Halloween shooter is an evil, evil man

N

Neverfly

Banned
Banned
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/...harges-filed-in-Pa-Halloween-costume-shooting

The story doesn't give a lot of details.
It appears a 24 year old man shot his 8 year old cousin with a shotgun, believing she was a skunk.
The child was in critical care.

Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that count as accidental shooting of the victim?

Here's my perception:
It was not intended to harm a human being, but to protect humans from the harm of an encroaching animal. Granted, I would not bother to shoot a skunk. I'm not in a position where I would find it necessary.

He's being charged with Assault, Aggravated Assault and Reckless Endangerment.

So here's a guy that tragically shot a family member, believing it was an encroaching animal. Traumatic, I imagine for all involved.

Considering how one family member, the child, is fighting for life in the hospital, why does the government feel the need to step in and make the situation even more traumatic for the family by charging one family member with crimes as if he intended harm, dragging them through long court battles?
What good does that possibly do for anyone?
How does it make anything right? How does it help the child in the hospital? How are those added expenses covered?

I believe it's been too long that criminal charges often do more harm than good.
 
Neverfly said:
Considering how one family member, the child, is fighting for life in the hospital, why does the government feel the need to step in and make the situation even more traumatic for the family by charging one family member with crimes as if he intended harm, dragging them through long court battles?
Click to expand...

Because a crime is a crime, and must be prosecuted as such.

Granted, the modern tendency seems to be to judge a crime by how affected the victim feels (or is assumed to feel), as opposed to the nature of the crime itself.


Neverfly said:
Considering how one family member, the child, is fighting for life in the hospital, why does the government feel the need to step in and make the situation even more traumatic for the family by charging one family member with crimes [I]as if[/I] he intended harm, dragging them through long court battles?
What good does that possibly do for anyone?
Click to expand...

As you say, he's being charged with Assault, Aggravated Assault and Reckless Endangerment. Not with intended harm.


How does it make anything right?
Click to expand...

Criminal justice isn't about "making things right," but about punishing a crime, and establishing, as much as possible, the state prior to the crime.
 
wynn said:
As you say, he's being charged with Assault, Aggravated Assault and Reckless Endangerment.
Click to expand...
Fixed the bold bit for ya.

Point of contention- it's not unusual for prosecutors to not charge a person with a crime for accidental death or even, "justifiable homicide."
If criminal "justice' was just about punishing, it would be even across the board. It most certainly is not.
 
wynn said:
For example?
Click to expand...

Are you serious????? There are hundreds of example of that every single year. One that perhaps you'll understand easily is when someone backs a vehicle over a child in a driveway.

In this particular case there's either something else that we haven't been told or it a matter of some local prosecutor try to make a name for him/her self. I've seen another news story about this with even more details and there was still NOTHING presented that would warrant those charges.
 
Assault isn't necessarily defined as an act with intent. It could simply be an act of violence against another person, intentional or not. It all depends on the jurisdiction. I personally agree with the line of thought that if you recklessly cause harm to another person, whether you meant to or not should be irrelevant. But that's just my opinion.

Of course, if you're looking for uniformity, you're going to be disappointed. The criminal justice system isn't universally about any one particular thing--rehabilitation, retribution, or any other purpose you want to give it--so saying that just because it isn't about punishment across the board it therefore isn't about punishment anywhere is naive.

The alternative is that this joker is full of crap about thinking she was a skunk, and the charges reflect the district's disbelief.
 
Balerion said:
Of course, if you're looking for uniformity, you're going to be disappointed. The criminal justice system isn't universally about any one particular thing--rehabilitation, retribution, or any other purpose you want to give it--so saying that just because it isn't about punishment across the board it therefore isn't about punishment anywhere is naive.
Click to expand...
Essentially, it comes down to rehab or revenge.
Revenge to avenge your victim or rehab to rehabilitate the accused.

It just seems to me that punishment has already happened. Can you imagine living with the guilt and trauma of killing a child by accident? That is punishment. It's like double jeopardy. Let's take the punished and punish him real good so we can be sure he's nice and miserable. Hell- the way I got it figured, a lot of people left alone would torment themselves with the memories- but put them on trial and their too busy thinking about their own sake to punish themselves with memories.
Balerion said:
The alternative is that this joker is full of crap about thinking she was a skunk, and the charges reflect the district's disbelief.
Click to expand...
This speculation is also possible. Reports of this nature desensitize the public. Reports should include a lot of detail.

If we see an injustice but don't know if it is one- we'll finally just shrug it off. We won't hold the system accountable.
 
Many questions about this case come to my mind. Like was is very dark outside or when did this happen? What time was it, were there others around at the time who actually saw this happen and if so why didn't they tell him that it might be the baby? A skunk is a non threatning animal, unless coenered, and won't usually attack humans so why was this man so affraid of the skunk that he had to shoot it, why not just throw a rock at it or something to frighten it away?

There are many other questions but I think you get my drift as to why this man was charged and until they know all of the details then there's only time that is being spent on the life of this child.
 
Neverfly said:
Essentially, it comes down to rehab or revenge.
Revenge to avenge your victim or rehab to rehabilitate the accused.
Click to expand...

You forget that penalties can also serve as deterrents.

It just seems to me that punishment has already happened. Can you imagine living with the guilt and trauma of killing a child by accident? That is punishment. It's like double jeopardy. Let's take the punished and punish him real good so we can be sure he's nice and miserable. Hell- the way I got it figured, a lot of people left alone would torment themselves with the memories- but put them on trial and their too busy thinking about their own sake to punish themselves with memories.
Click to expand...

Remorse can factor into sentencing, but I think it's ridiculous to assume that everyone would feel as guilty as you, and I also think it's dangerous to allow the expression of regret to be punishment enough. Just imagine how such a practice could be exploited. Also, what kind of deterrent is it when all one has to do is say they didn't mean it and apologize?

This speculation is also possible. Reports of this nature desensitize the public. Reports should include a lot of detail.
Click to expand...

There likely wasn't a lot of detail available.

If we see an injustice but don't know if it is one- we'll finally just shrug it off. We won't hold the system accountable.
Click to expand...

No system is perfect, and we shouldn't expect it to be. Obviously when injustice occurs we should point it out, but I doubt that's the case here.
 
I dont know about you, but the shooter must've been drunk as a skunk.
 
He should be charged with Reckless Endangerment only, imo. Unless there are clues that it wasn't an accident.
 
Why was he shooting a skunk in the first place? Here's a radical idea, get the guns out of the hands of those who can't demonstrate a legitimate need for them (Defence, cops, park rangers, security guards, pest controlers, vets, farmers) and those who do lock them up at work when not in use and you won't have these constant stupid "accidents"
 
Asguard said:
Why was he shooting a skunk in the first place? Here's a radical idea, get the guns out of the hands of those who can't demonstrate a legitimate need for them (Defence, cops, park rangers, security guards, pest controlers, vets, farmers) and those who do lock them up at work when not in use and you won't have these constant stupid "accidents"
Click to expand...

"Constant????" Just how many accidental shootings do you think we have in the U.S. each year????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top