Trooper's son gains access to gun

[Titan]

.

Ummm, the gun was unloaded,



no one was killed.



no risk of injury if you follow basic Booger Hook/Bang Switch principles.

I was under the impression that there was an accidental discharge of a round in the chamber.

SO this whole rigamarole, including suggestions that the COP be sued, is based on the fact that an empty gun was pointed at a kid and the trigger was pulled, resulting in no harm to anyone (not even a loud BANG)?

Incredible!

.

 

[Half Cocked]

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but the kid couldn't have KNOWN the gun was unloaded because it wasn't unloaded.

He could only have THOUGHT it was unloaded, which can't be proven and may or may not be a defense.

It seems to me, the kid COULD certainly be charged and a jury could have options ranging from 2nd degree murder to manslaughter.


The kid's best argument is that, of course, it wasn't a service revolver but a semi-auto and that he saw that the magazine was out of the gun (therefore empty). He could certainly argue that there's no way HE knew that semi-autos could fire a round with no magazine in the gun.
.

Someone give Titan a breathalyzer!!

 

[Titan]

Someone give Titan a breathalyzer!!

Like I said in my post above, it simply never occurred to me that this whole flap was about NOTHING more than an illegal storgage charge.

In my reading of the story, I thought they were suggesting that the gun went off.

No real need to be personally offensive, unless it's your style.

 

[Half Cocked]

No real need to be personally offensive, unless it's your style.

personally offensive..no....not my style.

It was a joke!

 

[jkelly]

personally offensive..no....not my style.---Half Cocked

No, there are others here for that.


Respectfully,
jkelly

 

[namedpipes]

BARNSTABLE - A state police lieutenant pleaded not guilty in Barnstable District Court today to a charge that he improperly stored his unloaded service revolver, enabling his 12-year-old son to gain access to the weapon.

Bolduc is charged with improper storage of a large-capacity firearm near a minor. If convicted, he could face up to 10 years in prison for the felony charge.
...

He left his own gun in a drawer with a nearby loaded clip, and he pleads not guilty to improper storage? How does that make sense?

I don't want someone to go to jail for 10 years for what boils down to a terrible mistake that *could* have had horrific consequences. Most of us have or will do something sometime that has similar potential (whether or not gun related). But he still ought to be 'adjusted' in some way.

On the other hand, the law is the law is the law.

If this were Mr. Bolduc, the manager of some local convenience store, he'd be going away.

 

[dwarven1]

SO this whole rigamarole, including suggestions that the COP be sued, is based on the fact that an empty gun was pointed at a kid and the trigger was pulled, resulting in no harm to anyone (not even a loud BANG)?

Incredible!

Correct on all points.

The two loudest sounds in the world: a BANG! when you expect to hear a CLICK, and a CLICK when you expect to hear a BANG!

 

[Half Cocked]

He left his own gun in a drawer with a nearby loaded clip, and he pleads not guilty to improper storage? How does that make sense?

Why does anyone who blows over the legal limit on a breathalyzer plead not guilty?

It is his right to do so and is what any lawyer would advise anyone to do. It gives them a chance to review the police reports and plan a defense. There are potential legal issues surrounding how the police came across the gun.

On the other hand, the law is the law is the law.

Which is why he entered a plea of not guilty.

If this were Mr. Bolduc, the manager of some local convenience store, he'd be going away.

He plead not guilty at his arraignment....He has not gotten a disposition of not guilty.

 

[Palladin]

Let me throw this out there....

he pleads not guilty and uses the Heller decision as his defense; that he cannot be required to lock up his firearm in the home, as it's been decided to be unconstitutional. Test case for the Commonwealth?

 

[Half Cocked]

Let me throw this out there....

he pleads not guilty and uses the Heller decision as his defense; that he cannot be required to lock up his firearm in the home, as it's been decided to be unconstitutional. Test case for the Commonwealth?

Or....the search of his house and the questioning of a 12 year old without a parent present? Just a thought

 

[jcr]

I don't want someone to go to jail for 10 years for what boils down to a terrible mistake that *could* have had horrific consequences.

But Cheryl Jacques and Angus McQuilken do want that.

They are probably thrilled that it is a State Trooper that is the defendant, because it means that there'll be more coverage.

They figure that the message "that even trroper's will do time" will convince many people to never think of owning a gun.

 

[jcr]

this whole flap was about NOTHING more than an illegal storgage charge.

The "whole flap" involves a bit more. What the kid did surely qualifies as Assault with a Deadly Weapon even if he (the kid) did know the gun was unloaded.

Surely, if the kid had aimed the gun at a LEO, and got himself shot, it would be considered a "good shoot".

 

[M1911]

I was under the impression that there was an accidental discharge of a round in the chamber.

You were wrong.

SO this whole rigamarole, including suggestions that the COP be sued, is based on the fact that an empty gun was pointed at a kid and the trigger was pulled, resulting in no harm to anyone (not even a loud BANG)?

Yes. I will say, however, that pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger, even knowing that it was unloaded, is a very big deal.

 

[Scrivener]

Someone give Titan a breathalyzer!!

AFTER taking away his keys and keyboard!

 

[law dawg]

The "whole flap" involves a bit more. What the kid did surely qualifies as Assault with a Deadly Weapon even if he (the kid) did know the gun was unloaded.

Surely, if the kid had aimed the gun at a LEO, and got himself shot, it would be considered a "good shoot".

Same as if a civilian had an empty gun pointed at them. That's merely an affirmative defense against prosecution. Whether pointing an empty gun at someone is a crime is another matter and would depend upon jurisdiction, knowledge of the gun wielder, etc.

 

[Titan]

You were wrong.



Yes. I will say, however, that pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger, even knowing that it was unloaded, is a very big deal.

I understand that I got it wrong on reading the article and said that in my post to which you responded 'you were wrong'- thanks.

I also understand pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is a big deal.

What I question is the notion from some here that suing the cop is an appropriate response.

Exactly what are the damages?

Sometimes people just get lawsuit happy. He may be liable for criminal gun violations, but a lawsuit from the parents of the kid? Nonsense.

How about a sincere old fashioned apology?

 

[Titan]

AFTER taking away his keys and keyboard!

I take it you're not on the membership committee.

 

[M1911]

How about a sincere old fashioned apology?

An apology is enough for assault with a dangerous weapon? It appears that the ADA prosecuting the case has a different opinion.

 

[Scrivener]

What I question is the notion from some here that suing the cop is an appropriate response.

Exactly what are the damages?

Sometimes people just get lawsuit happy. He may be liable for criminal gun violations, but a lawsuit from the parents of the kid? Nonsense.

How about a sincere old fashioned apology?

How about you research "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and get back to us. I look forward to hearing you legal and psychological insights...

 

[Titan]

How about you research "intentional infliction of emotional distress" and get back to us. I look forward to hearing you legal and psychological insights...

'Intentional' infliction of emotional distress ....on the part of a teenager pulling the trigger on another kid?

I know you're a lawyer, but certainly 'intent' has some meaning to you.

How about 'frivolous lawsuit'?

.

 

[Titan]

An apology is enough for assault with a dangerous weapon? It appears that the ADA prosecuting the case has a different opinion.

I said there may well be criminal charges worth pursuing - based on the gun charges.

It's the notion of a lawsuit by the parents that I'm questioning.

We live in a society that is too litigious - IMHO.

 

[Sleepytime]

When I was knee-high to a grasshopper my Dad taught me the proper way to shoot. He also burned into my head that 'once you pull that trigger there is no amount of wishing you can do to get that bullet back into the gun. Know your target and most importantly, know your background. Even if it's a mistake it will not matter.'

When I was a little older and playing 'good-guy vs. bad-guy' and we were using plastic guns he would say, 'don't do that. You should never point a gun at someone.' At the time I didn't really know what the problem was. When I got older it hit me what he was trying (and succeeded) to teach me. It just took a while to get through the layers of solid granite.

-Mat

 

[TY43215]

This thread has finally gotten the the un effin believable stage.

 

[M1911]

'Intentional' infliction of emotional distress ....on the part of a teenager pulling the trigger on another kid?

I know you're a lawyer, but certainly 'intent' has some meaning to you.

Ok, I'll bite. So what do you think the kid's intent was, if not to inflict emotional distress on the victim?

 

[Titan]

Ok, I'll bite. So what do you think the kid's intent was, if not to inflict emotional distress on the victim?

Demonstrating that the gun wasn't real?

...When an argument ensued with other children over whether the gun was real, Miller said the boy pointed it a 5-year-old girl and pulled the trigger.

He seemed to lack intent (at least to me) to do any harm, but it's a pretty brief news item without much insight into anyone's motives.

There just isn't enough in the article to indicate he was intending to kill the five year old or scare anyone to death.

Is it possible to inflict EMOTIONAL DISTRESS on a 5 year old before the parents and lawyers work on them?

 

[Scrivener]

He seemed to lack intent (at least to me) to do any harm.

Really?

And what, pray tell, intelligent - or, at least, benign - purpose could possibly have been intended by the boy:

1. TAKING the gun from storage;

2. TAKING it OUTSIDE where the other children were;

3. Specifically pointing it at the 5-year old girl, AND

4. Then pulling the trigger?

We look forward to your erudite elucidations with bated breath.......

 

[Titan]

Really?

And what, pray tell, intelligent - or, at least, benign - purpose could possibly have been intended by the boy:

1. TAKING the gun from storage;

2. TAKING it OUTSIDE where the other children were;

3. Specifically pointing it at the 5-year old girl, AND

4. Then pulling the trigger?

We look forward to your erudite elucidations with bated breath.......

Gee, I don't know the article is incredibly brief. Why don't you share your lawyerly wisdom about your interpretation of the brief facts.

The kid took out the gun took it to where there were other kids and an argument ensued about whether or not it was a real gun.

Apparently to resolve the question, the kid pointed it at a five year old and pulled the trigger.

My conclusion is that the 12 year old didn't think it was real, and aimed it at the baby and pulled the trigger to prove it.

I suppose there are other interpretations, like the 12 year old is a heinous felon and that HE was the one arguing that it was REAL and to prove his point aimed the gun at the baby and pulled the trigger to prove that he could kill the kid.

Who knows which is right based on the brief facts in the article.

Which do you think is most likely counselor?

 

[Scrivener]

The kid took out the gun took it to where there were other kids and an argument ensued about whether or not it was a real gun.

Apparently to resolve the question, the kid pointed it at a five year old and pulled the trigger.

My conclusion is that the 12 year old didn't think it was real, and aimed it at the baby and pulled the trigger to prove it.

Now look up the word "intentional" and see what you have so obviously missed for so long.

Which could also be "intentional."

 

[Titan]

Now look up the word "intentional" and see what you have so obviously missed for so long.

Which could also be "intentional."

Listen, for some reason you've decided to pick a fight and lawyers are nitpicky to begin with.

Of course the kid 'intentionally' pulled the trigger. I don't need to look anything up to determine if legal 'intent' existed. I'll leave that to you.


Many cops are less familiar with their own weapons than they should be. Many spend less time educating their own children about weapons so that they know what to do with them and how to handle them.

I don't know what happened in this case, the facts in the article are just to sparse and I have no desire to continue a pissinig contest with you.

All I know is that my strong suspicion is that this kid most likely took out his dad's gun, saw that it was unloaded and took it to a neighbors home where he got into an argument over whether or not the gun was harmful.

To make his case that the gun was not harmful, I suspect, beleiving that the gun was empty, he aimed it at another kid and pulled the trigger.

TOTALLY STUPID? YES! Criminally culpable? - probably himself as a minor.

His dad? - probably for improper gun storage. Perhaps other charges.

But did the kid inflict INTENTIONAL EMOTIONAL DISTRESS - I am arguing no, because I would argue that the kid didn't form the necessary INTENT TO INFLICT EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

But hey, your're the lawyer. You get paid by the hour.

If you think these kinds of CIVIL SUITS are what the courts should be clogged up with (inflicting emotional distress on a 5 yr old) - then have at it!


I'm done with this and am bowing out.

.

 

[Beansie_Time]

lawyers are nitpicky to begin with.

I don't think they are nitpicky to begin with, I think they are nitpicky because we pay them exorbitant amounts of money to be nitpicky when reading and interpreting the laws we want them to argue in our favor.

And to be honest if I ever get into trouble I'm hiring Scrivener because he is about as "nitpicky" as they come. If anybody could find me a way out of whatever mess I stepped my self into it would be him.