Two children dead in Washington state due to parents' negligence

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NavyLCDR

member
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
7,677
Location
Stanwood, WA
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Boy-3-kills-himself-with-gun-found-in-familys-car-142616396.html

Boy, 3, kills himself with gun found in family's car
Click to expand...

This man violated Washington state firearms law RCW 9.41.050 and a child is dead because of it:

RCW 9.41.050
"Carrying firearms.
(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle."

Under the exact same circumstances, another child dies:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...Marysville-police-officers-van-142212385.html

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/142385265.html

Girl, 7, accidentally shot by brother in police officer's van
Officer suspended over daughter's shooting death
Click to expand...

This man, however, did not violate RCW 9.41.050 because he was exempt due to RCW 9.41.060:

RCW 9.41.060
"Exceptions to restrictions on carrying firearms.
The provisions of RCW 9.41.050 shall not apply to:
(1) Marshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens or their deputies, correctional personnel and community corrections officers as long as they are employed as such who have completed government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training and have been subject to a check through the national instant criminal background check system or an equivalent background check within the past five years, or other law enforcement officers of this state or another state. Correctional personnel and community corrections officers seeking the waiver provided for by this section are required to pay for any background check that is needed in order to exercise the waiver;"

It's going to be interesting to see who gets prosecuted for what. Who will Child Protective Services go after and who they won't. What do you think? Should police officers be subject to the same laws that us Joe Citizens are regarding firearms possession and carrying? I 100% think so.

Here's another thing to consider.... the officer cannot be prosecuted under RCW 9.41.050 because they have "completed government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training". Yet the person with no training violates the law and can be prosecuted. Really? We pay the government to train these people so they can be exempt from the laws us Joe Citizens must comply with so that when their negligence causes a death that can't be prosecuted because the law does not apply to them? I think it should be just the opposite. I think because they have had government-sponsered law enforecement firearms training that they should not only have the same threat of prosecution, if negligent, but also have a sentence enhancement because they were trained to know better.

It's also going to be interesting to see how the anti-gun crowd spins this...because in this case, if they cry and scream to take away guns from citizens they are going to have to equally cry and scream to disarm police officers.
 
Last edited:
In most professions, with the extra training, extra responsibility comes also. it amazes me that these LEO aren't held to a higher standard.
 
Man that's sad. Do not take this wrong, I am firm believer in gun control. Always in my control that is.

Now the families have to live with the consequences of their actions.
 
Man that's sad. Do not take this wrong, I am firm believer in gun control. Always in my control that is.

Now the families have to live with the consequences of their actions.
Click to expand...

Spot on. I agree.

No punishment will equal what this Father is going through.

I'm a firm believer in the Eddie Eagle program, and find kids 2-5 love and get it.
 
It's also going to be interesting to see how the anti-gun crowd spins this...because in this case, if they cry and scream to take away guns from citizens they are going to have to equally cry and scream to disarm police officers.
Click to expand...

You assume anti-gun folks place a high value on logical consistency in their political thinking. Unfortunately, I have found that the vast majority of humans do not do so, and in fact logical inconsistencies in political philosophies are quite common.
 
Think about this - Is there a crime anywhere that has "your child's life is forfeit" as a penalty? That's Old Testament kind of punishment. Anything the courts can do pales by comparison.
 
This man violated Washington state firearms law RCW 9.41.050 and a child is dead because of it:
Click to expand...

The law as it's written is a bit unclear to me: if I leave my vehicle with a loaded gun in it, does the GUN have to be locked, does the VEHICLE have to be locked, or both?

From the story it appears the gun's owner made an effort to conceal it from view, we don't know if he locked the vehicle, it's pretty safe to say he didn't lock the gun. What part of the law are you saying he broke?
 
So, should grief and naturual consequences alone be enough punishment? Can a person be just as guilt ridden over causing the death of someone else's child as their own? A drunk driver kills a child. Should the drunk driver not be criminally prosecuted if they show enough grief and guilt over their actions?

What if, by some negligent action, a person's own child dies and a friend of the child?

I find it hard to swallow the, "You've suffered enough so you should not be criminally prosecuted for your criminally negligent actions" idea. That's like writing an automatic exemption into the law: "It shall be unlawful to leave a firearm in a vehicle unattended with children, UNLESS the action results in the death of the person's own child or immediate family member in which case the actor shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment." Would you vote for a law like that?

bikemutt said:
The law as it's written is a bit unclear to me: if I leave my vehicle with a loaded gun in it, does the GUN have to be locked, does the VEHICLE have to be locked, or both?

From the story it appears the gun's owner made an effort to conceal it from view, we don't know if he locked the vehicle, it's pretty safe to say he didn't lock the gun. What part of the law are you saying he broke?
Click to expand...

RCW 9.41.050
Carrying firearms.
(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle.

One of the three conditions (i), (ii) or (iii) must be met by a CPL holder to have a loaded handgun in a vehicle. (i) was not met. (ii) was not met. So that leaves (iii). In neither case was the gun separated from prohibited persons by any lock. That's the clear purpose of the law, to keep the gun from being accessed by prohibited persons and/or stolen. Since prohibited persons could have access to the loaded gun in the vehicle without having to get through a lock to get the gun, there can be no satisfactory way to claim the gun was locked within the vehicle. Locking the gun in the vehicle with prohibited persons also inside the vehicle with access to the gun cannot be construed to meet the requirement of the statute - especially since they were free to obtain the gun, unlock the vehicle, and leave with the gun. The gun in a locked case or in a locked compartment may meet the requirement, even if the vehicle itself is not locked.
 
Last edited:
The liberal media here are a bit confused how to handle it. The usual "only one professional enough to..." excuse doesn't apply to the LE case. Usually the media will give LE more leeway but with two similar cases happening with such close timing, neither are isolated enough for a double standard. In any case, our state is getting a fair amount of national attention the last few weeks...with the negligent school shooting, these two, and several crazy soldiers from joint base Lewis-McChord shooting civilians and planning to blow up our state capital.
 
That's the clear purpose of the law, to keep the gun from being accessed by prohibited persons and/or stolen. Since prohibited persons could have access to the loaded gun in the vehicle without having to get through a lock to get the gun, there can be no satisfactory way to claim the gun was locked within the vehicle. Locking the gun in the vehicle with prohibited persons also inside the vehicle with access to the gun cannot be construed to meet the requirement of the statute - especially since they were free to obtain the gun, unlock the vehicle, and leave with the gun. The gun in a locked case or in a locked compartment may meet the requirement, even if the vehicle itself is not locked.
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense NavyLCDR.

Hypothetically, if no person is in the vehicle and a loaded gun is left out of sight in the vehicle, and the vehicle is locked, do you believe that would meet the statute's requirement?
 
The radio at work is stuck on KIRO all day. Currently listening to Dave Ross trying to figure out how guns work and how to make them "more difficult to use". It's like listening to monkeys trying to figure out fire. They're still chattering while having no mechanical aptitude on how mechanical devices work.
 
I fail to understand how anyone can believe that 'legislating' anything had any effect on the outcome of these tragedies...

So it's "against the law"...

Ooooo...

Stupidity, apparently isn't...

rolleyes.gif
 
NavyLCDR said:
So, should grief and naturual consequences alone be enough punishment? Can a person be just as guilt ridden over causing the death of someone else's child as their own? A drunk driver kills a child. Should the drunk driver not be criminally prosecuted if they show enough grief and guilt over their actions?

What if, by some negligent action, a person's own child dies and a friend of the child?

I find it hard to swallow the, "You've suffered enough so you should not be criminally prosecuted for your criminally negligent actions" idea. That's like writing an automatic exemption into the law: "It shall be unlawful to leave a firearm in a vehicle unattended with children, UNLESS the action results in the death of the person's own child or immediate family member in which case the actor shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment." Would you vote for a law like that?
Click to expand...

Remorse is often a mitigating function during sentencing. A prosecutor might charge someone with a lower crime because of extenuating circumstances, but the remorse / sorrow / "punishing them self" idea comes in at sentencing and I agree that it should.

Jail / Prison are not the only forms of punishment.
 
There is only one way to "child proof" a gun (or anything for that matter) It is called training. They want to "pass a law" they should mandate firearms safety training at school, every year, beginning in Kindergarten and ending in 12 grade. Maybe add live fire in JH. Licensed firearms instructors only to teach the classes.

That way the weapon is not a mystery and der little finger poken would be much less likely to happen. Last little kid that shot himself was three. Probably a really bright and courous kid too...shame...but if he had already been introduced to firearm safety, do you think he would have been as likely to "investigate"?????
 
"Special rules for special people "

You go sign up and put a target on your back and do some dirty work and maybe you will qualify for a break here and there.
 
John, two out of the last three children killed (in WA) by handguns were LEO children. One pistol was the man's service pistol, locked in a county supplied "lock box" issued to the deputy who's kid managed to open the lock box and accidently killed his sister? I believe it was.

The whole thing here is: Should the deputy be presumed as "responsible" as any other civilian when it comes to things like this? None of these guys were "on duty", none of these guys (the two deputies or the joe citizen) did anthing different than anyone else would have done here...so the question is, why should a joe citizen face possible criminal charges, when an off duty LEO cannot face the same charges? (he is exempt)

Fortunately, the argument is mute in this case, as it sounds like joe citizen will not be charged either. The guy I feel sorry for is the Clark Co. Deputy that may not have been charged, but did loose a child and then his job over his complaining about the quality of the lock boxes supplied by the county.
 
Last edited:
Fueled by the recent accidental shooting deaths of children in Snohomish and Pierce counties, Senator Adam Kline has been running around Olympia trying to generate enough votes to pass SB 6628, the bill he filed just before the end of the regular session -- and right after the Bremerton school shooting. Several newspapers have jumped on the bandwagon, demanding legislators "stand up to the NRA" and "do something."

Of course, the legislature DID do something. In the late 1990s,after an earlier accidental shooting death, it unanimously passed Senate Joint Memorial 8009 (which I wrote at the request of then-Representative Tom Campbell (R-2)). SJM 8009 recommended to the Superintendant of Public Instruction that she (former SPI Judith Billings) adopt and promote the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" gun safety program in elementary schools. "Eddie Eagle" doesn't teach kids how to shoot -- it's a gun avoidance program aimed at 6-12 year olds, and teaches the mantra to children who find a firearm, "Stop," "Don't touch," "Leave the area" and "Tell an adult. Eddie Eagle has been around for 20 years now, and has been presented to millions of school children nationwide. But not in Washington. SPI Billings ignored the memorial, as have her successors.
Click to expand...

Above from GOAL Post, a gun law watchdog newsletter in WA.

The approach doesn't make sense to me, instead of educating kids in the first place, lets just pile on more guns laws to punish people when the next tragic loss occurs, seems shortsighted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Am I required to give my license when asked - Washington State
Replies
1
Views
618
NavyLCDR
N
M
  • Locked
Article in Seattle paper about legal open carry in Washington
Replies
0
Views
624
MillCreek
M
C
  • Locked
Interesting Washington State law
Replies
3
Views
716
Powderman
P
D
  • Locked
Manitoba Refuses To Prosecute Firearm Registration Offences
Replies
12
Views
812
JackM
J
R
  • Locked
Can a state regulate transfers for residents outside the state.
Replies
14
Views
2K
pdsmith505
pdsmith505
Back
Top