooter. "Reckless" behavior is a judgement call on the part of the LEOs or prosecutor.

In the particular circumstance, I can see "stupid" or "ignorant", but I don't see "reckless".

In the circumstance, how is it different from dropping a hammer off a roof, or making a mis-lick with an axe? Seems to me that it was a normal procedure, but done in a careless manner...

 

[Frank Ettin]

A negligent accident should be a civil matter, not criminal....

And so it is. But our legal system has long recognized a more egregious breach of duty than negligence -- and less egregious than intentionally causing harm. That breach of duty is variously referred to a "gross negligence", "recklessness" or "willful, wanton and reckless conduct."

Thus our laws recognize three levels of potentially harmful behavior: negligence; recklessness; and intentional. There are detailed definitions for each, and those definitions vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. And in general, causing harm negligently carries no criminal liability; but doing so recklessly usually does, and doing so intentionally will always expose one to possible criminal liability.

Negligence is often defined along the lines of a failure exercise the care that a reasonable person would under like circumstances and considering the foreseeability and possible gravity of harm to others, i. e., the more foreseeable and graver the possible harm, the more careful the reasonable person will be, and a failure to meet that standard of care which results in foreseeable harm is what constitutes negligence. In contrast, reckless (or willful and wanton, etc.) conduct is that which shows an utter indifference to, or conscious disregard of, a person's own safety and the safety of others.

In any given situation, there may be a question of whether the actor's breach of duty was mere negligence or was sufficiently egregious to be reckless (or willful and wanton, etc.). Resolving that sort of disagreement is one of the things that courts do and what a trial would be about.

 

[rocky branch]

Some people are stuck on stupid.
No amount of training or educating will endow them with common sense.

More often than not, an innocent bystander pays the price.

 

[Cosmoline]

and causing a superficial gunshot wound to another man

That takes it to felony level.