There's no evidence that he was schizophrenic. If it turns out he was, then I completely agree with you. Until then, I can only base my opinion on the facts presented and not on any suppositions.

So you're 100% okay if a guy who leaves his car unlocked and has it stolen by a maniac who proceeds to kill a dozen people in an automobile homicide rampage is charged with those crimes since he left his car in an unsafe condition?

Or is this one of those silly "it-only-applies-to-guns" type of suggestions?

But he did have control over the whole circumstance. He ultimately left the gun accessible to others. If a prison guard opened the prison doors and said "Im off to the pub back in an hour, nobody is allowed to leave", he is responsibe for the prisoners escaping and whatever they get up to whilst they are absent from the prison. He had control over the prison door,. he can not justifiably say the prisoners left of their own freewill, he had no control over the matter.

...and you keep going on about foreseeability in relation to the crime that was committed but the only foreseeability that matter is an unsecured weapon is unsecure.

So therefore if the kid picked up the gun and accidently shot the housekeeper the father should face manslaughter by gross negligence charges, but if the kid picked up the weapon and purposefully shot the housekeeper the father should not face those charges?

One is foreseeable "accidents ha.ppen" the other is not foreseeable as it is "not an everyday occurance".

...but what was foreseeable was that his son had readily avaiable access to the weapon.

Why should he have? 15 people and his son are dead, they might not be dead if he had had that thought. What makes him thinks his son would do something like that? nothing but you must be prepared for almost any scenario. Was itthe first time he left his gun out? Maybe, maybe not but neither jutifies leaving it out in the first place. how many other tiumes did it happen? Once was enough.


Had he not left the gun and ammo out then the kid would of not been able to go on the spree, or he would of had to find other means to commit his crimes ...in procuring his other means then there is a likelyhood it would of been foiled or even a likelyhood that the kid may of reconsidered his plan of action as sinful.

The idea of locking your gun up is so that accidents and crimes become increasingly more difficult to happen, you remove links from the chain, you dont necessarily know whats at the other end of the chain but neither do you want to find out. You make any task of misfortune or ill intent less probable. This guy failed to do so, he left the chain of events wide open to happen. His negligence led to the conduct of somebody else more likely to happen.

[quote=Bananas;746041]But the prisoners escaping is VERY foreseeable. A son going on a killing spree is not.



That's a very good question. In the first instance, yes. The second scenario is a little different. Maybe, maybe not. Depending on more facts.

True, but not foreseeable that he would kill 15 people.



But why would that scenario come to mind in the first place?






I agree he was negligent in leaving the gun out and should be prosecuted for doing so. I don't agree that his son's actions are his fault or that it was foreseeable. I don't think society should punish people criminally for things that are not foreseeable.

The hard facts are the end results.

In Germany (and most of europe) the state asks that if you wish to own a weapon you can, but only if you respect and can demonstrate certain responsibilities, as a gun owner you have a certain onus placed upon you. By leaving his gun unattended this guy clearly breached this responsibility for the reason demonstarated by his 17 year old son. The sons intent be it accidental or purposeful is irrelevant in the fathers responsibility as the owner of the weapon and what that weapon was used for.

I would hazard a guess that the father will proably only recieve a suspended prison sentence. I hope that he is not the only one punished and that whover permits and regulates the licenses are pressured to be more vigilante, do more spot checks on licensed holders and hammer home firearm education.

You are being too specific, the only scenario any gun owner needs to know is that they are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands and in many respects even more dangerous in the right hands.


Do you agree that it was the fathers failings in securing the weapon that directly enabled the son to go on this massacre?

Fair enough, you've made some excellent points and believe me, I in no way am condoning the father's ommission to lock up his guns and weapons. I do think he showed irresponsibility in failing to do so.

I agree that his failure to secure the weapons enabled the son to do what he did, I disagree that he should be charged for manslaughter as I do not see his son's actions as foreseeable. I can understand and agree though that he should be charged for leaving the gun unsecured in the first place.

i absolutely feel that the father should not be punished for his son going nuts over an unknown cause? YES it was the dad's fault for not noticing that his son might be going through hell in school or was mentally retarded and of course for not securing the gun..but to be blamed entirely for the whole incident is just unfair..he should be charged with negligence but not for the murder itself...

however there is way too little info in that article..they din say anything about the son at all and the cause or anything like that..

He is not being charged with murder, he is being charged with negligent manslaughter.

Hello,

How sad!! How many times have we heard of an incident such as this and still the gun gets into the wrong hands and a terrible cost. I feel, sometimes it takes something like this to open up people's eyes, or I would certainly think it would. Perhaps it will take a an incident such as this and the parents being held accountable for what we do "not" do. How unfortunately!! I heard somewhere Holland has an extremely strict gun law involving the "ordinary" citizen not being able to have guns in their possession at all. I don't know what the crime rate is in Holland, but, it sure deserves the time it would take to research it.

Have a great Christmas

Granny12

I quite clearly stated that I didn't agree with the sentencing. Only that the father had a portion of the guilt.


Not necessarily, but that is pretty bad too. Both are highly negligent, in any case.

Simply put, you are not required by law to safely lock up a meat cleaver (although common sense dictates that you should, ha). Also, a meat cleaver is less dangerous than a gun.