leaving guns around your kids? you deserve to be shot.

[sj4iy]

Of which NM is not one:

http://smartgunlaws.org/child-access-prevention-in-new-mexico/

So again, no law was broken.

Child Neglect covers it just fine, actually. If you leave your child in a situation in which they can grab a loaded gun and shoot people, then you are absolutely guilty of child neglect. The only real positive in this situation is that the child shot the parents and not himself or his siblings.

And no, there's really nothing at all you are going to say to make me change my position on this. It's stupid, reckless, and irresponsible. Why is this any different than say, leaving your child in the driveway while the driver side door is wide open, the keys are in it and the car is running? That's pretty damn stupid, right? It's just inviting the kid to get inside. And a person would absolutely be charged with negligence in that case. The same applies here. You leave a loaded weapon in reach of a child, you should be charged with negligence because that's exactly what you have done.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Could there be a manslaughter charge based on negligence through NM Stat 30-6-1 Child Abuse or Abandonment

30-6-1. Abandonment or abuse of a child.

A. As used in this section:

(1) "child" means a person who is less than eighteen years of age;

(2) "neglect" means that a child is without proper parental care and control of subsistence, education, medical or other care or control necessary for the child's well-being because of the faults or habits of the child's parents, guardian or custodian or their neglect or refusal, when able to do so, to provide them; and

(3) "negligently" refers to criminal negligence and means that a person knew or should have known of the danger involved and acted with a reckless disregard for the safety or health of the child.

B. Abandonment of a child consists of the parent, guardian or custodian of a child intentionally leaving or abandoning the child under circumstances whereby the child may or does suffer neglect. A person who commits abandonment of a child is guilty of a misdemeanor, unless the abandonment results in the child's death or great bodily harm, in which case the person is guilty of a second degree felony.

C. A parent, guardian or custodian who leaves an infant less than ninety days old in compliance with the Safe Haven for Infants Act [24-22-1 NMSA 1978] shall not be prosecuted for abandonment of a child.

D. Abuse of a child consists of a person knowingly, intentionally or negligently, and without justifiable cause, causing or permitting a child to be:

(1) placed in a situation that may endanger the child's life or health;

(2) tortured, cruelly confined or cruelly punished; or

(3) exposed to the inclemency of the weather.

E. A person who commits abuse of a child that does not result in the child's death or great bodily harm is, for a first offense, guilty of a third degree felony and for second and subsequent offenses is guilty of a second degree felony. If the abuse results in great bodily harm to the child, the person is guilty of a first degree felony.

F. A person who commits negligent abuse of a child that results in the death of the child is guilty of a first degree felony.

G. A person who commits intentional abuse of a child twelve to eighteen years of age that results in the death of the child is guilty of a first degree felony.

H. A person who commits intentional abuse of a child less than twelve years of age that results in the death of the child is guilty of a first degree felony resulting in the death of a child.

I. Evidence that demonstrates that a child has been knowingly, intentionally or negligently allowed to enter or remain in a motor vehicle, building or any other premises that contains chemicals and equipment used or intended for use in the manufacture of a controlled substance shall be deemed prima facie evidence of abuse of the child.

J. Evidence that demonstrates that a child has been knowingly and intentionally exposed to the use of methamphetamine shall be deemed prima facie evidence of abuse of the child.

K. A person who leaves an infant less than ninety days old at a hospital may be prosecuted for abuse of the infant for actions of the person occurring before the infant was left at the hospital.

[peterbound]

Child Neglect covers it just fine, actually. If you leave your child in a situation in which they can grab a loaded gun and shoot people, then you are absolutely guilty of child neglect. The only real positive in this situation is that the child shot the parents and not himself or his siblings.

And no, there's really nothing at all you are going to say to make me change my position on this. It's stupid, reckless, and irresponsible. Why is this any different than say, leaving your child in the driveway while the driver side door is wide open, the keys are in it and the car is running? That's pretty damn stupid, right? It's just inviting the kid to get inside. And a person would absolutely be charged with negligence in that case. The same applies here. You leave a loaded weapon in reach of a child, you should be charged with negligence because that's exactly what you have done.

No keys.

The kid just got in and popped the break. Like he's seen his dad do a hundred times.

Is that neglect?

The article was pretty vague about where the gun was located. Was it in a bag, a drawer, a night stand? It only states that he thought he was reaching for his iPad. Maybe it was put up.

You're making some bold assumptions to justify your anger.

Again, I doubt the parents will be charged with neglect or anything else.

Eta: many a person in America travels with a side arm. This happened in a hotel. It's safe to assume they'd bedded down for the night and brought their side arm in with them.

Eta2: it was in her purse. For many, that is 'secured'. While it's not my preferred method, and the weapon should have been cleared, it's still in a place many would think to be safe.

[Suttree]

The article was pretty vague about where the gun was located. Was it in a bag, a drawer, a night stand? It only states that he thought he was reaching for his iPad. Maybe it was put up.

Wtf?

From the lead.

A three-year-old American boy has shot his mother and father with the same bullet after pulling a gun from her handbag, police say.

Edit: A loaded gun...in a purse...that a 3 yo child has access to is "secured"?

[TerraPrime]

Doesn't this kind of contradict your point in post #45?

No. I don't think parents who slip up on their safety are villains.

I do think parents who consistently put up improper safeguards and which then result in other people's death *are* villains. So the distinction is on frequency and degree of neglect.

I highly doubt these parents are sitting around cackling about how they got away with being negligent, might as well do it again. Their negligence has already been punished in the worst way imaginable for most people, the death of a loved one

I don't think this logic follows. Yes, I am sure the parents are sorrowful and sad, but is that really sufficient ground to overlook wrong doings that they could have reasonably avoided? Might you not be a bit over-the-line in trying not to punish people who did stupid things with their guns?

[BigFatCoward]

Just for clarity. Do some people not think there 'should' be a law that prevents people leaving dangerous articles where children can access them? Genuinely?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

sj4iy,

Child Neglect covers it just fine, actually. If you leave your child in a situation in which they can grab a loaded gun and shoot people, then you are absolutely guilty of child neglect. The only real positive in this situation is that the child shot the parents and not himself or his siblings.

That child will have to deal with the fact that their parents were killed for the rest of their life. Their parents death is not a "positive".

I still think taking delight in another's misfortune, even though their own negligence, is rather karmicly uncool. Hopefully, they'll get rid of the firearms or properly secure them in the future.

BFC,

I do think a law regarding properly securing firearms makes sense.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

sj4iy,

That's horrible. That child will have to deal with the fact that their parents were killed for the rest of their life. Their parents death is not a "positive".

It´s shot as in hit with the bullet. Through the buttock of father and in the arm of mother.

I suggest you actually read the linked article in the OP before posting next time Scot.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Czarlos,

Fair enough. BFC's intital post said the child had "taken out" the parents. I assumed that to mean theynwere both killed.

[sj4iy]

sj4iy,

That's horrible. That child will have to deal with the fact that their parents were killed for the rest of their life. Their parents death is not a "positive".

I still think taking delight in another's misfortune, even though their own negligence, is rather karmicly uncool. Hopefully, they'll get rid of the firearms or properly secure them in the future.

BFC,

I do think a law regarding properly securing firearms makes sense.

It is horrible. I never said it wasn't. And just where do you come off getting that I said I "delighted" in the situation? That's BS.

But the parents were shot through their own neglect...the child is not to blame. Nor were they killed, from what I read. But the child could have just as easily killed himself or a sibling. Recently a little boy found a loaded gun and shot his 9 month old brother in the head. That was fatal. And that is horrific. And completely preventable.

Point being- I absolutely don't see the point in keeping loaded firearms around children. It's a ticking time bomb. There's a difference between a preventable mistake and an accident. This wasn't the latter.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

sj4iy,

You said the parents being shot was a positive. I see now that you ment the child not being shot was the positive. I agree that loaded firearms are not safe around toddlers. We have no firearms in my home.

[sj4iy]

sj4iy,

You said the parents being shot was a positive. I see now that you ment the child not being shot was the positive. I agree that loaded firearms are not safe around toddlers. We have no firearms in my home.

I did not say it like that. I said that it was better that THEY were shot instead of the child. The lesser of two evils. It was obvious that is how I said it instead of "I'm glad they were shot". Which I absolutely DID NOT say. I know that if I had left a gun around my children and they shot someone, I would much, MUCH rather it be me than themselves. And I'm sure they feel the same way. It's what any parent would think- "Oh thank god, they did it to me instead of hurting or killing themselves."

[The Tower of Almond Joy]

Our neighbor across the street, leaves his gun out around his little grandchildren in the living room on a low table, unholstered and loaded. Whenever he takes the kids out in his small pickup, his grand daughter asks him if he remembered to bring his gun. The guy has mental issues, or is ,well, just plain stupid. I think it is the latter. He does not go outside without his gun and has it aimed in the opposite direction from himself, even to take out the trash.

We haven't spoken to him in over a year since he stole from us. But when we did speak to him, we commented on how dangerous it is to leave that gun laying around. The idiot know- it -all replied, oh no. they won't touch it because Paw Paw told them not to. Duh!!! They are 3 and 6. We are dreading the day when an ambulance arrives to take away a dead child....

grammar edit