He should have never been approved

This is what validates (to them) their charge.

Short story: Back in the day, my son (41 yrs old now) wanted my BMW 740iL, because I was purchasing a Mercedes S420 (shows you how far back that was). I didn’t see that he was responsible enough (based upon what I knew about him and his outwardly displayed habits) to own such a vehicle. Then he got married and wanted the car. I went back and forth (with myself) deliberating whether I should or not. I finally settled on not giving him the car. Here’s why: He was newly married, but already had three kids (girls) to provide for. I knew him, his habits, his penchant for showboating, or being irresponsible with finances, etc., I also knew the maintenance costs for the vehicle. You don’t show up at the BMW dealership with their Flagship Automobile asking how much something costs; you just see the cashier and pay the bill. That car would have disrupted the peace and stability of his family unit or would have destroyed his family dynamic altogether. This later proved to be a prudent decision. And that’s my point. We know what we know, and it ought to responsibly guide us in sound decision-making. When I made that decision: was my son a little wroth with me? Absolutely (for quite a while, too). But I later caught him having to make similar decisions regarding his now 4 daughters that are grown and late and early teens. He sees really clear now. We often laugh about it, now (Well…I laugh…he shakes his head.).

We on this forum share a second thing that is of ultra-importance to all of us, and that is: we are serious about our firearms.

4 Likes

I have watched a slow but steady erosion of our 2nd Amendment rights over the time I have been alive. It has left me with a jaundiced view of our countries leaders.

That even with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Bruen, the anti 2nd amendment supporters are continuing the assault on our fundamental rights and liberties. With 0 repercussions or consequences. The Federal agencies that are supposed to enforce the law. Do nothing.

We are witnessing, a scandal that attacks our most fundamental liberty, yet the Agencies responsible for investigating this. Do nothing.

The Press (the 4th estate) will not even report on it.

So I am loath to set any precedents that I know will be stretched and abused at some later date.

Just to make sure, I do get why the father is being charged. On some level, I want everyone involved in a mass shooting to be brought to justice and punished according to the maximum allowable by law.

I just think this is to Minority Report like.

Fini

YMMV

Edit: Why I am stating that the D.A. and others should be held to the same standard that they are holding the parent is being held to.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/evidence-based-prosecution-prosecuting-domestic-violence-cases

3 Likes

Zavier_D, Take a mental walk with me. View (in your minds’ eye) if you will, you and I as neighbors. Between your property and my property is say, 2500 acres. Let’s also say, in the county that we live in is largely a farming community. The local Sheriff knows us by name and all of our kinfolk. The state that we live in has Bird Sanctuaries everywhere. You can’t shoot’em unless they are flying and only during hunting season. Lastly, let’s say the population density is pretty similar all through our state. How many laws do you think we’d have, or what would enforcement look like? What would crime look like? Who would care that you have a rack in the back window of your truck with a shotgun and rifle in it? It’s customary, it’s the culture. It’s our way of life. It would only be strange if we didn’t have them.

Ok, here’s another picture. There is a whole pie and there is four of us (it doesn’t matter who the other two are - they are widgets). Divided equally our piece of that pie would be pretty hefty and therefore satisfying. The rule is: Every time there is a pie, we get our equal share. We each know what we’re going to get and there are no concerns, we’re good, we’re comfortable. But then a change happens. The population changes. So, in due course, the next time the pie is divided, our piece that we have become accustomed to getting has gotten a whole lot smaller. We now have to settle for a slither because that pie now has to be divided 16 ways instead of four. What do you think will happen? What will be the logical reaction? What will happen at the next town meeting? What will your conversation be with the local Sheriff? And by the way, times have changed, they’ve gotten harder. Reluctantly, we’ve each had to sell off a sizable piece of our land to make ends meet. It seems to be going around. Well, a real estate developer has bought up yours and my land, and he develops a housing community for single family homes and apartment complexes. In no time flat the population density explodes. What do you think is going to happen to the way we used to do things? Are they going to change or are they going to stay the same. You now can’t remember whether you took the guns out of truck or if someone stole them. Little things are now missing, you’re blaming your family, and they’re blaming the new neighbors. What’s that next conversation with the Sheriff going to be like? All of a sudden, the new neighbors are complaining about our old ways. What’s that town meeting going to look like? You see where I’m going with this?

4 Likes

I’m resurrecting this thread because a horrible precedent has been set. I’m not going to debate if it’s a good thing or not. But imagine how this precedent could and probably will be used by some activist DA

4 Likes

I’d love to see these people excoriating those parents reaction when they get charged when their child does something illegal. What about illegal drug use, dui, or just illegal possession of alcohol as a minor? I strongly suspect they would believe the law doesn’t apply to them.

1 Like

That’s what’s wrong with this precedent. We are setting people up to be responsible for someone else’s actions, actions that maybe even years later. I don’t trust activist D.A.'s with this precedent. It will be abused. It’s not a matter of if it will be abused, it’s just a matter of when it will be abused.

4 Likes

We are setting people up to be responsible for their own children’s actions. If that doesn’t make sense I don’t know what does. If one can’t teach their children to be responsible with guns, they either shouldn’t give them guns or better yet not have children.

1 Like

For someone who says stupid shyt as much you do…

That’s a humdinger.

3 Likes

I am just a warm, blooded person who hates cold, blooded killers

2 Likes

It has already emboldened many DA’s. Parent beware, and get hold of your children, because this is going to become common practice. THIS IS A FIGHT, but until it is won, check your kids, because your livelihood depends on it. FACTS.

2 Likes

And if one doesn’t teach their children not to be cold blooded killers then they are going to be held responsible. Seems like a reasonable request to me.

2 Likes

I don’t disagree with the precedent at all, on its face! I believe that parents should be held accountable for what their children do, on its face. The problem is that “you no longer have the right to kick your child’s *** when they screw up!” The dangerous precedent that has been established was when parents were stripped of parental rights to chastise, correct, or discipline their children so as to establish a pattern of behavior in the public sphere. In other words, discipline them so that they will be able to discipline themselves. Now, for the record, I know that discipline comes in many forms, what works for one child does not work, necessarily, for all. But I’ll be ****** if I let someone whose never had to rear children tell me how to rear mine! This is the dilemma! Because if you rear them in a manner you perceive necessary, the law gets involved. If you don’t rear them in the manner determined necessary, the law gets involved. So, there’s that. The problem is that we’ve got people that may have been abused and those that have never been disciplined with a seat at the table making law! It’s a shyt show for sure! (pun intended).

So, you’re engaged in a fight with your hands tied behind your back! This is what makes “this situation” a dangerous precedent, because now you’re being held responsible for something that you have absolutely no significant influence, no control of, nor ability to correct! Coupled with, as you’ve implied, the mercenary motives of “spins, activists, and the abuses thereof.” Furthermore, this ain’t about the child, this is about someone’s d******, f*****up political agenda! They don’t give two shitz about your child.

Do I sound angry; yes, I’m angry. Because this is one more piece of non-sense that I have to find a way to adjust to. But I will… I’m good… I promise… Thanks for asking.

2 Likes