Mea Culpa

[amflyer]

Should have waited for all the details. Looks like I was wrong on this one folks. Still a sad, sad situation, but he should have known better.

My original post: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=425606

Latest story: http://journalstar.com/news/local/doc4989d0db9793a862528290.txt

Prosecutors to file charges in wife's shooting death

By LORI PILGER / Lincoln Journal Star
Wednesday, Feb 04, 2009 - 06:38:42 pm CST
Joshua Beasley pointed a shotgun at his new wife, Alaina, prosecutors say.

She pointed back, holding her hand in the shape of a gun, said Lancaster County Attorney Gary Lacey.

And when he pulled the trigger, thinking it was empty, the gun fired and hit Alaina.

Alaina Beasley’s funeral will be at 2 p.m. today at Emmanuel Fellowship Church, 8345 Crown Point Ave., Omaha.
She died early Sunday.

“He didn’t intend to kill her,” Lacey said Wednesday, after giving details of the game that led to the 20-year-old bride’s death.

Regardless, Lacey said, Josh Beasley was committing an unlawful act, an assault, by pointing the gun at her. For that, Lacey’s office will charge him with manslaughter.

 

[Jim Watson]

Yup.
I did not want to comment on the original sad sweet tragedy slanted thread, but now it looks like, as in most such cases, the negligence went from bad to gross to criminal.

 

[amflyer]

Jim, I still don't think this is criminal, as there was no intent. Grossly negligent, but not criminal.

Although worthless at this point, I wish the couple had a more experienced friend that could have read the blog, saw the pictures, and said, "Whoa, this is crazy." The victim basically wrote the script for the accident in her blog.

I'm using this as a teaching moment for my "gun friends" whether they want to hear it or not.

 

[MikePGS]

I'm pretty sure Criminal Negligence doesn't require intent, but rather comes about when someone does something so dangerous and doesn't even consider the potential negative consequences. Something that any reasonable person would think is a horrible idea. With all the 4 rules being crammed into every gun owners head, there is a pretty good argument that in spite of knowing he should never in a million years do such a thing, he still did it. Of course the particulars are still unknown (ie did he ever take safety courses?). My internet lawyerly advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

[PryItFromMyColdDeadHands]

my god, they shouldn't file charges at all!.....this guy is going to be in a prison in his own mind/heart for possibly the rest of his life anyway. it was an accident.
I wouldn't want someone going to prison for killing me if it was truly an accident.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I think this was an accident, and the guy will be miserable enough, so charges probably shouldn't be fired.

Remember, it's always loaded! If you want to train like these 2 were trying to, use an airsoft gun, that's clearly distinguishable from real firearms.

 

[MikePGS]

I'm kind of conflicted on whether or not the guy should be charged, personally. On one hand (as already pointed out) he'll suffer for the rest of his life. On the other, what if this had been someone else he shot? Say for example he was training (by pointing a shotgun at someone and pulling the trigger, being pretty sure its not loaded) with one of the neighborhood kids and ended up killing him. Would that be any different? Just because she was wife it doesn't change the legal status of his actions.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Gone. Done. Sorry.

The guy very clearly committed a crime. There is absolutely no good to come from us being apologists for him. The story is a horrible tragedy. I'm sure the guy will be filled with unbearable regret for the rest of his life. But it will be a disgusting double standard for us to let this guy's negligence slide over what we assume to be his pure moral character, while letting others rot in prison for the rest of their lives for far less with nary a word from us.

This guy needs to be a convicted felon. He needs to be legally banned from handling firearms for the rest of his life. For us to demand anything less is pure hypocrisy. The judge can have all the leeway in the world with sentencing due to the extenuating circumstances, but the guy must be charged, tried, and if the jury finds him guilty, convicted.

He was negligent with his firearm. He should have known the danger inherent in firearms and conducted himself accordingly, but he didn't. I have sympathy for his loss, which I can hardly imagine; but I have zero sympathy for his actions, for which he must be judged.

 

[Bozo]

He should have known the danger inherent in firearms and conducted himself accordingly, but he didn't.

The original article said he had completed a safety course last week. So, yes, he knew the dangers.

 

[Little_Bigman]

it was an accident.
I wouldn't want someone going to prison for killing me if it was truly an accident.

I think this was an accident, and the guy will be miserable enough, so charges probably shouldn't be fired

Remember, it's always loaded!

Statements 2 & 3 are in direct conflict with each other despite being made by the same person.

If you deliberately point a gun at another person and pull the trigger, regardless of motivation you are 100% accountable for your actions.

 

[CoRoMo]

He broke all four rules of gun safety.
He was pretty much 'playing around' with a loaded shotgun.

He could have 'played' this game with a broom handle instead, but he didn't.

 

[Mello]

Seems the prosecutor has little choice but to charge the guy. It is not their job to decide whether to prosecute. From the article it seems the shooter committed all of the elements which amounted to manslaughter.

The article states that under Nebraska law: "pointing a gun at another is a reckless act." The legislature has decided that the pointing of a gun at someone is beyond mere negligence, but is a reckless act. No accident here.

It should be left to the judge, if the shooter is convicted; as to what the appropriate level of punishment should be. Probation is a possibility.

 

[hso]

it was an accident.

No, it was negligence. Another person died because of it. Regardless of how heart broken he might be, an act of gross negligence on his part resulted in the death of another person.

A court may decide that he's suffered enough and fail to convict him or convict him and not assign jail time or a DA may decide that there's no point of going to court because the jury will decide he's suffered enough and the cost would be a waste of the taxpayer's money, but make no mistake, or excuses, his negligence caused another person's death. Regardless of what the state decides to do to him he'll live with the fact that due to his gross negligence he killed his wife.

So what's the lesson learned here that makes this other than a tragic story or ammunition for the antis? Guns are not toys, follow the safety rules. All the time, in any place, with anyone.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

The DA does indeed have discretion as to which charges, if any, to bring before the grand jury.

I wouldn't bring any if I was the DA in this case, as I expect the defendant will be acquitted of manslaughter.

Manslaughter requires an illegal act, according to the article, and the illegal act alleged is assault. In every jurisdiction in which I've lived and practiced, consent is a defense to assault in most cases, including this one. The totality of the circumstances, including the wife's "hand gun", describe a playful situation in which no physical contact or harm was anticipated. If representing the husband, my preliminary defense theory would be consent to the "assault". No assault, no manslaughter.

 

[Dave P]

Based on the lady's blog and the pictures, these two thought they had discovered the next best thing in the world, besides sliced bread. "Oh, look at my cool gun! Quick, take a picture of this cool pose!"

Very sad way to truly learn about gun safety.