Two-year-old shot by 4-year-old brother -- Charge the mother?

[drmomentum[$]]

Authorities in Houston say A two-year-old has been shot by his four-year-old brother --who may not have known the difference between a real gun and a toy.

[...]

The mother told police she had the gun to protect her family because of recent neighborhood burglaries, and that Saturday was the one day that she did not secure the weapon. She could face criminal charges.

Should the mother be charged? I don't know the applicable laws.

[frazzledspice]

I am so confused. When my sons were growing up (and they are in their late twenties) the big issue in suburban Long Island was whether they should play with toy guns, and whether toy guns should be sold at all.

And although I did not buy them toy guns, I saw that kids without toy guns would sometimes use their trigger fingers and go 'bang-bang' or use other objects to play 'gun-fight.'

This was all, I suppose, due to the influence of Dr. Spock (God rest his soul.)

Why would a four year old even want to play with a toy gun?

And if women like this mother are concerned for safety in dangerous neighborhoods, aren't there other solutions which would disable a would be burglar long enough to call 911 and get police assistance? Tazers, MACE....

In this situation, I would rather own a stun gun and know that my children wouldn't die if they accidentally found it than to own a real gun. Both would be as effective in a dangerous situation with a criminal.

I don't think we can assess her guilt without more evidence. It's obvious she thought she was protecting her family, however misguidedly. She lives in a state where gun ownership is applauded. All of the information she saw probably told her that gun ownership was not only legal, but laudatory.

Yes, I know I am the most anti-gun person on this board, but when the lunatics are running the asylum, we are sure to have problems like these.

This is not to insinuate that all gun owners are lunatics, but there are certainly some extremists on the fringe among them, and in high places in government and in the NRA, to give that statement some credibility.

[phoenixx]

I would charge the mother with negligence in not teaching her children how to respect and handle the gun, and for not putting it away when not needed. Nothing wrong with owning guns, but lots wrong with not respecting them or teaching your kids how to respect them.

[jgibson2[$]]

phoenixx said

I would charge the mother with negligence in not teaching her children how to respect and handle the gun, and for not putting it away when not needed. Nothing wrong with owning guns, but lots wrong with not respecting them or teaching your kids how to respect them.

The NRA Eddie Eagle program IMHO, teaches small children the ONLY thing they need to know about handling a gun.

"C'mere Matthew" (my 9 year old) "What does Eddie Eagle say?"

Rolls eyes and says "Stop! Don't Touch! Leave the Area! Tell an adult!" -- 2.5 years later, he can still spit that out without thinking about it.

I've taught the Eddie Eagle program to kids as young as 4 -- with the parent's consent. We're talking both gun owners and those who oppose private ownership. All of them liked the program and all the kids were able to understand and repeat the instructions. Eddie Eagle teaches kids to treat all guns alike, whether you believe it's a toy or not.

Will it save a kid? I don't know, the NRA claims that research supports the program.

Should we prosecute the mom. Absolutely. Negligent homicide. Teaching kids about guns is NOT a substitute for safe handling by adults. The mother was responsible for the safety of her children and she left the gun accessible, loaded, and WITH THE SAFETY OFF. It must have been off for the 4 year old to fire the gun. She's probably lying about this being the only time she's left the gun accessible.

[erik_kosberg]

Safety on or safety off, little kids should not have access to a loaded gun. Hell, they shouldn’t even have access to an unloaded gun. That’s what trigger locks are for.

[jgibson2[$]]

erik_kosberg said

Safety on or safety off, little kids should not have access to a loaded gun. Hell, they shouldn’t even have access to an unloaded gun. That’s what trigger locks are for.

You missed the first 2 points. They're all important.

1. THe kid shouldn't have had access to a gun.

2. The kid shouldn't have had access to a loaded gun.

BTW, trigger locks? If you really feel that you need a gun to protect yourself, you're not putting a trigger lock on OR unloading, because it takes too long to get the lock off and load the gun. Give me a big dog and a bat any day.

But kids STILL shouldn't be able to put their hands on the gun. Loaded, unloaded, locked, unlocked -- it's all the same, because kids can't tell the difference. She was negligent. The gun was where a child could reach it.

[realtraveller]

Simple. The mother should be charged with child endangerment.

[wivabef]

Hey, if I can be deemed a negligent mother by the state of Maryland for leaving my six year old with my "legal to stay alone" 9 year old for less than a minute in a locked car, fully educated on what to do should a stranger approach, just to run in and get milk, the LEAST this mother should get is charged with negligence.

Ironically, with all the crime in the neighborhood, he was safer probably BEFORE she bought the gun.

[theworm[$]]

Charge her.

[erik_kosberg]

That poor 4-year-old. This is going to haunt his entire life.

[eris esoteric]

realtraveller said

Simple. The mother should be charged with child endangerment.

I gotta say I agree with this one. I see no reason to "punish" this woman (more than she is already being punished), but I think her remaining child should be removed from her custody.

[rmthunter]

eris esoteric said

I gotta say I agree with this one. I see no reason to "punish" this woman (more than she is already being punished), but I think her remaining child should be removed from her custody.

Whoa! There's not enough information here to justify a reaction like that. If we knew that this was part of a pattern of negligence displayed by the mother, then I would consider it reasonable and probably necessary, but on the basis of one incident involving a lack of judgment -- or distraction, or absent-mindedness, or . . . ? I don't at all condone her leaving a loaded gun unsecured, but given the range of potentially life-threatening situations that kids face every day and somehow survive (and I can remember a couple from my own childhood), taking the child away from his mother and making him a ward of the state seems not only extreme, but certainly not in the child's best interest.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

rmthunter said

Whoa! There's not enough information here to justify a reaction like that. If we knew that this was part of a pattern of negligence displayed by the mother, then I would consider it reasonable and probably necessary, but on the basis of one incident involving a lack of judgment -- or distraction, or absent-mindedness, or . . . ? I don't at all condone her leaving a loaded gun unsecured, but given the range of potentially life-threatening situations that kids face every day and somehow survive (and I can remember a couple from my own childhood), taking the child away from his mother and making him a ward of the state seems not only extreme, but certainly not in the child's best interest.

The state judges not just the number of incidents but the severity of incidents. One incident of neglect that ends in a child fatality is enough to hae your kids taken away. And remember, just because one's children are taken away from you does not mean that they might not be returned after further investigation, monitoring, and other interventions. It's not an automatic "we've got your kid and someone's gonna adopt him next week" situation.

[drmomentum[$]]

jgibson2 said

The NRA Eddie Eagle program IMHO, teaches small children the ONLY thing they need to know about handling a gun.

"C'mere Matthew" (my 9 year old) "What does Eddie Eagle say?"

Rolls eyes and says "Stop! Don't Touch! Leave the Area! Tell an adult!"

An excellent and important lesson.

But does a child who may not be able to tell the differnce between a toy and a real gun stop, leave the area and tell an adult every time he sees a toy gun?

I agree that the mother should be charged. Besides not providing a safe environment for the kid (by introducing a loaded gun into the equation) I wonder how much of a factor it was that the child was familiar with toy guns and felt safe around them. We have no way of knowing.

My daughters don't have any guns. If they saw something in the house that looked like a gun, they'd know it wasn't a toy. And they are also taught to not touch guns, get away from it and to tell an adult.

But I wonder, outside of our house, whether our kids could tell the difference all the time.

It's easier to tell a gun when there aren't a lot of pretend ones lying around.

-JP

[cristina1]

The mother thought the boys had returned to their room, but they had instead gone to her room, where the older boy took a loaded gun from the woman's purse.

Perhaps I am reading too much into this quote, but it sounds as if the boys knew what they were after.

[jgibson2[$]]

rmthunter said

I don't at all condone her leaving a loaded gun unsecured, but given the range of potentially life-threatening situations that kids face every day and somehow survive (and I can remember a couple from my own childhood), taking the child away from his mother and making him a ward of the state seems not only extreme, but certainly not in the child's best interest.

I definitely think the mom should be charged. That doesn't mean jail time, or necessarily removal of the child. Kids who get into improperly stored medications and nearly kill themselves aren't usually removed from the home, but an investigation should be made. It's also quite possible that some sort of court-ordered counseling should be mandated and some supervision of the home. If her neighborhood is really that unsafe, it's not impossible that getting the FAMILY into the child protection system could lead to better living conditions.

[jgibson2[$]]

drmomentum said

An excellent and important lesson.

But does a child who may not be able to tell the differnce between a toy and a real gun stop, leave the area and tell an adult every time he sees a toy gun?

Will they? Maybe. That's what the Eddie Eagle program teaches. If it's NOT yours, you don't know if it's a toy or not, so don't touch.

drmomentum said

I agree that the mother should be charged. Besides not providing a safe environment for the kid (by introducing a loaded gun into the equation) I wonder how much of a factor it was that the child was familiar with toy guns and felt safe around them. We have no way of knowing.

My daughters don't have any guns. If they saw something in the house that looked like a gun, they'd know it wasn't a toy. And they are also taught to not touch guns, get away from it and to tell an adult.

But I wonder, outside of our house, whether our kids could tell the difference all the time.

That's really the crux of the Eddie Eagle program. I spend time talking to the kids about toy guns that aren't theirs and how they can be SURE it's not real (If it's not yours, you can't be sure). I presume that some kids will have toy guns and others won't.

drmomentum said

It's easier to tell a gun when there aren't a lot of pretend ones lying around.
-JP

It only takes one. We don't have realistic toy guns here either. We do have pretend guns in our house - but they're all very clearly toys. We have Nerf guns, water guns, and Laser tag systems. While a few are shaped more or less like real guns, they're made of brightly colored plastic. I agree that it's easier to tell that a gun is a toy if there is nothing around that looks like a real gun.

Also, there was an incident here in Maryland several years ago where a police officer shot a teenager who had a toy gun (I think it was a Laser Tag gun) that looked too real. The kid was playing with his friends and someone had reported tresspassers at the local school. The kid came around a corner pointing the gun and the officer reacted. It was very sad.

[cristina1]

OK, I've been reading other versions of this article, and it does sound like the boys knew exactly where the gun was and didnt just happen to come across it.

My two little guys are just a tad bit older than these brothers. This story just makes me want to hug them close and not let go.

[cristina1]

jgibson2 said

Also, there was an incident here in Maryland several years ago where a police officer shot a teenager who had a toy gun (I think it was a Laser Tag gun) that looked too real. The kid was playing with his friends and someone had reported tresspassers at the local school. The kid came around a corner pointing the gun and the officer reacted. It was very sad.

I think that cases like this is what made them start using bright colored pieces on toy guns in the first place, right? Although some toys can have the orange alert pieces easily removed.

[jgibson2[$]]

cristina1 said

I think that cases like thi