In all my life, such accidents were usually taken care of without jailtime. Your analogy fails for the reasons I clarified in post 32. He did not place the child in the way, he mistook the child for something else entirely according to the story. It's a very different scenerio.
No it isn't. You've drawn this imaginary ethical and legal distinction between mistaking a child for a skunk and placing the child in harm's way, but neither I nor the state of Pennsylvania agrees with it. He should have made sure his young cousin--who was playing hide and seek on the property--was not in the vicinity. By firing his gun without making sure there were no people in the way, he was recklessly negligent and rightfully subject to charges.
You are speculating- as I already pointed out, you have no idea what actions he actually took. There is reason, for us at this time, to give him benefit of the doubt and there is reason, in a court of law, as well.
No there's not. The fact that he shot his cousin tells me he didn't bother to check to see where she was, and that he didn't tell anyone he was going to discharge a firearm. That much is clear, and you're being dishonest if you say it isn't. All that's unclear is what his intent was.
You say this with too much certainty- you do not know if he did or did not.
I have a pretty good idea he never told his cousin. Otherwise she wouldn't have been in the way.
Red herring. Whether his life was in immediate danger is irrelevant to his purposes of firing at a skunk- see post #32.
Wrong again. The reason his life being in danger is relevant is because such a condition would allow for some legal and ethical leeway. It's called self-defense. If you accidentally kill someone while defending yourself against an immediate threat, then you're almost certainly not going to be charged. However, because he was
not in any immediate danger, his actions can be considered reckless and unnecessary, which they have been by the state. It doesn't matter what a skunk can do to your property; no one's saying firing at a skunk is illegal. All I'm saying is that unless the skunk is about to kill you, you had better make sure you're not putting anyone else in harm's way by firing that gun.
As for your "Post 32:"
If someone set skunk traps or poison and a child got into it, later, people wouldn't be pushing an aggravated assault charge.
It would all depend. Did he put it in a place where the child could get to it and failed to tell the child about it? If he did, then guess what? He'd be subject to aggravated assault charges.
The "reckless" analogy falls down. While either could be speculated as reckless, the man did not hogtie a person, tie them up in a tree and then evince surprise when they fell down. He was addressing a different threat, without human involvement and we do not even know whether or not he knew that his cousin was even on the property or not.
Again with these false distinctions. You're just making it up as you go. The skunk was not an immediate threat to his person, and so the idea that he was "addressing a threat" doesn't stand up. Whether he knew the child was on his property or not is not entirely relevant, as if he had expected them, or if he ever had regular visitors would be reason enough to expect more caution being exercised when discharging the gun. That his cousin was already in the middle of a game of hide-and-seek suggests that he knew they were on the premises.
He may have been aware, he may have been drunk, he may have called out "Anyone there?" before firing- we do not know and jumping to conclusions to support the notion of "Charge him heavily!"
Calling out "Anyone there," may not even be enough to satisfy the law, considering the party in question was an 8-year-old playing hide and seek
who would therefore not answer when asked if they were there. But, you know,
details, right?
Incorrect. It means that he accidentally shot another person.
Hysterical. You're riding me about jumping to conclusions, yet here you are jumping to the conclusion that it was an accident. Are you not even trying at this point?
It cannot be precluded that he was or was not exercising safety. For example, speculate that he called out three times before firing, and the child, playing hide and seek, remained quiet in spite of the warnings called out. You absolutely are jumping to conclusions. Think about it.
That would still be on him. What makes you think that the child's game absolves him of any responsibility? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
I have not ducked it at all. You're failure to read and comprehend my posts does not preclude that I ducked anything. I have repeatedly pointed out that he's most likely innocent of having intent to harm a child with a firearm. You, on the other hand, speculated that he intended to shoot her and invented the skunk tale as a cover.
First of all, I find it funny when someone commits an embarrassing typo when they are in the middle of insulting someone else's intelligence. The irony is positively delicious. I don't normally point out such errors, since I make enough of them myself, but when someone's about to call me stupid, and they drop a "you're" instead of a "your," I can't help but bring it up.
Anyway, your point here is of course nonsense. Yes, you have said that he is most likely innocent of intentionally shooting his cousin, but you haven't explained how you've arrived at this "most likely," nor have you explained how he is therefore innocent altogether. I hope by now you've realized that intent is not the deciding factor as the law sees it in Pennsylvania? So you still haven't explained how he's innocent.
Also, I've only speculated that he did this intentionally as an alternative to our other speculations. I didn't say that was what happened, or even say that's what I
thought happened. I only offered it as an alternative.
Seen here. You speculate wildly about his "apparent" guilt of First Degree Murder.
Seen where? Where do I say that he's guilty of first degree murder?
Thus; Reckless Endangerment Charge. So why the needless higher charges? Traumatic for the family- so let's add as much as we can and really give it to 'em hard.
Seriously? Sigh. Okay, let's try again:
Reckless endangerment is the act of putting them in danger, understand? Aggravated assault is the act of harming them under those conditions. Do you see the difference now?
I'm not following you here at all- You're making a lot of speculations as to whether he practiced any safety, and even speculated as to his intent to harm the cousin, yet now you profess to agree with benefit of the doubt and innocent until proven guilty? After you've delacared several times I must explain his supposed innocence to you? Do you see a disconnect, here?
No, obviously not, because the disconnect is one you've invented as opposed to pointed out in the actual discussion. Just going by what information we have (Man shoots child cousin mistaken for skunk) we can draw several conclusions regarding his recklessness or lack thereof. I don't know whether or not he intended to do so, and as you so dishonestly overlook, I've made that clear several times. In other words, I'm not jumping to
any conclusions. The conclusions I have reached are based on what little facts we have, and are reasonable enough given them. (Meanwhile, you've already decided his intent was most likely not to harm his cousin, and you can't see why that's not doing exactly what you're accusing me of) The point is, reasonable doubt only applies where there's--you guessed it--reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable doubt here, in my estimation. The way I see it, he clearly acted recklessly, and is guilty of the crimes he has been charged with. But perhaps new details emerge, who knows. But from what information I have, I can't see it unfolding any other way.
You're misrepresenting what I had said.
I have been clear that the charges seem too heavy- and that the onus of accountability is on him- thus my question to you as to whether or not accountability must only include jail time.
And I answered that question. So basically your argument is that he should, what, get a fine? What's your alternative solution to this?
Maybe it's the only one that matters to you, that doesn't mean society is in agreement with you. In fact, it appears that society is not in agreement with you considering how the law is written and the great many of examples available that people are left without jail time for harmful acts. Perhaps you think that because you believe such- all of society does as well- automatically. This is not the case.
Except that the way the law is written in Pennsylvania agrees with my position, (I'm assuming at this point that you've read the quotes from the PA lawbooks) so this all seems like a straw man. I haven't argued that all violent acts should end in prison time. I've never said that. What I said was that if you are recklessly negligent in causing harm to someone else, you should be criminally accountable, and that I agree with the charges filed against this numbnuts who shot his little cousin in the neck because he thought she was a mutant skunk.
You'll notice I had edited my post, in a fit of self control, long before you posted your reply.
Oh, so you lied and then tried to take it back. Sorry you couldn't cover your tracks in time.
So this part was removed- However, I quoted you above where you speculate that he deliberately shot his cousin with intent. You'll also note the eyeroll in the comment-it's sarcasm about your apparent desire to declare guilty until proven innocent.
The eyeroll doesn't magically absolve you of wrongdoing. You lied, you
know you lied, and you tried to remove it from the record. Let's not pretend now that you really had any cause to say that I said I knew for a fact he was guilty of intentionally shooting his cousin. You most certainly did not, and you're
still misrepresenting me by acting as if I was being irrational or irresponsible. The context of that passage was that there wasn't any scenario in which he wasn't guilty of something; if it was an accident, he's guilty of being reckless, if he did it on purpose, he's guilty of much more. You even agreed with me on this, saying "This speculation is also possible." So obviously you didn't find anything wrong with me saying it then. It's only later, after your points had been soundly defeated, that you acted as if I was somehow acting maliciously by offering that as an alternative course of events. Your argument has become entirely rhetorical rather than substantive, as evidenced by these cheap and dishonest attempts to misrepresent me.
Perhaps you should simply admit defeat and move on. Hell, I'd even settle for an "agree to disagree." It's better than watching you flounder like this.
So if you wish to report my posts- Be My Guest.
No, the fact that you later edited your post is appreciated, no matter how self-serving the effort was. It's more than most would have done, so I can let it slide.
