Mom charged after her 4-year-old shoots brother

[Web]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-todd01.html

Mom charged after her 4-year-old shoots brother

April 1, 2005

BY PAM EASTON

HOUSTON -- The mother of a 4-year-old boy who shot his 2-year-old brother in the head with a handgun has been charged with a weapons count, police said Thursday.

Tameka Michelle Jones, 29, is scheduled to appear before a judge today to answer a misdemeanor charge of making a gun available to a minor.

The 2-year-old was shot after an argument with his brother over a toy on March 12, and he remains in critical condition.

He has shown signs of improvement this week, said Child Protective Services spokeswoman Gwen Carter. The 4-year-old is being cared for by his grandparents and receiving counseling.

Was pistol for protection?

The 4-year-old apparently got his mother's gun -- a .25 caliber pistol -- from her purse after the younger brother threw a toy at him and bit him.

Carter said the mother got the gun because of some burglaries in the neighborhood. She told investigators it was always out of the reach of children except the day of the shooting.

The 4-year-old will not face charges.

Prosecutor David Harbach said the case is very unusual given the ages of the children involved.

''The crime with which she has been charged is a crime of negligence,'' Harbach said of the mother.

 

[Standing Wolf]

She told investigators it was always out of the reach of children except the day of the shooting.

Do I look like I believe that?

Realistically speaking, there's no shortage of people who don't know the first thing about firearms safety.

 

[Bear Gulch]

Sure she did.

 

[whm1974]

Carter said the mother got the gun because of some burglaries in the neighborhood. She told investigators it was always out of the reach of children except the day of the shooting.

In her purse? If I had kids running around I would have the gun on my person.

-Bill

 

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

If she's any kind of a mom, she should feel bad enough that her stupidity put her child in critical condition that she shouldn't need criminal charges to rub it in.

- pdmoderator

 

[Preacherman]

Well, for once I'm glad someone bought a .25 ACP handgun! Anything more powerful and her child might have been killed...

 

[chris in va]

Anything more powerful and her child might have been killed...

Critical condition could mean anything. The kid could be brain dead or a 'vegetable' for all we know.

 

[priv8ter]

problem

If she's any kind of a mom, she should feel bad enough that her stupidity put her child in critical condition that she shouldn't need criminal charges to rub it in.

But that's the problem...there is no way of telling what kind of mother she is. As I said on another thread dealing with liability if your gun is used in a crime, I'm not sure if the right punishment is locking this lady up, or taking away her kids.

And I agree with Standing Wolf's opinon, when the lady claims this was the first time she had left the gun in her purse.

greg

 

[Web]

"There's no shortage of people who don't know the first thing about firearms safety."

Which is one of the reasons Anti's say firearms should not be available to everyone: Most ppl are too dumb or irresponsible for gun ownership.

 

[Spot77]

Why did her 4 year old even know where her gun was?

 

[Web]

^Or even understand what a gun was?

I know: from television.

 

[priv8ter]

Now, wait...

^Or even understand what a gun was?

I know: from television.

Hold on a second...that might be true in this case, but not all cases. My daughter is not quite three yet, and she knows what a gun is, because I have told her.

It's never too early to teach gun safety.

I've started simple and basic. When she sees me loading my range bag, I tell her that guns are not toys. If she finds one, she is supposed to tell mommy and daddy.

Some of it's even stuck! There is not much cuter than hearing my daughter say, 'Daddy, gun no toy!"

greg

 

[Bear Gulch]

Either way charges are appropriate.

 

[GRB]

If she's any kind of a mom, she should feel bad enough that her stupidity put her child in critical condition that she shouldn't need criminal charges to rub it in.

Feeling bad and being made an example of to help prevent such stupidity in the future are different things. The law uses such people as examples to try to keep other people from doing the same. Does she deserve it even if not used as an example. I think she deserves time without her kids and time in jail. Do her kids deserve that? Well maybe the grandparents who are caring for them have a little more on the ball than did the mom. Note how they were ot turned over to the father (maybe dead, maybe in jail, maybe they are divorced) but the grandparents seem to be together.

But that's the problem...there is no way of telling what kind of mother she is. As I said on another thread dealing with liability if your gun is used in a crime, I'm not sure if the right punishment is locking this lady up, or taking away her kids.

If you read into the story a bit, you might be able to at least start to form an idea of what kind of a mom she is because there are hints. Mom maybe never taught the older or younger child about guns and gun safety - that is a good possibility. Mom maybe never taught them how to control their anger, that is another good possibility. Mom also has two kids who argue with each other over toys and they resort to violence to end the argument. Those things might tell you something about mama. Of course, right now all we can do is surmise, I sure would like to know more about this situation.

Hold on a second...that might be true in this case, but not all cases. My daughter is not quite three yet, and she knows what a gun is, because I have told her.

It's never too early to teach gun safety.

I agree that children, who live where there are guns, should be taught gun safety at a very early age. Once then can communicate fairly well with their parents is just soon enough. Two to three years old is, in my opinion, a good age to start.

Best regards,
Glenn B