Michael 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
“So says the man who suggests that we remove any protection for the President – three of whom have been targeted in the past fifty years.”
So guns are in fact needed for protection, even mandatory, you readily admit.
But apparently only certain US citizens warrant such protection.
Everyone else can just take one for the team, is that your argument?
Maybe if we outfit those little dead kids in coyote furs or wolf pelts, they’d get some love.
Cult of Death, Justiceforall,
What is your answer to my 3:48pm question? It is a reasonable question that should not be difficult to answer.
Excuses, excuses. How many children…”
Translated: I can’t argue the facts (dialectic), so I will take the emotional route (rhetoric), devoid of substance, because it makes me feel morally superior.
So says the man who suggests that we remove any protection for the President – three of whom have been targeted in the past fifty years.
Keep them coming, all little children are welcome. Dry your tears mommy and daddy it was your own fault for being stupid.
In the “it could never happen in America” category; what would be the lawful citizens deterrent against ALL unlawful behavior if gun control measures effectively disarmed law-abiding citizens?
“Excuses, excuses. How many children…”
Translated: I can’t argue the facts (dialectic), so I will take the emotional route (rhetoric), devoid of substance, because it makes me feel morally superior.
Edward
About two a week.
Everyone here is terribly, terribly sad about that.
I’m convinced.
Let the killing of three year olds continue.
I’m sure you all will be terribly, terribly, sad, though.
That’s sweet.
Excuses, excuses. How many children with a gun will get blown away this month? We should keep a running tally.
Is everyone clear that new gun laws would not have prevented this tragedy because this guy broke the gun laws already on the books? If he had followed existing gun laws, this never would have happened. So, clearly, new gun laws would have no new miraculous effect.
You want trigger locks mandatory? Sounds great, now how exactly do you enforce it? Trigger locks WILL NOT cure irresponsibility.
Edward:
Are there other constitutional rights that you believe are unfair and should be rescinded? Other rights that you think it’s unfair to even bring up merely because they were deemed so vital they were written into the Constitution?
How about making trigger locks mandatory?
Because if I need to use my weapon in an emergency situation, I do not have time to enter a combination or find and use a key. I will be dead.
IN addition there is this……Trigger locks are not designed to be used on loaded guns—which makes them basically useless for preventing negligent discharges. In fact, a trigger lock might actually make a loaded gun more dangerous. http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/18/trigger_locks_the_dubiously_effective_safety_measure_that_gun_control_advocates.html
I might consider trigger locks on my unloaded guns, IN the gun safe, to make it harder for a thief to use the stolen guns.
If people want to use trigger locks, by all means….be my guest. I don’t want to use them and as pointed out….they infringe on the right to keep and bear arms by making them about as useful as a big honkin’ rock.
From Slate:
I’ve mentioned before that the first firearm I ever owned was a gift from a cop, because he knew I’d been robbed when I was home. He said he had never, in the history of his career, ever arrived in time to prevent a violent crime from occurring. There just isn’t enough time to get to a phone, describe the problem, give your address, wait for police to arrive, assess the situation, approach the location, and apprehend the suspect.
The police investigate and solve crimes. Sometimes they can successfully resolve a hostage situation. But, typically, if someone has broken into your home with the intent to do you harm, he’s going to do what he came there to do.
Because it would violate their 2nd Amendment rights….3…2…1…
justiceforall:
Actually, at least here in CA, it is the law that all firearms purchased either have a firearm safety device, like a trigger lock, or a gun safe. In addition, in order to buy a firearm, you need to score at least a 75% on a Handgun Safety Certificate.
Unfortunately, this guy, a former gang member, did not follow existing laws. Because he is a criminal.
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf?
Why should I have a trigger lock when I have no kids or grandkids?
It’s like the impossible-to-open drug bottles.
You know who else were disarmed? The slaves. It was punishable by death to possess a firearm. How’d that work out for them? Did the powers that be have their best interests at heart? Did a benevolent government protect them from all harm?