A group of teen boys don't need supervision inside someone's home.
They are not small children.
"Baxter said she believes some responsibility for her grandson's death
lies with the adults who were upstairs at the time of the shooting. The teens
were "not being properly watched," she said."I'm
also sorry to hear about this tragedy, but sixteen and seventeen year olds do
not require the same constant supervision as toddlers. It's neither
practical nor reasonable to have an adult with them whenever they're in the
home. Blame the parents for not teaching them enough about gun safety or about
choosing their friends more carefully (don't hang with kids who steal), but
anyone who's had teenagers knows there are limits on direct supervision
when they're with friends.
This is a sad situation. Condolences to the family. If it was truly
a senseless accident, then no charges should be filed. But without further
information, that is hard to believe. If the friends were older, they were
adults. If they were a couple of years younger than him, they were certainly
still old enough to know the dangers of guns. Blaming it on the adults upstairs
seems a little harsh. Most kids in this age group get minimal supervision from
parents during free time. These kids were old enough to babysit, date, get a
job, drive a car, go to an R rated movie, etc. Parents are not with teenagers
every moment. The parents could be partially responsible if the gun should have
been better secured according to state law.
First of all, let me say I believe in the second amendment but with this sad
case I sometimes wonder about the ease of access to guns in our society is a
problem. I don't think it was the fault of the adults in the
house who were upstairs. How many of us adults would have been partying with our
high school senior child and their friends. That would be weird. Let's play it out another way. If they had gone to a neighbors, stole a
knife, and were showing it to friends at a party, would that knife accidentally
gone off and struck someone in the head. No, and we wouldn't be talking
about this sad tragedy. You can't blame the neighbors who had
their gun stolen. Nor, the adults whose house the party was in because they
didn't have a gun or if they did because it was locked up like it should
be. You just have to wonder if we have 320 million people in the USA and 280
million guns if maybe the problem is we've gone overboard with our love of
guns and the second amendment as a society.
These comments are amazing."If it was truly a senseless
accident, then no charges should be filed." - if the gun was stolen, yes
they should be filed."You can't blame the neighbors who had
their gun stolen" - yes you can. The gun was obviously not securely stored
and as a result a young man was killed.And obviously, teenagers with
a loaded gun do indeed need some type of supervision.
If charges are not filed it will irresponsible. Unfortunately Utah has this
reputation of expanding the definition of "accidental gun deaths". In
the recent past two two-year olds were killed while playing with hand guns, and
no charges were filed against the responsible adults. This all points to the
fact that we still do not recognize the seriousness of gun ownership.
Stealing a gun is not a senseless accident.
Whoever stole the gun, needs to be charged. Unfortunately for them, the death
of their friend should be included in the charges as a death in conjunction with
theft.Blaming the parents because they were not keeping a close enough eye
on their teenage son in his room in their basement???? I assume that you keep
your teen leashed to you and sleep in the same room?To Instereo,
your logic is flawed. Annually, there are about 600 people killed, by another
person, with rifles in the US. yet there are 34,000 people killed by cars.
There are about 850 people killed every year by unlicensed hammers. By your own
rational, we should ban cars and hammers before we ban guns. Cars are way more
dangerous. What is your rational for not wanting to ban cars and hammers? I
am guessing it is because you want one.
Stinger bell,1) the gun was stolen, therefore it is safe to assume that
the adults did not know it existed.2) yes, when teens have a loaded gun,
they should be supervised, but see item 1.3) as a teen, the closest thing
I had to supervision, sometimes for days at a time, was that my parents/grand
parents knew that I had it in my possession. 4) there is no valid reason
for having a loaded gun laying around in your house, but see item #15)
what is the age that we should make a law where a person is permitted to have a
gun unsupervised.....oh we already have those laws. Making more laws won't
make a difference if they ones we have are ignored.
First of all....what about the gun being stolen??? Why aren't charges being
filed for that? Did I miss something here? If it hadn't been stolen, then
it wouldn't have happened. And if the boys had stolen the gun, do you
think they would have come home to the adults and said "Hey, we are going
downstairs to check out this gun that was just stolen" I don't think
teens need to be watched 24/7 like a small child. I wouldn't blame the
adults, but the teens should be charged for stealing a gun! Reminds me of the
phrase, "You have the right to make a choice, but not to choose the
While a sad situation, there is no blame for a freak accident.No charges
should be filed.Abour ease of access to guns - that is a
constitutional right under the 2nd and 9th amendments.Now it begs to
question - at what age do people get any constitutional rights?Soldiers as young as 14 were purportedly fighting in the revolutionary war.To enjoy freedom, risks must be taken. And those risks include the
occasional accidents unfortunately.
Theft of a firearm is a serious crime and charges must be filed, preferably as
adults.If anything, the parents are to blame for not teaching their
children basic gun safety.Did their schools bother to teach the
state approved curriculum for basic gun safety- essentially the NRA "Eddie
Eagle" message? While aimed at younger kids in elementary school, the
basics still apply."If you see a gun, Stop!Leave the area.Tell an adult."If kids other than the thieves were shown the
gun, they should have not touched, it, left the area and told an adult. We cannot excuse those involved with the basic act which led to this
needless death- the theft of the firearm.
The NRA has a gun safety education program called Eddie Eagle that Utah ought to
be making use of in the schools. Beyond that gun safety ought to be taught in
health class. We have drivers education, why not gun safety?
If the gun was not stolen, then no one would have died. One of the boys was
showing off his trophy, be he the one who died or one of the others. Charges do
need to be filed, and not against the owner of the gun which was stolen in an
apparent burglary by possibly one of the boys involved in the incident. Charges
need to be filed against whomever stole that gun which lead directly to the
death. Negligent homicide at the least, along with a felony burglary because a
gun was taken.l
This was not an accident; unintentional perhaps but no accident. The gun
performed precisely as it was engineered to function and the victim was killed.
There is no such thing as an accidental gun death, just an unintended target.This gun owner should be held criminally responsible for negligent
homicide for not properly securing the firearm and the other two boys involved
should be tried as adults for the same crime. It's disheartening and
pathetic to see so many people find justification for this behavior and relegate
the matter as something that is simply "part of life." Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with gun ownership; however, the
time has come to start holding the irresponsible gun owners to account for the
thousands of deaths they facilitate each and every year. That goes for gun
So sad, because it represents one more case of something that's TOTALLY
avoidable. Adults, make sure all the guns you have at home are locked up. Ammo
should be also locked up, but in a different container. When you CHOOSE these
policies, no laws are broken or added. The 2nd Amendment isn't in play and,
best of all, no one dies.
So when Stalwart Sentinel's car is stolen and used in a crime, he would
agree to be held criminally responsible - because he didn't ensure that it
couldn't be stolen. When his rental property is used as a meth lab, he
will plead guilty in court because he didn't ensure that his property
couldn't be used improperly. If he gets mugged by a drug addict and his
cash is used to by drugs, then he should be charged because his cash was used to
buy the illegal product. Figure out the difference between a
"victim" and a "criminal." Now, if the gun were the property of
the homeowners and the juveniles accessed it there in the home, then perhaps
charges against the homeowners might be warranted. But you can't hold the
victim responsible for the criminal acts committed with their stolen property.
Jefferson - Incorrect. All examples you've provided allude to the use of
the stolen item in a manner that falls outside the scope of it's intended
purpose. A gun, on the other hand, is designed to shoot and kill. In this
case, it did exactly that. Gun owners constantly drone on about how
"responsible" they are but then offer justification after justification
for the "irresponsible" ones. Well, we lose thousands of Americans
every year to irresponsible gun owners so let's separate the wheat from the
chaff. If you don't adequately secure your firearm, you should be help
accountable for the wrongs caused as a result. Firearms are instruments of
death so, if you're going to own something with "great power" then
you need to take some responsibility for the damage it causes on society.
Can't wait for Reeter Skeeter / Nancy Grace to pounce all over this one. I
see a few Skeeters out there already. Let the law do their job. somebody is
certainly to blame and there are too many scenarios possible to make any real
judgment. 1. Try two 16 year olds nicked the gun, 17 year old friend
found out, tried to get them to take it back. One friend thought he was being
ratted out and accidently shot the 17 year old.2. 3 kids break into
someones house steal a gun, take gun home, play with gun 17 year old responsible
teen gets shot. Of course if any of the teens were responsible in the first
place the gun would not have been taken.3. Somebody else stole the gun,
the teens found it. Responsible teens play with gun....bang!Come on
folks, put your Nancy Grace brains together. Surely we can all come up with
something exciting, someone to blame and real dirt under the rug.Or we can
let the police and the legal system do their job and find the facts and act on
16 years old is smart enough to know when you are doing something wrong or just
plain stupid. Remember this gun was stolen so there are at least 2 wrongs.
@Stalwart Sentinel- finish reading the article before you use this as an
anti-gun soapbox address. Yes people are going to be killed, some intentional
some not. I don't see everyone fighting to outlaw motorcycles or cars for
people accidentally being killed. And we all know the statistics on these are
much higher than any gun deaths. just because you think you don't need a
gun right now doesn't mean that's true and it does not mean that will
always be the case. Maybe you like the government involved in every piece of
your life but I certainly don't.
So Stalwart, you don't know how the gun was secured. You can't hold
the owner liable for anything when he/she was illegally deprived of his/her
property via the burglary. And by the way, Jefferson was right. Cars are meant
to be driven, that is their intended use. Someone steals yours because you
didn't secure it and kills someone while driving your car (the intended
use), they are just as dead as if shot with a gun. Why shouldn't you be
heald liable under your example? It was your car being used for the purpose it
was designed. My gun will only kill someone if it is acted upon in the
prescribed manner. It takes human intervention for it to work.
Midvale Guy - Set aside the hyperbole; I'm neither anti-gun nor intent on
having the gov't involved in ever piece of my life. Motorcycles/cars are
not comparable in any way to guns because motorcycles/cars are designed in order
to get us safely from A to B. By definition, a wreck falls outside the scope of
their intended use. In comparison, a gun is functionally designed to kill
it's intended target which is why no gun death is an "accident",
rather an unintended gun death. Finally, I don't need a gun because owning
one significantly increases the chance you or a loved one will be killed by a
gun. Guns increase risk, not mitigate it.Flashback - See response
above regarding the illogical comparison between a mode of transportation meant
to get you safely to a destination and a machine designed to kill.For fun, let's play your game and call your bluff. If cars and guns are
truly comparable then we must require that each and every gun be registered
immediately, and carry insurance if you use it, no operators under 16, robust
safety and inspection requirements must be put in place, etc, etc... deal?