Man trying to kill mouse shoots girlfriend (Pa)

[Pert_UK]

"CONFLUENCE, Pa. - A man missed a mouse he was trying to shoot with a small-caliber handgun and wounded his girlfriend instead, state police said.

Donald Rugg, 43, of Confluence, was trying to kill the rodent with a .22-caliber handgun when his girlfriend, Cathy Jo Harris, 38, apparently went into the line of fire and was hit in the arm early Tuesday morning, state police said.

She was taken to Somerset Hospital where she was listed in fair condition Tuesday, said hospital spokesman Greg Chiappelli. Neither Rugg nor Harris could immediately be reached for comment.

State police said they won't charge Rugg, but advised against people shooting firearms inside. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=816&ncid=816&e=1&u=/ap/20041020//ap_on_fe_st/mouse_shooting

So...should this guy retain the "right" to keep and bear arms? Surely there is SOME law about irresponsibly discharging firearms that he could be charged with?

This is what staggers me - even when someone displays the utmost fuckwittery with a gun, the authorities take no action......It is FUCKING RIDICULOUS to be shooting at mice with a .22 pistol indoors.

[ogradda]

1. he was shooting a mouse with a gun??

lolololol what a dumbshit.

[Pert_UK]

2. Dumb, but not too dumb to own a firearm apparently......

"Go right ahead sir, it's your God-given right to own a gun regardless of whether you have the brains to use it properly!"

I think we can all sleep safer in our beds, knowing that people like this are out there and armed.

For the love of all things holy, even when I used to shoot (reasonably) high-power air-rifles with scopes nobody would ever talk about shooting mice with them - rats, rabbits, pigeons maybe, but never mice. Too small, too fast and too many sensible other ways to kill them.

And as for shooting a .22 in the house????? Don't they have a charge for reckless endangerment or negligent discharge of a firearm or something?

[Remmah]

6. and she said..........

Is that a mouse in your pocket or are you happy to see me?

[cornermouse]

3. We charge people who hit other people with cars with

homicide, etc. We should also charge people who accidentally shoot other people.

Basically, I think its set up this way so that very few statistics are collected and the NRA can say "See, everyone's responsible. No wild shootings going on".

[benburch]

4. A BB gun would have been a much better choice.

Deadly to the mouse, freaking annoying to the GF...

[gatlingforme]

7. I think he should have used the credit card gun. At least he could

have maimed the mouse which would give him more time to reload and shoot it dead once and for all. mouse sitings are common in my town too. I just hope I never come across one. My .38 would not leave much for an autopsy. lol (sarcasm)

[benburch]

11. I prefer my solution.

CATS

[acmavm]

5. Glad the guy didn't have an AK-47 handy.

.

[LibLabUK]

8. It was out of ammo...

apparently his dog has fleas.

[Pert_UK]

9. ROFLMAO!!!!! Very funny.....

And I can just about imagine it too!

Talk about taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut!

P.

[goju]

10. "fuckwittery"?

That has to be about the funniest term I have yet to see dispensed down here! ;)

Even in one's home, if there is a city ordinance against firing a gun within city limits, than he can be charged for that. But not all cities have that ordinance and Im not even sure if he lived within city limits, since the state police were involved. If no ordinance was in place than he really cant be charged with anything. I dont think it would be any different than if he had accidentally chopped her finger off while slicing potatos. Accidents happen, more frequently with stupid people but they happen nonetheless.

It was stupid for sure, but there is no law against being an idiot. Yes, he should retain the right to keep his guns.

[Pert_UK]

12. So if he'd shot her dead, would he still retain the right to keep a gun?

He could have killed her simply through a total and utter disregard for behaving safely with a weapon.

Yes, OK, he could have chopped her finger off while cutting potatoes but that could only have been an accident if he'd trip and fallen into her or she'd fallen into him or whatever.

This isn't an "accident" - ok, so maybe he didn't mean to shoot her, but it was caused directly by neglecting to meet the most basic of safety requirements.

You CAN have accidents with guns in the same way as you can have accidents with anything. This wasn't one of them - this was a guy deliberately discharging a firearm without taking proper precautions to ensure it was safe to do so.

This is the difference between me crashing into someone because my tyre blew out on the motorway and I lost control, and me crashing into them because I pulled out into the road without looking to see if anyone is coming. Not deliberate, not evil, but negligent and worthy of punishment.

[goju]

13. Legal stuff

I have no idea as to whether he could be charged if he had killed her. Involuntary manslaughter comes to mind but I dont know the requirements for that. I dont think its even relevant either. We could just as easily apply that to the butcher knife analogy. Accidents are accidents. Im sure some "accidents" could meet some requirement for legal action, but I cant speak to that.

"This isn't an "accident" - ok, so maybe he didn't mean to shoot her, but it was caused directly by neglecting to meet the most basic of safety requirements."

Im not sure we know that. We dont know if she walked in front of him at the last second (that would be her negligence, not his) or whether he wasnt paying attention. What "most basic of safety requirements" are you referring to? Many many many accidents have happened by the very best trained LEO's and experienced hunters/shooters because of the actions of others, not them. Thats just a reality.

"You CAN have accidents with guns in the same way as you can have accidents with anything. This wasn't one of them - this was a guy deliberately discharging a firearm without taking proper precautions to ensure it was safe to do so."

Again, we dont know that for sure. Or do we? The fact that she was shot is not evidence that "proper precautions" were not taken.

Im not defending this guy's actions. He was an idiot for shooting a rat/mouse with a gun. But that doesnt necessarily mean that his actions were criminal, or even responsible for the injury. Had she not been anywhere near him, this "accident" probably would have never happened, but he would still be an idiot.

Im sure many shooters here could attest to the fact that, even on very controlled ranges, accidents can happen. I know in my case, I made the mistake of running out to the range before the "all clear" was given. I wasnt paying attention. Nothing happened, aside from being embarrassed and chastized by the range master, but an accident "could" have happened by no fault of the shooter(s).

[iverglas]

16. hahahahaha

"Involuntary manslaughter comes to mind but I dont know the requirements for that. I dont think its even relevant either. We could just as easily apply that to the butcher knife analogy."

Yes indeedy. Many household deaths occur when someone aims the butcher knife at the Sunday roast and hits his/her spouse instead.


"Again, we dont know that for sure. Or do we? The fact that she was shot is not evidence that 'proper precautions' were not taken."

Legal stuff. Investigate the concept of "duty of care".

You could start here:

http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00566/000569/title/Subject/topic/Torts/%20Personal%20Injury_Firearms/filename/tortspersonalinjury_2_6152

Of course, the issues addressed in that article involve civil liability for negligence. But negligence is relevant in criminal law as well.

Here's what my law says:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec222.html

222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.

(2) Homicide is culpable or not culpable.

... (5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,

(a) by means of an unlawful act;
(b) by criminal negligence; ...

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec220.html

220. Every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec221.html

221. Every one who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec219.html

219. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who

(a) in doing anything, or
(b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. ...

Criminal negligence is generally characterized as something like "a marked and significant departure from the standard which could be expected of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances".

To my mind, a reasonably prudent person does not fire a firearm inside a dwelling where other people are present, for any reason (unless it appears necessary to do so in order to preserve someone's life).

Local standards may vary, of course.

[goju]

17. Well then

It seems the local authorities disagree with your, ahem, "authority" on the matter. Nevertheless, I thank you for the "Canadian" criminal law lesson. It was really, um....lengthy.

"Criminal negligence is generally characterized as something like "a marked and significant departure from the standard which could be expected of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances"."

Please tell us why the local authorities disagree with you, on this point.

"To my mind, a reasonably prudent person does not fire a firearm inside a dwelling where other people are present, for any reason (unless it appears necessary to do so in order to preserve someone's life)."

Please tell us why the local authorities disagree with you on this point, also.

[iverglas]

18. didya miss it?

"Please tell us why the local authorities disagree with you, on this point.
Please tell us why the local authorities disagree with you on this point, also."

Maybe you missed it.

Here it is again:

Local standards may vary, of course.

Of course, I would note what the article in quesion actually said:

State police said they won't charge Rugg ...

I wonder why they'd even bother mentioning that, if there was nothing they could have charged him with ...

Prosecutorial discretion and all that. In respect of which local standards may also vary, of course.

[goju]

19. Exactly

I think maybe YOU missed it...

State police said they won't charge Rugg

But please feel free to "correct" them AGAIN on their misunderstanding of local standards. Im quite sure they would appreciate your help.

[iverglas]

21. dear me

"State police said they won't charge Rugg"
But please feel free to "correct" them AGAIN on their misunderstanding of local standards. Im quite sure they would appreciate your help.

I don't recall addressing any local authorities. I was addressing *you*. *You* are the one who had said:

I have no idea as to whether he could be charged if he had killed her. Involuntary manslaughter comes to mind but I dont know the requirements for that. I dont think its even relevant either. We could just as easily apply that to the butcher knife analogy. Accidents are accidents. Im sure some "accidents" could meet some requirement for legal action, but I cant speak to that.

You're the one who didn't have a clue, not the local authorities. You had no idea what the standard to be applied, for determining whether some sort of "injuring someone by criminal negligence" charge should be laid, is.

And then, with respect to the actual facts of the case, i.e. whether the actions of the person who fired the firearm DID meet the applicable standard, you said:

Im not sure we know that.

So I'm not quite sure how your opinion of the local authorities' decision would be any better than mine.

Of course, *I* NEVER expressed an opinion about the local authorities' decision, did I? Nope, I didn't.

I merely attempted to assist you with a little info, to help fill the great big gaps in your knowledge that you yourself laid out.

And I said:

To my mind, a reasonably prudent person does not fire a firearm inside a dwelling where other people are present, for any reason (unless it appears necessary to do so in order to preserve someone's life)

But I certainly didn't assert that the way things are to my mind is the way they are in law, either where I'm at or where the moron in question was at.

Not having the full set of facts in front of us, and not knowing what the elements of an offence like "causing bodily injury by criminal negligence" might be / what offence the thing done by the moron might constitute, in the jurisdiction in question, neither of us has much basis for saying what the local authorities' decision was, let alone for assessing its merits.

They "said they won't charge Rugg" ... with WHAT? And WHY NOT? Who knows???

Not I. So I expressed no opinion on their decision.

And despite that fact, you said: "But please feel free to 'correct' them AGAIN on their misunderstanding of local standards."

Having a hard time following? You taking codeine too, maybe?

[goju]

22. Of course you didn't

You would never assert anything like that, would you? You did however, spend 3 pages and countless hours regaling us with your understanding of Canadian law and how it might apply to this case and then further explaining your explanations of how the "moron" might be charged and how "I" am having a hard time following why your explanations of how this moron "might" be charged in a particular jurisdiction if only it were Canada and if only we all understood your explanation but your diatribe wasnt an assertion or opinion its just a fact and we are all too stupid to understand it and and and..... :eyes:

Decaf sweetheart, decaf.

[iverglas]

23. hmm

a 98-word sentence that left the reader dumbfounded and apparently left the writer breathless and exhausted ... followed by a recommendation for decaf.

and still no evidence of ... well, anything.

[goju]

24. Hey, I was gonna say that

But more like 3 pages and 2000+ words "that left the reader dumbfounded and apparently left the writer breathless and exhausted"...."and still no evidence of ... well, anything".

I guess we agree on that point at least.

[Scout]

33. "and we are all too stupid to understand it "

speak for yourself, bub.

I can usually follow iverglas' posts just fine, thanks.

[goju]

36. I think you are confused

Since the sarcasm of my post did not get through I will speak plainly. I in no way agree with iverlgas' presumption that neither I, nor you, cannot understand her long winded posts. She hopes that is the case, but it is not.

And dont call me 'bub'.

[Scout]

42. I didn't think it was iverglas who thought that...

"And dont call me 'bub'."

cute, from someone who calls others "sweetheart"

[goju]

44. Perhaps you should be a bit more critical in your analysis

"I didn't think it was iverglas who thought that..."

Is that critical thinking, or reflexively defending a friend?

"And dont call me 'bub'."

That was indeed meant to be cute, like dont call me "surely", but I digress. Abandon all sarcasm

[TX-RAT]

34. Iver may be a little long winded at times.

I believe it's only because she has a lot of knowledge to share, and bless her heart, she takes time to share it. I believe she's spent more than enough time with you.
Hell, even my dumb ass can understand it.

[goju]

37. Well

I believe condescent is shared too much. But I do agree, she has spent more than enough on me, but thats ok I have a thick skin.

I think you also are confused by sarcasm. Thats ok too.

[Scout]

43. perhaps if multiple posters seem confused by your attempts

at sarcasm, you should brush up on your writing skills ... or try the little <sarcasm> </sarcasm> thingies, hmmmmm?

[goju]

45. Yes

I should redouble my efforts to please the masses. After all, where can I find myself if not in the reflection of others?

[iverglas]

46. perhaps this is your problem

"... your explanations of ... how 'I' am having a hard time following why your explanations ..."

I don't recall saying any such thing.

What I referred to was your self-proclaimed lack of knowledge of pretty much anything you needed to know in order to have a worthwhile opinion about any aspect of this case. What I then said was said in an attempt to enlighten you somewhat about those things, things like criminal negligence, that you'd allowed as how you knew nothing about.

You may indeed have been having a hard time following what I said. How would I know? Whatever has made you think I said you were? Projection born of insecurity, perhaps?

[alwynsw]

14. If one must dispatch rodents with firearms, do as we do.

Go out around the grain storage bins and have a Garand old time with you're favorite plinking .22 loaded with CB's or use an air rifle. It's both fun and useful.

Arsenic has always been my method of choice to rid oneself of an unwanted girlfriend.

[slackmaster]

25. Arsenic is dangerous

If you have a rodent problem GET A CAT!

[iverglas]

26. Agreed! -- and just pm me ...

If you have a rodent problem GET A CAT!

... and I'll box up a couple and ship 'em by express post the same day.

Ferals ... spoiled by the giant vat of cat food we keep in the garage for them ... but still capable of catching dinner, I'll wager.

Anyone placing an order should feel free to specify age, sex and colour, we've got 'em all. I particularly recommend Raúl, the handsome long-haired grey whom the co-vivant hates for his allegedly beady eyes, but who has been a good husband to Ms. Kitty and was an attentive father to Baby ... although he may be the father of Baby's babies ...

[slackmaster]

27. Thanks but I already have three of the furry little carnivores

Christina, Tiger, and Unit 3 say hi.

[iverglas]

29. of course I figured

I mean, I figured you'd have taken your own advice. ;)

My offer stands for anyone wanting to follow it, you see. They should never mind the cute little furballs in the pet shop / pound window, and go for one of my hunt-ready lean mean mousing machines.

Which of course excludes my own personal four, except for Eddie, who remains feral in both form and attitude. Carl could only kill a mouse these days if it happened to get underneath him and were crushed/suffocated.

[TX-RAT]

35. Unit 3?

I gotta ask

[slackmaster]

38. No real explanation, I just named my cat Unit 3

He's a very nice 18-pound marmalade. I guess I didn't want to give him a cutsie cat name or a recycled human name.

[iverglas]

39. ha

He's a very nice 18-pound marmalade.

The 25-pound grey tabby/white would make short work of him, as long as he (yours) lay still while he (mine) lay on top of him.


I guess I didn't want to give him a cutsie cat name or a recycled human name.

Well ... Carl is Carl because I tried to give him away to my friend a decade ago when he first came in through the bathroom window (and I already had Orange and Nubia), but her daughter wanted a girl cat so she could name it "Carly". I snarled "name it Carl", and then he shit on my friend's bed so I found myself stuck with a cat named Carl.

Eddie is Eddie because I called him ... damn, oh yes, Dick, something to do with Dick Whittington, and the co-vivant called him George, which I thought was stupid, and one day I looked at his hind end as he away from me with those extra toes on his bowed back legs, and said "what a ..." ... okay, codeine time, I can't even remember what it was, some word meaning sasquatch or bigfoot that sounded to the co-vivant like "Eddie", so Eddie it was, against my express wishes.

Oh yeah, duh. Yeti.


But what I'm getting to is ...

"I didn't want to give him a cutsie cat name or a recycled human name."

... because you'd used those ones up on Tiger and Christina?

:P

[slackmaster]

40. I adopted Tiger and Christina about two months ago

Their humans moved to Norway.

[iverglas]

41. yes well

Tigger and Baggins's humans moved to Vancouver. As soon as they were gone, Tigger and Baggins became Jane and Nubia. Named for two sisters, Jane and Lydia, of my acquaintance, and because Baggins was black, and because Tigger and Baggins were not names that were going to be spoken in my house!

Ah, back when even people had actual people names -- the women who lived in that house at various times were Jane and Lydia and Mary, and me with my own time-honoured classic girl name. Not a jewelery store, or region of France, or state of the US, or New York hotel, or nonsense collection of syllables, to be heard. Of course, there was Aino, but she was Lithuanian, and spent much of her time in conversations that went What's your name? Aino. I know you know, but what is it? ...

[slackmaster]

15. In California he could probably be declared mentally incompetent

And therefore lose the right to possess a firearm.

[Jackie97]

20. No, he should not get to keep his gun.

He's too stupid to keep his gun. Has the guy never heard of a mousetrap?

Times like this makes me wish that stupidity was a crime.

Think about it. Even if there wasn't another person in the house to accidently shoot, who uses a gun to try to kill a mouse? The mouse can run and you'll end up shooting the floor.

What would have been funny is if the mouse got too close to his foot, and he shot himself in the foot.

[slackmaster]

28. The story doesn't mention this, but...

Someone using a gun foolishly "early Tuesday morning" sounds to me a lot like something someone might do after consuming alcohol or some other mind-altering substance.

[TX-RAT]

30. Bingo!

I smell a rat but i don't think it was the one he claims to have shot at.
Sounds like a local case.
Parents are claiming a 4 year old boy racked a round in a 12ga 870 and accidentally shot his 16month old sister. Looks like she's going to lose both legs.
Sometimes i swear if their lips are moving their lying.

[iverglas]

32. duh, eh?

... sounds to me a lot like something someone might do after consuming alcohol ...

I'd taken that one as read. (Like the single-vehicle accidents that tend to occur "early Tuesday morning".)

It's just so damned hard to tell when somebody is using a firearm while intoxicated ... and so damned easy for somebody to do.

[Jackie97]

50. That makes sense.

Only somebody with a fried or a slow brain would do that.

[MrSandman]

31. A dual nomination for the Darwins...

Cathy Jo Harris, 38, apparently went into the line of fire and was hit in the arm early Tuesday morning, state police said.

Maybe the reason for no charges.

State police<...>advised against people shooting firearms inside.

No duh.

Some jurisdictions have laws about discharging a firearm within x distance of a residence.

Maybe the game warden will charge Rugg with hunting without a license. Nah, he is owner or lessee.

[Endangered Specie]

47. Ah, shouldn't that read Ex-girlfriend?

[MrSandman]

48. One would think...nt

[happyslug]

49. On the Youg Bike Trail

Confluence where Youghiogheny and Casselman Rivers (along with Laurel Hill Creek) join together.:



http://www.visitconfluence.org/

http://www.atatrail.org/seg-maps/overmap.htm

Here is the Youg Dam, just upstream from Confluence: