Footage of 3-year-old with handgun on Today show

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hope something similar happens to you someday.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you do, but the people posting on this thread are probably not the type to be that irresponsible. That neighbor may very well have saved that young boy's life, or the life of another child.

Let me ask you, 2A, if you're out in your backyard and see a small child in a pond next door that appears to be drowning, would you trespass onto your neighbor's property to save his life?
 
Yes. Now tell us, how does that fit with what the topic of this discussion is? Did this neighbor go and take the gun away? No, she taped it and ran to the cops. That certainly protected the child, didn't it? Does merely picking up a firearm equate to drowning these days? No? Then why try and use the comparison?

BTW, there's any number of people here that irresponsible. if not in this exact situation then in some other. People make mistakes, including you and I. The nice thing for us is we didn't have some parasite next door to record it all for posterity.
 
sorry but for as much as you don't like it there is nothing illegal about videotaping that is clearly in your view.

While I do agree about the neighbor doing something regarding getting the gun away from the child.
 
Alrighty Then!

Scenerio One:

Mom and Dad are in the backyard drinking something. They're happily sending lead down range while, behind them, sits Jr. He's enjoying all the noise and laughter and watching Mom outshoot Dad. Near him are a couple pistols he could probably get to if he wanted but hey, he really doesn't wanna and this bright sun is kinda making him sleepy anyway...

Across the way sits Nosy the Neighbor. With her camcorder. Again. She's taping the entire thing. Again. Even Dad going down range to check the targets and Jr passing out in the stroller. Later she loads this tape up and heads for the Cop Shop, where she passes it on to the resident Crime Dog. now Crime Dog, he's not too keen on gun owners and rednecks and people who disagree with him. Nosy says that all that noise and smoke is injurious to the child, not too mention being left out in the sun, plus it is placing him in an enviroment of violence. Now Crime Dog, well, he pretty much agrees. So up the ladder he passes the video and his impressions to...

The Persecutor. Now Mr Persecutor isn't really looking to make a name for himself. He'd love to have a gun manufacturer lawsuit of his very own but knows it's never going to happen. So he's stuck doing droll stuff like prosecuting druggies and violent felons. No headlines there these days, but he does his best. But now what should fall into his lap except a VIDEO of some redneck, beer swilling(at least it looks like it's beer. We're sure about the BEER word on the label but that word "ROOT" we're still thinking on...) throwbacks subjecting their innocent and helpless child to roaring noise and smoke(who snuck the front stuffer in here!?) and all the "Culture of Violence"tm that goes along with it, not to mention and excessive sun tan. It's time to put a stop to this cultuire of violence. it's time to teach people that spreading their ugly habits is simply NOT going to be tolerated.

Call out the SWAT!

Call out the Child Welfare Services.

And before you know it the parents are charged, the kid is who knows where and the media is talking about how horrible it is to subject a child to such things in this enlightened age. Not only can it happen, it has, minus the video, right here in Indiana.

*********************************************************

So tell us, is it still OK? Now the "crime" fits with the leftist take on shooting and "responsibility" but not with "our" take on it. Only the perceptions are different, and the perceptions of much of society ARE very different from ours...Discuss.

Scenerio Two:

HIYA! I'm Squirrel Bait, yer new neighbor! Pleased to meetcha!

Now if'n you don' mind, er even if ya do, I'm gonna set me up this tripod right here on the corner of my porch an' on top o' that I'm gonna mount my camera. I'm gonna run this here pair of cables back inside to the comp and the wall outlet and I'm gonna record every damn thing that goes on in your backyard from now till hell freezes solid in the hope of nailing you for something.

No, I don't mind a'tall if'n ya build a big high privacy fence. Y'all'd be amazed how tall they make these tripod thingies these days. And that just means ya must have somethin' to hide anyway which'll make my story even better when I go to the po-po. So g'head! By ALL means, please.

Why am I doing this? Because I can and there's nothing you can do about it and there's even a whole half a nation full of people that will pat me on the back if I ever do catch you doing something that I don't approve of and can spin it into some terrible social ill.

So y'all enjoy yer lives. invite me over fer some burgers sometime and I might even go easy on ya's.

**********************************************************

So tell us, what IS the difference? Of course none of us has ever done anything dumb/illegal or sufficiently non-PC that an activist neighbor/cop/prosecutor could make hay out of it, right? Tell us how the above is wrong and do it within a context that allows you to continue to defend this spy.

Were this kid's parents also wrong? Maybe, maybe not. Since nobody got hurt it really isn't anyone's business. Certainly not Nosy the neighbor and most assuredly not ours or the government's. But you go ahead and fit the above two tales into thr same box with this story and make it all work together if you can.
 
Odd... I hadn't heard anything about drinking. And it's my understanding that the child got the gun out of the trunk, where the parents had left it not only unloaded, but inoperable (am 620 WTMJ).

People make mistakes. Happens all the time. And, if you were to bust every person who has a beer or two while shooting, it would by ONLY the people on this board fighting to preserve our rights (and a few of them would be missing too).

Maybe Junior was napping, woke up, and got out of the car...

Maybe dad thought he had the trunk latched...

THere are WAY too many variables on this one for everyone to start judging. But I'll tell ya what: go outside and grab a rock, and feel free to throw it at the parents...

Hope everyone understands the bleedin' message there...
 
what ever situation you can think of if I'm in a situation where I can see somthing I can video it. Nothing illegal about it as long as its either a public place such as the sidewalk in front of your house or on my own back 40 its not illegal and won't be anytime soon. So be careful when you shoot the moon it might make the tonite show :D
 
All guns are loaded

If you are close enough to videotape a 3 yr old with a handgun then you are close enough to be shot by a 3 yr old with a handgun.

If you let your 3 yr old play with loaded guns you had better do it behind closed doors.

As far as seatbelts,I have gotten off my motorcycle at stop lights and asked parents to put a seat belt on their youngsters- If I do it in a polite manner,they allways respond in a positive friendly way.

Yes it never would have been on TV if it was a seat belt or if it was a 3yr old driving a car or the like, so I agree with calvinike.

The videographer probably had enough of the idiots next door.
In this case he may well have saved one child-or even himself if the kid sent a few rounds his way by accident.
 
A) What's the FIRST rule of gun safety. All together now: Treat every gun as though it were loaded at all times.

That's a nice line. I agree with it in application. But in reality it's a Standard. The FACT remains you and I haven't got a clue in this case.

I don't care if you could tell from the video that the mag had been dropped and the slide was locked back. No 3 year old can know how to personally verify that the gun is unloaded, at least none that I've ever been around.

And in this case no 3 year old was injured. So what we have is a mistake and probably a learning experience...at least until it became a media circus.

B) Immaterial to the issue. Do we let drunk people drive just becuase they might get home safely?

Pointless comparison with no relevence.

C) That is disturbing on more levels than I can mention without violating The High Road code of conduct.

Really? Then you advocate "observers" for every potential mistake and possibly dangerous act that anyone may do at any time that may involve their children? No? Then you subscribe to the same theory, just not when there's video that might refelct badly on us.
 
If you are close enough to videotape a 3 yr old with a handgun then you are close enough to be shot by a 3 yr old with a handgun.

You're also close enough to disarm the 3 year old or tell the parents about it or leave if you're that in fear for your life. What, exactly, does standing there taping the incident and doing nothing say about the person doing the taping?

If you let your 3 yr old play with loaded guns you had better do it behind closed doors.

OK, but since it doesn't appear these people "let" their 3 year old do it, what do you suggest?

As far as seatbelts,I have gotten off my motorcycle at stop lights and asked parents to put a seat belt on their youngsters- If I do it in a polite manner,they allways respond in a positive friendly way.

I'd smile and nod in that way people do when someone really odd is entirely too close then drive away and comment to my wife about how meddlesome some people are, assuming she didn't say it first.

The videographer probably had enough of the idiots next door.

Unless the spy was "the idiot next door" and wanted some form of petty revenge which does, in fact, look much more likely here.

In this case he may well have saved one child-or even himself if the kid sent a few rounds his way by accident.

Baseless assumption built on an emotional reaction.
 
what ever situation you can think of if I'm in a situation where I can see somthing I can video it. Nothing illegal about it as long as its either a public place such as the sidewalk in front of your house or on my own back 40 its not illegal and won't be anytime soon. So be careful when you shoot the moon it might make the tonite show

I am reasonably confident that if I made a habit of specifically taping you and yours, especially if your children were involved you could find a myriad of legal means to make my life absolutely suck. The fact is that no, you do not get to just tape your neighbors anytime you want and expect no repercussions.

Anyway, I've made my point here pretty clearly. I've asked quite a few people today about this scenerio, too. Had to go to auction and so I got to gab with a whole heard of fairly independent minded people. The only support I find for the spy is here, on this board. Not to say that people don't think the parents were possibly idiots, just that the neighbor was just as much of one on a variety of levels AND that that kind of snooping should never be lauded, even if it does good in a specific event. Maybe ESPECIALLY if it does good. It's a whole can o' worms we don't want to open.
 
The parents were irresponsible in this case, not because of the beer but that they didn't know (at least from the video it seems that way) that their kid was handling a gun unsupervised. I have had a couple of beers with a friend while shooting, in Idaho just a few weeks ago, and there was no problem at all.
That said, this would never have been an issue if it had involved anything besides a gun. It's curious that it even made it to the Today Show - how did that happen? Considering the number of news stores that occur every day it's obvious they picked it because it would show gun owners in a bad light. Also, Matt Lauer wasn't interested in a factual interview, for example, when the neighbor said that there were a number of red flags he didn't ask her to back that up. Also, her excuse about why she didn't go to help the child was simply BS. All in all, even though the parents were wrong, this was not a nationally newsworth story.
 
Yes. Now tell us, how does that fit with what the topic of this discussion is? Did this neighbor go and take the gun away? No, she taped it and ran to the cops. That certainly protected the child, didn't it?
Click to expand...
Actually, it did for future events. At the time, the neighbor would most likely have placed her/himself in some degree of danger by rushing over to grab the gun of the child's hands. Not by the child, mind you, but rather by the adults who probably would have welcomed the opportunity to pounce on someone they didn't like.
Does merely picking up a firearm equate to drowning these days? No? Then why try and use the comparison?
Click to expand...
Yes, it certainly does, because in both situations there is a reasonable assumption of danger on the part of the child. However, I noticed that you dodged the question. So, I'll ask it again:

"if you're out in your backyard and see a small child in a pond next door that appears to be drowning, would you trespass onto your neighbor's property to save his life?"

Now, please keep in mind that I expect your answer to be completely consistent with your aforementioned doctrine that there are NO exceptions to an invasion of privacy, as you yourself state:
Before you say this is an exception, there are no exceptions. It was an invasion of privacy.
Click to expand...
 
At the time, the neighbor would most likely have placed her/himself in some degree of danger by rushing over to grab the gun of the child's hands.

By your own words the spy was already in danger by remaining there to tape the incident.

Not by the child, mind you, but rather by the adults who probably would have welcomed the opportunity to pounce on someone they didn't like.

Another baseless assumption. We have not one single clue what their reaction would have been

Also, I clearly stated my answer. It was Yes. Don't know how I could have made it any more plain. Now note the rest of the answer: Now tell us, how does that fit with what the topic of this discussion is? Did this neighbor go and take the gun away? No, she taped it and ran to the cops. That certainly protected the child, didn't it? Does merely picking up a firearm equate to drowning these days? No? Then why try and use the comparison?

Since you replied to my answer I'm not certain how you can then say i didn't answer. Also I am not certain how you can equate picking up a firearm to the real-time act of drowning which you posited. One is the possibility of danger, a rather remote one probably, while the other is the actual event of dying. Saving a life in immediate danger is not the same as spying on someone, ignoring the possible danger and running to the cops with what you think is negative evidence.

Oh, note, before you say I am invading someone's privacy by saving a drowning victim I'd suggest that all the screaming for help and thrashing is a request and thus having been invited over to save someone's bacon the question of invasion no longer exists. Or does your hypothetical also include total silence from the drownie?
 
2nd amendment

I think your're a good guy,but I disagree.

I aint going into someone elses yard to disarm their three yr old when their drunk parents are standing around with loaded guns...

As they say "thats what the cops get the big paycheck for"

Taking a loaded gun away from an angry/scared 3 yr old is above and beyond my duty as a concerned citizen.
 
"The fact is that no, you do not get to just tape your neighbors anytime you want and expect no repercussions."

<p>
Well..they might egg your car...they might come over and beat you like a red-headed step-child.. they might even get their panties in a twist on an internet board over the unfairness of it all.

But based on what I remember from school- if you're in the open, without a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the imagery is not used for financial gain...I think you're (legally) fair game.

might not be right, might not be neighborly..but I'm pretty sure it's legal.

I'd be happy to look at any evidence you have to the contrary.
 
By your own words the spy was already in danger by remaining there to tape the incident.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. There is a world of difference between remaining on your own property and filming an incident 40-50 yards away and physically intervening in the situation. Kinf of like the difference between taking pictures of a lion at the zoo and actually jumping in his cage.:rolleyes:

Another baseless assumption. We have not one single clue what their reaction would have been
Click to expand...
Yes, we do.. We have a quote from the neighbor - "we haven't spoken in years" and the fact that the moron parents were armed at the time. It is in fact a very reasonable assumption that the act of physically intervening would be met with hostility, possibly even gunplay.

Since you replied to my answer I'm not certain how you can then say i didn't answer. Also I am not certain how you can equate picking up a firearm to the real-time act of drowning which you posited. One is the possibility of danger, a rather remote one probably, while the other is the actual event of dying. Saving a life in immediate danger is not the same as spying on someone, ignoring the possible danger and running to the cops with what you think is negative evidence.
Click to expand...
The validity of the comparison is really moot. What is at issue here is your blatant inconsistency. On one hand you forcefully condemn ANY exception to a right to privacy and the next you tell us that you would ready to trespass if the situation demanded it. What greater violation of a right to privacy is there than property trespass?
 
Well..they might egg your car...they might come over and beat you like a red-headed step-child.. they might even get their panties in a twist on an internet board over the unfairness of it all.

But based on what I remember from school- if you're in the open, without a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the imagery is not used for financial gain...I think you're (legally) fair game.

might not be right, might not be neighborly..but I'm pretty sure it's legal.

I'd be happy to look at any evidence you have to the contrary.

Or since you are filming my children I might accuse you of being a pervert, scouting my place for a possible victim. Or my wife might accuse you of being a stalker. Or I might accuse you harrassing me. I'm quite sure I could get an attorney who could convince a jury of one or all of those things, especially in this day and age. So, again, you don't get to whip out that recorder and film to your hearts content and expect nothing in return.
 
I'm not saying that you shouldn't treat all guns like theyre loaded, but allow me to throw two situtations out:

1. Gun unloaded, trigger lock on (if any of you can tell if there is a trigger lock on that thing, you must have been the parents or the kid), internal lock on, hammer down, safetys on. Basically a paperweight.

2. Gun loaded, cocked and unlocked, 2# trigger pull, bullet in the chamber, inside a soft case the kid has decided to play catch with.

Which is safer? Both are irresponsible. I am all for treating all guns as loaded. In situtation #1, I think you would have a hard time shooting yourself. #2, no child endangerment case, because no visible threat, at least to someone else.In school, I was always taught that in a sexual discrimination case, it didnt matter what you meant to do. It doesn't matter how the other person takes it. If someone else sees it and reports it, too bad for you. Seems to be the same way for guns.

And as for the videotaping people in their yards, if the girl next door was sun bathing nude, and I taped it, do you think that argument would hold?
 
And as for the videotaping people in their yards, if the girl next door was sun bathing nude, and I taped it, do you think that argument would hold?
Click to expand...
Legally, yes. If you want privacy from amateur papparazzi, stay inside or get a privacyfence.
 
I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.

If you are close enough to videotape a 3 yr old with a handgun then you are close enough to be shot by a 3 yr old with a handgun.

They weren't your words though, sorry. But they are still correct and applicable.

Yes, we do.. We have a quote from the neighbor - "we haven't spoken in years"

Ahh, so if the other neighbors say that the spy is mentally unstable and has harrassed them for years which is WHY they don't talk you'll automatically accept that, too? Get the point?

and the fact that the moron parents were armed at the time.

Morons? Really? Do you know them? Do you know who they are or how they live or what they feel? Maybe you are right, but the fact remains your ad hom is yet another baseless assumption.

It is in fact a very reasonable assumption that the act of physically intervening would be met with hostility, possibly even gunplay.

Entirely predicated on your assumptions. As I said, we don't actually have a clue. You're entitled to your opinion but understand that that is ALL it is.

The validity of the comparison is really moot.

Hardly, since it directly reflects on your entire scenerio as well as your next comment...

What is at issue here is your blatant inconsistency.

On one hand you forcefully condemn ANY exception to a right to privacy and the next you tell us that you would ready to trespass if the situation demanded it. What greater violation of a right to privacy is there than property trespass?

Neat how you now claim the vailidity of the comparison isn't important AND ignore the last point I made, referring to the FACT that a drowning person will very likely be screaming for all he or she is worth. THAT negates the question of trespass since it is a request for help. Did the three year old or his parents ask the spy for help? Is standing there taping the incident "helping"? Also it is probably worth noting that I wouldn't likely save a drowing person if they didn't call for help since I wouldn't be spying on them while they were swimming and thus wouldn't know they were drowning.
 
Legally, yes. If you want privacy from amateur papparazzi, stay inside or get a privacyfence.

I made note of a very tall privacy fence in my second scenerio. I also then noted my hypothetical neighbor fully planned on taping over top of it. Nobody lodged a single protest. So, are you now saying that anything outside is fair game for a peeper except under certain circumstances yet to be defined?
 
a drowning person will very likely be screaming
Click to expand...
Hmmm. To quote you "a totally baseless assumption".

Did the three year old or his parents ask the spy for help?
Click to expand...
A 3-year old cannot recognize nor understand the lethality of a gun. As for the parents, they are morons. And speaking of moronic, this conversation has reached that point. So, I bid adieu.
 
A) What's the FIRST rule of gun safety. All together now: Treat every gun as though it were loaded at all times.

That's a nice line. I agree with it in application. But in reality it's a Standard. The FACT remains you and I haven't got a clue in this case.
Click to expand...
Ummm, my point there was that you were, in effect, saying that since the gun probably wasn't loaded then it's a "no harm, no foul" kind of thing. Since none of here was able to, at the time of the incident, personally verify that the gun was not loaded we have to assume that it was. Therefore it is still a very bad thing that this happened.
I don't care if you could tell from the video that the mag had been dropped and the slide was locked back. No 3 year old can know how to personally verify that the gun is unloaded, at least none that I've ever been around.

And in this case no 3 year old was injured. So what we have is a mistake and probably a learning experience...at least until it became a media circus.
Click to expand...
Again you seem to be saying "no harm, no foul." I very much disagree.
B) Immaterial to the issue. Do we let drunk people drive just becuase they might get home safely?

Pointless comparison with no relevence.
Click to expand...
No less relavent than the seatbelt, or drowning comparison. Drunk guy drives home from the bar and manages to avoid killing or injuring anyone in the process. Is that somehow OK for him to do? Becuase if you think it's OK for the kid to play with the gun without competent supervision you'd also probably think the drunk guy driving is also OK. I don't buy that.

C) That is disturbing on more levels than I can mention without violating The High Road code of conduct.

Really? Then you advocate "observers" for every potential mistake and possibly dangerous act that anyone may do at any time that may involve their children? No? Then you subscribe to the same theory, just not when there's video that might refelct badly on us.
Click to expand...
Hardly. That was directed at my disgust at your statement that it would be better for the kid to blow his own head off, or someone else's head off than for us gunnies to get a little bad PR. Bad press can be counteracted; not easily, I know but it is possible. It's kinda hard (i.e. impossible) to put a 3 year olds brain and skull back together.

I don't think the neighbor should have been nosing around, but I'd rather have that happen than the kid die. What should have happened is the neighbor should have alerted the parents to what their kid was doing. If they refused to take any action, then perhaps involving the authorities might have been appropriate. WRT to videotaping, the neighbor did not hoist it over a privacy fence to spy. They were in plain view and though some of us might find it distasteful for her to videotape the events, it was hardly illegal or what any court would determine an invasion of privacy. Sticking a camara over a privacy fence, putting it in an RC airplane and flying over the property, or using IR camaras to look through a wall all would qualify as an invasion, but that is not what she did. Had she done that I would be clamoring for her to go to jail (along with the parents of the kid getting into at least some trouble - not enough info to say if jail is strictly necessary in this case).
 
It made the news because it was a kid and a gun...period!

The anti-gun media LOVE this kind of propaganda, they can spin it so many ways.

Would Mrs. Cravits next door cranked up the ol' video if the kid had been playing with a plastic 5 gallon bucket (which kill way more kids every year than guns)? NO. probably not.

They said on the news tonight that the gun WAS NOT LOADED but that was no excuse.

The moral of the story is :

DON'T HAVE CHILDERN! (or neighbors)

Duh :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top