A 3-Year-Old Shot and Killed Himself, and for Once the Cops Did the Right Thing

[Robb]

Several readers have written in to share the story of Damon Holbrook, a 3-year-old Michigan boy who, on Sunday, died after unintentionally shooting himself in the head with a loaded handgun he found in a bedroom closet. The handgun belonged to a family friend who had been staying with the Holbrooks; the friend was arrested, and will be arraigned today. According to the Monroe News, he may be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

The speed with which the family friend was arrested is worth noting and applauding as an example of how authorities ought to handle cases like these. Usually, the investigating officers first deem the shooting a tragic “accident,” and then charges are only brought later, if at all. But the Dundee, Mich., police wasted no time arresting the family friend. And that’s how it ought to be done.

It’s very tempting for the police to characterize these sorts of incidents as no-fault accidents. After all, what purpose does it really serve to compound a family’s trauma by packing the relevant adults off to jail? Well, the purpose, of course, is to deter other adult gun owners from making the same mistakes, and to make clear that the right to bear arms carries with it the requirement to bear them responsibly. Damon Holbrook did not die out of happenstance, or some unforeseeable act of God. He died because a careless adult abdicated responsibility, and left his handgun loaded, accessible, and unsecured in a house where an inquisitive 3-year-old was running around. That’s no accident. It’s criminal negligence.

Read More: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/08/19/damon_holbrook_a_3_year_old_shot_and_killed_himself_and_for_once_the_cops.html

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Amen.

[onehandle]

2. Drug users would be displaced by 'responsible gun owners' in prisons, if there was any justice. nt

[mountain grammy]

20. +1000

[jberryhill]

3. Key phrase - "family friend"

...which is why it was treated differently than a situation in which the gun belonged to one of the parents.

[Capt. Obvious]

7. Bingo

[Nay]

15. Yup. This is why he was arrested. nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

22. which is fucked up. Parents should DEFINITELY be charged in these kinds of cases

it is so idiotic to let a parent get away with no punishment if they allow their OWN TODDLER TO FUCKING SHOOT THEMSELVES!

[jberryhill]

23. This thing gets argued weekly

Some people do not consider the death of their child to be "no punishment".

Many children die through the negligence of their parents from many causes.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

24. and those people are often charged with child endangerment or manslaughter through negligence, etc.

so this isn't just about the fact that a gun was used. It is about FUCKING STUPID PARENTS and my very strong opinion those parents should be shown to pay a price even when the child doesn't die.

[jberryhill]

25. 50% of the population is below average intelligence

I don't think more penalties will make them any smarter.

[Scootaloo]

31. "Average" is a different word than "Median"

In a population with an odd number of observations, the median is the one exactly in the middle of the distribution when ranked from highest to lowest. So in a population of five with intelligence test scores ('IQ') of 120, 110, 105, 90, 85, the median is 105, and clearly 50% are not 'below average' – 40% are. In such populations, the proportion 'below average' is always going to be less than 50%, even if there are over 316 million observations and the difference is slight.

When the number of observations is even, however, the median is the arithmetic mean of the two observations in the middle. So in a population of four, with IQs of 110, 100, 90, 85, the two central observations – 100 and 90 – average to 95 and in this case, exactly 50% really are below average. But what if their scores were 110, 100, 100, 90? The two observations to average are both 100, so the median is 100 and only 25% are 'below average'. Since IQ scores are deliberately calculated to conform to a normal distribution, it is, if I'm not mistaken, inevitable that there will be a cluster exactly in the middle of the range and there will never be 50% below average because a proportion, probably a plurality, will always be 'average'.

Even if there were some possibility that not one of the 316,044,000 Americans had an IQ of exactly 100, it transpires that intelligence test scores are grouped into ranges and the range 90-109 (sometimes 85-115) is, uncoincidentally, denominated 'Average'. About 50% of the population fall into the 90-109 range and 68% into the 85-115 range, so only 25% in the first case and 16% in the second would be 'below average'.

[jberryhill]

34. The point being...

there are a lot of people who aren't very bright. In what ways should we punish them for that?

[BainsBane]

32. but if people aren't punished, what is the deterrent?

There are people, after all, who deliberately let their kids die. Or even if it is truly an accident, locking people up might scare others into better securing their weapons.

[jberryhill]

33. "even if it is truly an accident, locking people up..."

Yes, that is pretty much how medieval courts operated.

I'll do you one better. For each unsolved crime, we choose someone at random from the community and execute them.

Doing that will, I guarantee you, reduce the level of crime in that community by engaging social controls. Random punishment, and collective punishment, also have deterrent effects because things that would have been previously thought of as "none of my business" become everybody's business.

[BainsBane]

35. I guess it's only kids

It's not like they matter.

[jberryhill]

38. They do matter

But your premise - "because some people do not care about their kids, then we should lock up ones who do" - is messed up.

In the usual circumstances, these people's lives are shattered in a way that no prison term can match. If saying "if you are not careful, your child will die" is insufficient, then saying "if you are not careful, you'll get prison time" is not going to have any greater deterrent effect. You are relying on the same channel of psychological control, i.e. fear of something awful, to effect the result.

And that's leaving out the other children who, I guess we are not supposed to care about - i.e. the siblings we're going to throw into orphanages or remove to whatever the state CPS does with them.

[Skittles]

26. yes

I believe the reason parents are not arrested is because there is no punishment they could receive greater than what they already experienced

[jberryhill]

27. People who love guns more than kids never get that point

[BainsBane]

36. Yet if someone leaves their kid in a locked car

that's not how the law responds. Or if a mother leaves her child in the house while she goes shopping, she's prosecuted. Why is leaving a loaded gun around any less negligent?

[BrotherIvan]

41. ^^This!^^

While it may feel as though losing one's child is the worst punishment, we as a society do need to make very clear boundaries that negligence with guns is not ok. The parents may have other children who are in danger. If we treat it as an "accident" then it lets the responsible party (in this case a "responsible" gun owner) off the hook. We need, as a society, to point and say very clearly, "This person led to the death of his or her child because of negligence with a gun." That and taking the time a jail cell gives you to understand how selfish you were to put your fear and love of death over the safety of your child rather than being surrounded by friends and family consoling you.

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. We don't often agree, Robb...

...but this is definitely an exception. That idiot deserves prison (and to have his right to possess firearms permanently revoked). Proper firearms security is an intrinsic component of responsible exercise of one's Second Amendment rights, and I have no issues whatsoever with that responsibility being enshrined in law.

[sarisataka]

8. Seconded...

and we should see this enforced far more often

[Robb]

9. Just if a kid steals a gun, or anyone?

Should firearms security responsibility extend to those who don't put their weapons behind lock and key? I'd think so.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. I'd rather be proactive.

I'd like to see security measures be required by law, and I wouldn't object to mandatory periodic inspections (similar to what Norway requires). Obviously there would have to be reasonable notice given and steps taken to ensure that the the inspections aren't used as "fishing expeditions" (like the cops sometimes do with traffic stops, etc.), but those are not insurmountable issues.

Enforcing proper firearms security could not only reduce accidents like the one in question (tragic and heartbreaking, but comparatively rare), but also help with the much larger problem of firearms falling into criminal hands via burglaries, etc.

[Warpy]

5. They probably arrested him to keep him alive

I know I'd want to kill anybody who left a gun around and cost a child's life.

But yes, this is what needs to be done. Assholes who kill kids by leaving guns where the kids can get them need prison.

This is the first step. Liability insurance needs to be the next.

[Capt. Obvious]

6. What is your fascination with my forbidden closet of mysteries?

[bermudat]

10. Shocked to see that the young victim was Anglo

Have seen so many children killed by guns in the home and authorities take the attitude of
'the parents have suffered enough', if they are white. When parents are black, the book gets thrown at them. Hmmm.

[TheDebbieDee]

21. The same thing usually happens when there is an incidence of having

the family car stolen with the kid(dies) in the back seat when the Mom or Dad step inside the convenience store.

It's a horrifying experience if the parents are white. If the parents are black or brown they are arrested as soon as the kid(dies) are found.

[Initech]

11. If you have infants and unsecured guns in the same house, you are not a responsible parent. Period.p

If you have a kid in the house keep your guns locked the fuck up!

[Thav]

14. I would change that statment to

If you have unsecured guns in your house, you are not a responsible gun owner.

Even if you had a gun for defense, you can keep it locked up and quickly accessible for less than $200.

[valerief]

13. But...but freedumbs and stuff. nt

[JDPriestly]

16. Child endangerment.

Courts should at least consider removing other children from the household when these deaths occur. The parents are not being careful enough.

[malaise]

17. +1,000

Throw away the key

[Wait Wut]

18. It is the right thing. And, it bothers me.

How many gun owners will see his arrest as a 'warning'? How many toddlers and children under 18 die every year from 'accidental' shootings, yet it will take other gun owners arrests to wake up the others?

A dead kid? Not MY kid!

An arrested gun owner? Oh NO!! I'd better buy a safe so I don't get arrested when my child kills himself!

LOCK THEM UP!!!! Your child is not 'special' or 'smarter' than any of these dead kids. Children are curious. Teens think they're invincible. None of the parents of these dead kids imagined they'd be picking out a headstone for their kid. Look your child in the eye and imagine them with a bullet hole in their forehead, their face covered in blood. Now give me a reason why you can't be bothered with a safe. Don't give me that crap that a safe keeps you from reaching your weapon if someone breaks into your home. Statistics and news stories say that your own child is more likely to shoot themselves or a friend than you are to shoot an intruder.

YOUR CHILD IS NOT BULLET PROOF!!!

[tapermaker]

19. what if

the friend gave the gun to the homeowner and he put it in the closet in his room.It doesnt say which bedroom closet it was in. If this is the way it happened then i would think the parent would be liable.

[longship]

28. For Christ sake, what does it take to secure the damned thing from a three year old?

Put it in a closet? Fine! Put it high, on a shelf with no ammo loaded. No three year old could get at it.

What did they do? Put it within reach? Of a three year old? Loaded?

Arrest the stupid fucker!

[spanone]

29. k&r...

[Omnith]

30. That guy should be put away for life.

[ileus]

37. If it's not on your person it should be locked up.

A personal protection device is only as safe as it's owner. If you're not going to keep your PSD on your person lock it up.

[Robb]

39. How monumentally helpful of you.

Any plan to help make it happen, of are you just going to continue tut-tutting?

[ileus]

40. It happens every day at my house.

Safety first....I live it daily.

Now if only everyone would be responsible...I can't hold their hand.

[Robb]

42. So you have no solution.

And could apparently care less what might happen outside your home to your fellow human beings.

Unsurprising.

[ileus]

43. see #37 for universal solution that will always work.

[Robb]

44. And if everyone drove safely there's never be a single fender-bender.

Your solution is to tell people to drive safely? Really? And you wonder why you're not taken seriously.

[ileus]

45. No...that's not my job either.

I'm not a drivers ed instructor or a firearms instructor. I'm not in a position to do such things...

Common sense shouldn't have to be taught.



I do what is required to keep my family and I safe, be it car, boat, dirtbikes, Mt or Road bikes, shooting sports...ect.

My son and I both did get bent up a little on our dirtbikes this year so not even I am perfect.