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
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
~Thomas Jefferson
Who could’ve guessed it was to be refreshed with the blood of our toddlers?
Justice, it’s the sacrifice that is made for Liberty, it seems.
And I predict that more six year olds and more three years olds will die once guns are printed at home.
Maybe that’s the goal. Maybe that’s what the founders had in mind. Why else would that be tolerated?
“Look, within 10 years, anyone will be able to print a gun at their home. This issue will be moot, and right soon.”
Oh my what a happy future we face.
Initiation success!
“are all legal within a narrow set of criteria”
But you cannot own one for self-defense.
Effectively, they are banned for the purpose for which one needs a gun the most.
The US Founders recognized that guns are needed for more than plinking and collecting.
We have a “right …to keep and bear Arms” not just to shoot critters or guard Walmart, but to guard ourselves and our families.
Look, within 10 years, anyone will be able to print a gun at their home.
This issue will be moot, and right soon.
A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Australia and that no individual may possess them. Although it is true that Australia has restrictive firearms laws, rifles and shotguns (both of which include semi-automatics), as well as handguns, are all legal within a narrow set of criteria.
As of 2015 about 815,000 people had a gun licence in Australia and there were around 3.5 to 5.5 million Registered Firearms in Australia. Most people own and use firearms for purposes such as hunting, controlling feral animals, collecting, security work, and target shooting.
If I posted what KC posted at 6:20, I would expect to be called a liar. But I did not post that and I would just say that KC is misinformed. Very misinformed.
Well, you have demanded that We Have to Do Something!, although what that something is remains unresolved, and yet you call us names and appeal to emotions.
For what proposal, I cannot tell.
But We Must Do Something!!!1!
Annie and I are the ones carrying on the conversation. Neither has called for confiscation. Why are you saying otherwise?
In which Whatabunchofscardycats wins the award for Least Rational Response.
In Australia, “Firearms license applicants [are] required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense.
So, guns aren’t banned, you just cannot own one.
There’s no difference between a gun ban and banning gun ownership.
They did not ban guns in England, you just can’t own one.
Result?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg
Annie
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?
What a bizarre statement on the thread where half the participants advocate confiscation and mere weeks after the President cited confiscation as a “success” in other countries we should consider here.
Australia hasn’t had a mass shooting since they changed to gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre. Guns were not banned in Australia. Nor are they in Great Britain.
To say so is to lie.
Annie
your ideological blinders make you see everything in black and white
What a staggering lack of self-awareness.
“So I take it all you good gun lovin’ ‘muricans go about your every waking moment…”
A potpourri of logical fallacies thus far.
Ad Hominem, Playing to Emotions, False Dilemma, We Have to Do Something, Overgeneralization, etc.
Several months ago on the PBS Newshour, a guest commented on the “copycat and publicity seeking” factors that often seem to motivate those who commit mass murders.
She recommended that the media downplay the coverage of the shooter, refraining from mentioning their name, or displaying their photos, presenting their biographies, etc.
As Darren mentioned, First Amendment rights prevent the imposition of a media “blackout”, so I was inclined to dismiss that recommendation as unworkable.
In the recent Oregon shooting, however, I noticed that the sheriff giving the news conference refused to mention the shooter’s name. And I think it was NBCs Chuck Todd who said ” I’ve only mentioned the shooter’s name once, and I don’t intend to mention it again.”
So on the issue of mass shooting by copycats looking for their 15 of minutes of fame, there are some signs that LE and the media are showing restraint in coverage of the killers.
In other words all the people who walk around unarmed are “free riders”. So I take it all you good gun lovin’ ‘muricans go about your every waking moment you spend in public strapping a gun? A gun for every ‘murican. You younguns, oldsters everyone git yer guns! Don’t leave home without it. Loony toons.
“I’m done. What a waste of time to argue with the insane.”
If you cannot support your position except by emotional declarations (“sick, vomit”) and name-calling (“benighted, fearful”), I would agree it is best to declare victory and leave.
“It’s too bad that more concern isn’t given to those children who are already out of the womb”
An assertion without proof.