Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun owner wants charges in school shooting dropped(WA)
komonews.com ^ | 26 November, 2012 | AP

Posted on 11/27/2012 7:37:28 AM PST by marktwain

BREMERTON, Wash. -- Washington state appeals court judges had lots of questions for lawyers at a hearing about whether a gun owner should be prosecuted in a Bremerton school shooting that critically injured a 9-year-old girl.

Kitsap County prosecutors charged Douglas Bauer because he owns the pistol his girlfriend's son took to Armin Jahr Elementary. It fired through the boy's backpack, critically wounding Amina Kocer-Bowman in a classroom. Amina spent six weeks in a hospital and endured numerous surgeries for internal injuries caused by the shooting.

(Excerpt) Read more at komonews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: assault; banglist; school; wa
The Supreme Court has already ruled that you have a constitutional right to keep a loaded unlocked pistol in your home. If you can be held liable for a criminal assault because you kept a loaded unlocked pistol in your home, you no longer have the constitutional right.
1 posted on 11/27/2012 7:37:32 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Shame that the kid got hurt. Training the girlfriend's son might have helped.

I do keep loaded, unlocked weapons in my home. I don't allow children or liberals in my home.

/johnny

2 posted on 11/27/2012 7:48:47 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
It fired through the boy's backpack,

how can that happen ?
3 posted on 11/27/2012 7:52:44 AM PST by stylin19a (obama -> Fredo smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

From the article...

“The boy’s mother, Jamie Lee Chaffin, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon.”

I assume he knew she was a convicted felon (though that may not be true) so that should complicate things a bit.


4 posted on 11/27/2012 8:04:12 AM PST by JoeDetweiler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

people in hell want ice water. safeguarding a dangerous weapon is his responsibility. obviously he failed and some little innocent is paying the price.
if the kid took his unattended car keys, stole his car and ran over an innocent it would remain his responsibility


5 posted on 11/27/2012 8:06:57 AM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

In reading the story. The assault charge doesn’t really sound right. On the other hand providing a firearm to a convicted felon(girlfriend) sounds fairly easy to prove. Plus if he’s got any wealth at all a civil trial will bankrupt him on negligence grounds. The fact that the girlfriend has already pleaded that she was in possession of the firearm would take this guy out of the loop as to who was responsible for it’s storage.


6 posted on 11/27/2012 8:09:18 AM PST by Kadric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Men could avoid lots of problems by not living with women who are felons and have school-aged children.


7 posted on 11/27/2012 8:09:43 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Men could avoid lots of problems by not living with women who are felons and have school-aged children.


8 posted on 11/27/2012 8:10:00 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle

Correct. If you are not in charge of your weapon, someone else is, or will be. I know where my stuff is every moment of every day.


9 posted on 11/27/2012 8:11:47 AM PST by enraged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

What part of “the gun was stolen” do these people not understand?


10 posted on 11/27/2012 8:12:08 AM PST by djf (Conservative values help the poor. Liberal values help them STAY poor!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

Real men don’t shack up with felons, or baby-mommas.

Then again, real women don’t commit felonies, and don’t move their kiddies into a home where there isn’t a husband or older, wiser blood relative to supervise.

Plenty of blame to pass around. Horrible that a young innocent child & her family are paying the price.


11 posted on 11/27/2012 8:15:01 AM PST by LadyBuck (Some day very soon, Life's little Twinkie gauge is gonna go...empty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

“It fired through the boy’s backpack,

how can that happen ?”

The backpack material was thin.

On a more serious note, the gun was probably in the backpack without a holster, thereby leaving the trigger uncovered. If something else in the backpack got caught up in the trigger guard, against the trigger, there could be enough pressure against the trigger to cause the weapon to fire if: There was a round in the chamber, the weapon was cocked, any safeties were “off” or compromised.


12 posted on 11/27/2012 8:15:13 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
From the article,
The boy's mother, Jamie Lee Chaffin, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon.
In exchange for her guilty pleas, the court dropped an assault charge against her and she will likely testify against Bauer if his case goes to trial.

Your point is taken, but there is always a matter of liability. I have a right to a car and alcohol, but if my 13 year old takes either one to scool, I'm going to have to answer some questions concerning my responsibility for my child. Even when your child takes your car against your wishes, you are liable, as controlling the child is your responsibility.

This being a girlfriend's child, the key question will be if the man was "playing the part" of guardian in any way or just an accessable target.

Since this is not a case of a stranger taking the gun, the issue of liability is explorable. There aren't enough details in the article to speculate further than that.

13 posted on 11/27/2012 8:21:25 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle; All
if the kid took his unattended car keys, stole his car and ran over an innocent it would remain his responsibility

I disagree. It is not your responsibility to keep other people from using your property illegally and immorally.

14 posted on 11/27/2012 8:22:47 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: djf
What part of “the gun was stolen” do these people not understand?

If your minor child steals your car, you are still liable for the accident.

This kid was not a stranger off the street, nor a natural child. When you take in people to play family, you start sharing liability.

15 posted on 11/27/2012 8:25:11 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
I disagree. It is not your responsibility to keep other people from using your property illegally and immorally.

It is when you've either encouraged it or they are a minor in your care. There is no reason to presume the former, but the latter is an unanswered question. All the shacking up in this country makes this a case by case determination.

16 posted on 11/27/2012 8:28:52 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Was the gun stolen or not? Simple question. Simple answer. Yes or No.

If your answer is Yes, then you are admitting that the owner of the gun LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT.

Was what the gun owner did stupid?
Maybe.

But we don’t put people in jail for being stupid.


17 posted on 11/27/2012 8:34:08 AM PST by djf (Conservative values help the poor. Liberal values help them STAY poor!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Well, it is your responsibility if the person using your property is a minor under your supervision. Since he’s probably not the legal guardian of the kid, I don’t know if that applies in this case.


18 posted on 11/27/2012 8:52:45 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: enraged

Does that mean you know how many guns you have:?


19 posted on 11/27/2012 9:12:24 AM PST by Cold Heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

it is your responsibility to keep your firearms away from children. period. it was his negligence that allowed the kid to get a hold of the gun in the first place.


20 posted on 11/27/2012 9:17:13 AM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

Yeah, those women don’t deserve husbands or boyfriends. They should live on their own with no welfare.


21 posted on 11/27/2012 9:49:12 AM PST by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The Supreme Court has already ruled that you have a constitutional right to keep a loaded unlocked pistol in your home. If you can be held liable for a criminal assault because you kept a loaded unlocked pistol in your home, you no longer have the constitutional right.

I agree to an extent, but this is not a case of having the right to have the loaded/unlocked pistol, it is a case of not taking reasonable precautions to keep someone without the maturity to fully understand what the ramifications of improper handling could result in. It is also incumbent upon the person to exercise due diligence to keep a child from having ready access. When my grand-kids visit, I put my guns out of sight and out of reach to insure they don't get their hands on them - I keep them loaded and most with one in the tube so it could be a bit of bad ju-ju if one of them handled one. They know I and my wife have the weapons, and have been told to never touch one if they see one, but they're children and their curiosity could make for a tragedy. I remember taking a .22 LR bullet to school when I was about 6 years old. I showed it to some friends and we decided to stand by a tree, for cover, and throw it on the sidewalk to see if we could get it to go off. But for the Grace of God, we didn't "get lucky". And I was raised around guns and in the NRA with my Dad teaching me all the dos and don'ts - I was taught to aim and shoot a BB gun up in the attic with the barrel resting on a sawhorse because the gun was too heavy and I couldn't hold it steady enough to aim it - despite that, I was still a child and prone to "oopsies".

That said, there are a lot of dumb laws that allow people to be sued. Many cities require homeowners to shovel the sidewalks in front of their houses or pay a fine. If a person slips and hurts themselves on a shoveled sidewalk, they can sue the homeowner, where if the walk was un-shoveled, it would be considered an "act of God" and not be subject to suit.BTW - I really enjoy all your posts about gun owners prevailing over the bad guys and other 2nd Amendment topics.

22 posted on 11/27/2012 9:49:32 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle; All
it is your responsibility to keep your firearms away from children. period.

Absolutely, categorically false.

Your assertion makes me responsible for acts of people that I do not control. If a child steals your car, are you then responsible for any damage resulting? We have gone far down the path of making people responsible for the actions of others. No one should ever be held responsible for the bad actions of others. Owning property does not make you liable for what others illegally do with that property.

You are also responsible for the actions of children under your control, but whether this child was under his control seems unlikely and is certainly in doubt.

23 posted on 11/27/2012 9:59:15 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: djf

Sorry but “stolen or not stolen” is not the only question in this case.

If your 10-year-old steals the keys to your bulldozer and then drives it through my china shop, you are liable. REQUISITE INTENT is not required, you failed to control your minor child’s use of your property.

The relationship between this boy and this man is an issue. When you start playing the role of daddy, you start getting some of those responsibilities. Again, the details to determine this are not in the article.


24 posted on 11/27/2012 10:04:34 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: djf

Sorry but “stolen or not stolen” is not the only question in this case.

If your 10-year-old steals the keys to your bulldozer and then drives it through my china shop, you are liable. REQUISITE INTENT is not required, you failed to control your minor child’s use of your property.

The relationship between this boy and this man is an issue. When you start playing the role of daddy, you start getting some of those responsibilities. Again, the details to determine this are not in the article.


25 posted on 11/27/2012 10:05:06 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: djf
But we don’t put people in jail for being stupid.

Actually, we do put people in jail for being stupid when the stupidity becomes criminal negligence, such as allowing a 4-year-old to run heavy equipment.

Many gang-banger uncles and boyfriends have been put in jail for leaving their loaded pistols unattended with the toddlers (who shot themselves). I presume none of those thugs intended for the toddler to use the pistol.

26 posted on 11/27/2012 10:08:46 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

ever hear of an ‘attractive nuisance’? i found out about it about 35 years ago reading an article in reader’s digest about a family who was sued because the neighbor’s child came onto their property, made sparks by banging rocks together over the gas tank of the car, and the car went kablooey.
seems the car was an attractive nuisance and the family had to pay the dead kid’s family a ton of moolah.
owning a gun is a big responsibility,. if you’re not up to accepting it, then perhaps you should not own a gun.


27 posted on 11/27/2012 10:20:12 AM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: camle; marktwain
seems the car was an attractive nuisance and the family had to pay the dead kid’s family a ton of moolah. owning a gun is a big responsibility,. if you’re not up to accepting it, then perhaps you should not own a gun.

If that is indeed the story, then it was a gross miscarriage of justice. A real "attractive nuisance" would be an unfenced playground with an open septic tank.

Reasonable man approach should always apply. If I invite neighbor kids onto my property to play, I am responsible for any bad consequences from the loaded 12 ga in the play area. If the neighbor kid, who never comes to play at my house, walks in and goes exploring in my night stand, I should not be responsible for the loaded .357 he gets ahold of. The area between those is gray area for a jury to consider.

28 posted on 11/27/2012 10:57:38 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

my understanding is that if you have a firearm you are responsible for it period. if a child gets it, this happens because you were negligent, especially if it is loaded.
if you take your ‘reasonable man’ thesis, is it reasonable to expect that a child can play without finding a loaded gun in the area where the child plays....
it is the gunowner’s responsibility to make sure that his firearms are away from where children may get to them, which is why there are things like gun safes, etc.
had an incident a few years back where a person unintentionally left a loaded gun in a bedside table, and a two year old got it and killed themselves. guess who got charged?


29 posted on 11/27/2012 11:07:54 AM PST by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: camle
my understanding is that if you have a firearm you are responsible for it period.

No more than you are responsible for any other object you possess. If a child comes in your home, starts the stove, heats up some oil, and pours it on their head, you are not negligent. The same applies with a firearm.

The reasonable man theory is just that, what a majority of 12 people determine to be reasonable.

Even accepting your premise, you would have to conclude that it is reasonable to assume that a child isn't a professional locksmith.

Ahad an incident a few years back where a person unintentionally left a loaded gun in a bedside table, and a two year old got it and killed themselves. guess who got charged? Is it reasonable to assume that a 2-year-old that your KNOW is in your home might open drawers? Yes. Is it reasonable to assume that a loaded firearm shouldn't be made assessable to 2-year-old? Yes. Is it reasonable to assume that 2-year-olds that you don't know and don't invite into your home will enter your home? No.

You are setting a standard of liability that no person could ever meet whether it be concerning your toilet or your shotgun.

30 posted on 11/27/2012 11:45:58 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: camle

Many toddlers drown in toilets and buckets.

Are you irresponsible if you don’t lock your toilet lids? No. But you might be if you leave a toddler alone, take a nap, and they drown in your toilet.


31 posted on 11/27/2012 12:00:08 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: djf
But we don’t put people in jail for being stupid.

Pity!

Regards,
GtG

PS Are there no workhouses?

32 posted on 11/27/2012 1:08:49 PM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray

Of course politicians, as usual, would be exempt...

;-)

Well, this case was local news here. In fact the kid didn’t even shoot the gun on purpose, it was in his backpack. Obviously, there seems to be a component where the dude who owned the guns was incredibly stupid.

Washington state is a “common law” state. The common law shall be the rule of decision in cases unless the legislature has specifically made rules for the subject.

So we go to “criminal liability”. If you ever read any of the Federal statutes, you will see a phrase pop up again and again...

Knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily.

In other words:
Knowingly - the results that occurred were results that might occur and were KNOWN to the accused
Willingly - the results that occurred were DESIRED by the accused, there WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE INTENT
Voluntarily - the accused was under NO COMPULSION OR THREAT to do whatever the act was that achieved the results.

This is pretty much the standard elements of a crime. Failure to prove even ONE of the elements means whatever happened wasn’t criminal.

So, what does that mean in Washington state?

Title 9A RCW
WASHINGTON CRIMINAL CODE

Chapter 9A.08 RCW
PRINCIPLES OF LIABILITY

RCW 9A.08.010
General requirements of culpability.

(1) Kinds of Culpability Defined.

(a) INTENT. A person acts with intent or intentionally when he or she acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.

(b) KNOWLEDGE. A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when:

(i) he or she is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense; or

(ii) he or she has information which would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by a statute defining an offense.

(c) RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

(d) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

(2) Substitutes for Criminal Negligence, Recklessness, and Knowledge. When a statute provides that criminal negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally.

(3) Culpability as Determinant of Grade of Offense. When the grade or degree of an offense depends on whether the offense is committed intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, its grade or degree shall be the lowest for which the determinative kind of culpability is established with respect to any material element of the offense.

(4) Requirement of Wilfulness Satisfied by Acting Knowingly. A requirement that an offense be committed willfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further requirements plainly appears.

So that pretty much sums it up. No intent, no crime. He might be found guilty of criminal negligence, but he is NOT guilty of assault.


33 posted on 11/27/2012 1:42:32 PM PST by djf (Conservative values help the poor. Liberal values help them STAY poor!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
thanks...sounds like it had to be an almost “perfect storm”.
34 posted on 11/27/2012 2:21:32 PM PST by stylin19a (obama -> Fredo smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: djf
He might be found guilty of criminal negligence, but he is NOT guilty of assault.

Concur that assault requires intent. But leaving dynamite mixed with road flares in your hardware store is still likely to get someone jail time for criminal negligence.

35 posted on 11/27/2012 2:40:17 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Criminal negligence would be a hard one to prove also.

As soon as prosecution opens his mouth and mentions a little girl getting shot, defense stands up and yells out “Objection! Prejudicial!!”

Somewheres I have a hard-bound copy of Washington state Rules of Criminal Procedure but I’m not worked up enough to dig it out...

If the judge lets the evidence in, defense now has an appeal all the way to the Washington state Supreme Court, possibly to the United States Supreme Court.

Now... - I saw the guys attorney last evening on the news and he seemed like a complete doofus to me so who knows, this case is LOADED with doofuses!

Let us not forget that the real crime here is that a weapon was stolen.


36 posted on 11/27/2012 3:09:10 PM PST by djf (Conservative values help the poor. Liberal values help them STAY poor!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: camle; All
owning a gun is a big responsibility,. if you’re not up to accepting it, then perhaps you should not own a gun.

Owning a gun is far less of a problem than owning a car, a swimming pool, or power tools. Owning a gun has far less dangerous consequences than voting, driving, or engaging in casual sex.

Owning a gun is explicitly, constitutionaly, protected, while the other activities and items mentioned above are not.

37 posted on 11/27/2012 4:41:53 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: djf
Let us not forget that the real crime here is that a weapon was stolen.

Was it reported stolen? The girl was shot, apparently seriously. How did this happen? Apparently a minor did something clearly illegal (and stupid).

If my minor child does something illegal, there is a question of whether I, as the reponsible adult, acted in a sensible way concerning their action.

There is not a clear break in responsibility when one's minor child commits a crime, nor is there de facto culpibility. It is a matter to be sorted out.

A person is arguably guilty of criminal negligence if they leave a gun in a public restroom and a kid shoots someone with it (regardless of my intent). If a person allows their child the opportunity to take that same gun to the same restroom, then it can be argued that I failed to safely secure the weapon, by failing to control my minor.

A huge issue in this is defining the relationship between this man and this boy, and after that whether the man acted in a reasonable fashion to secure his weapons.

If this kid were a stranger to him, I'd be in total agreement that having the gun in his home (or car) locked or unlocked, would consitute reasonably securing the weapon. But the kid isn't a stranger, nor an adult.

38 posted on 11/27/2012 5:04:11 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
Men could avoid lots of problems by not living with women who are felons and have school-aged children.

Fixed.

39 posted on 11/27/2012 5:09:04 PM PST by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Men could avoid lots of problems by not living with women

All for "gay marraige" are ya?? /S

40 posted on 11/27/2012 7:33:21 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
All for "gay marraige" are ya?? /S

Saw the sarcasm tag, but I can't recommend that anything get married to anything.

41 posted on 11/28/2012 2:38:41 PM PST by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson