APP - Father facing charges - 6 yr old son shot his sister

tekkychick

New member
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/09/20/fred_b_maphis_jackson_county_a_wisconsin_boy_shot_his_sister_and_their_father.html

I just wanted to take a minute and applaud authorities in Jackson County, Wis., who this week charged a local man for his role in an unintentional child shooting that happened last month. (Thanks to the reader who sent me this story.) On August 30, a 6-year-old boy shot his 4-year-old sister in the face with a loaded shotgun his father had left unattended somewhere in the house. (The girl survived.) Though the boy originally claimed that the gun had accidentally discharged, he later admitted that he had deliberately pulled the trigger as part of a game, and that his father had instructed him to lie about what happened. Now, Fred B. Maphis is facing misdemeanor charges of leaving a loaded firearm near a minor and obstructing an officer. Good.

I’m glad that this guy is facing charges, though you have to wonder whether he would’ve been charged with anything if he had just had his son tell the truth in the first place
. (If you lie to the cops, and they find out about it, you will get no mercy.) There are a couple other interesting and relevant aspects of this story as well. First, the Wisconsin state law that makes it a crime to leave a loaded firearm near a child under 14 is sensible and just, and every state ought to have one like it. I’ve written a lot about these sorts of child access prevention laws, and how they can help protect kids from gun-related injury or death by incentivizing parents to properly store their firearms. And yet, according to data compiled by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 23 states have no such laws on the books, omissions I can only ascribe to inertia or ignorance. It’s hard to see how any state legislature could rationally object to something like the Wisconsin law, which is relatively moderate as these statutes go, and which only applies when a child accesses the gun without permission and either takes it out in public or uses it to cause bodily harm to someone else. Nothing here is controversial. If your state doesn’t have any laws like these, you might consider calling your representative and asking her to explain why.

Second, the La Crosse Tribune reports that the 6-year-old boy “has been shooting firearms since age 3 and has a .22-caliber rifle he’s allowed to shoot with parental supervision.” I’m not going to judge the wisdom of this particular parental decision, though it does appear to have been prohibited under Wisconsin state law, which says that children younger than 12 are only allowed to possess and control a firearm in the context of a professionally supervised hunter education class. But here’s the point: This kid was about as experienced with firearms as any 6-year-old can be, and he still screwed up and shot his sister in the face. This just goes to show that no matter how responsible or experienced a kid might seem, he’s still a kid, prone to mistakes and accidents because of his youth. It is irresponsible to assume that a child’s familiarity with guns necessarily implies some sort of mastery of guns. And it’s inexcusable to let safety standards slip just because you assume your kid knows better than to get into trouble.

I’m not saying that’s what Fred B. Maphis assumed in this case. According to the Tribune, Maphis said he usually secured and unloaded his guns, and that his failure to do so here was a one-time mistake. But you don’t make that mistake if gun safety is your foremost concern. When it comes to kids and guns, you have to assume the worst, and take every necessary precaution to prevent the worst from happening.

Bolded parts I thought were good points.

Glad the father is facing charges; very glad the daughter survived; glad Wisconsin has a law making it a crime to leave a firearm near a child under 14; sorry the father ignored this law along with the one where kids have to be in a supervised hunting class; and thought the article made a good point that when it comes to kids and guns, you have to assume the worst.
 
laws like no firearms around children of a certain age can also have their disadvantages, like the case in california where two kids were killed by a neighbor with a pitchfork because the guns were required to be locked and inaccessible, preventing the 16 year old daughter from using one to protect her siblings.
 
There are rare occasions where seatbelts trap someone in a car; we don't therefore say no one has to wear seatbelts.

I imagine there are a lot more killings due to guns left where kids can get to them than there are deaths because the kids couldn't get to the guns.
 
There are rare occasions where seatbelts trap someone in a car; we don't therefore say no one has to wear seatbelts.

I imagine there are a lot more killings due to guns left where kids can get to them than there are deaths because the kids couldn't get to the guns.
I will not disagree, but trying to legislate away stupidity never works. it's best to just hold idiots accountable so as to not affect the rights and freedoms of others.
 
laws like no firearms around children of a certain age can also have their disadvantages, like the case in california where two kids were killed by a neighbor with a pitchfork because the guns were required to be locked and inaccessible, preventing the 16 year old daughter from using one to protect her siblings.

The 16 year old should've been given a key.
 
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...sin_boy_shot_his_sister_and_their_father.html



Bolded parts I thought were good points.

Glad the father is facing charges; very glad the daughter survived; glad Wisconsin has a law making it a crime to leave a firearm near a child under 14; sorry the father ignored this law along with the one where kids have to be in a supervised hunting class; and thought the article made a good point that when it comes to kids and guns, you have to assume the worst.

good point well made
 
laws like no firearms around children of a certain age can also have their disadvantages, like the case in california where two kids were killed by a neighbor with a pitchfork because the guns were required to be locked and inaccessible, preventing the 16 year old daughter from using one to protect her siblings.

VS the number of kids wounding or killing others with unsupervised firearms...intentionally or unintentionaly
 
There are rare occasions where seatbelts trap someone in a car; we don't therefore say no one has to wear seatbelts.

I imagine there are a lot more killings due to guns left where kids can get to them than there are deaths because the kids couldn't get to the guns.
Ya but. I would have been dead if I was wearing a seatbelt many years ago when hit by a stolen car.

saw it coming (at my drivers side), and barely had time to crawl over the console and into the passenger seat.

car was bent like a boomerang -i 'd still rather use my judgement - people drown in lakes here in Florida -easy to do -its all flatland
they panick.

I really like not being dead for the past 20 years..
 
2 yrs ago near here, a 7 yr old boy took a loaded gun out of their van's glove box and accidentally killed his little sister with it. His parents, dad the COP, left them alone in the vehicle and went into a store.

Hmmm. Should we remove all the guns from cops too?
 
IMO, I'd be a hell of alot more worried about the cars my kids were getting into. The injury and death rate is much higher. And the rate of parents running over, injuring, and killing their kids while driving....pretty darn high.

We claim to 'need' cars. They are part of our culture (much more than most other nations). They are viewed very positively. And the last is the main distinction.

Many Americans feel they need their guns. Guns are part of our history and our culture (yes, I realize that slavery is part of our history and we dont still promote it...let it go). But there is a mainstream element that CHOOSES to demonize guns and gun owners. When the actual data show that there are other, DAILY, more common risks to families.
 
2 yrs ago near here, a 7 yr old boy took a loaded gun out of their van's glove box and accidentally killed his little sister with it. His parents, dad the COP, left them alone in the vehicle and went into a store.

Hmmm. Should we remove all the guns from cops too?

no, just from those that irresponsibly store their firearms
 
He didnt lose his job. He didnt even get charged for more than a yr. The public had to demand it...and the jury was hung and he got off.

most states have laws regarding children and firearms, but too often they are either ignored by the 'justice' system or the jury sets them free
 
most states have laws regarding children and firearms, but too often they are either ignored by the 'justice' system or the jury sets them free

I believe it's pretty 'selective.'

That same week, in another part of the state, Yakima, a 3 yr old got his dad's gun inside their van. Killed himself. BOTH parents were charged immediately and both were found guilty. Hispanic couple, non-cops. When I questioned our county on this, I was told 'different jurisdiction.' True, to a point.
 
Back
Top