News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Don't know about US law, but where I live we have a "Preventative Detention Order" - the threshold for it is very high, but it essentially works as a sentence of "until rehabilitated", you are incarcerated until the court decides that you are no longer a threat to the community, even in cases where a life without parole sentence wouldn't be possible. In a world where I am supreme ruler, it'd automatically apply in cases where someone who has a conviction for a violent crime commits another violent crime.
Also, how the hell does an 8 year old get a gun? Surely whoever failed to secure it - or even worse gave it to a minor - would be looking at an accessory change?
Rehabilitation doesn't happen in the U.S. It's entirely about punishment.
If you're in prison here, you deserve it. Even if you're innocent.
Stole it from the glovebox of his grandfathers truck, it's in the article.
But even if the glovebox was locked, if you have the keys to get into the truck, you have the keys to open the glovebox.
I hope the grandfather faces consequences as well.
Kid shot the other dude while he was asleep, so it could be the kid got up in the middle of the night, took the keys to the truck, and unlocked the gun.
I can't see how you could hold grand dad accountable. Nobody could predict an 8 year old that psychopathic. :(
Yeah, literally no way this could have been prevented 🙄
Aren’t there any laws regarding safe gun storage?
In Texas?
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.13
"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM."
But then:
"(3) 'Secure' means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means."
So, placing the gun in a locked glovebox in a locked car would be securing it as far as Texas is concerned.
Further:
"(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the child's access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
(2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people or property;
(3) was gained by entering property in violation of this code; or"
So under c3 - The kid stealing the keys and getting the gun anyway would seem to exonerate grand dad.
If I put a gun in a safe and keep the key readily available to anyone, it's not safely stored.
"Take steps a resonable person would take."
That's a low bar.
Yeah, and a reasonable person would realize that putting it in a vehicle the kid can easily unlock isn't safe, if that's how they wanted to store their firearm they should have kept the key in their bedside table during the night, like they would if it had been stored in an actual gun safe.
'Reasonable' is decided by a jury, ultimately. You can argue all you want, but this happened in Texas. Good luck convincing a jury the grandfather was unreasonable when half of them likely don't even lock up their guns.
Yeah pretty sure c3 applies when the kid is trespassing on the property. He was staying there.
There is no way that gramps can't be charged for doing exactly that.
According to 46.13. (e) it is only a class A misdemeanor however. IMO this should be treated as a felony.
"would gain access" not "could gain access".
Which of these apply to the situation needs to be decided by a court, right?
Let’s try a different situation: the loaded gun is locked up in a cupboard. The child knows about the gun and the key. The key is easily accessible to the child.
Do you think the law applies in this case?
The way the law defines secured, that would be secured. If the law did not define secured, maybe not.
The law defines secure as follows:
46.13 3)
“Secure” means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.
How do you see the described situation matching that description?
The container is locked, which is explicitly described as secured. How easy the lock is defeated is not mentioned.
How is that a step a reasonable person would take?
And how would that be a reasonable interpretation of the law?
Because it's explicitly included in the definition as a step a reasonable person would take. It's not the only step they may take (maybe they hide it instead), but the law is written to be that permissive.
They did not have to add that definition when they passed the bill. They did it to make the law more permissive as to what "secured" meant.
No reasonable person considers a box locked or secure when the keys are right next to it.
You would not consider your money safe in a lockbox under the same condition.
Arguing otherwise is quite obviously bad faith.
I'm trying to explain to you that the definition "steps a reasonable person would make" includes "in a locked container." You could argue a container with the key literally in the lock isn't locked but the definition you have to use when interpreting the law is the one the law itself provides.
No, it’s not. The locked container is just one of the examples for steps a reasonable person could take. The emphasis of the wording is clear.
The way in which you try to twist the wording is another display of bad faith arguing.
I don't really understand what you think I'm doing in bad faith. You're focused on situations where a locked container isn't reasonable by your definition. The problem is they included the example to specifically make that a step a reasonable person would take. Reasonable is a legal fiction that is influenced by jury instructions that would specifically include this. I'll ask you to contrast that to this model legislation that actually addresses your concerns:
https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-12/Safe%20Storage%20Model%20Legislation.pdf
You are trying beyond all reason to misinterpret what 'reasonable person' means and in extension what can reaonably be called securely locked. It's gotten pretty outlandish.
The document you linked is a very interesting read as it takes stock of currently existing law and attempts to clear up question you might have about implementation. It states as such in several places on page 1. Page 4 indeed clears up what can be considered what a 'reasonable person' or 'average Joe' has to do to properly store a weapon.
Since you also attack the legal concept of 'reasonable person': The reasonable person is a hypothetical individual who exercises average caution, care, and judgment in their conduct.
So unless there's a lot of lead in the water, the average person would not leave keys to a lockbox that contains valuables or dangerous items that allows someone else, let alone an 8yo have access to it.
Glovebox of a car is not a proper storage space for firearms
Texas' safe storage law only requires it be "secured", not the methodology for securing it.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.13
(3) "Secure" means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.
"locked container". So in this case, a locked glovebox in a locked car. Now if he failed to lock either, that's a problem.