Gun discharged at IKEA

[eldirector]

Well hes being charged with criminal recklessness. He is from camby. He was actualy 62 years old not 50's like I said. He was several yards away from me so I couldnt see the extra years lol. Wearing shorts. So the guy I saw was him I'm sure.
Camby man faces criminal recklessness charge after child finds gun, fires it inside Fishers IKEA | FOX59

Yikes.

Another case of "keep your trap shut".

Well, that and "keep your handgun safely on your person".

Hopefully this gentleman's misfortune can be a good learning exercise for the rest of us.

 

[Trigger Time]

I'd be surprised if Crim Reck stuck. That's, IMO, overcharging and likely based on the fact it hit the media.

that seemed to be the predicting assesment of guy relford too the other day. As much as I wanna see this guy thumped by the legal system, if there is not really a charge that fits then I deffinately dont believe in wasting resources or law enforcement or our judicial system being used as a bully.
But damn, what an idiot

 

[Trigger Time]

Yikes.

Another case of "keep your trap shut".

Well, that and "keep your handgun safely on your person".

Hopefully this gentleman's misfortune can be a good learning exercise for the rest of us.

Yes I agree. Always keep your mouth shut.

 

[T.Lex]

I think the Crim Reck is the closest they could get to "I knew I shouldn't have pocket carried in these shorts, but I did it anyway."

Knowingly/intentionally/recklessly doing something that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury is pretty broad.

 

[HoughMade]

Kel-Tec...fired on first pull. At least there's some good news to come out of this.

No holster-pocket carry FTW!

 

[Trigger Time]

I think the Crim Reck is the closest they could get to "I knew I shouldn't have pocket carried in these shorts, but I did it anyway."

Knowingly/intentionally/recklessly doing something that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury is pretty broad.

I think most people here know that pocket carry without a holster is reckless, wearing shorts and doing it without a holster even more so because the pockets typically arent as deep and things slip out easier. We take a huge responsibility everyday as gun owners when we carry. We arent carrying Rose's in our pockets, or belts, or ankles, ect. We are carrying an instrument of life and death and with it HUGE responsibility and in my opinion are held or should be held to a higher standard than the average person who doesnt carry.
Also even with a small keltec how would you not know it fell out immediately or check when you get up knowing it's likely to fall out when you sit at the angle a couch produces.
I dont have all the answers but this just seems like simple math to me. We have talked many times on ingo about this very thing so a lot of people know these things. And still we see people admitting to pocket carrying without holsters ect. That is the very definition of Reckless.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think the Crim Reck is the closest they could get to "I knew I shouldn't have pocket carried in these shorts, but I did it anyway."

Knowingly/intentionally/recklessly doing something that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury is pretty broad.

Losing a gun being reckless and creating a substantial risk is a stretch. You don't get to use the outcome as the risk assessment, and any risk isn't substantial risk. Would you want to be the guy arguing that he saw, or should have seen, that there was a substantial risk a child would find the gun then fire it?

 

[T.Lex]

Losing a gun being reckless and creating a substantial risk is a stretch. You don't get to use the outcome as the risk assessment, and any risk isn't substantial risk. Would you want to be the guy arguing that he saw, or should have seen, that there was a substantial risk a child would find the gun then fire it?

Well, I wouldn't make that argument that way.

I think the clearer path to probable cause is:
- guns, particularly chambered ones, are inherently dangerous
- leaving a gun unattended, in a public place, creates a substantial risk of bodily injury because someone could pick it up and mess with it (not necessarily a child)
- losing a gun in a couch, where there is no control over what might depress the trigger increases the risk of it "going off" with the corollary increase in risk of bodily injury
- carrying the pistol in way that poses a known risk of it falling out was at least reckless

I will readily concede (having lost a notable case with a thematically similar fact pattern) that it is not an ideal case to make beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I sympathize with whatever deputy prosecutor has to make that case. But that's why they get paid the big bucks.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think most people here know that pocket carry without a holster is reckless

Reckless as a legal definition means that the person knew, or should have known, that the act was LIKELY to cause harm. The mere possibility of causing harm isn't reckless, and a lot of what we do daily has some potential to cause harm. Looking down from the road to adjust your radio could potentially cause harm, yet it's not enough potential to be *likely* to do so and doesn't qualify as reckless.

So you've got to connect the following dots. It's *likely* the gun will fall out. It's *likely* he won't notice. It's *likely* someone will find it. It's *likely* that person will fire it. It's *likely* that firing it creates substantial risk of someone being injured/killed.

That last step is the easiest, but walking a jury down that path? No thanks. MCPO has routinely turned down cases of guns left out and a child finding them UNLESS the person is the parent/guardian and knew the child had access to that area. Losing in a couch isn't the same as intentionally leaving it on a child-head height counter while the child is in the room, hidden behind the child's teddy bear (seriously), etc.

 

[HoughMade]

Losing a gun being reckless and creating a substantial risk is a stretch. You don't get to use the outcome as the risk assessment, and any risk isn't substantial risk. Would you want to be the guy arguing that he saw, or should have seen, that there was a substantial risk a child would find the gun then fire it?

Whose side are you on?

 

[Bollorollo]

If this was one of the gun grabbing states we probably would of seen the kid charge also with, "negligent discharge" of a firearm so they could try and take away their future rights of buying a firearm and prevent them from owning a firearm in General.

 

[Trigger Time]

Reckless as a legal definition means that the person knew, or should have known, that the act was LIKELY to cause harm. The mere possibility of causing harm isn't reckless, and a lot of what we do daily has some potential to cause harm. Looking down from the road to adjust your radio could potentially cause harm, yet it's not enough potential to be *likely* to do so and doesn't qualify as reckless.

So you've got to connect the following dots. It's *likely* the gun will fall out. It's *likely* he won't notice. It's *likely* someone will find it. It's *likely* that person will fire it. It's *likely* that firing it creates substantial risk of someone being injured/killed.

That last step is the easiest, but walking a jury down that path? No thanks. MCPO has routinely turned down cases of guns left out and a child finding them UNLESS the person is the parent/guardian and knew the child had access to that area. Losing in a couch isn't the same as intentionally leaving it on a child-head height counter while the child is in the room, hidden behind the child's teddy bear (seriously), etc.

That's a lot to chew on and I appreciate your viewpoint on it based on actual professional experience. I'm just a regular guy. No real legal knowledge, nor can I even understand half of it and all of its confusing twists. I understand that lawyers on both sides use the deffinition of things and twist it to fit their own narrative.
But for me I've stated what I feel is reckless and what the outcome very likely would be, not could be, if I acted in the manner that this man did.
Im speaking as to my own mindset here: Carrying a gun affords us ZERO mistakes. We must be perfect (as regards to safety) 100% of the time when we carry and train and practice. Anything else WILL result in serious injury or death or damage. That is my approach and why I personally feel this man was deffinately reckless.
I appreciate that in this country we have a system of laws and due process and I am grateful for it even though I have somewhat lost faith in some regards but I still believe in the process. So if this man is innocent of the charges brought against him then so be it. But among his peers he is guilty of being very reckless or negligent or dangerous. I dont have to clearly define the words I use by legal definitions because I am not a court, I just know this was stupid and I hope if he is allowed to keep his gun rights that he gets training and I hope that all other gun owners realize the real importance of getting training and safety knowledge and drop the ego that most guys have with regards to guns.
I learn new things every day about firearms and training and I will never be the best at anything relating to shooting but I will 100% give it my best because its life and death even if you dont carry for.self defense and you only target shoot.

Sorry for the long winded response and the edits adding stuff but It just irks me the leisurely attitude many gun owners have about the serious responsibility we choose to put upon ourselves with firearms and we must change peoples mindset

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Whose side are you on?

Which side has the hotter chicks?

In all seriousness, I see his actions as careless, likely bred from ignorance and/or complacency, but not rising to the level of recklessness. Same for FBI rookie dance-machine. Civil liability, yes, reckless from a legal standpoint, no.

If a kid hadn't found it, this would never have been news, let alone him being charged. I've had motorcyclists lose their gun while riding and a homeowner mowing his grass find it. It was just returned to him. Criminal Recklessness isn't based on the outcome, that's beyond the person's control, but I think this charging decision is based firmly on outcome and media attention...so I suppose I'm on older goofball's side in criminal court, opposite side in civil court for any damages that resulted.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Carrying a gun affords us ZERO mistakes. We must be perfect (as regards to safety) 100% of the time when we carry and train and practice. Anything else WILL result in serious injury or death or damage.

Do you hold drivers to the same standard?

 

[Trigger Time]

Which civily could be a very costly thing. I hadnt even thought of that really. From the looks of it I think they were holding customers at the entrance doors and not letting them shop. Throughout the rest of the store it was business as usual and no announcement was made to exit the building or shelter in place yada yada yada. But they could still claim lost revenue because customers probably left. Then the damage from the round, cleaning of the lead dust, counseling,, ect ect. I'm just trying to think of everything someone could milk out of it with an ambitious lawyer lol.
Then you have the child and their family too. Oh boy. There goes ole boys Harley and boat

 

[dusty88]

I WAS THERE!
No it was not me because I nor my wife carry like idiots and our guns are always in holsters and secure and I stay aware of my gun.
That being said, I had no idea this happened (didnt hear it) but there were 5 fishers police SUV's parked outside as I was leaving and I saw them put (not in cuffs) a maybe 50 year old white Male wearing tan shorts and a blue shirt, into the front of one of the cop vehicles with an officer.
I'm speculating that he is the ****ing dumb ass that caused this. Dumb dumb dumb and irresponsible **** bag. Who I hope they prosecute.
This kind of **** gives the rest of us a bad name and gets our rights put under pressure to be take away. This is rocket fuel to dump on the lefts anti gun fire. So let's not give an inch and lets prosecute negligent gun owners like this guy.

Also, parents need to teach their kids not to ****ing touch guns.

I do not think we should advocate prosecuting a gun owner in a different way than we prosecute people that make other dumb mistakes.

This accident/event really makes me cringe. It makes us all look bad. I also know I am capable of doing dumb things. The fact I take a lot of steps to prevent accidents is probably because I know I CAN do dumb things.

Many people in society view this or any gun owner as inherently evil. Thus they advocate something different than if the man left out a poison, did something careless with his car, etc.

If someone leaves out fireworks and a lighter, society might call him a dumba** but not with the same tone/anger as if he left a gun. Society would also likely be blaming the parent if a kid picked up the lighter and lit the firework off.

I think the FBI agent needed to be prosecuted. He was not only carrying in a manner that allowed his gun to get loose, he did a backflip while carrying a gun. That was a more intentional act than a gun falling in a couch. But we should take note that this FBI's accident made the national news. How many other dumb mistakes resulted in someone getting their leg injured somewhere in the US during the past month? Probably a lot, but most didn't even make the local news let alone national news. Guns are still feared by many, and seen as objects owned only by those who have some desire to harm.

We need to treat this accident as an opportunity for education and responsibility but not agree with prosecuting the gun owner as if he were somehow more evil than everyone else.

 

[singlesix]

http://fox59.com/2018/06/28/camby-m...ires-it-inside-fishers-ikea/?share=email&nb=1

Charges filed

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J727A using Tapatalk

 

[BehindBlueI's]

How many other dumb mistakes resulted in someone getting their leg injured somewhere in the US during the past month? Probably a lot, but most didn't even make the local news let alone national news.

Roughly 80-100 unintended discharges result in injury or death in Marion Co each year. How many do you hear about?

 

[Trigger Time]

I do not think we should advocate prosecuting a gun owner in a different way than we prosecute people that make other dumb mistakes.

This accident/event really makes me cringe. It makes us all look bad. I also know I am capable of doing dumb things. The fact I take a lot of steps to prevent accidents is probably because I know I CAN do dumb things.

Many people in society view this or any gun owner as inherently evil. Thus they advocate something different than if the man left out a poison, did something careless with his car, etc.

If someone leaves out fireworks and a lighter, society might call him a dumba** but not with the same tone/anger as if he left a gun. Society would also likely be blaming the parent if a kid picked up the lighter and lit the firework off.

I think the FBI agent needed to be prosecuted. He was not only carrying in a manner that allowed his gun to get loose, he did a backflip while carrying a gun. That was a more intentional act than a gun falling in a couch. But we should take note that this FBI's accident made the national news. How many other dumb mistakes resulted in someone getting their leg injured somewhere in the US during the past month? Probably a lot, but most didn't even make the local news let alone national news. Guns are still feared by many, and seen as objects owned only by those who have some desire to harm.

We need to treat this accident as an opportunity for education and responsibility but not agree with prosecuting the gun owner as if he were somehow more evil than everyone else.

In my opinion news or no news should have nothing to do with charges being filed. To me that smells of bias and is not equally enforcing the law like they are sworn to do. Of coarse proving that the cops or prosecutor files charges due to media coverage is a whole other level of proof that they could wiggle out of I'm sure.
Not saying thats what happened in this case

 

[Trigger Time]

Roughly 80-100 unintended discharges result in injury or death in Marion Co each year. How many do you hear about?

Usualy only the ones you tell us about here lol. I rarely watch the local or even national news anymore. But I bet you are meaning they dont even mostly make the news. I try to stay involved in the law making process only so I can have a voice. Most of the news anymore isnt unbiased reporting it's a crafted story that fits the media or political agenda of whoever's pocket they are in