Friday, August 7, 2015

Detroit Boy, 11, Charged With Manslaughter in Fatal Shooting of 3-Year-Old - No Charges for the Gun Owner


3-year-old Elijah Walker 

Local news

An 11-year-old Detroit boy was arrested after he allegedly killed a 3-year-old with a handgun Monday — a rare case involving a suspect so young, local prosecutors say.
The suspect has been charged as a juvenile with manslaughter (death by weapon aimed with intent but without malice) and for possessing a felony firearm, according to NBC affiliate WDIV. His bail was set at $5,000 on Wednesday, and he faces a pretrial hearing next week.

8 comments:

  1. We very well might not hear much about this due to it being routed through the juvenile justice system. But here goes,

    "It was not immediately clear if there would be other arrests. Mark Bernardi, a county assistant prosecutor, said Thursday that the prosecutor’s office was reviewing a request for a warrant related to the shooting, but he gave no further details."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/us/detroit-boy-11-charged-with-manslaughter-in-shooting-of-3-year-old.html?_r=0

    So they might be looking at charging a parent. There are safe storage laws on the books, so it might just be a matter of time. As I've said before, this is one area where the MOMs could find an effective niche. Instead of harassing business owners about people who lawfully carry in their venues, they could take events like this and hold the prosecutor's feet to the fire in regards to charging the person who should be answering for their failure to properly secure their firearms.
    The local chapters could and should become conversant as to local laws and what other options there are for charging this failure that might even result in more serious consequences. And then of course, they can make it an issue during election time in order to threaten the politicians' livelihood by having those that don't prosecute defeated.
    It might even make them more credible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you sure they don't do any of that?

      Delete
    2. Well Anon, if they did, they're certainly keeping it a secret, which doesn't seem to be their way of doing things. After all, they declared victory when a business asked gun owners not to carry in their venues, but weren't willing to enforce the request by posting in accordance with local laws.
      They brag when 40 or fifty people show up at a nationally advertised protest. What I suggested is actually something that would affect an election. You would think that those smart public policy types would have thought of it already. Especially if a broke down infantryman/tanker can think of it.

      Delete
    3. Sorry Mike, my comment to Anon, was referring to you.

      Delete
    4. It's interchangeable, the same BS to any who disagree with him.

      Delete
  2. Sure the gun loons love this decision. It backs up their despicable, deadly claim that gun owners are not responsible for their gun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cant speak for others Anon, but I certainly believe that the owner of the firearm should be held accountable for failing to secure his firearm. Mike and I have spoken about this many times.

      Delete
    2. "I cant speak for others Anon"
      But you ALWAYS do, yet, I would agree you should not.
      You certainly made it clear you support those gun loons that break the law.

      Delete