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
OLLY, Touche’!
It’s too bad that more concern isn’t given to those children who are already out of the womb as it is to those still unborn. Something is off kilter in such reasoning.
“How the heck do we people who do not carry firearms manage to live our daily lives without one?”
You’re a free rider.
Just like people who don’t get vaccinated, but benefit by herd immunity.
Or people who don’t buy insurance, and take advantage of ERs.
But when you remove that protection, such as when guns ownership was banned in England and Australia, armed violence increases.
“How the heck do we people who do not carry firearms manage to live our daily lives without one?”
You can thank GUN RIGHTS SUPPORTERS!
Next question.
There is ALWAYS a lowest common denominator on threads w/ bipolar emotion.
“Again, when you can distinguish the difference between a 10 week fetus and a 4 year old, get back to me.”
One is 10 weeks old and the other is 4 years old; both human beings and with the unalienable right to life. Next question.
By the way, while you’re fumbling around trying to argue what lives are worth saving, try this logic:
Governor Brown of CA signed into law the right to assisted suicide. I believe it was in the same week he vetoed a law that would give a person with a terminal illness the right to try to live by taking a non-FDA approved medicine.
Keep playing God and before you know it you won’t have a choice whether you live or die.
Nicely done!
Emotion v logic and reason. Good to see Darren join the logic and reason crowd on this thread. Interesting the cop haters want us to trust and rely upon cops to be our sole protection. No logic, reason, or sense to that.
The argument over guns doesn’t concern itself with hunting rifles for most people. I haven’t heard too many people get bent out of shape when people hunt for food with a firearm. Or go target shooting. Most of the comments here are regarding a firearm for personal protection. Is the threat to personal safety so great, really? How the heck do we people who do not carry firearms manage to live our daily lives without one?
And you’ll pardon me if I vomit the next time you post about Saudi Arabia flogging someone to death. You people think the life of a three year old is an okay swap for some damn ‘liberty’ you think is going to be taken away.
And you’ll pardon me if I vomit the next time you post about how you weep when some great white hunter has killed a magnificent elephant but you’re okay with a three year old being very dead because a trigger lock can’t be developed that wouldn’t impede your ability to shoot.
You poor benighted terrified hypocrites.
“In the old days, the argument was I wanted a gun to hunt and the fun of target shooting.
THAT argument is gone – dead and buried with all the dead and buried little kids.
NOW the guns are needed for one reason only. To kill people. Period.:
~+~
That argument is unfounded. You are saying that there are no people out there who wish to use firearms for hunting and target shooting. That is as false today as it was just after the invention of the firearm itself. During this time people also died from firearms. Only one reason for firearm possession is to kill other people you proffer? Facially false.
And Justice, they are damn proud of it.
The same people who make the argument of “common sense gun control” are usually the same people who complain that their are too many guns in America and refer to people who have firearms or support firearm rights as “gun freaks” or “gun nuts” and are the same people who advocate that the second amendment should be repealed. This is why firearm rights people rightfully believe that gun control advocates cannot be trusted.
But since you feel that saving a child’s life is paramount and cause to restrict firearm ownership you should also argue (though unreasonably) that the press must be censored to publish shootings of a sensational manner because evidence clearly shows that most incidents such as this are motivated by past similar events.
But if you are not advocating the freedom of the press should be restricted then you are being selective in which constitutional amendments should be restricted. The founders did not intend there to be preference or ranking among the bill of rights: none are subordinate to others.
Also the courts have said that unless the government can show a compelling government interest to restrain events having a constitutional protection, then the government is barred from restricting these rights. It is hard to articulate a compelling government interest in denying a right to the citizenry based upon events that are very low in number.
Olly,
Again, when you can distinguish the difference between a 10 week fetus and a 4 year old, get back to me. In the meantime your ideological blinders make you see everything in black and white and it’s a waste of my time to engage you.
“It’s a sick sick culture”
Then leave the discussion and go defend the right for a woman to kill an unborn child. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. This man was irresponsible and his son was killed by accident. Women acting irresponsible go and kill their child on purpose.
Somehow “our” culture is sick. That’s some twisted logic.
In the old days, the argument was I wanted a gun to hunt and the fun of target shooting.
THAT argument is gone – dead and buried with all the dead and buried little kids.
NOW the guns are needed for one reason only. To kill people. Period.
You want a gun to KILL PEOPLE.
Justice, I’m blown away (so to speak) by this discussion. It’s a sick sick culture.
*Guns*
Darren, what you fail to understand is that no one is taking away your guns or repealing the 2nd Amemdment. Why such overblown fear of this? Anything that might rein in the proliferation of funds is rejected outright, we have witnessed that here on this thread.
Right to vote somehow equates to a child’s life.
Insanity.
Drano kills. More guns
Pools kill. More guns
Cars kill. More guns
Booze kills. More guns
Drugs kill. More guns
Life kills. More guns
Congress kills. More guns
Presidents kill. More guns
Knives kill. More guns
I expect western Europe and Australia will soon be depopulated and their elected forms of government falling to illicit armies throwing coups – one after another. Strict gun laws over there.
You poor benighted fearful people.
I’m done. What a waste of time to argue with the insane.