Richard Peters of Marysville, Washington has been arrested on suspicion of first-degree manslaughter after shooting his 6-year-old daughter Stormy while he was cleaning his guns — and drinking double shots of vodka.
Peters told Stormy to bring him the .45-caliber handgun and he says that he must have pulled the trigger when she handed it to him. Of course, this also means that Peters told a 6-year-old to retrieve a loaded handgun (that was accessible to her) with the safety off.
This is not a unique case in terms of shooting family members and colleagues, though this case is obviously much more egregious in the father’s outrageous conduct. Click here.
20 thoughts on “Father Shoots and Kills Daughter While Cleaning Guns and Drinking Shots of Vodka”
I don’t agree with Mr. Peters actions, however, I pray Mr. Peters recieves the same consideration as the Marysville cop who left his off duty weapon unattended in his vehicle and his 3 year son shot and killed his sister. Who should be held at higher standard and conduct in dealing with weapons? I won’t be surprised if Mr. Peters receives punishment with the full extent of the law.
I have no compassion whatsoever for a drunken idiot who factually and admittedly killed his own daughter.
The only question that remains is his punishment based on the *facts* of the case unknown to us who are not involved directly with the legal proceedings. I simply advocate for the severest penalty allowable by the local jurisdiction. Others here will disagree.
Mr. Peters’ case can have far-reaching consequences that cause some people who do not understand gun ownership to cry out for more invasive and needless gun control. Instead, people must focus on the fact that Mr. Peters represents an irresponsible drunken fool’s bevy and not the community of law-abiding, responsible gun owners who would never mix alcohol and loaded firearms under any circumstances and most certainly not in the presence of a young child.
Regardless of how Mr. Peters “feels” about the loss of his child *he* killed, society must render the appropriate punishment to help ensure that others might think twice before following Mr. Peters’ actions and to prevent him from ever having the opportunity to ruin the lives of his other 2 children or other innocent people.
The public needs to leave this alone. Bad mouthing the father will do nothing to help the grieving family and friends, it makes this worse. This was no murder. Leave this alone and stop what your saying because you really dont even know whaat happened. The media twists around the truth and makes up things just to get the ratings from viewers, even when they know they have not given the whole story. Unless you know exactly what happened that night, just shut up!
Dont say anything at all about the father, family or ones living around them because you dont know them!!!! You dont know, so leave the people alone!!! There is enough pain in the hearts from the tragic loss of the very much loved little girl, and seeing the comments from total strangers just makes anger and tears them apart.
What you say or do wont change what we are living with.
Please hear what I am saying.
“Had he been operating his car while intoxicated and caused an accident happened which resulted in the death of his little girl would you feel the same?”
That instance should warrant second-degree homicide (in some jurisdictions?) I would still want the maximum punishment possible.
“Is there anything the law could do to punish him more?”
I assume you mean that losing a child is more punishment than any additional legal punishment could mete out. I would fully agree if his daughter’s death were a factual accident. It this case, Mr. Peters’ culpability was heightened because he told his young daughter to retrieve a heavy and loaded .45-Cal Colt firearm. He set the stage for all of the tragic events that followed.
After he supposedly received the gun from her, he took the magazine out, and then pulled the trigger hitting the small girl in the head. Unless the girl was at a very close range, a head shot would not have been an easy “shot placement” especially for a drunken fool.
I carried a .45 caliber handgun along with many other firearms during my LEO career. The .45 is a very heavy weapon and only the steadiest and trained hand can discharge it accurately.
The full facts of the case are critical, as well you know and more so than I do. However, if the local WA State jurisdiction allows the filing of a murder indictment in this instance that seems justified given Mr. Peters’ heightened culpability based on his reckless indifference for the safety of his young child who should not have even been in the same room with a potentially loaded firearm that was being unloaded prior to its cleaning. Furthermore, a 6-year-old girl had no business handling a .45, even for dry-firing purposes.
Obviously, I would not have made a good *defense* attorney had lawyering been my forte.
Substitute exclusively or exceptionally for my use of uniquely, if you prefer. The 6-year-old girl in no manner whatsoever remotely contributed to Mr. Peters’ actions that resulted in her death.
“Who is to say this is not a case of deliberate filicide?”
Had he been operating his car while intoxicated and caused an accident happened which resulted in the death of his little girl would you feel the same? Is there anything the law could do to punish him more?
Who is to say this is not a case of deliberate filicide?
Unless there is evidence which demonstrates it was deliberate, who is to say it is? “Innocent until proven guilty,” is a good philosophy in a free society, I think.
Obviously, he killed his daughter (though I don’t know what it means to be “uniquely innocent”). And obviously he shouldn’t be allowed near firearms again. Without more information, nothing beyond that is obvious.
No, Mr. Peters deserves to lose his own life through capital punishment if the full facts of the case confirm what transpired according to this report. Who is to say this is not a case of deliberate filicide? Conveniently, although there were 3 other family members in the house, there were no witnesses. The drunken fool did everything he should not have done while handling firearms.
His voluntary admission to having had another recent “accidental” firearm discharge at a “pumpkin shoot” and stating that the Colt had a “hair trigger” seem contrivances at mitigating his culpability in his daughter’s murder, i.e., he was a bumbling idiot and alcohol caused him to do it. First-degree manslaughter is a travesty in this case.
I am a NRA member and an unyielding proponent of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. However, I am also an equally strong advocate of unwavering capital punishment for habitual criminals who use guns in their crimes involving death and in cases such as this when all reasonable caution is ignored by a parent who handles firearms while inebriated and ends up pulling the trigger and killing his 6-year-old child. This man deserves not a scintilla of compassion for what he did to a uniquely and unquestionably innocent child.
This is reckless multiplied by 100 times! This guy should spend serious time and not be allowed to own a gun ever again.
There’s a great conversation/debate on this subject here:
This case is the dictionary definition of “reckless.”
I understand. I’m happy when I remember things, too.
I never thought you did. I was just happy that I remembered where I’d seen it.
Gyges, I swear I had nothing to do with that study! I just googled “gun crime deterrent.” And I certainly don’t agree with Dundar’s “shoot the vaguely threatening” approach to personal safety!
I thought I had read your meta-study before:
The link that Dundar gives in the responses uses that study as a source.
Gyges, I don’t know what the true stats are for people who brandish or fire a weapon to successfully stop an attack compared with those who have accidents with them, but that was the first thing that popped into my head when I read rcampbell’s statement. But you’re absolutely right that there are all kinds of ways that guns play a positive role in society that have nothing to do with deterring crime. And it’s a better point than crime deterrence because it’s really inarguable.
You overlook the generations of families in this country that survived in large part on game meat that they shot with a gun. I’m not talking about modern hunters like myself, I admit that my choice to hunt is a choice. I’m talking about people who that was literally a vital part of survival.
You can argue that the negative results of gun ownership outweigh the positive all you want. I’m more than willing to have that sort of discussion. If enough people have reasonable conversations about gun ownership then eventually the country will have well thought out and reasonable laws. Blanket statements like yours generally just entrench the two-sides and hinder any attempt to find a solution.
I’ve never been a proponent of guns for Self Defense. In the majority of modern cases there is too much of a risk of innocents being hurt. Also, it seems to me (and I know that this is just anecdotal) that most of the cases of accidental shootings you hear about somebody had a loaded gun for self defense.
Untrue. They represent a strong tradition to a large cross-section of the American populace and as such serve as a focal point of activities in the development of that cross-section’s youth and values. Speaking from long experience, I can tell you they promote discipline, respect for responsibility, self-control, and patience among their (mostly) responsible owners and users.
Simultaneously, events like the one cited above are awful, and highlight what happens when these pieces are put into the hands of those unqualified to use them. Consequently, it’s my belief and my hope that the 2A can be respected without the rabid extensions to ad absurdum. If the amendment’s original intent is to shield the populace from a tyrannical federal gov’t, it would seem that mandatory, comprehensive skills courses and mental health screenings would ensure responsible use to as high a degree as possible without infringing on the inherent right to the political independence of the individual. Inconvenient? Yes. Oppressive? No.
nothing, NOTHING good has or will ever come from civilians having guns.
I don’t own a gun, I don’t have plans to, and I believe in gun-control. But that’s a baseless, black-and-white, and easily disproved statement. I don’t think it happens as often as the NRA would like us to believe, but if it happens just a fraction as often as is claimed in this study:
…then something good has occasionally come from civilians having guns.
I once again posted my disdain for all things gun-related in the comments portion of the story about the guy who recently killed a 16 month old. I will, however, repeat my primary contention—nothing, NOTHING good has or will ever come from civilians having guns.
Comments are closed.