Chicago Former Gang Member Arrested After His 6-Year-Old Son Kills His Brother With Loaded Gun Left In Kitchen

562400f51400002a00c7a30bMichael Santiago, 25, is under arrest for felony child endangerment after his 6-year-old son accidentally shot and killed his 3-year-old brother. Santiago kept the .32-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver fully loaded on top of the refrigerator.

The boys were reportedly playing “cops and robbers” when the gun went off. Their grandfather was watching them but was upstairs at the time. Santiago is a former gang member who said that he had the gun (purchased illegally off the street) to protect himself after testifying against a fellow gang member. Santiago, a manager at a Papa Ray’s Pizza restaurant, is being held on $75,000 bond.

Santiago appears to have been working hard after leaving the gang — putting in six days a week at the pizza restaurant.

The combination of the illegal purchase and the endangerment allegation could result in serious time for Santiago. The question is whether a court should consider the loss of the child in reducing the sentence. Santiago is described as a loving father who did a terribly stupid and reckless thing. Given the loss of the child, do you think that serious jail time is warranted?

Source: CNN

236 thoughts on “Chicago Former Gang Member Arrested After His 6-Year-Old Son Kills His Brother With Loaded Gun Left In Kitchen”

  1. There are consequences for being irresponsible in storing your weapons, and many of you think this former gand member, although working hard now, and on the right path, he was charged with a felony, that’s fine, he deserves that right? Ok, now let’s talk about the 3 year old that accidentally shot his brother in Stockton CA today, his father left a 22 rifle in his closet, loaded, in reach of the toddler ,so this father too should be charged with a felony, same crime, simular situation, put him behind bars right ? The father of these 2 boys is a member of the California highway patrol, do you think he will be charged, will he do jail time ? Is he above the law? Can police get away with crimes, that any of us would be jailed for? Is this right?

  2. phillyT

    Your utter ignorance of a doctors role in public health and safety is downright astonishing.

    In fact I am quite aware of the left’s efforts to use the medical profession’s stature and goodwill to further their political and social goals.

  3. As for doctors polling for guns among their patients:

    Doctors’ role is in their patients’ health. It is perfectly reasonable to give parents handouts or other information on child proofing their home, including locking up firearms as well as household poisons. If a doctor is treating someone mentally ill and a danger to himself or others, then it is relevant to ask the patient or caregivers if the patient has access to firearms, or any other means to commit suicide or harm. I don’t even have a problem with a safety-conscious doctor leaving out pamphlets on upcoming firearm safety classes.

    Where they cross the line is the possibility of doctors reporting who owns firearms. If a doctor asks you a question, you feel pressured to answer. But it’s none of the doctor’s business if you own a firearm, unless the patient is mentally ill. You don’t have to tell the doctor what you own. That undermines the trust between doctor and patient. Guns, themselves, are not a public health problem. CRIMINALS are a public health problem. It is more relevant to inquire about your patient’s safety if you ask if she lives in a high crime or gang area, or areas with a lot of mosquitos or Lyme-carrying ticks.

    Owning weapons was considered so crucial to freedom that it is one of the few rights outlined in our Constitution. Doctors have zero right pressuring patients by asking about their guns, as if owning one is wrong in some way. There is concern that recording who owns a gun can end up in yet another government database. (Remember when everyone dismissed the NSA spying as a manufactured scandal?)

  4. Max:

    “Your sarcasm is noted. What it tells me, if not us, is that somehow children killing other kids is somehow ok in your book.”

    NO. No one has said this. I support legalizing pot, but kids die every year ingesting pot laced brownies and candies. I support swimming pools, but kids tragically drown every year. I support driving a car, but people deliberately murder others with it or engage in road rage. I do not support kids dying of pot poisoning, drowning, or vehicular manslaughter. Obviously. Why is that not obvious when the tool involved is a gun? Why does logic somehow fly out the window?

    People are negligent and they are criminal. There is no way to prevent everyone from hurting each other either on accident or on purpose, because human nature is what it is. Supporting the legal use of firearms in NO WAY means that ANYONE is glad that a parent was negligent and created a scenario where one of his children died from a gunshot wound. This man will have to live with his terrible lapse in judgement for the rest of his life.

    Parents are negligent every day – they leave out prescription drugs, choking hazards, leave their kids in hot cars unattended, give them access to a pool unattended, do street drugs in the house and leave the paraphernalia for their kids to find . . .

    It is a completely illogical argument to claim that supporting the legal use of anything condones its illegal use, or that anyone is cheering on negligent parenting. That makes absolutely NO SENSE, and yet I keep hearing Liberals repeat this nonsense.

  5. Anything that can affect the health and well-being of your child, up to and including getting by the neighbor’s kid, is both a public health and a medical issue.

    This explains why my doctor advised me which car to buy the last time I saw him.

  6. Rick, Your superb comment @ 9:35am is straightforward, reasoned, and it eviscerates the fascists here who want to confiscate guns under the thinly veiled guise, “It’s for the children.”

  7. Guns are not a medical issue? Please tell me that you have enough of whatever you’re smoking to share with the rest of us.
    Anything that can affect the health and well-being of your child, up to and including getting by the neighbor’s kid, is both a public health and a medical issue. If your child gets shot, you either take them to the hospital or the morgue. Either way a doctor is going to see them, hence, a medical issue.


  8. Justiceforall
    Annie and I are the ones carrying on the conversation. Neither has called for confiscation. Why are you saying otherwise?

    You are not the only two, but the answer is:

    1) Your complaints about the effects of guns are not effected by any other policy, so when you say we must “do something” or anyone against your preference is for killing kids the only possible policy is confiscation.

    2) You attack people who are against confiscation.

    3) The measures you have openly called for, which include ending manufacturing and selling of guns, are not materially different.

    4) You aren’t clear about your goals.

    5) The examples of others who make the same arguments demonstrates the true goal is confiscation. President Obama made the same claims – that anyone who thinks he desires confiscation is paranoid and crazy – but he recently cited confiscation as a “success” and the appropriate response to gun violence.

    The simple truth is you do support confiscation but it feeds your ego to insult your opponents as paranoid. Apparently you believe our understanding should be limited to the things you admit openly omitting the things we can discern from your positions and actions. You’re welcome to think that but we’re not obliged to play along.

  9. phillyT
    And why have some states forbade doctors from asking about guns in the home?

    Because guns are not a medical issue. Don’t you people even think about the answers to your questions while you’re asking them?

  10. Yup, I’m all about kids killing kids, and here I thought I would slip that by you Max. I guess we have another PI in this blog.

    First of all Max I don’t give ANY politician a pass; I just don’t fix my gaze on one party or usually one politician. I know what all of them took an oath to do and I expect all of them to fail at keeping their oath. You see we keep electing foxes to guard the hen house and many, many people believe the chickens are safe because their fox is a Republican or Democrat. That is just pure ignorance.

    Secondly, what Republican holds “up “family values” yet refuse to put an end to situations such as this thread lends itself to… DEAD BABIES?”

  11. Olly
    Your sarcasm is noted. What it tells me, if not us, is that somehow children killing other kids is somehow ok in your book. Why else hold up your apples to complain about the obvious orange this thread is…

    But in true form Olly, you can’t pass up an opportunity. Let’s try this, how come YOU never complain about Republicans that hold up “family values” yet refuse to put an end to situations such as this thread lends itself to… DEAD BABIES?

    Hypocrisy, much?

  12. In order to make the pool debate similar to the gun debate, you have to have a group of people clamoring to outlaw pools.

    We already have myriad gun laws. If only criminals would follow the law, there wouldn’t be any gun homicides or negligent gun deaths. Or murders. Or theft. Or fraud. Or sexual assault.

    CDC on drowning deaths:

    Clearly, if we apply the same logic as some people do with guns, pools must be outlawed because some people are negligent and allow their kids to drown.

    Also, what the anti-2nd-Amendment crowd needs to investigate is whether removing guns would make murderers not kill people. Would removing a gun make a crazy stalker not kill his ex? Does it matter if he uses a gun or a blunt spoon if she’s dead either way?

    What we can do is analyze the crime in countries that have very strict gun laws. We can look to Harvard for more information. This article was posted on another thread:

    “The Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls3 that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement.4 So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them.5 Yet, manifest suc‐ cess in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent the Soviet Union from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the gun‐less So‐ viet Union’s murder rates paralleled or generally exceeded those of gun‐ridden America. While American rates stabilized and then steeply declined, however, Russian murder increased so drasti‐ cally that by the early 1990s the Russian rate was three times higher than that of the United States.”

    “Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.”

    So, no, focusing on a particular tool does not affect criminal behavior or make a country safer. You have to look at the underlying causes – such as gangs, high unemployment, high drug use, mental illness, and poverty and misery in general. Hyper fixation on a particular tool ignores the root cause and more meaningful discussion on crime and violence.

    What I, personally, care about is improving public safety. Gun bans might make people “feel” better, but it’s the actual end result that I care about.

    High rates of gun ownership by law abiding citizens shape crime patterns. In areas of high gun ownership, like mine, break-ins when the owners are home are rare. It is more common for thieves to target outbuildings for tools or tack, or try to siphon gas. Thieves have some self preservation instincts, and tend not to break in if there’s a reasonable possibility they will be shot dead.

    High gun ownership by criminals also shape crime patterns – for example, the gangs.

    It’s not the guns; it’s the criminal behavior that is crucial. Owning a gun does not turn a law abiding citizen into a homicidal maniac, and taking a gun away from a criminal does not turn him into a peaceful, law abiding citizen. To suggest otherwise is political malpractice.

Comments are closed.