Sutter County deputy won't be charged in son's accidental death(3 YO-father's service gun)

[fed-up]

a 3 year old and a LOADED handgun and the deputy won't be charged??? wtf???

http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_8892051

Sutter County deputy won't be charged in son's accidental death

Associated press
Article Launched: 04/11/2008 11:34:00 AM PDT

YUBA CITY — No charges will be filed against a Sutter County sheriff's deputy whose 3-year-old son killed himself with his father's service gun.
Sutter County district attorney Carl Adams says it was an accidental shooting that the boy's parents could not prevent.

Tyler Whiteaker died Sunday night at the family's Yuba City home from a single gunshot wound to the head.

Adams says the boy was curious about a flashlight on the pistol. He picked it up and fired as his father looked away after cleaning the weapon.

The boy's father, 33-year-old Sgt. David Whiteaker, is an 11-year veteran of the Sutter County Sheriff's Department.

edited to add this tidbit

http://www.policelink.com/news/17215-3-year-old-accidentally-kills-self-with-fathers-service-pistol

The Sacramento Bee
April 08, 2008
YUBA CITY, CA – A Sutter County family with deep roots in law enforcement is facing heartbreaking tragedy after the 3-year-old son of a deputy accidentally shot himself with his father’s service pistol.

The boy, Tyler Whiteaker, died Sunday night in his Yuba City home of a single gunshot to the head, authorities said.

Tyler was the child of Sgt. David Whiteaker, 33, an 11-year veteran of the Sutter County Sheriff’s Department and himself the son of a retired deputy.

David Whiteaker is also the nephew of longtime Sutter County Sheriff Roy Whiteaker, who served 20 years until his defeat in 1990, and the cousin of county Supervisor Jim Whiteaker.

and this
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/news_62624___article.html/breaking_sheriff.html

Whiteaker had just reassembled his service pistol after cleaning it and turned to take cleaning materials from his wife when the boy, Tyler, walked into the room, picked up the gun, pointed it at himself and pulled the trigger, Adams said.

“There was no chance to react” to the boy’s actions, Adams said.

The boy had been curious about a flashlight attachment on the gun, he said.

“This is a tragic accident and there is no evidence to support any criminal charges against anyone,” Adams said.
“Indeed, not only is there no evidence of the gross negligence required by the law but there is no evidence that either parent acted carelessly in any way,” he said.

Asked why a bullet was in the gun’s chamber at that point, Adams said, “I don’t have an answer to that. I assume the practice” is to reload the gun after cleaning so it’s “ready to be used,” he said.

A safety switch on the gun would have been in the off position.

[SteveM]

1. Deputy violated a cardinal rule: No ammo present when cleaning a gun.

I don't know what kind of laws he violated, but the deputy is responsible for creating an unsafe situation. Perhaps the authorities figure the man will suffer enough without putting him through a criminal action which may accomplish nothing. This shows that even "duly-authorized" law enforcement organizations should be subject to the same rules of safe gun storage/use as the rest of us. A very sad event.

[gorfle]

16. Weapon was already clean...

According to the quotes, he had finished cleaning the gun and no doubt had re-loaded it and left it unattended as he put away the cleaning supplies.

[KSinTX]

56. I would agree he hadn't finished the cleaning

It's an entire process start to finish. Including putting away the cleaning equipment. Care supplants heartache.

[TooBigaTent]

2. Cops never suffer consequences for their crimes. If this had been a civilian, they

would already be in jail.

There is no justice.

[liberal4truth]

25. As I have been saying here, we need off-duty police disarmament legislation...

And I agree that this tragic accident is wholly the fault of the deputy,, who should have not loaded the gun and have kept it out of reach of children.

Even worse then him not being charged like a civilian is that he post likely will continue on as a law-enforcement officer, still carrying a gun.

If this had been someone else's' kid that was dead, at least they could nail him with a civil lawsuit.

Nope, there is no justice in this country anymore, for those with no "connections" or bags of $$$.

[iverglas]

3. "could not prevent"

Good fucking grief. I can think of a dozen ways of preventing 3-yr-olds from shooting themselves in the head without breaking a sweat. You don't have firearms in the house. If you have firearms in the house, you don't let 3-yr-olds know they are there. If you clean your firearms in your house, you do it when the 3-yr-old is not there. If you have firearms in your house and you clean them in your house and the 3-yr-old is there, you don't set a firearm down within reach of the 3-yr-old. For starters.

An earlier story offers a little more insight:

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/854248.html

A department spokeswoman has declined to give details about what happened in the home that night, but has said investigators had not found evidence of "gross negligence."

Adams said Thursday that the probe was thorough and he was consulting senior prosecutors before making a decision.

He said David Whiteaker has not been treated any differently because he is a deputy.

"No parent would have been arrested under the same circumstances," Adams said.

The bizarre and truly sad thing is that I'm sure no parent would have been arrested under the same circumstances. No, it just isn't grossly negligent to set your loaded firearm down within reach of a 3-yr-old. Not in some places.

I also have absolutely no doubt that right up to the moment when this individual set his firearm down within reach of a 3-yr-old he was a responsible, law-abiding gun owner.

I know there are many who will leap on this as yet another example of stupid, evil cops and how they're just no damned good for anything and blah blah blah, but the fact is that non-cops behave as badly and far worse all the time, and a whole lot of them were responsible, law-abiding gun owners right up to when they did the abysmally stupid thing they did, too.

[benEzra]

9. You could be arrested in Florida and NC...

the two states I've lived in. I suspect you would be arrested in a majority of states.

Even if a state didn't criminalize this by specific statute, one would think it would fall under the broader statutes that cover negligent homicide and whatnot (though I'm not a criminal lawyer, so you'd have to expound on that).

It is possible the father would have been arrested had he not been a police officer, or not. An arrest would be pretty small in comparison to the consequences he'll live with for the rest of his life, though.

[gorfle]

20. No doubt he was.

I also have absolutely no doubt that right up to the moment when this individual set his firearm down within reach of a 3-yr-old he was a responsible, law-abiding gun owner.

I have no doubt, either. It was a tragic accident, and one that is fortunately very very rare in this country. Odds today are a million-to-one of a child dying from a firearm accident. Firearm-related accidents are today at an all-time low.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120

In 1995, there were only 1400 fatal firearm accidents, in comparison to nearly 80,000 other accidental deaths that year. That's about 1.8%.

Also there were 200 fatal firearm accidents involving children that year, compared to 6,600 total fatal child accidents that year. That's about 3%.

http://www.mmmpalaw.com/CM/Articles/articles16.asp

While firearm crime by law-abiding gun owners is rare, accidents are even more so.

[liberal4truth]

28. A buying gun safe would have been a lot better, then a buying coffin. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. I know a mom and dad who left a plastic bag within reach of a crib.

A baby in the crib reached through the rails got the bag and suffocated when she placed the bag over her head. What should we charge them with?

David

[iverglas]

35. okay, you win

Yes, there is no difference between a plastic bag and a loaded handgun. They're both inanimate objects. They're both dangerous to children. They're both objects of interest to children. And parents must be the guarantors of their children's safety, not merely held to a fairly high duty of care.

But I dunno. It does strike me as a pretty dumb thing to have done.

I'd would be overjoyed to join you in a campaign to ban plastic shopping bags. They don't actually kill huge numbers of children, but they kill vast numbers of wildelife. Hm. Kinda like firearms. Anyhow, some civilized parts of the are already banning them. So all in all, you win, your analogy is the best one I've seen here this week!

[liberal4truth]

36. Apples vs. Oranges: A handgun is DESIGNED to kill people, a plastic bag is not...

Once again you gunners always use these illogical fallacies to promote your agenda of arming everyone, and making excuses for those *former* law-abiding gun-owners (which this deputy can no longer claim) who make a "mistake" with a firearm.

Indeed, there was no "common-sense" used in either case here, but a sworn deputy leaving a loaded police-issued handgun laying where his child could reach it and pull the trigger, in no way compares to
a child suffocating with a plastic bag at all.

As usual, when it comes to the NRA supporters, whatever happens when a person is killed "accidentally", its *always* the complete fault of the "law-abiding" gun-owner, and *never* the fact that guns don't load themselves or leave themselves unlocked or in unsafe places, nevermind the fact that guns ultimately have only one use: to kill and maim things and people by blowing big holes in their bodies.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

44. learn your history, and a few other things

You are scared people who are willing to give up freedom for security.

Of course, you know you're saying something that isn't true.

I'm willing to make personal sacrifices for other people's well-being. Apparently most here are not.

I also expect everyone else in the society I live in to make personal sacrifices for other people's well-being. And I expect my society to impose certain sacrifices on everyone where that is necessary, to protect important interests either of society as a whole or of others of its members.

You obviously do too. Or you'd be calling for speed limits to be abolished.


Ben Franklin said you deserve neither.

No, he didn't. Got google?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. This is what google found.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759



So I guess now I should say yes he did.

David

[iverglas]

49. Ben Franklin had something to do with spectacles, didn't he?

Maybe he'll lend you a pair.

You: You are scared people who are willing to give up freedom for security. Ben Franklin said you deserve neither.

Ben (in one of several versions): Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I can see the difference. Can you?

I see it every time someone decides to misquote old Ben, which is pretty often.


Anyhow, don't you be worrying about what scaredy cats deserve or don't deserve.

I certainly don't worry about what Ben Franklin had to say about anything, although what he said in this case would give me no pause even if I did.

I'm not giving up shit. Ha ha! I'm demanding that certain exercises of liberty by other people be regulated and even prohibited, in the interests of the security of yet other people.

That's how a society often operates, you may have noticed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. I didn't quote Ben I paraphrased what he said.

And no I don't see the difference. But I'm just a dumb old fireman. You are right you aren't giving up anything you don't live in the US.

David

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. The original post was about the US.

I know that hurts your fall back position of I wasn't talking about the US, but it's true.

David

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberal4truth]

63. You mean Ben Franklin, who supported slavery along with most of the WHITE, RICH founders of the USA?

Clue: this isn't 1776 anymore and the world is a VERY small planet now, with many complex problems and issues to contend with, unlike the world of the 18th century.

What Ben Franklin said 200+ years ago has absolutely NO meaning whatsoever
to most people these days.

[Raskolnik]

67. So when Bush argues that we should give up civil liberties because the post-9/11 world

is so much more dangerous and complex than the world contemplated by the dusty old Bill of Rights, do you respond similarly?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. Do you still live in the town that does the racial profiling?

You told us about it once. Tell us again how they keep the criminals out. It was a good yarn.


David

[liberal4truth]

42. No racial profiling here. When you have people driving modified vehicles and acting suspcious or...

breaking the laws the police have every right to stop you just as they do with drunk drivers and/or people that are on dope. The police know what to look for when keeping criminals off the streets here.

[TomInTib]

4. "after cleaning the weapon"

Only a fool leaves ammo around when cleaning a firearm, especially with children present.

This is patently ridiculous. If it had been a civilian, they would have gone directly to jail.

[liberal4truth]

27. Yeap, straight to jail and then to prison after a very short trial. n/t

Now this idiot will still be cruising the roads, just another accident waiting to happen :puke:

[smoogatz]

5. I can't imagine anything worse.

And I don't think the guy should be charged with a crime—he's already paid the ultimate price. That said, there's no question that he seriously, totally fucked up: how any parent could be stupid enough to leave a loaded gun, safety off, where a three-year-old could get to it is absolutely beyond me. It was a momentary lapse, I guess, but holy shit. That's one hell of a lapse. Not surprisingly, this stuff happens all the time. Guns are extremely dangerous things to have in a house with little kids, obviously.

[iverglas]

6. the ultimate price

And I don't think the guy should be charged with a crime—he's already paid the ultimate price.

Actually, that was the 3-yr-old who paid that. The 3-yr-old's life belonged to him, not to his father.

Please, your honour, you can't convict me of killing my parents -- I'm an orphan and all alone in the world!

[smoogatz]

8. As a parent, I think being responsible for the death of my child

would be just about the worst thing I could endure; I thought I'd made that reasonably clear. I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest that the child's life belonged to the father, or whatever.

[iverglas]

10. I understand that

But society / the criminal law doesn't punish people by the death of their children; it punishes them for what they did by applying sentences like fines, probation and imprisonment. If someone else had committed the acts that resulted in the child's death, and that person were liable to punishment, there is no good reason why a parent would not also be.

The criminal justice system can take special circumstances into account: circumstances alter cases, and all that. A lesser charge / token sentence might be appropriate. But scot-free for a parent whose actions result in his/her child's death vs. prosecution for a stranger is not a great message to send.

Considering that anyone has been punished enough by someone else's death, even if the death resulted from a criminal act by the other person, does disregard the fact that a separate person died, and that a society that purports to recognize the right to life and to give effect to it by prohibiting and punishing killing people, needs to apply some minimal equal treatment to people whose actions lead to other people's deaths.

*Some* charge. Negligent handling of a firearm and 6 months' probation; I dunno, but some recognition that Person A's actions led to Person B's death, even if they were parent and child.

Apparently in this particular case there isn't a charge that could stick. Some would look at the fact that there is nothing that someone who fails to keep a loaded firearm out of a 3-yr-old's hands can be charged with and think it needs changing.

[smoogatz]

12. I see your point.

As a matter of equality under the law, etc., it might make sense to charge the guy with some form of negligence, since his obvious, egregious negligence led to the death of a child. But it also seems a bit, I don't know, mean-spirited to make some kind of example of the guy, when he's pretty much going to live the rest of his life in hell anyway. I can see both sides.

[iverglas]

14. problem is ...

the people who end up dead, when other people do things like this, usually are the kids of the people who did it ...

That's the unfortunate damned thing. Somehow it has to be got through to those people that no excuse is good enough. (Almost no excuse, anyhow. Cf. circumstances, etc.)

What I would recommend, of course, is real laws with real rules about how firearms may be handled and stored, and charges being laid *before* somebody ends up dead. Whenever and wherever someone handles/stores firearms unsafely around children, and whoever it might be. Might just give regular folks with guns a moment's pause before they do stupid things.

[liberal4truth]

29. A felony charge of negligent manslaughter would at least keep a gun out of his hands...

Its obvious that he doesn't know much about gun safety. Why should we trust that this incident will change that in any meaningful manner?

What about public safety when this idiot goes back on-duty again?

[liberal4truth]

39. That was already tried by those two brothers in California who killed their parents...

but you are right. The cop as much as pulled the trigger on the poor child and he needs to be held accountable for it with a jury trial.

Fact: If it had been any other person then a police officer, they would be cooling their heels in a jail cell right about now. :mad:

[liberal4truth]

37. So if he killed his son while parking his vehicle drunk, that would be OK too?

Yeah, thats it.

We will let people off the hook because they are very sorry that they "accidentally" killed their own child.:puke:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. The hypocrisy is stunning

So you criticize me for allegedly compare plastic bags to guns. Because plastic bags aren't intentionally made to kill. Then you go and compare cars to guns. Can you actually see the problem here?

David

[liberal4truth]

64. Not at all. You gunners OFTEN resort to comparing automobile deaths to gun deaths to obfuscate the

issue, so I was using a perfect example of your utter hypocrisy, to make a point here.

[MindPilot]

7. Why do off-duty cops even have guns?

When I leave work my tools stay there.

Recently in San Diego we have had two off-duty police shoot people. In one case, the cop shot a football player after chasing him down for alleged drunk driving. In the other, the cop shot a woman and her 8-year-son during an argument over a parking space. In both cases the officers were not only off-duty--they were way out of their jurisdiction.

And the previous poster is right, the worst that happens to a cop who shoots someone--even when it is in the heat of an argument completely unrelated to any law enforcement activity like the case mentioned above--is some paid time off.

[iverglas]

11. they don't in Canada, the UK ...

Cops here have to comply with the same requirements as anybody else when they're not on duty as peace officers (what they're formally called, up here).

That means having a licence to acquire and possess firearms, registering the firearms, storing the firearms safety and securely when not in use, and transporting the firearms only as permitted by regulation (which means, among other things, not on their person). And service revolvers (yes, what they're still commonly called, even though they aren't) stay at the office.

As far as the rest --

the worst that happens to a cop who shoots someone--even when it is in the heat of an argument completely unrelated to any law enforcement activity like the case mentioned above--is some paid time off.

-- I do think that while there may be some instances of favouritism, that's kinda crap.

[MindPilot]

18. "that's kinda crap." I'll admit I'm working from memory here...

In the almost 30 years I've lived in San Diego, there have been dozens of police shootings both on-duty and off. Some were justified--believe me I have no problem with the cop who shot the guy driving the tank--but many were not. I don't recall one of them ever even going to trial. The DA will rule them "justified" and it's back to business as usual.

So no it's not favouritism (kudos to you for spelling it correctly) it way beyond that.

[Irreverend IX]

22. The rationale for cops carrying off-duty...

Is that they make a lot of enemies in the course of their job, and some of those enemies may decide that revenge is a dish best served cold.

And search for "Anthony Abbate" if you want to see some favoritism in action.

It's also hilarious how attached you are to the "service revolver" thing. Do you have any sources quoting Canadian cops calling automatics revolvers? Why are you so emotionally invested in defending the veracity of the news article where that mistake appeared?

[iverglas]

23. how cute

It's also hilarious how attached you are to the "service revolver" thing. Do you have any sources quoting Canadian cops calling automatics revolvers?

I think you've answered your own question, so I'll assume it's rhetorical.

If you recall the discussion in question, as you obviously do, then you recall the sources provided in which the police used the expression so terribly inappropriately.

Maybe you can suggest a better one for me. I've actually never heard it called anything else. I suppose, what, "service weapon"? I might think that would be not tremendously popular, but I dunno.

Why don't you just stick to calling your stuff what you want to call it, and stop sticking your nose into what other people call their stuff? Seems pretty easy. I promise not to call your cops' firearms "service revolvers", truly; haven't yet, won't do in future.

The American Dictionary of Criminal Law Terms, 2004 (at googlebooks):
"service revolver: a weapon carried by a law enforcement officer while on duty, usually a pistol or handgun"

Hey, you'll love this one:

http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/DefaultSite/Reppub/index_e.aspx?articleid=1667

October 31, 2006

... ALLEGATION TWO: Constables A and B improperly used a service revolver during the complainant's arrest.

In his complaint, the complainant states that he was forcibly grabbed and assaulted by the RCMP members at his front door. He indicates that during the altercation his right finger was cut and a fully loaded gun clip fell on the floor. He states that this lead him to believe that a member's gun "was unholstered and ready to be used with violence." There is no evidence from the complainant, his spouse or either of the officers that either member removed his service revolver from its holster or threatened to use his service revolver. The fact that a gun clip fell to the floor was an unfortunate accident that resulted from the physical altercation between Constable A and the complainant. Such an accident does not constitute improper use of a service revolver.

Is that the sort of thing that firearms afficionados get together and giggle about?


Heck, even the loony misogynist right wing does it:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/03/more-feminist-j.html

... Report I am reading shows concerted efforts to cover up sexual abuse of 5 years old girl by maternal grandmother who tried to frame her son in law. This reports lists some juicy details about "actions" and incactions of late Kelly Johnson ex-head of Sexual Assault Unit of London Police (same lady that last year killed her lover and herself using police service revolver).
You have no idea of how biased and how crooked all these people are.

Posted by: ... | 26-Mar-08 9:48:34 PM

[liberal4truth]

65. Peace officers? Damn I wish I was a Canadian. The police here have the cowboy mentality which is why

so many sick degenerates get into the law enforcement profession here, patting each other on the back as they beat or taser another poor victim into submission. That is why no one refers to them as peace officers in the US.

[iverglas]

66. well, it's not like anybody refers to them ...

as "peace officers" here much either. ;) That's just the generic term in things like the Criminal Code. You do see it not uncommonly in officialese, but they're just cops, on the street.

And a taser-happy bunch they are these days, too. And then there are the current questions about political partisanship in the RCMP ...

Overall, though, yes, we do seem to have better oversight and more professionalism, with varying results on the scale.

[coriolis]

13. Real cops (peace officers) are considered -always- on duty.

It doesn't have to be scheduled or paid.

[iverglas]

15. sounds like somebody's cops need a union

I don't think my cops would go for 24/7 unpaid employment.

[gorfle]

17. Question?

I don't think my cops would go for 24/7 unpaid employment.

Are your police not authorized to arrest people for criminal actions whether they are on the clock or not? I believe police here have that authority.

[iverglas]

19. Nopers

Not that I've ever heard tell of.

When they're on their own time, they're authorized to arrest someone on the same terms as any other member of the public is: under the Criminal Code provisions that authorize me to use force to arrest someone I've found committing an indictable offence ("felony" equivalent), or maye it's found committing a summary conviction offence ("misdemeanour" equivalent) or see trying to escape after committing an indictable offence ... you're not going to make me go look this all up again, are you? ;)

I can't imagine the boondoggle there would be if cops who were on their own time were authorized to act like they were on duty. Who would be responsible for what they got up to?? Who's the CO of a cop who isn't on shift?

I've certainly observed, from things put here, that cops in various parts of the US seem to enjoy various powers and immunities unique to the status of off-duty cop. (One would be that carrying a concealed weapon in somebody else's state thing.) I just don't understand it.

I do understand that there might be special circumstances in unusual cases where a cop might be authorized, say, to carry a concealed weapon when not on duty. (I'm speaking from the perspective of here, where virtually no one is given a permit for that purpose.) An undercover cop, or a key cop witness in a high-profile case, might be at special high risk from people targeting him/her, for instance.

But all in all, being a cop is a job, not a status, as I'm familiar with it, and when not on the job, their status is member of the public.

[bossy22]

21. the answer: lobbying

police lobby congress for these exemptions. Almost every peice of gun control legislation has an exception for "members of government/ police department". These exceptions are found in places where they don't make sense- like safe storage laws designed to prevent kids from getting access to guns- as if a cop's kid is less likely to go looking for a gun than a civilian's kid.

Infact i have mentioned this over and over before- the domestic violence offendor was championed by police organizations- until a crafty legislator removed the PD exception- then the fought tooth and nail against the bill.

[bossy22]

24. this is one of the only times you will hear me say this

but i believe Iverglas is right on this one- cops off-duty can only make citizen arrest- like a normal civilian.

[iverglas]

30. just to avoid too much agreement

I wasn't meaning to say that that's the case in the US -- only that it's the case where I am.

I'd have to do some googling to find out what the situation is in US states.

[KSinTX]

59. Police are sorta like the military

They are under a contract for a set length of time and their hours are merely set as a management issue. Emergencies and "needs of the organization" always overrule and are to based solely on the needs of their superiors. They are considered "off-duty" only as an HR designation, for reasons of pay, personnel management and liability.

City of Louisville v. Brown

"It should be noted, however, that in Brown, the officer involved was "merely a traffic control officer," as opposed to a police officer who is on duty 24 hours a day, carries a weapon and has powers of arrest." (Case involved an off-duty cop moonlighting as traffic control for a bank. This case reviewed exclusively the city's level of liability for the off-duty employment. Note the court's definition of the "moonlighting cop" vs. that of a "police officer.")

[liberal4truth]

26. Sutter county is a REDthuglycan county, chock full of red-neck gun-owners & duck hunters;

IOW, mostly chicken-s**t gun nuts who shoot at waterfowl and other birds
who can't shoot back. :mad:

More blood on their hands, like always :-(

[Callisto32]

31. Yikes

Good fucking grief. I can think of a dozen ways of preventing 3-yr-olds from shooting themselves in the head without breaking a sweat. You don't have firearms in the house. If you have firearms in the house, you don't let 3-yr-olds know they are there. If you clean your firearms in your house, you do it when the 3-yr-old is not there. If you have firearms in your house and you clean them in your house and the 3-yr-old is there, you don't set a firearm down within reach of the 3-yr-old. For starters.

An earlier story offers a little more insight:

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/854248.html

A department spokeswoman has declined to give details about what happened in the home that night, but has said investigators had not found evidence of "gross negligence."

Adams said Thursday that the probe was thorough and he was consulting senior prosecutors before making a decision.

He said David Whiteaker has not been treated any differently because he is a deputy.

"No parent would have been arrested under the same circumstances," Adams said.


The bizarre and truly sad thing is that I'm sure no parent would have been arrested under the same circumstances. No, it just isn't grossly negligent to set your loaded firearm down within reach of a 3-yr-old. Not in some places.

I also have absolutely no doubt that right up to the moment when this individual set his firearm down within reach of a 3-yr-old he was a responsible, law-abiding gun owner.

I know there are many who will leap on this as yet another example of stupid, evil cops and how they're just no damned good for anything and blah blah blah, but the fact is that non-cops behave as badly and far worse all the time, and a whole lot of them were responsible, law-abiding gun owners right up to when they did the abysmally stupid thing they did, too.

-iverglas

Believe it or not, I am agreeing on you with this one.


21. the answer: lobbying

police lobby congress for these exemptions. Almost every peice of gun control legislation has an exception for "members of government/ police department". These exceptions are found in places where they don't make sense- like safe storage laws designed to prevent kids from getting access to guns- as if a cop's kid is less likely to go looking for a gun than a civilian's kid.

Infact i have mentioned this over and over before- the domestic violence offendor was championed by police organizations- until a crafty legislator removed the PD exception- then the fought tooth and nail against the bill.
-bossy22

One law for me another for thee, disgusting, but true.


26. Sutter county is a REDthuglycan county, chock full of red-neck gun-owners & duck hunters;

IOW, mostly chicken-s**t gun nuts who shoot at waterfowl and other birds
who can't shoot back. :mad:

More blood on their hands, like always :-(

-liberal4truth

How else is one to hunt flying prey? Falconry, perhaps but it would be the same thing in your book, I presume. As far as I can tell, a duck doesn't have much chance against a well trained falcon catching it by surprise. Sure, it can fight back but...hey.

MY TAKE: Criminal negligence/manslaughter, plain and simple and this man needs to be prosecuted for it the way anybody else would be, not given a free ride because he is a police officer. If this is standard procedure in that jurisdiction, that is another story.


PS iverglas, I even made stuff bold for you ;D

[liberal4truth]

33. I agree there should be NO exceptions for police officers for any law breaking...

its well known that the "brotherhood" often let drunk or speeding cops off the hook as a "professional" courtesy, but we have dead child here whose fsther did everything but pull the trigger and killing the poor lad. He needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law just like any other "law-abiding" gun owner who was responsible for a needless death.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. I guess Hillary the duck hunter must live there.

That's good stuff. Let's see which one goes further for the gun owners. I hope it's Obama.

David

[Raskolnik]

53. You know those waterfowl hunters are enormously influential in preserving wetlands, right?

If people weren't interested in shooting them for sport, those ducks would have very little habitat left.

http://www.ducks.org/conservation/

Ironic, huh?

[dmallind]

43. I doubt there is much pro/anti disagreement here

The man was negligent, and criminally so. He should face whatever prosecution anyone else would face.

Negligent discharges may be rare - and indeed are rare compared to number of guns and gunowners, but that doesn't stop them being negligent.

The term "accidental discharge" should be pretty much eliminated as the only time a discharge is truly accidental is if it is caused by a hyper-rare combination of mechanical malfunctions.

Firing while cleaning or training etc, or leaving a gun out where a kid can fire it, is negligence pure and simple.

[iverglas]

45. the part I find bizarre

Adams says the boy was curious about a flashlight on the pistol.

Why did a 3-yr-old know there was a handgun in the house? Why had he ever seen it in the first place?

Why had he seen enough of it to know it had a flashlight on it??

When a parent had been so careless as to allow a 3-yr-old to see a handgun, and was aware that the 3-yr-old was curious about it, why would the parent ever expose the handgun to the 3-yr-old's sight again under any circumstances?

Three years old is not an age at which one indulges children's curiosity about things that can kill them. One conceals such things from them, to start with, so that there is nothing for them to be curious about. And one ensures that they never have access to them, under any circumstances.

One doesn't let one's child see one gulping painkillers from a pill bottle and then, when the child reaches and squeals, say "no, no, that's for grown-ups". Not if one is sensible. Applies times ten for handguns with flashlights on them, surely.

[krispos42]

46. Pistol with flashlight

A tactical light still looks like a flashlight






Even when attached to a pistol








My 3-year-old is part moth, apparently, the way he's attracted to flashlights! He has a wind-up one he plays with.

[dmallind]

48. Dunno but I could guess

It's certainly not unusual to have flashlights mounted to the rails on pistols. It could just mean that the child was drawn to the gun at the time of the accident because it had a flashlight mounted on it - in other words he could have seen the gun as a cool looking flashlight (and of course there's no reason a three year old should not be familiar with flashlights).

All speculation of course and doesn't change the basic negligence you mention but I'm not sure it necessarily means that the kid had a pre-existing fascination with the gun, only that the flashlight on it was a fascination. The problem really isn't why the kid was fascinated with it just that he had access to the thing in the first place. I'm all for educating kids about guns but I do not disagree that 3 is way too early to start this.

[Raskolnik]

52. I don't think a child seeing a gun is a problem.

The problem appears to be that the gentleman in question did not prevent the child from *handling* the gun.

Drain cleaner and paring knives are also extremely dangerous things in the hands of small children, but I don't know that it's necessary to conceal either from a child's sight. They (the cleaner and the knife) should be kept securely out of the reach of the child, of course, but merely exposing it to their sight? I don't see the harm.

[iverglas]

54. good for you

Drain cleaner and paring knives are also extremely dangerous things in the hands of small children, but I don't know that it's necessary to conceal either from a child's sight.

I kind of disagree. I think that's why IKEA sells locks for cupboard doors. See it, want it, eat it, is a child's common modus operandi.

I'd also think that a child seeing a parent declog the shower drain might not be quite as fascinated as a child seeing a parent manipulating an unfamiliar object with a flashlight attached.

It's also pretty unlikely that a child has been quite as fascinated by drain cleaner commercials on TV as s/he is by the numerous firearms s/he has likely seen there, whether in cartoon form or otherwise. A child of three hasn't likely observed other children playing "let's clean the shower drain", but it wouldn't be unusual for a child of three to have seen other children playing at shooting each other -- or engaged in a little fantasy gunplay of his/her own. Hell, there are people who give their kids toy guns to play with. I haven't noticed many toy drain cleaner bottles on sale.

But hey. You show your three-year-old your handguns; make sure s/he knows they're in the house somewhere, for future reference, and that they're forbidden fruit. It might take a couple of years, but I hope you won't be too surprised if s/he goes looking for 'em someday.

[Raskolnik]

57. I think that's a disingenuous argument.

I think that's why IKEA sells locks for cupboard doors.

Yes, to prevent *access* to dangerous objects. Your logic would necessitate that a child be swept from the room every time an inherently dangerous/attractive object may come into her line of sight. I don't think that's reasonable.

To a three-year-old, I don't think a gun (even with a light attached) is necessarily more attractive than a shiny paring knife an adult might use to peel vegetables at the kitchen table in view of the child. Once again, the problem isn't really the child *seeing* those objects, it's the *access* to those objects.

But hey. You show your three-year-old your handguns; make sure s/he knows they're in the house somewhere, for future reference, and that they're forbidden fruit. It might take a couple of years, but I hope you won't be too surprised if s/he goes looking for 'em someday.

That's a remarkably nasty thing to say, Iverglas, even by your standards.

[iverglas]

58. my logic

actually demands that people not make shit up and put it in other people's heads and call it their logic.

Your logic would necessitate that a child be swept from the room every time an inherently dangerous/attractive object may come into her line of sight. I don't think that's reasonable.

Gosh, maybe if you'd read, or you chose to acknowledge, the rest of what I had to say, you could have saved yourself some time here.

Because I didn't say anything from which that could be inferred.

I *do* think it's reasonable to keep things that are very obviously attractive and particularly dangerous -- which I really do think a handgun, with or without a flashlight, qualifies as -- out of rooms where children are when the children are there. How such things might "come into" the line of sight of a child without someone putting them there, I wouldn't know.


To a three-year-old, I don't think a gun (even with a light attached) is necessarily more attractive than a shiny paring knife an adult might use to peel vegetables at the kitchen table in view of the child. Once again, the problem isn't really the child *seeing* those objects, it's the *access* to those objects.

You know, adults do pitch fits about kids trying to get at kitchen knives -- but do many children actually harm themselves, let alone kill themselves, with kitchen knives? I think adults tend to worry about toddler fingers getting poked into places where carrots are being chopped, which seems ill-advised. I'm not sure how many toddlers have slit their wrists when they gained unsupervised access to a paring knife.


That's a remarkably nasty thing to say, Iverglas, even by your standards.

You said: I don't think a child seeing a gun is a problem.

I said: But hey. You show your three-year-old your handguns; make sure s/he knows they're in the house somewhere, for future reference, and that they're forbidden fruit. It might take a couple of years, but I hope you won't be too surprised if s/he goes looking for 'em someday.

I'm not seeing anything remotely "nasty" about suggesting that you shouldn't be surprised if a child goes looking for a dangerous and attractive object s/he knows to be in his/her home and has been told is forbidden. Good grief. What reasonable person would be? Seemed worth reminding you, in view of your saying "I don't think a child seeing a gun is a problem".

[Raskolnik]

61. "do many children actually harm themselves, let alone kill themselves, with kitchen knives?"

No, I don't think they do. And you know what? Not very many three-year-olds hurt, let alone kill themselves, with guns. It's tragic, heartbreaking, and infuriating when something like this happens, but it just doesn't happen very often.

adults do pitch fits about kids trying to get at kitchen knives

Yes, they do pitch fits about kids TRYING TO GET AT kitchen knives. I would think a parent that shields a child's eyes from kitchen knives, was being a bit unreasonable. Just as I would think it reasonable for an adult to pitch an extremely large fit about kids TRYING TO GET AT a gun, but wouldn't think keeping that gun 100% hidden from the child's sight was necessary. See the difference?

But hey. You show your three-year-old your handguns; make sure s/he knows they're in the house somewhere, for future reference, and that they're forbidden fruit. It might take a couple of years, but I hope you won't be too surprised if s/he goes looking for 'em someday.

If you don't see "anything remotely 'nasty'" about making a comment like that, you have some problems, Iverglas.