Gun discharged at IKEA

[Ark]

They are absolutely using the outcome to work backwards and make a judgement about his risk assessment IMO. They're treating it like he intentionally pulled the gun out and dropped it on the sofa. Recklessness is defined as knowingly disregarding risk. What he actually did was closer to negligence, which makes him civilly liable but is nowhere near the threshhold for criminal negligence.

He's being made an example of.

 

[TheSpark]

I see people commit criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon every time I drive to and from work.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The jurisdictions and the personalities involved in bringing these charges are quite fuzzy for me. Is the prosecutor involved here known to be a anti-gun person? Politically, I can see how this case would have brought these charges. Heck, we had people on this thread wanting to throw the book at this guy early on. But is there also an anti-gun political agenda at play here as well?

 

[T.Lex]

The jurisdictions and the personalities involved in bringing these charges are quite fuzzy for me. Is the prosecutor involved here known to be a anti-gun person? Politically, I can see how this case would have brought these charges. Heck, we had people on this thread wanting to throw the book at this guy early on. But is there also an anti-gun political agenda at play here as well?

Hamilton county, so no explicit anti-gun agenda here. (At least not one that I'm familiar with, and I think I'd find out about it.)

IMHO, the prosecutor is politically risk-averse. The charge is probably a calculated risk that it is important to "do something about it" without going so far as to look like they think there's a bigger problem.

 

[Ark]

The prosecutor doesn't have to be anti-gun. Political risk aversion trumps all other factors. "First, do no harm to your electability".

 

[Tanfodude]

So, is this guy an INGO member or what?

 

[Cameramonkey]

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?

And if we are working backwards, charge the kid and his parents too. Why didnt they teach them not to handle a firearm? They should have known better! That kid could have killed someone! Eddie Eagle sez STOP! DONT TOUCH! GO TELL AN ADULT!

Hamilton county, so no explicit anti-gun agenda here. (At least not one that I'm familiar with, and I think I'd find out about it.)

IMHO, the prosecutor is politically risk-averse. The charge is probably a calculated risk that it is important to "do something about it" without going so far as to look like they think there's a bigger problem.

I see brownie points; See! I TRIED to lock up this evil gun owner who tried to kill a kid. It just didnt work out. At least I tried. I'm tough on crime and love the childrens.

 

[Tactically Fat]

Any theories on what the charges will be plead down to? I don't know enough about the I.C. to know what's "under" CrimReck.

 

[T.Lex]

Any theories on what the charges will be plead down to? I don't know enough about the I.C. to know what's "under" CrimReck.

In this case... nothing.

I mean, if there were something less, then that's probably what would've been charged.

MAYBE some kind of trespass, since he brought a firearm onto a property where it wasn't allowed. There may also be an option for some kind of deferral/diversion which would avoid a conviction.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

In this case... nothing.

I mean, if there were something less, then that's probably what would've been charged.

MAYBE some kind of trespass, since he brought a firearm onto a property where it wasn't allowed. There may also be an option for some kind of deferral/diversion which would avoid a conviction.

Even though policy/signs don't matter? He was never asked to leave, as far as we can assume.

 

[T.Lex]

Even though policy/signs don't matter? He was never asked to leave, as far as we can assume.

So that's the thing. He MIGHT be able to plead guilty to it, if they gloss over parts of the legal requirements.

But, they probably didn't charge it for the reasons you mention (and maybe others).

 

[BehindBlueI's]

In this case... nothing.

Concur. Nothing else fits. Offer him some sweet no-time plea and misdemeanor diversion (if eligible) or roll the dice with a jury...or drop the charges when nobody's looking.

IMHO, the prosecutor is politically risk-averse.

The prosecutor doesn't have to be anti-gun. Political risk aversion trumps all other factors. "First, do no harm to your electability".

These guys get it.

But I bet you are meaning they dont even mostly make the news.

Right. If kids aren't injured, it pretty much is guaranteed to not interest the media. If a kid is hurt, then it probably will. If a kid is killed, almost certainly will.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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

It leads to bad charging decisions and lost cases more often than "mundane" cases, IMO. Zimmerman comes to mind. LEOs say no charges, prosecutor says no charges, then media poo storm and suddenly charges materialize. There's been several high profile politically motivated charges against LEOs for Murder when a first year law student would see there's no way the facts meet the elements of the crime.

 

[T.Lex]

Concur. Nothing else fits. Offer him some sweet no-time plea and misdemeanor diversion (if eligible) or roll the dice with a jury...or drop the charges when nobody's looking.

Right now, its charged as a felony, which jeopardizes his Larry and federal RKBA. But, I don't see how they can do the misdemeanor version of the crime because a gun was involved, which is what increases it to a felony. The prosecutor is kinda in a trick bag, too.

Even in Hamilton County, I'm not sure either side wants a jury trial in this.

At least with a bench trial, you can make the legal argument that there's insufficient evidence to get to beyond a reasonable doubt on each element.

And I truly don't know if they can do a deferral/diversion on a Felony 6. (Back when I was in the game, that was a D Felony.) That would truly be the bestest option. No conviction recorded if he goes the requisite time without another issue. This seems to be the dude's first interaction with po-po, so that should be pretty easy.

 

[TheSpark]

Right now, its charged as a felony, which jeopardizes his Larry and federal RKBA. But, I don't see how they can do the misdemeanor version of the crime because a gun was involved, which is what increases it to a felony. The prosecutor is kinda in a trick bag, too.

Even in Hamilton County, I'm not sure either side wants a jury trial in this.

At least with a bench trial, you can make the legal argument that there's insufficient evidence to get to beyond a reasonable doubt on each element.

And I truly don't know if they can do a deferral/diversion on a Felony 6. (Back when I was in the game, that was a D Felony.) That would truly be the bestest option. No conviction recorded if he goes the requisite time without another issue. This seems to be the dude's first interaction with po-po, so that should be pretty easy.

I think they could walk it down to a misdemeanor. Law states "while armed". You could argue that as the gun fell out of his pants that he was no longer armed with a deadly weapon.

Also, the big factor here is the "recklessly". If the guy had a good holster and it just somehow happened to fall out... that is not reckless. However, if he was carrying it in his waste-band like street thug... that's reckless.

 

[abp0w7]

I think they could walk it down to a misdemeanor. Law states "while armed". You could argue that as the gun fell out of his pants that he was no longer armed with a deadly weapon.

Also, the big factor here is the "recklessly". If the guy had a good holster and it just somehow happened to fall out... that is not reckless. However, if he was carrying it in his waste-band like street thug... that's reckless.

Probable cause affidavit said it was carried in his pocket and probably fell out when he crossed his legs. Unfortunate, should not be reckless though.

 

[EdC]

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

Well, for the price of the couch at the very least. I believe IKEA has a strict "If you shoot it, you bought it" policy.

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

...can we lay down these pitchforks yet? My arms are tired.

 

[openwell]

looks political? city of Fishers : shall be very tough on gun crime radiates to all potential employers.

after looking at the 5-4 rulings that should be 9-0; from Judges that are supposed to be following the constitution-

I'm not sure ANY court proceeding will give any predicted results, Regardless of the missing Elements of a crime

Bench or jury is not looking good for this guy

 

[IndyTom]

Well, for the price of the couch at the very least. I believe IKEA has a strict "If you shoot it, you bought it" policy.

Ohhh, sooo close. "If you SHOT it, you bought it." Much better ring to it.