11-year-old US boy charged with manslaughter for shooting dead 3-year-old

[webfact]

Eleven-year-old US boy charged with manslaughter for shooting dead three-year-old
Christine Hauser

New York: An 11-year-old Detroit boy has been charged with manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a three-year-old, the first such case that a prosecutor could recall involving a person so young.

Prosecutors said in a statement that the boy had been visiting his father on the east side of Detroit on Monday when he took a handgun from a bedroom closet and threw it out a window.

He then retrieved the gun and jumped into a vehicle parked in the yard. The three-year-old, Elijah Walker, got into the car with the boy, who was not identified because of his age. The boy then shot Elijah in the face, the statement said.

The Detroit Free Press reported that the 11-year-old was charged with manslaughter on Wednesday afternoon at a preliminary hearing in juvenile court. He "looked lost", the newspaper reported.

"I cannot remember a time when we have charged someone so young with taking a life," the Wayne County prosecutor, Kym Worthy, said in the statement.

Full story: http://www.theage.com.au/world/elevenyearold-us-boy-charged-with-manslaughter-for-shooting-dead-threeyearold-20150806-gitm4j


-- The Age 2015-08-07

[JingerBen]

The gun owner and whoever was supposed to be caring for these children should be charged.

[zaphod reborn]

The gun owner and whoever was supposed to be caring for these children should be charged.

Many states have gun ownership laws on their books, but prosecutors are reluctant to bring charges. That's because the gun ownership statutes don't specify the standard of care for storing a gun. Michigan's gun ownership negligence law is a classic example:

752.862 Careless, reckless or negligent use of firearms; injury of property; penalty.

Sec. 2. Any person who, because of carelessness, recklessness or negligence, but not willfully or wantonly, shall cause or allow any firearm under his control to be discharged so as to destroy or injure the property of another, real or personal, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 90 days or by a fine of not more than $100.00, if the injury to such property shall not exceed the sum of $50.00, but in the event that such injury shall exceed the sum of $50.00, then said offense shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 1 year or by a fine not exceeding $500.00.

So, in order to convict the father, the prosecution must show that the father negligently allowed the gun to be used. Elijah and his brother live with the mom and were visiting the father. Elijah was in the house with his aunt. Elijah ran outside, and the aunt followed. As she exited the house, she heard the shot. The father kept the gun in a closet in an upstairs bedroom. Elijah's brother apparently threw the gun out the window and went out to retrieve it. So, it would be difficult to establish negligence on the part of the father or the aunt, although the investigation is continuing. It would be easier to prosecute the father if Michigan had a more specific statute as to how a gun has to be stored. For instance, the statute could require the following which are considered the standard for safe gun storage:

1. Unloaded firearms should be stored in a locked cabinet, safe, gun vault or storage case. The storage location should be inaccessible to children.

2. Gun locking devices render firearms inoperable and can be used in addition to locked storage. If firearms are disassembled, parts should be securely stored in separate locations.

3. Ammunition should be stored in a locked location separate from firearms.

4. Thoroughly double check firearms to confirm that they are unloaded when you remove them from storage. Accidents could occur if a family member borrows a gun and returns it to storage while still loaded.

Instead, because the legislature didn't specify the degree of care that must be exercised by a gun owner, the prosecutor must prove that the gun owner was negligent, which means he didn't act like a "reasonable man" with respect to storing his gun. That standard makes it difficult to determine whether the father's conduct fell below the standard of care, as he did place the gun in a closed closet.

[JingerBen]

The gun owner and whoever was supposed to be caring for these children should be charged.

Many states have gun ownership laws on their books, but prosecutors are reluctant to bring charges. That's because the gun ownership statutes don't specify the standard of care for storing a gun. Michigan's gun ownership negligence law is a classic example:

752.862 Careless, reckless or negligent use of firearms; injury of property; penalty.

Sec. 2. Any person who, because of carelessness, recklessness or negligence, but not willfully or wantonly, shall cause or allow any firearm under his control to be discharged so as to destroy or injure the property of another, real or personal, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 90 days or by a fine of not more than $100.00, if the injury to such property shall not exceed the sum of $50.00, but in the event that such injury shall exceed the sum of $50.00, then said offense shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 1 year or by a fine not exceeding $500.00.

So, in order to convict the father, the prosecution must show that the father negligently allowed the gun to be used. Elijah and his brother live with the mom and were visiting the father. Elijah was in the house with his aunt. Elijah ran outside, and the aunt followed. As she exited the house, she heard the shot. The father kept the gun in a closet in an upstairs bedroom. Elijah's brother apparently threw the gun out the window and went out to retrieve it. So, it would be difficult to establish negligence on the part of the father or the aunt, although the investigation is continuing. It would be easier to prosecute the father if Michigan had a more specific statute as to how a gun has to be stored. For instance, the statute could require the following which are considered the standard for safe gun storage:

1. Unloaded firearms should be stored in a locked cabinet, safe, gun vault or storage case. The storage location should be inaccessible to children.

2. Gun locking devices render firearms inoperable and can be used in addition to locked storage. If firearms are disassembled, parts should be securely stored in separate locations.

3. Ammunition should be stored in a locked location separate from firearms.

4. Thoroughly double check firearms to confirm that they are unloaded when you remove them from storage. Accidents could occur if a family member borrows a gun and returns it to storage while still loaded.

Instead, because the legislature didn't specify the degree of care that must be exercised by a gun owner, the prosecutor must prove that the gun owner was negligent, which means he didn't act like a "reasonable man" with respect to storing his gun. That standard makes it difficult to determine whether the father's conduct fell below the standard of care, as he did place the gun in a closed closet.

Very informative post.

Surely the fact that the gun was loaded will help the prosecution get a conviction... even in Michigan

[GeorgesAbitbol]

NRA should be charged as well

[sanuk711]

According to a report just released from the NRA......if the 3 year old had been also properly armed........this wouldn't have happened.......

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

NRA should be charged as well

Along with all the congressmen that take bribes from the NRA to allow these atrocities to continue.

[Neurath]

The gun owner and whoever was supposed to be caring for these children should be charged.

Many states have gun ownership laws on their books, but prosecutors are reluctant to bring charges. That's because the gun ownership statutes don't specify the standard of care for storing a gun. Michigan's gun ownership negligence law is a classic example:

752.862 Careless, reckless or negligent use of firearms; injury of property; penalty.

Sec. 2. Any person who, because of carelessness, recklessness or negligence, but not willfully or wantonly, shall cause or allow any firearm under his control to be discharged so as to destroy or injure the property of another, real or personal, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 90 days or by a fine of not more than $100.00, if the injury to such property shall not exceed the sum of $50.00, but in the event that such injury shall exceed the sum of $50.00, then said offense shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 1 year or by a fine not exceeding $500.00.

So, in order to convict the father, the prosecution must show that the father negligently allowed the gun to be used. Elijah and his brother live with the mom and were visiting the father. Elijah was in the house with his aunt. Elijah ran outside, and the aunt followed. As she exited the house, she heard the shot. The father kept the gun in a closet in an upstairs bedroom. Elijah's brother apparently threw the gun out the window and went out to retrieve it. So, it would be difficult to establish negligence on the part of the father or the aunt, although the investigation is continuing. It would be easier to prosecute the father if Michigan had a more specific statute as to how a gun has to be stored. For instance, the statute could require the following which are considered the standard for safe gun storage:

1. Unloaded firearms should be stored in a locked cabinet, safe, gun vault or storage case. The storage location should be inaccessible to children.

2. Gun locking devices render firearms inoperable and can be used in addition to locked storage. If firearms are disassembled, parts should be securely stored in separate locations.

3. Ammunition should be stored in a locked location separate from firearms.

4. Thoroughly double check firearms to confirm that they are unloaded when you remove them from storage. Accidents could occur if a family member borrows a gun and returns it to storage while still loaded.

Instead, because the legislature didn't specify the degree of care that must be exercised by a gun owner, the prosecutor must prove that the gun owner was negligent, which means he didn't act like a "reasonable man" with respect to storing his gun. That standard makes it difficult to determine whether the father's conduct fell below the standard of care, as he did place the gun in a closed closet.

If 1.2.3.4. were actually used, then you've gotta say that having the bloody thing at home is next to useless for protection against the extraordinary number of home invasions and invaders. Guess people will just have to choose between having children and having their guns. Shame really as each have a role to play in establishing a bloke's virility.

[timmyp]

Clearly If the 3-year-old boy were armed, he could have defended himself.

It would have at least made the 11-year-old think twice before pulling out his gun, fearing that the 3-year-old might be armed as well.

[Neurath]

Clearly If the 3-year-old boy were armed, he could have defended himself.

It would have at least made the 11-year-old think twice before pulling out his gun, fearing that the 3-year-old might be armed as well.

Precisely. These are the sorts of things that happen when people aren't properly armed. Where was the mother of the three year old anyway - and why wasn't she armed??

[johncat1]

America. Land of the gun ..... What can you expect from a bunch of irresponsible <deleted> ? Keeping a loaded gun in an unlocked place too

[lap82]

Looks like such things will last forever in the US

[Blitzkrieg Bob]

What an utterly senseless and shameful deed, what an unnecessarily loss and what an irresponsible father/gun owner... Lost for words, really

[Cardiff1963]

The NRA have called for all 3 year olds to carry guns

[Time Traveller]

Only in the USA, stupid gun idiots

That guy is the idiot, and evidently you if you beleive what he says.

He believes guns do not save lives, yet fails to explain why security guards have guns, why rich people and policticians are protected by people with guns or why police carry guns. Is there any other reason, except to protect life and property?

Edited August 7, 2015 by Time Traveller

[Chicog]

Stoopid NRA and stoopid rednecks.

They don't seem to have a limit to how many childrens blood they will have on their hands.

[Fullstop]

charged with manslaughter for shooting dead three-year-old

Shooting a dead three year old ... What's the big deal?

[teacherpaul]

Only in the USA, stupid gun idiots

That guy is the idiot, and evidently you if you beleive what he says.

He believes guns do not save lives, yet fails to explain why security guards have guns, why rich people and policticians are protected by people with guns or why police carry guns. Is there any other reason, except to protect life and property?

I'm afraid you are the idiot if you believe America's crazy gun laws do any good.

America needs to follow the UK's example and completely ban handguns.

U.S police have killed the same number of people in just 1 month as the British police have killed in 100 years. It's a no-brainer really.

[Linky]

There cannot be enough laws to stop stupidity.

The parents where probably out restocking on amunition.

Americans must be getting tired of the world laughing at them. If not, then they need therapy.

[Baerboxer]

Only in the USA, stupid gun idiots

That guy is the idiot, and evidently you if you beleive what he says.

He believes guns do not save lives, yet fails to explain why security guards have guns, why rich people and policticians are protected by people with guns or why police carry guns. Is there any other reason, except to protect life and property?

I'm afraid you are the idiot if you believe America's crazy gun laws do any good.

America needs to follow the UK's example and completely ban handguns.

U.S police have killed the same number of people in just 1 month as the British police have killed in 100 years. It's a no-brainer really.

Yet the UK police do not have the capacity and capability to prevent law abiding citizens from being assaulted, mugged, raped, and murdered.

Criminals do not respect any laws. They will and do carry firearms, bladed weapons and other weapons in pursuit of various crimes.

I'd prefer the right to bear arms and protect my family, property and being from criminals rather than rely on police response time assuming I was able to make an emergency call and they could respond in a timely manner; or that they were monitoring the copious CCTV and could respond appropriately.

[alfalfa19]

NRA should be charged as well

Yes. and I am waiting for the NRA to say that if the 3 year old had only been armed with a gun, this would not have happened.

[Linky]

Only in the USA, stupid gun idiots

That guy is the idiot, and evidently you if you beleive what he says.

He believes guns do not save lives, yet fails to explain why security guards have guns, why rich people and policticians are protected by people with guns or why police carry guns. Is there any other reason, except to protect life and property?

I'm afraid you are the idiot if you believe America's crazy gun laws do any good.

America needs to follow the UK's example and completely ban handguns.

U.S police have killed the same number of people in just 1 month as the British police have killed in 100 years. It's a no-brainer really.

Yet the UK police do not have the capacity and capability to prevent law abiding citizens from being assaulted, mugged, raped, and murdered.

Criminals do not respect any laws. They will and do carry firearms, bladed weapons and other weapons in pursuit of various crimes.

I'd prefer the right to bear arms and protect my family, property and being from criminals rather than rely on police response time assuming I was able to make an emergency call and they could respond in a timely manner; or that they were monitoring the copious CCTV and could respond appropriately.

Iraq and Somalia must be the safest places on earth then.

[Sabaidee Mai]

Need to sort out the gun laws in all states and throw the book at gun owner who let this sort of thing happen

[cookee68]

And America still say that guns are ok, these guns should be in a place where kids cant get them, and if they do then the parents should be held responsible too, how i am glad that the UK gun laws are not like that of the USA,

[teacherpaul]

Only in the USA, stupid gun idiots

That guy is the idiot, and evidently you if you beleive what he says.

He believes guns do not save lives, yet fails to explain why security guards have guns, why rich people and policticians are protected by people with guns or why police carry guns. Is there any other reason, except to protect life and property?

I'm afraid you are the idiot if you believe America's crazy gun laws do any good.

America needs to follow the UK's example and completely ban handguns.

U.S police have killed the same number of people in just 1 month as the British police have killed in 100 years. It's a no-brainer really.

Yet the UK police do not have the capacity and capability to prevent law abiding citizens from being assaulted, mugged, raped, and murdered.

Criminals do not respect any laws. They will and do carry firearms, bladed weapons and other weapons in pursuit of various crimes.

I'd prefer the right to bear arms and protect my family, property and being from criminals rather than rely on police response time assuming I was able to make an emergency call and they could respond in a timely manner; or that they were monitoring the copious CCTV and could respond appropriately.

Yes, and if you shoot someone breaking into your home, it will be you that goes to jail. How naive you are to think that one gun cancels out another.

Anyone who says that American police are superior to UK police are just lying to themselves, and they know it.

Class dismissed.

[55Jay]

Awful lot of Brits seem to leave their gun free nirvana for third world asylums like Thailand then complain about it, and how bad their own country is (which is why they left), then spend the rest of their time pontificating on how bad other countries are; especially the ex-colonies that kicked them out. Funny that.

Sent from my GT-I8150 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Linky]

Awful lot of Brits seem to leave their gun free nirvana for third world asylums like Thailand then complain about it, and how bad their own country is (which is why they left), then spend the rest of their time pontificating on how bad other countries are; especially the ex-colonies that kicked them out. Funny that.

Sent from my GT-I8150 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Cant recal them pontificating how they would like more guns.

[SOTIRIOS]

....sorry but...throw the book at violent criminals....and murderers....

..a deliberate act warrants a deliberate sentence.....

...and hopefully it sets a precendent for other 'minor' criminals.....

[jesimps]

Only in the USA, stupid gun idiots

That guy is the idiot, and evidently you if you beleive what he says.

He believes guns do not save lives, yet fails to explain why security guards have guns, why rich people and policticians are protected by people with guns or why police carry guns. Is there any other reason, except to protect life and property?

I'm afraid you are the idiot if you believe America's crazy gun laws do any good.

America needs to follow the UK's example and completely ban handguns.

U.S police have killed the same number of people in just 1 month as the British police have killed in 100 years. It's a no-brainer really.

Yet the UK police do not have the capacity and capability to prevent law abiding citizens from being assaulted, mugged, raped, and murdered.

Criminals do not respect any laws. They will and do carry firearms, bladed weapons and other weapons in pursuit of various crimes.

I'd prefer the right to bear arms and protect my family, property and being from criminals rather than rely on police response time assuming I was able to make an emergency call and they could respond in a timely manner; or that they were monitoring the copious CCTV and could respond appropriately.

You normally talk BS but on this I agree with

you 100%.

[Chicog]

I'd prefer the right to bear arms and protect my family, property and being from criminals rather than rely on police response time assuming I was able to make an emergency call and they could respond in a timely manner; or that they were monitoring the copious CCTV and could respond appropriately.

I'd rather you didn't, in case you had a nervous breakdown and decided to go and shoot up a cinema.