Toddler shoots father, pregnant mother at New Mexico motel

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LizKat, Feb 1, 2015.

  1. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #1
  2. Aspasia macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Location:
    Halfway between the Equator and North Pole
    #2
    "The child does not face criminal charges."

    Yes, like there actually is some statute that applies to a three-year-old.

    Five people and two pit bulls living in a motel room. Maybe the toddler did them all a favor by bringing their situation to the attention of the authorities.
     
  3. mooblie macrumors 6502

    mooblie

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    The Highlands, Scotland
  4. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #4
    And what situation would that be, that would need the attention of the authorities?
     
  5. LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #5
    I don’t know if the thread will be fun or not. It could end up mostly cut and paste from the thread about the toddler in the supermarket fishing mama's gun from purse and killing her. I guess if events like this keep happening due to careless storage of weapons around kids, and the laws on felony negligence are enforced, at least the prison industry will benefit along with the makers of handguns.

    This whole ambience of this incident is pretty different from the one where the toddler shot his mom in the supermarket. Pit bulls, the husband not having the weapon or right to buy one because of disqualifying criminal record... I'm not saying the woman was a criminal or didn't have a right to buy that gun but in a way it seems like if he had no record then he might even have had possession of the weapon instead of her having it in her handbag. Nice irony if the gun control laws worked to put a legal weapon in the hand of the more careless of the parents. We can't know if he would have been as careless.

    One problem of gun control laws is that they don’t resolve the problem of proxy purchasing for ineligible buyers by eligible ones. The woman may have bought and possessed the weapon with their mutual agreement she’d hold it for him until he felt the need to have it in hand outweighed the risk of arrest for possession. But no one involved would cop to that and certainly not the dealer, even if her husband was with her when she bought the thing.

    It would be interesting to see if he gets charged with negligence, since by record of purchase it was her weapon, not his, and the kid took it from her purse. The husband and the grandmother just happened to be in the room. How are they responsible for negligence of the child? I'm leaving out the matter of whether it's negligent to have pit bulls around toddlers, that's a whole other thread.
     
  6. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
  7. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #7
    So? I used to shoot my parents all the time when I was a toddler. Everyone thought it was cute. Political correctness is out of control these days, kids can't just be kids anymore...
     
  8. LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #8
    The family being in a motel with their pets (let's say poodles or pit bulls) is not a problem, is it?

    The problem occurred when the 3-yo kid got a gun out of mom's handbag and managed accidentally or otherwise (we'll give the kid benefit of doubt) to shoot both parents, leaving the little sister and the grandmother unharmed.

    How is there negligence except on the part of the mom for leaving the gun accessible to the three year old?

    Go ahead, start a thread on poodles. I know they're smart. I don't know if they're smart enough to keep a gun out of the hands of a kid. The pit bulls certainly flunked that test. But they're not negligent, either.

    imo only the mom could be charged with felony negligence if the NM police are talking about charges related to the gun.
     
  9. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #9
    Kid shooters are getting better. Got 2 with one shot, impressive.
     
  10. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #10
    He's responding to this ...

    While I may have had a same initial reaction as Aspasia (family living in a residential ... that's not a good sign), it struck me—on second thought—how many people probably live under those conditions who aren't criminals, low-lifes, or ne'er-do-wells and are simply poor and struggling.

    Though I understand how one might assume the lifestyle and moral character of those involved, it's too easy to equate poverty with criminality and neglect. In this specific case, it may be true. But I think we need to give people some benefit of the doubt that poverty isn't in itself indicative of corrupt morals and criminality.
     
  11. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  12. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #12
    The man has a felony. Most people of good moral character do not have felonies.
     
  13. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #14
    Exactly, but poodles wouldn't have even been mentioned. They made sure to include knowledge of two pits to add sensationalism to the story.
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    Okay. But do you realize my point had more to do with preconceptions of the poor?

    I was trying to make a nuanced point, and even admitted my own tendency to expect the worst out of people simply because they lived in a residential motel.

    But thanks for the update.
     
  15. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #16
    I agree. Prejudice against the poor has been described as the oldest prejudice there is.

    People often live in residential hotels/motels because they don't meet the qualifications for leases. As a result, they end up paying more for housing. As a result, the higher cost of housing helps keep them in poverty.

    (That said, people should keep their weapons out of the hands of toddlers. That applies to rich people and poor people alike.)
     
  16. LizKat, Feb 1, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2015

    LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #17
    I agree. I am not even sure why the father's prior felony was mentioned. They could have just said that the mother's handgun, "a recent legal purchase", was used in the shooting. But the reporters got the info from the police, and the police probably just related the results of everything they had looked into after being called to the scene. The editor could have omitted some of it but you're right, it sells more papers the way it is.

    The fact that the kid was reaching for an iPad when he found the handgun sort of surprised me.
     
  17. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #18
    From the motel website it says that guests are permitted to keep "small pets" with the approval of management and after paying a $5/day fee.

    Whether or not the motel's management approved the two pitfalls; or the family just sort of snuck them into the room, is unclear.

    There is a lot about this story we just don't know. Granted it does seem weird to have five humans and two dogs living in a motel room. And the motel in question didn't look like a fleabag hellhole. Not "ritzy" by any means - but clean, and equipped with free wi-fi in every room.

    Maybe they had just moved to the area to start a new job. Maybe they had lost their former home recently to a fire or other tragedy.

    The one thing that isn't a mystery is this: guns are generally bad news. Far more bad things are likely to happen when you have them around than good things.

    If you want to ow firearms for sport or hunting: extreme care needs to be exercised. But keeping them for self-protection? Outside of a military-style disciplined environment; its hard to see that working out very well.
     
  18. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    Plenty of people use them for self defense . But people here would call them anecdotes:rolleyes:
     
  19. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #20
    You have a point, JK. If lived in close proximity to two pit bulls, I might need a handgun for self defense too.
     
  20. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #21
    Shotgun is easier to handle under stress
    Pits are not the problem. Stupid owners who make the dogs mean are; sometimes I wish it was the owner who was put to sleep instead of the dog :eek:
     
  21. Aspasia macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Location:
    Halfway between the Equator and North Pole
    #22
    Most communities have agencies that will help people find decent housing. And more.
     
  22. bwhinnen macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Location:
    San Diego
    #23
    Why, oh why, was a firearm not only loaded, but within easy reach of a toddler?

    This is, in my opinion, is what really needs to be addressed here. I don't care about anyone's class, race, religion, education, this is just plain idiotic and completely mind boggling.

    Is there more to this story that has not been divulged?
     
  23. LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #24
    That this guy has a past felony conviction isn't even relevant here. His wife bought the gun. His kid shot the gun. The guy and the grandmother and the little sister were all just bystanders.

    The family lacks morals because he's a prior felon? No. We don't know squat about their morality. How does the dad's prior felony relate to the moral character of the mom anyway? She should have stashed the weapon more securely, but that's about all we can say of her.

    The wife was careless. If carelessness equated with immorality we'd all be locked up for something. When did she become immoral, when the gun went off or when the gun was stored improperly? You don't have to be immoral to face negligence charges.

    Most people of good moral character who don't set out to commit a felony and then end up committing one, they lose their good moral character when? When they commit the action, when they're charged that it was a criminal action, or when they are convicted? When they have an extra drink at the bar and then drive? Or when they end up charged with vehicular homicide? What if they get off?

    What if they don't have enough money to pay a top defense lawyer? Moral until too poor to buy the right defense?

    We could assume the wife in this report might have intended to share the gun with the guy in the future, despite his record, or that she bought it only because he wanted it and insisted she stand in as a buyer, but those would just be assumptions. We could possibly say about her that she's of weak moral character if he wanted her to buy the gun and she only went along out of fear he'd otherwise abuse her. But if she feared reprisal, that's hardly a matter of morality.
     
  24. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #25
    Hey. I found that three kilos of coke on the side of the road, and I had ever intention of taking it directly to the police station. Just because the cops didn't believe me when they found it in my car doesn't make me a bad person, alright? :mad:
     

Share This Page