|
Post by webrunner on Jan 5, 2009 23:26:08 GMT -7
Police: Angry Ohio boy, 4, shoots baby sitter The Associated Press Posted: 01/05/2009 07:12:07 PM MST JACKSON, Ohio—Police say an angry 4-year-old Ohio boy grabbed a gun from a closet and shot his baby sitter. Eighteen-year-old Nathan Beavers was hospitalized Sunday with minor wounds to his arm and side after the shotgun attack. Police say another teen was also injured. Witnesses told police the child was angry because Beavers accidentally stepped on his foot. Beavers was watching the child at a mobile home in Jackson with several other teenagers and several other children. Jackson County Sheriff John Shashteen says authorities are investigating. The child has not been charged. www.elpasotimes.com/nationworld/ci_11381290I'm all for the 2nd amendment but this is ridiculous. Should the parents be charged?
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jan 6, 2009 2:43:41 GMT -7
Thank goodness the older boy is going to be okay.
A shotgun? With all those kids in the house, it's a miracle that nothing worse happened!
And I do think the parents should be held accountable for leaving that gun, loaded and accessible!
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jan 6, 2009 6:58:11 GMT -7
I do not know if the parents should be charged or not, not really enough information. I do know that they are idiots (or at least one of them is) for leaving a loaded shotgun in an accessible place. At a minimum the gun should have had a trigger lock, at best both a trigger lock and ammunition in a separate location. That may not have stopped the incident, but may have provided the babysitter with an opportunity to disarm the child or flee the scene.
A 4 year old who reacts to getting his foot stepped on by shooting the person has more going on in his head then the article shares.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jan 6, 2009 7:43:07 GMT -7
I agree that the article is too sparse on the details. I mean there are shotguns (technically a 410 is a shotgun) and then there are shotguns (I have a 12 gage. I like to shoot trap). If, what the article said is true, then that child needs help or the family needs to lock up the guns, or both.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jan 6, 2009 11:00:19 GMT -7
I do not know if the parents should be charged or not, not really enough information. I do know that they are idiots (or at least one of them is) for leaving a loaded shotgun in an accessible place. At a minimum the gun should have had a trigger lock, at best both a trigger lock and ammunition in a separate location. That may not have stopped the incident, but may have provided the babysitter with an opportunity to disarm the child or flee the scene. A 4 year old who reacts to getting his foot stepped on by shooting the person has more going on in his head then the article shares. the point about the lock and the ammo being located separately is a good one, and the observation about the article being sparse on details is also good. Also good to note that there was something going on for that kid to have reacted the way he did. but this weapon should not have been accessible, let alone in a house full of kids. The fact that it was needs to be thoroughly examined. Kids don't always have or display good judgement. But what of the judgement of the adult(s) in this story?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jan 6, 2009 11:10:24 GMT -7
The adults (or at least one of them) are stupid to have created the circumstances. Recently some kid with an uzi at a gun show was killed or killed someone and the accountable adults were charged. In this case there must be some law that can apply - reckless endangerment if nothing else. Wait until the 18 year old gets a lawyer, there is certainly civil liability
|
|