Can you say "Improper storage?"

[Maxspeed]

YARMOUTH (CBS) – A three-year-old has serious injuries after police say she accidentally shot herself with her father’s gun.

Police and paramedics responded to a home on Captain Daniel Road on Friday around 1 p.m. and found a 3-year-old girl suffering from a serious gunshot wound in her left hand.

She was taken to a Boston hospital. Yarmouth Police said her injuries were very significant, but that she is expected to survive.

Officers discovered that the child had found a fully loaded handgun on a nightstand in the bedroom she shares with her parents.

They also said the suspect, Nicholas Jenner, 30, is a military veteran who recently moved his family in with his parents temporarily.

“The father left his weapons unsecured,” said Deputy Chief Steven Xiarhos. “One of them was a handgun on a nightstand, and this tragedy happened.”

Xiarhos said that several unlicensed weapons, including a rifle and a shotgun, were recovered in the home. They seized those guns, as well as the .40 caliber semiautomatic pistol the girl apparently shot herself with.

Investigators said Jenner told them the weapons were legal in the state where he previously lived–but police say that’s no excuse.

“He is going to be charged with several misdemeanors and felonies,” said Xiarhos.

But Jenner was not arrested.

“We chose to not arrest him,” Xiarhos said. “We knew that the weapons were all taken from the home. We know that the girl has been placed in the custody of the Department of Children and Families. So there’s really no danger factor. It’s also Christmastime, and he was very cooperative.”

Jenner is charged with improper storage of a large capacity of a firearm near a minor, unlawful possession of a firearm, and reckless endangerment of a child, and will be summonsed to court at a later date.

 

[CRSIII]

While I'm not down with mandatory lockup, some common sense goes a long way.
I'm pretty sure 3yo's can't grasp gun safety.
Can you say child endangerment? Cuz I bet it's coming.
ETA
Looks like I missed the part where the op posted about charges filed.

 

[CTpatriot]

This idiot just got the best Christmas present ever, not having to make funeral plans for his three year old.

 

[firestorm]

This idiot just got the best Christmas present ever, not having to make funeral plans for his three year old.

Unfortunately a three year old DCF has already taken and he will be unlikely to see again.

 

[UNSUB]

This post is a bummer. Im not all stickers and rainbows but Jesus its literally Christmas. Poor firearm safety which lumps everyone together as gun owners in the publics eye. Kid hurt family broken. Booooo.

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[Zappa]

YARMOUTH (CBS) – A three-year-old has serious injuries after police say she accidentally shot herself with her father’s gun.

<>

Xiarhos said that several unlicensed weapons, including a rifle and a shotgun, were recovered in the home. They seized those guns, as well as the .40 caliber semiautomatic pistol the girl apparently shot herself with.

Obligatory "Nothing good ever comes from a .40" comment added.

Jenner is charged with improper storage of a large capacity of a firearm near a minor, unlawful possession of a firearm, and reckless endangerment of a child, and will be summonsed to court at a later date.

Define "a large capacity of a firearm" ???

Proving once again that when guns are involved, the media always gets the details wrong.

 

[45collector]

Damn that sucks. Well she may have a mangled hand for the rest of her life but at least she's going to live.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I'm sorry... but pure FAGGOTRY that DCF took the kid, absent some other serious issues. I've filed so many 51a's on 100% pieces of shit parents, and never saw kids get yanked. Pure politics

When it comes to anything to do with guns, they declare the gun owners as unfit to have children and yank them. DCF does such a wonderful job of raising children . . . not!

Obligatory "Nothing good ever comes from a .40" comment added.



Define "a large capacity of a firearm" ???

Proving once again that when guns are involved, the media always gets the details wrong.

Since they re-transported the kid to Boston, my sad guess is that it was a hollow point that did massive damage to her small hand. Hopefully the super-skilled surgeons in Boston can put her hand back together to be functional.

Sadly the definition in MGL of a "large capacity firearm" is anything with an external mag, as it says "capable" of holding a large capacity magazine . . . and you can make a mag as long as you want.

Obviously the Father never heard about MA gun laws, moved here, never got a MA LTC, no clue about storage laws and no common sense not to leave a loaded gun where a child could get to it. He'll pay dearly for his stupidity . . . likely lifetime Fed PP status and loss of his child (maybe strictly supervised visitations only) and if he's married, he may end up losing the marriage as well.

 

[MAJoe]

Sucks. While I'm not down with the laws mandating types of storage, licensing, etc which is what he's getting mostly jammed up on...common sense here. Kids around, guns are out of sight and secured. Glad this wasn't much worse.

 

[free]

Define "a large capacity of a firearm" ???

Proving once again that when guns are involved, the media always gets the details wrong.

But, the media only got the term large capacity firearm right from the Yarmouth police themselves when they stated the charges.

 

[firestorm]

When it comes to anything to do with guns, they declare the gun owners as unfit to have children and yank them. DCF does such a wonderful job of raising children . . . not!




Since they re-transported the kid to Boston, my sad guess is that it was a hollow point that did massive damage to her small hand. Hopefully the super-skilled surgeons in Boston can put her hand back together to be functional.

Sadly the definition in MGL of a "large capacity firearm" is anything with an external mag, as it says "capable" of holding a large capacity magazine . . . and you can make a mag as long as you want.

Obviously the Father never heard about MA gun laws, moved here, never got a MA LTC, no clue about storage laws and no common sense not to leave a loaded gun where a child could get to it. He'll pay dearly for his stupidity . . . likely lifetime Fed PP status and loss of his child (maybe strictly supervised visitations only) and if he's married, he may end up losing the marriage as well.

I wouldn't read into the transport to boston thing too far. Cape cod hospital (And Falmouth hospital) do very little trauma, and virtually no kids. Any issue worse than putting a bandage on something or a simple medical (Long term issue like diabetes easy treatment) for kids gets sent out as long as its not life threatening right that minute. With a fast ambulance ride you get from cape cod hospital to childrens in about 58 minutes (Lights, not screwing around) so unless its immediately life threatening they would prefer experts do it.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Welcome to Mass buddy.... where it's not enough that you suffer knowing your idiocy cause your kid to harm herself, but now you get the feel the full weight of the commie-wealth government bearing down on you. You'll never see your kid again, you'll be lucky if you get less than a decade behind bars, you'll be driven destitute by the legal costs of defending yourself, all while you get to watch the gang bangers with mile long rap sheets go free and 3x DUI drivers are still on the road and not in the clink...

Welcome to Massachusetts.... the place that only looks good in the rear view mirror.

 

[Glockster30]

I'm sorry... but pure FAGGOTRY that DCF took the kid, absent some other serious issues. I've filed so many 51a's on 100% pieces of shit parents, and never saw kids get yanked. Pure politics

I doubt politics has anything to do with this situation. It takes an idiot to leave a loaded, unattended handgun around for a 3-year-old to pick it up and accidentally shoot herself. A 51A is filed on behalf of the child and not against the parent or family.

 

[ProGun]

Sure by the time they're done with him, this guy is going to wish his kid had put one into his head. He is toast.

You can't legislate common sense. And there should be no such thing as an "unlicensed" gun. God, I loathe this state.

 

[CRSIII]

Sure by the time they're done with him, this guy is going to wish his kid had put one into his head. He is toast.

You can't legislate common sense. And there should be no such thing as an "unlicensed" gun.

Not sure what you mean here? Probably just me.

 

[ProGun]

Not sure what you mean here? Probably just me.

As in a free state, no license should be required to possess a firearm...meaning there being no such thing as an "unlicensed" gun.

 

[CRSIII]

Gotcha.

 

[Peicemaker]

What the hell is an "unlicensed weapon"? Also "improper storage of a large capacity of a firearm" Wtf does this nonsense mean?

 

[wahsben]

I along with hundreds of thousands if not millions of kids grew up with unsecured, unattended firearms. The major problem is parenting these days not unattended firearms.

I doubt politics has anything to do with this situation. It takes an idiot to leave a loaded, unattended handgun around for a 3-year-old to pick it up and accidentally shoot herself. A 51A is filed on behalf of the child and not against the parent or family.

 

[Glockster30]

I along with hundreds of thousands if not millions of kids grew up with unsecured, unattended firearms. The major problem is parenting these days not unattended firearms.

I'm one of them too, but my father never left them around loaded where a 3-year-old can access it, which is why this guy is an idiot.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

I doubt politics has anything to do with this situation. It takes an idiot to leave a loaded, unattended handgun around for a 3-year-old to pick it up and accidentally shoot herself. A 51A is filed on behalf of the child and not against the parent or family.

It absolutely is politics... and you are completely wrong about 51a's because when you file them, SOMEONE is the target of the investigation.

Edit: Ill reiterate. Absent other very significant factors (combined with the fact this has happened elsewhere without DCF removal), this is politics all day. They aren't protecting this girl. They are punishing the father... and the government forcibly removing a child from a home should NEVER be punitive.

 

[fencer]

Just awful. What a sad story. That poor little girl. I pray that this won't ruin her life because, politics aside, lets not forget she could very well lose her hand, and her parents. She should be at home right now eating sweets and playing with her new toys. Not recovering from what will likely be the first of many surgeries. I hope the best surgeon in the country was available for her.

As for the father, I really don't have enough info to pass judgement.... but I would like to punch him in the face. There is no punishment that even this screwed up state can hand down that will even come close to what he is probably putting himself through right now, if he is any kind of father.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There is no punishment that even this screwed up state can hand down that will even come close to what he is probably putting himself through right now, if he is any kind of father.

True, but some people only respond to threat of state punishment, not disasters. For example, may people who don't drive when they had one to many but "feel fine to drive" to so out of fear of punishment, not the desire to do the right thing. The state will make an example out of this guy as a lesson to others.

 

[wahsben]

I was taught not to touch and if I did the consequences would be serious. Now kids are much more likely to be coddled and spoiled.As with anything there are exceptions and what the father did certainly was not a wise decision and now he'll suffer the consequences.

I'm one of them too, but my father never left them around loaded where a 3-year-old can access it, which is why this guy is an idiot.

 

[Glockster30]

It absolutely is politics... and you are completely wrong about 51a's because when you file them, SOMEONE is the target of the investigation.

Edit: Ill reiterate. Absent other very significant factors (combined with the fact this has happened elsewhere without DCF removal), this is politics all day. They aren't protecting this girl. They are punishing the father... and the government forcibly removing a child from a home should NEVER be punitive.

There is no right or wrong. When the 51A is filed, it initially involves the welfare of the child. After filing, DCF evaluates and/or screen the allegations to determine if the situation meets its criteria wrt whether or not the situation is an immediate danger to the
child. The screening process involves just about everyone that has had contact with the child - police, doctors, teachers, etc. DCF may or may not contact family members during the screening process. The results of the screening process determine what category the case is assigned to, either a CPS (Child Protective Services) investigation (very serious) or an Assessment Response, which has various levels of risk allegations. The AR determines if the child can remain home or not, and if needed, DCF determines what level of guidance to provide for the family. Obviously, the process is a lot more complicated than this.

However, I'm not sure if you understand what the process is when you state that DCF is not protecting the girl. Of course it is for the protection of the girl. How do we know if the father is mentally stable or not without going through the process? All anyone is reading is an article about what the story reported. For all we know, the father may have given the gun to the child to play with, so without the assessments and evaluations, no one really knows what actually happened yet. If that is what occurred, then politics has nothing to do with it.

 

[firestorm]

There is no right or wrong. When the 51A is filed, it initially involves the welfare of the child. After filing, DCF evaluates and/or screen the allegations to determine if the situation meets its criteria wrt whether or not the situation is an immediate danger to the
child. The screening process involves just about everyone that has had contact with the child - police, doctors, teachers, etc. DCF may or may not contact family members during the screening process. The results of the screening process determine what category the case is assigned to, either a CPS (Child Protective Services) investigation (very serious) or an Assessment Response, which has various levels of risk allegations. The AR determines if the child can remain home or not, and if needed, DCF determines what level of guidance to provide for the family. Obviously, the process is a lot more complicated than this.

However, I'm not sure if you understand what the process is when you state that DCF is not protecting the girl. Of course it is for the protection of the girl. How do we know if the father is mentally stable or not without going through the process? All anyone is reading is an article about what the story reported. For all we know, the father may have given the gun to the child to play with, so without the assessments and evaluations, no one really knows what actually happened yet. If that is what occurred, then politics has nothing to do with it.

That's all well and good, but don't act like they don't play politics using DCF or DYS or whatever they call it different places. Remember the girl at childrens hospital who was imprisoned there for YEARS over the family disagreeing with a childrens hospital doctor? They took the child based on nonsense and kept her family away to punish the family and keep them from filing lawsuits. (The condition of them seeing the kid again was that they not sue)

This being a gun case, in mass, and an accident rather than abuse or something REEKS of the state using DCF to punish the father by taking his kid away. They leave kids in abusive homes and terrible situations all the time, but they managed to take the kid instantly here. Amazing how that happens as soon as anyone hears gun.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

^^ Bingo.

And if you read for comprehension you would realize that I said that absent some real serious shit that was glaring, this is politically motivated.

I'll give them credit though, at least they got her out before ahe was dead. Thats rare for them.

 

[Glockster30]

I'm sorry... but pure FAGGOTRY that DCF took the kid, absent some other serious issues. I've filed so many 51a's on 100% pieces of shit parents, and never saw kids get yanked. Pure politics

I can read for comprehension and in your first statement without making this personal (as you always do) you concluded that without knowing any of the facts that DCF took this child out of pure "FAGGOTRY" whatever that is supposed to mean. The mere fact that you have filed many 51As should be enough to make you aware that every case is different.

That's all well and good, but don't act like they don't play politics using DCF or DYS or whatever they call it different places. Remember the girl at childrens hospital who was imprisoned there for YEARS over the family disagreeing with a childrens hospital doctor? They took the child based on nonsense and kept her family away to punish the family and keep them from filing lawsuits. (The condition of them seeing the kid again was that they not sue)

This being a gun case, in mass, and an accident rather than abuse or something REEKS of the state using DCF to punish the father by taking his kid away. They leave kids in abusive homes and terrible situations all the time, but they managed to take the kid instantly here. Amazing how that happens as soon as anyone hears gun.

I didn't state that politics is never involved, but at least I would wait to hear the facts before making or assuming that determination. However, you, as did Mr. Deschain, already determined without having any facts that this case was a pure accident and the state is punishing the father because, "a gun." The both of you know that gun powder residue tests were done on both parents to conclude that neither one of them pulled the trigger. You also know that the parents were not arguing or fighting. You also know that the father didn't hand the gun over to the child or was playing with the child with the gun in his hand. You also know that both parents are mentally stable. You also concluded that the little girl is strong enough to fire the handgun in question with one hand.

In brief, neither one of you know squat about this case.

^^ Bingo.

And if you read for comprehension you would realize that I said that absent some real serious shit that was glaring, this is politically motivated.

I'll give them credit though, at least they got her out before ahe was dead. Thats rare for them.

As I mentioned above, it has nothing to do with comprehension with regard to what you stated as a fact.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

Why do you hate kids?

 

[Glockster30]

Why do you hate kids?

For a LEO, that's a pretty dumb question. Why would you place a child back in a house without knowing what the facts were behind the child being injured?