CT: Husband may be charged in wife's suicide

Status
Not open for further replies.

GregoryTech

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
157
Location
FL
Norwalk-WTNH, July 31, 2003 6:08 PM) _ A suicidal woman pulls the trigger after her husband leaves a loaded gun near their bed. So is he to blame for her death?

That's the question prosecutors are wrestling with. The woman's sister thinks so. So do police. But if the state's attorney takes on this case, it could set legal precedent in Connecticut.

"She started actually telling me that if she was going to die it would be with a gun, that she needed a gun and that she wanted to kill herself that way," says Laura Bricale.

In October 2001, 32-year-old Joan Bartush was hospitalized after attempting suicide. Ten days later she was released. Two days after that she was dead.

It was a Saturday morning at the Norwalk condo Bartush shared with her husband and daughter. As her husband Steven got out of the shower Bartush sat on the edge of her bed and pulled the trigger of a medium caliber hand gun.

While the suicide death of a young wife and mother is undoubtedly tragic, police in Norwalk are convinced it is also criminal. So is her sister Laura Bricale.

"She may have pulled the trigger, but still that loaded gun had to be right there because she didn't go and search for it," Bricale said. "She didn't go and pry it out of a lock box and load a gun. It was right there."

Law enforcement sources say the loaded hand gun was left near the bed by her husband, despite the fact her sister says the psychiatric facility which treated her specifically told her husband to remove the guns he kept at the home.

"They had told Steve that the guns really had to be taken out of the house and that he said he wouldn't take them out of the house but that he would keep them locked up," Bricale said.

Now, after an extensive interview with Steven Bartush, police are asking prosecutors to take on what would be a precedent setting case.

Team 8 has learned Norwalk Police detectives have written up an application for an arrest warrant for Steven Bartush. They have given it to the state's attorney for his review and approval, but that was months ago.

Police are seeking a manslaughter charge, but State's Attorney David Cohen says he's struggling with the decision.

"I together with my staff will sit down and evaluate whether there is any criminal activity there and whether any prosecution is warranted," Cohen said.

"I don't envy the prosecutor. It's a tough call," says Jack Kelly, former chief state's attorney in Connecticut.

"There's a specific statutory or penal code definition concerning recklessness. What the prosecutor has to do is match that definition with the facts in the arrest warrant and make that decision," Kelly said. "The issue becomes did he have any duty based upon the information or advice he got from the hospital to do anything concerning that hand gun and that's an evolving area of the criminal law."

As for Steven Bartush, he says "I'm absolutely blown away by this."
"At what part?"
"At everything."

We tried asking him about the investigation and why he didn't remove or lock up all his weapons. He wouldn't comment. But police and his wife's family want Steven Bartush to face charges not for what he did but for what he didn't do.

"Is there any doubt in your mind whether Steven Bartush is responsible for your sister's death?"
"No, there is no doubt," says Laura Bricale.

Bricale told us today prosecutors have requested a meeting with her and her family to discuss the case. They may learn whether prosecutors will step up to the plate or take a pass.
 
Of course the husband is guilty. There isn't ANY other possible way the wife could have killed herself if there wasn't any guns. Suicide CANNOT be commited unless a gun is available. So that's it!

Now might we discuss suicide rates in Japan? Must be a lot more guns in that country then I thought ........
 
Ugh!!! Where to start on this one. The sister needs immediate medical attention if you ask me. In the form of something psychiatric.

In October 2001, 32-year-old Joan Bartush was hospitalized after attempting suicide. Ten days later she was released. Two days after that she was dead.

May as well start up a law suit against the hospital too. How dare they release someone that was obviously not safe to herself. While we're at it, let's sue the insurance company because they are the ones that probably wouldn't pay the bill beyond ten days. Oh, and wait, maybe a suit against the gun manufacturer and the gun store that sold it should be tacked on. Oh hell, might as well sue FedEx or UPS for delivering the damned thing to the gunstore from the manufactuer. Why stop there, we can even go after the delivery driver that delivered it to the gun store. He is surely somehow responsible for this. This woman was a brainless robot incapable of making her own decisions. She couldn't have killed herself. It must be someone else's fault.

On top of all this let's lock up her grieving husband that placed that gun there on the nightstand to protect himself, his wife and kid. Now the kid has no parents. Way to go my DA man!!!

Did I convey my anger about this yet?

GT
 
IF the husband thought his wife was suicidal he was a fool to not lock up the guns so she could not get to them -- as well as knives, drugs, cleaning supplies, etc. (how do you "suicide proof" a house?). But his failure would then be a moral one and not, I believe, a criminal offence.:(
 
He was negligent, but whether he was criminally negligent is the issue.
 
Guys,

I agree they should outlaw suicide, not the guns... Ohh wait...isn't suicide already illegal in most states? Idiots!

I think NJ should concentrate on enforcing the laws already in effect instead of coming up with new gun laws that no one will enforce. Leave responsible gun owners alone.

I guess they will never learn! Politicians just plain Suck in my book!

Now I am not condoning what the husband did, but I would venture to bet, the gun was there for a reason, and maybe he totally forgot it was there in all that was going on in his life.

I had an Aunt that attempted suicide, and was released from the hospital a few days later, her husband (my uncle if you must) left her home alone the day she got out, and went fishing...what a jerk!
 
don't see what criminal charge they can bring him up on unless they can prove he was part of a plan for her to kill herself.

however, seems to me like there's a strong civil case here, despite how stupid it is. strict liability, negligence, could play either way. don't think this affects gun rights though, unless it comes through on strict liability.
 
themic,

i think thats what they are thinking - that he deliberately provided the gun for her to make the attempt on her own life (as if he'd provided a draught of sleeping pills); exactly how they could prove that in the absence of any witnesses or other evidence is another matter. if they can prove that then he should be liable, at the very least for assisting a suicide or like offence.
 
So because there is rope in my shed in the backyard and the key is out in plain sight... If my wife hangs herself on that rope I'll be criminally negligent?:banghead:
 
No, I don't think so. What agricola and others are saying, and I agree, is that if the husband made it very easy for her to get the gun or he actually left it in plain sight with the thought that she should kill herself, then he should be charged. Proving it, however, would be an uphill battle for the DA, and that is probably what they are struggling with.

If I may refine your analogy, AFB: if you left the rope in the house in plain sight and (very important difference here) in the form of a noose, then you might be found criminally negligent. Guns are inherently deadly, ropes are not.
 
Guns are inherently deadly, ropes are not.
Inanimate objects are not inherently deadly.

Gun: One must aim and pull the trigger for suicide to occur


Rope: A knot, not necessarily a noose, and something high to throw it over, head in the loop, step off, and suicide.

Car: Enclosed space, vacuum hose in through the window, start engine, and suicide.

Etc., etc., etc...
he actually left it in plain sight with the thought that she should kill herself
Ah! The good old Thought Police. Where would socialists be without the good ol' Thought Police?

Why not just convict him, or any of us, the moment we "thought" we wanted to buy an "inherently deadly" object? Oh, wait, that's what they already do in socialist worker's paradises.

:scrutiny: :uhoh: :barf: :barf:
 
The government should leave him alone. The family should kill him. The mother of his child has just been released from the hospital for a suicide attempt - She tells everyone that she is going succeed at killing herself if she can find a gun - The loving husband leaves a loaded gun next to her bed and goes to take a shower. Gimme a break. Unless this is some kinda mercy suicide assistance, that guy needs to pay.
 
Jeez, Duncan, way to spin!

Guns are inherently deadly in the hands of a suicidal person, which I am sure you understood is what I was saying.

Ah! The good old Thought Police.
Taking my sentence out of context without adding or reading the following sentence is ludicrous.
 
duncan,

thats not the issue. If she had stated verbally to him (as she stated to her sister) that she wanted to shoot herself in the head, and then he leaves a loaded gun near the bed then that is negligent - he has been made aware of the potential outcome (which can be understood as real given her history) and has wilfully failed to take reasonable steps to prevent said outcome; on one level its the same as a mechanic noticing worn brake pads and yet failing to replace them causing an accident. obviously if he knew what she was going to do and aided her then thats something else entirely.

how much warning he had of this will be crucial to any charges laid.
 
Someone died, someone must pay.

Civil or criminal, he loses either way. It really is a question of if he left it there for her to use.

Myself, If that were the case, I'd be worried she might try to off me along with herself while in the shower or miss and have one enter the shower by her attempted suicide.

They do need to look at any possible motives he may have had in leaving it accessable to her unattended.

"Here honey, I'm leaving the loaded 357 on the nightstand while I take a shower, now don't do anything foolish"

Brownie
 
Hopefully the guy was an idiot and forgot to lock up the gun.

Doubtful.

The husband was probably sick and tired of the whole situation and decided to help it along.

More believable.

It would have been just as bad if he had taken her skydiving and she had
failed to pull the ripcord.

I believe people should be able to take their own life if they want to. Unless its a Kevorkian situation, no help or encouragement should be given.
 
Someone died, someone must pay.
Then if that is indeed the case, the state is to blame for having let her out of the hospital. Had she been deemed mentally incompetent (for being a danger to herself) then she should have been placed in protective confinement. Either she was a suicidal danger to herself, or she wasn't. Either they have a sure way to protect people like that, or they don't. If the state doesn't have a sure way to protect suicidal people from themselves, then it is totally unreasonable to expect anyone else to.

Either that, or what you are saying is that it was simply a matter of time before the husband was going to pay anyway. If he had driven her home from the hospital, and they got stopped in a traffic jam on a bridge over a river, and she had jumped to her death off of the bridge, then he would have to pay. Why didn't he weld her door shut? Why didn't he take a different route home? Why didn't he hire a submarine for water crossings so she wouldn't be up so high?

If he had gone to work and left his razor on the sink, and she slit her wrists, he would have to pay, right?

If he left her alone at all, and she managed to kill herself, it's his fault right? He knew she was suicidal.

If he left a blowdryer in the bathroom, and she pulled it into the full tub with her, he would be the one to blame, right? He knew that she could kill herself with electricity.

How come the sister doesn't have to pay? How does anyone know that she didn't know that he knew what she was going to do???? (quick, get the thought police, they'll know)

The good news is that Kommienecticutt is 3,000 miles away from me, and at that distance, I can't even see the shyster vultures that will pick over this poor woman's bones (and whatever will be left of her husband) in order to further their own political agenda, and personal greed.
 
Duncan: I think you're making a good case for the prosecution. You're correct, in that the choice of tool is irrelevant. But if this guy knew that his wife desired to slash her wrists, or hang herself, and he intentionally left a razor blade, or rope, by the bed - he would be just as guilty. Intent is what matters. The legal question is not about the fact that she killed herself - it is about his actions which facillitated and encouraged the act.
 
The legal question is not about the fact that she killed herself - it is about his actions which facillitated and encouraged the act.
I disagree.

She already tried suicide. Had she tried it again using the same method (presumably she didn't use a gun the first time) the sister - and more importantly her scumbag lawyer(s) - would have blamed the husband.

Since she did try a (again presumably) new method, and this time succeeded, the sister (and her entourage of scumbag bottomfeeders) want the husband held responsible for her sister having taken her life. No matter what, the husband was going to be the target.

So, unless the husband was captured on video tape actually saying that he was going to leave a gun out for her to kill her self with, there is practically no way on this Earth that I could be convinced that he is to blame.

Again, if she was suicidal, and it certainly looks that way, there was no way on this Earth to prevent her killing herself short of straitjacket and shackles in a rubber room for life. Shy of that, it was simply a matter of when, rather than if.

If the sister knows what she says she does i.e. "She started actually telling me that if she was going to die it would be with a gun, that she needed a gun and that she wanted to kill herself that way," then she should have had her sister taken into a court, and involuntarily committed to a mental hospital.

Anything else is just BS.
 
duncan,

it all comes down to "reasonable steps". if the wife wanted to kill herself, youre right, she would have found a way with or without inanimate objects to assist.

However if the husband, after being told that she would shoot herself in the head, leaves a loaded gun near where she is then that is negligent and he is liable for the death.
 
However if the husband, after being told that she would shoot herself in the head, leaves a loaded gun near where she is then that is negligent and he is liable for the death.
And I submit that had she electrocuted herself in the tub, that the sister would have suuddenly remembered that she had wanted to electrocute herself. And even if she hadn't remembered that revealing conversation, her attorney(s) would have remembered it for her.

Under the laws in most of our states (if there was an exception, Kommienecticut would be a likely one) his criminal liability would be next to impossible to prove. OTOH, finding a jury of dimwits to find him civily liable, would be easier than falling off a log.

Or as our Gangsta' rappers (yet another variety of bottom feeder) put it, "It's all about the Benjamins baby!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top