Prosecute parents of 3-year-old shooting victim
I hesitated to write this about the death of 3-year-old J.J. Turner.
Clearly his parents are suffering terribly “…in the wake of their firstborn son’s death from a horrible mistake,” and I don’t want to seem insensitive to that.
I’m a parent, and I cannot imagine the pain of losing a child.
But… but…
But it wasn’t “simply… horrible,” as J.J.’s mother said. It was completely and utterly foreseeable.
Unless The Star left something out, J.J., age 3, picked up a loaded gun in his parents’ home and shot himself. J.J.’s parents have to live with that for the rest of their lives, yes, but if the facts are as they appear, they also need to be prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide. And their younger child should be put in protective custody.
This has happened so many times before and everyone says “they’re suffering so much already - we couldn’t punish them more than they’re punishing themselves.”
We darn well can, and we should throw them in jail. Because maybe the next parent who has a gun will think twice about leaving it loaded and within reach of a child.
Maybe then, J.J.’s short life will count for something.
Brandon Lewis
11 months, 1 week agoI agree. Why not charge the parents with criminally neglect homicide. It was their fault for leaving a loaded gun within arm’s reach of the little one. Adult have to be responsible and held accountable.
Charles Purvis
11 months, 1 week agoAnd that would serve exactly what purpose?
You should have hestitated much longer. Like about 100 years. Neither you nor I know any of the exact circumstances surrounding this child’s death.
In addition, it is mentioned that J.J. was their firstborn. Do you think locking up the parents is the best thing for their other children?
Accidents happen. Mind your own business.
Jon Whitten
11 months, 1 week agoWell, let’s see if you remove this post as well. My previous post that the editor/writer decided to remove simply states that basing your judgment on the KC Star’s account is “suspect”.
More importantly, you seem to think that by saying you are sensitive to the parents allows you to go on and be insensitive. This is none of your business….PERIOD! Perhaps the worst accusation though, is that somehow you think this young child’s life only has value if the parents are punished. Wow, I thought the value of life was in the eyes of the creator…I am pretty sure that isn’t you.
But, this will likely be removed as well.
Charles Purvis
11 months, 1 week agoAlso, are you hesitating before writing about the accidental death of a 2 year-old out in Herrington, KS or is there something different about that case? I’m sure the second-guessers find some form of neglect to demand that the parents be jailed, too.
Charles Purvis
11 months, 1 week agoThat is a VERY good point, Jon. “Maybe THEN J.J.’s short life will count for something.” That has to be the most insensitive thing I’ve ever read. I am quite sure his life, though short, counts for A LOT in the hearts of those who loved him. But in the minds of the nanny staters, he only counts for something if he can be used for something.
Stacy Wright
11 months, 1 week agoNot hesitating at all, Charles. If you can afford a TV and a dresser, you can afford the very inexpensive brackets required to affix them to the wall. And this isn’t new either - my 17 year old’s changing table/hutch combo was bracketed to the wall in his room.
I don’t know that most people would equate a tv with a loaded gun, however. That incident is much more easily lumped into the “tragic accident” category, since there have been no “furniture doesn’t kill people; people kill people” campaigns. Therefore the Herrington parents can much more credibly claim ignorance of the danger. If it were up to me, they’d be held liable to some extent (not sure of criminally negligent homicide), but society isn’t ready for that. Society is ready for prosecuting parents who leave loaded guns around toddlers.
Thanks for noticing that I put two disclaimers about having all the facts: “unless The Star left something out..” and “..if the facts are as they appear..” I’m fully aware that there may be more to this story. All I or anyone else can do is offer an opinion on the information provided. If there is more to this story that I don’t know - for example, was there a visitor in the house who left a loaded gun behind without the parents’ knowledge? was the family visiting at someone else’s home and had no idea the gun was there? - then that would change things. But the stories -and there were two - did not read that way. The stories read as if the child was in his own home with both of his parents.
Jon, I did not remove your post; The Star did that. Assume it was because of the name-calling. I am not a Star employee and have not got the ability to remove anything from this site. Please note that I have refrained from insulting your or Charles’ intelligence.
And I’m not worried about offending the parents if the facts are as stated. I’m worried about offending J.J.’s extended family, friends, teachers - all those who are mourning his senseless loss.
I think the reason we see so many children die from accidentally shooting themselves or being shot by friends/relatives is because no one does anything to the gun owners when this happens. So Charles, to answer your question of what purpose would this serve, I say “deterrence.”
If you guys want to continue having a civilized discussion, I’m all for it.
Carol Pfau
11 months, 1 week agoI agree with Stacy! Prosecute and take the other kids to a safer place!!
The woman who left her infant in the car, all day, causing the baby to die from heat stroke - should be prosecuted! I’m sorry, but how do you leave an infant in the car by mistake? Seriously, how do you forget your child! How do you leave a loaded gun around a 3 year old? This has nothing to do with if you like guns or not. Guns have a place - this was not that time or the place to have a gun. period.
Charles Purvis
11 months, 1 week agoStacy, just how many children die each year from accidental shootings? You say ‘so many.’ How many?
Rich MacDonald
11 months, 1 week agoThe constitution clearly guarantees the right to bear arms and not pay for the consequences.
Charles Purvis
11 months, 1 week agoCarol, where is “the time and place” to have a gun? And what do you do with it when you’re not in that time or place?
Phil Cardarella
11 months, 1 week agoFrankly, it makes less sense to prosecute the parents of this child than to prosecute the cowardly members of our legislative bodies who make the easy acquisition and unrestricted ownership of gun our own national nightmare. The blood of this child is on the hands of the NRA.
Separate and apart from whether there is an actual Constitutional right for an individual to bear arms (arms being flintlock muskets at the time), there is no reason why everyone must own a handgun. Nor is there any reason why anyone should have a loaded gun in the house that is not secured from a wandering child — either in a locked gun case or with a trigger lock.
I know that Americans all enjoy a masturbatory fantasy of “defending” themselves against an attack by “them” — whomever “them” is. Statistically, any handgun purchased has a 65%+ chance of injurng the owner or a family member or acquaintance, if anyone..
No doubt the gun inquestion was purchased by the parents in the hope of making their home safer. “How’s that working out for you so far?” would be too cruel a question to ask.
Rich MacDonald
11 months, 1 week agoNice attempt to disguise the fact that you’re using the same logic to argue that his death doesn’t count for another particular something.
And logical party foul, as “nanny state” attacks must generally refer to “protecting oneself from oneself” issues, and not “idiots causing harm to innocent others”.
If one is willing to do the 60 seconds worth of homework oneself, google says about 300/yr in the US. Point?
All the remaining places one hasn’t already claimed as NOT the ‘time and place’ to have a gun. Duh. Point?
In the interest of decorum, I’ll ignore the obvious suggestion where you should stick it and propose “keep it somewhere safe” instead. Point?
I’m not seeing much purpose to these questions besides smokescreen, Mr Purvis.
Brandon Lewis
11 months, 1 week ago“The blood of this child is on the hands of the NRA”
Nothing a little soap and water won’t fix just in time for the next NRA meeting.
Charles Purvis
11 months, 1 week agoMore kids, by far, die from drowning according to the CDC. One can argue that virtually every childhood drowning is preventable. Where is the hue and cry to prosecute people whose children have drowned?
Your 300 number is bogus. I would consider a ‘child’ to be someone below the age of which gun safety can reasonably be taught; say 8 to 10. Beyond that, children know what guns can do. Nevertheless, using the CDC data provided in the following link, data for 2003 lists 256 accidental shooting deaths for people of all races under the age of 20. If you use my criteria of ‘less than 10’, the number drops to 56. For the age of the child about which this article was written, there were 13 such deaths in the United States in 2003. Why 2003? No reason; that’s one of the links the search “accidental firearms deaths” returned. I doubt that the data is significantly different for any other year. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/Mortfinal2003_worktable210f.pdf
If you’re interested, you can look up the number of accidental drownings for 2003 as well. I doubt that you will be, though, because your obvious agenda is anti-gun, not anti swimming pool.
Your other comments are so stupid as to merit no response.
Johnathon Busby
11 months, 1 week agoOf COURSE they should be prosecuted! If leaving a loaded firearm within arms reach of a small child without even a trigger lock isn’t negligence, I don’t know what on earth would be. They’re being protected by the ammo-phile gun lobby in the court of public opinion though… people who will never admit that a gun caused an unjustifiable death.
Though, we can also prosecute those pool deaths that this other guys is so worked up over.
Jon Whitten
11 months, 1 week agoMs Wright,
In your column you state, “Clearly his parents are suffering terribly “…in the wake of their firstborn son’s death from a horrible mistake,” and I don’t want to seem insensitive to that.”
When called on that, you then say in your response,”And I’m not worried about offending the parents if the facts are as stated.”
You can’t have it both ways. The fact is you couldn’t care less about the suffering of the parents…not when you see a shot at advancing your cause.
Stacy Wright
11 months, 1 week agoMr. Whitten, I think the reason parents generally aren’t prosecuted in this situation is because “they are suffering enough.” And while I’m not insensitive to the suffering they must be going through, and I’m sure it’s worse than the ‘normal’ suffering of the parents of a dead child, being that this death was entirely preventable and apparently their fault, I believe that for the benefit of society and potential victims of such negligence, they have to be made an example of. The implication was that I was hesitant to write because I didn’t want to add to the parents’ pain. I responded in that vein, but actually, I was hesitant to write because I knew there would be a lot of backlash from folks who believe as you do, and I was hesitant to open myself up to that. But I think it’s important enough to subject myself to people calling me stupid and saying my kids should be taken away from me. I can shake comments like that off. Do I care about the suffering of these particular parents, assuming the facts are as printed? Not so much. I care about the suffering of that innocent little boy. I’m sorry the parents have to go through the guilt and grief they will carry the rest of their lives. I want to prevent other innocent children from dying, and therefore other parents suffering. Why is that so controversial to you?
Johnathon Busby
11 months, 1 week agoThey find it controversial because they’re threatened by anything that challenges their worldview, such as their conviction that gun ownership is somehow a holy act. Please try not to let them get to you; your silence would be the sweetest prize they could ever dream of.
Phil Cardarella
11 months, 1 week agoLook, guns are not intrinsically evil, but it is disingenuous to refuse to recognize that their ONLY function is to kill as efficiently as possible. That is why we do not send our soldiers into combat with only knives. It is why few bother to hunt with bows.
That does mean that they are intrinsically dangerous. The right gun in the right, trained hand may be less dangerous. But the idea that the more guns we all have the safer we all are is pure fantasy — akin to arguing that the more sex you have, the less chance of pregnancy. Or the more cars you have on the road — with no licensing, notraining and no speed limits — the fewer collisions.
There is no rational argument for firearms that justifies such a glut of weaponry, unregulated and without regard for minimum training and security (i.e. gun safes and trigger locks).Feel the need to defend you house against those mathmaticaly-unlikely intruders? Keep a shotgun in a safe place. (If you forget where you hid a gun, just ask your 10 year old. He can take you right to it.)
How many people who buy handguns keep them loaded — in unlocked night stands? Where even a 3 year old can get to them? And somehow feel their family is safer?
Jon, it is not just a world-view we are challenging. It is their actual religious dogma. Of course, handling snakes may be more rational — but until the snake bites one of their own, it seems holy
Jon Whitten
11 months, 1 week agoMs. Wright…your statements contradict and there is no wiggle room. The point is now that you will say what is expedient.
To the other point, I am strongly in favor of restrictions on firearms. What I can’t stand is someone like Ms. Wright who will seize on tragedy to simply further a cause and then try to sound as if she is conflicted…her words say otherwise.
Phil, you claim the home intruder scenario is mathematically unlikely? Do the research, home invasions to children killed. Let us know the results, please.
Stacy Wright
11 months, 1 week agoI’m about done, but I’m not a rabid anti-gun person, and I find it amusing that you think that I am. I am rabid about parents not putting their children’s lives in danger. No one is trying to take your gun away from you, Mr. Whitten. Unless, that is, you are leaving it loaded and where a child can access it.
I have called police when I have seen children riding unrestrained in vehicles, too. That doesn’t make me anti-car, does it?
Kevin F. Casey
11 months, 1 week agoCharles Purvis I take it you missed the television interview of the Mother & father who stated “I had the gun under the chair cushion.” He also stated the gun involved didn’t fit his holster. Now when did a Living Room Chair become acceptable place to store a loaded gun?
Ron Vanlerberg
11 months, 1 week agoThis accident could been avoided, If only this child had been aborted in the first place. ,which Im sure the gun control crowd would not have had a problem with.
Johnathon Busby
11 months, 1 week ago“What I can’t stand is someone like Ms Wright who will seize on tragedy…”
It requires a tragedy to move the status quo. When tragedy happens, a narrow window opens up in which we can change and improve things. Our reaction to the tragedy of 9/11 was to crack down HARD on terrorism and massively enhance spying to protect the American people, and they only killed a few thousand (far less than die by many random tragedies we do nothing about). So why is the reaction to this tragedy not also to crack down hard to protect the American people?
Liz Kevin Ambrose
11 months, 1 week agoKudos to you Stacy, my first thought when I saw this story on the news was “what about the parents?” I felt they should be charged with something. I take to heart what you wrote and I’m with you. And call me dense (seems like there are plenty of people on here labeling), but I didnt read an anti-gun agenda in your message…
Stacy Wright
11 months, 1 week agohttp://www.kmbc.com/news/kansas-city/Grieving-parents-talk-about-son-s-shooting-death/-/11664182/15186050/-/elcftvz/-/index.html
Here’s the link. They admit to it being their gun and to leaving it under a seat cushion and turning their backs on their son.
Now they say that there will never be another gun in their home. Cause apparently this scenario didn’t occur to them before.
I feel comfortable removing the qualifiers from my original statement. They should absolutely be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.