2 charged with accidentally shooting woman with machine gun

The Montana Daily Inter Lake [Kalispell, MT] ^ | Monday June 30, 2003 | staff report

[archy]

2 charged with accidentally shooting woman with machine gun

Two Polson-area boys are charged with felonies after they accidentally shot a woman with a machine gun Tuesday.

Lake County Undersheriff Mike Sargent said the boys, ages 13 and 16, were target practicing on Bisson Lane, south of Polson, when a shot went astray and struck a woman in the leg. She was in a field with her husband on a tractor, he said.

"They were out there, throwing rounds down," Sargent said.

The woman was taken to St. Joseph's Hospital where she underwent surgery and is recovering, Sargent said.

Deputies Cory Anderson and Mike Carlson responded. They confiscated the .233-caliber Ruger mini-14. One of the boys' fathers has a permit to own the machine gun, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was notified because of the type of gun used in the accident, Sargent said.

The boys won't be identified because of their ages. At the end of the week, they were charged with felony criminal endangerment.

[backhoe]

Nice little aeroplane... poking around, I found this:

http://www.aeroadventureinc.com

[xsrdx]

Always be sure of your target and what's beyond it...

Not to mention, some adult supervision might have been in order considering the hardware involved.

Left and Right range limits, anyone? This doesn't sound like a ricochet, more like a loss of muzzle control...

[xsrdx]

Doesnt there have to be intent for there to be a crime?

INAL, but I watch Law and Order.

If someone is injured as a result of negligence, it doesn't matter that the injury was unintentional. You might be thinking of the rules for homicide charges.

[MineralMan]

"I observe that in 15 comments, not a single expression of empathy toward the innocent victim of this shootin' safari has been expressed. Lotsa talk about how cool the guns are though."

I wondered about that, too. Whatever the weapon, these kids were not shooting safely, or such an incident would never have happened. Negligent Homicide, at least.

I don't care what the weapon was, and it probably was not a selective fire weapon, a woman has been shot. Careless firearms handling is a good enough reason for a Negligent Homicide charge, as far as I'm concerned.

[thatsnotnice]

They might be referring to a Mini-14 that’s been “converted.”

There used to be dozens of books that would tell you what you needed to do.

I had an uncle that was a gunsmith and machinist and he thought the various conversions were half-assed (for whatever reason) – he’d always say that the conversion was a good way to F-up a perfectly good rifle. But I doubt that ever stopped anyone from doing it.

[MineralMan]

My error. Since the woman was not killed, but only injured, there was no homicide. Reckless Endangerment sounds like the appropriate charge.

I hope the woman recovers fully from her leg wound. Were I her husband, the weapon involved would never fire again, and it would be unlikely that the boys would feel like doing target practice for a long, long time. You wouldn't shoot my wife, accidentally or intentionally, without paying a steep price.

[thatsnotnice]

Careless firearms handling is a good enough reason for a Negligent Homicide charge, as far as I'm concerned.

I always thought a homicide charge required the killing of someone. Whatever.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Aventura II. I bought kit # 6 in Jan 96. Had her flying in June 96. She was red and white. The plane in photo is factory demo plane. I flew her for 8 hours before becoming a test pilot on N106DF. I flew her for 4 years and sold her in summer of 2000 (had two kids in college). The guy who bought her flew her for 2 months then made water landing with wheels down. He and passenger only got wet but plane was a total loss. I'm going to build something faster next time.

[MineralMan]

"To me it just seems a little over the top to actually charge the kids with a crime when it was obviously an accident.
"

Yeah, what the heck...just give 'em a pat on the back. After all, it was just a leg wound. Feh!

This should never have happened. Someone didn't teach those boys proper range safety. Someone let them out with a rifle, unsupervised. A woman has a nasty gunshot wound.

Since these boys are juveniles, any charge will be as juveniles. I don't recommend letting them skate on this one, and I'll bet the woman and her husband aren't all that amused.

I can't imagine what my father would have done had it been me at 16 who "accidentally" shot a woman.

[MineralMan]

"I always thought a homicide charge required the killing of someone. Whatever."

You're right. See my 27. It should be reckless endangerment, since the woman was shot in the leg. I read the story earlier, and had forgotten the details.

[backhoe]

Appreciate the info- a good friend of mine, the fella who taught me a lot about welding, machining, and mechanics, was keenly interested in building an ultralight. Unfortunately, a stroke felled him before it got any further than research. It sounded fascinating.

This was circa 1998- from a cursory glance at that page I surmise that powerplants have become a lot more sophisticated and refined.

[ought-six]

A Ruger Mini-14 is not even close to being a machine gun! It's a varmint rifle, for God's sake, and only fires on semi-auto mode. These grabbers will make up ANYTHING!

[PatrioticAmerican]

A Min-14 is a machine gun? I don't think so.

"There will never outlaw your varmit rifle...they'll call it a machine gun first.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"I observe that in 15 comments, not a single expression of empathy toward the innocent victim of this shootin' safari has been expressed. Lotsa talk about how cool the guns are though."

This is a forum of current events, not a Quilting & Crying tea party.

[Joe Brower]

"I observe that in 15 comments, not a single expression of empathy toward the innocent victim of this shootin' safari has been expressed."

Welcome to FR.

Our perceived lack of empathy is a direct result of how such victims are typically only fodder for the anti-gun crusade. As far as "how cool the guns are", you need to read it again. The primary focus here has been the media's quite probable mislabeling of the firearm in order to further demonize guns in general. If that concept is new to you, then you haven't been paying attention.

[Ichneumon]

I observe that in 15 comments, not a single expression of empathy toward the innocent victim of this shootin' safari has been expressed.

So... You're saying we should all be saying about how we "feel her pain"?

Are you sure you're on the right political web forum? The hand-wringing liberal sites are down the hall, second door on the left.

Look, if it would in any way help the woman for me to make public expressions of "empathy" for her, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But since in reality it would just be a useless exercise in "sharing my feelings", why bother?

I hadn't thought that I had to "share my feelings" where you can see them in order to prove I had some, but apparently I was mistaken. Or more to the point, maybe you're presuming *way* too much here.

Lotsa talk about how cool the guns are though.

There was *ONE* (count 'em, *1*) comment expressing admiration for the firearm ("Pretty little thang...ain't it"), and that wasn't even in the "first 15" comments. Hallucinate much?

All the other comments focusing on the firearm were trying to figure out whether the article's decription of it might be accurate or not.

Turn off your bias and try again..

[MineralMan]

"This is a forum of current events, not a Quilting & Crying tea party."

Yes, it is a forum for discussion of current events, which is what this person was doing. I suspect that you'd be singing a different song had it been your wife who was shot.

Discussion does not mean that everyone is going to agree with your particular position.

[MineralMan]

"All the other comments focusing on the firearm were trying to figure out whether the article's decription of it might be accurate or not. "

The description was probably _not_ accurate. Most folks don't send 16-year-olds out to do target practice with full-auto firearms without supervision.

That said, that particular weapon lends itself to modification to being full auto capable, as has been pointed out by several folks here.

Bottom line is that these boys were careless with their weapon and a woman was injured. Had that woman been the wife or daughter of one of the posters here, we'd be hearing a different argument. Had the woman been killed, there are plenty of Freepers who would be calling for the death penalty. Had the boys been the children of illegal immigrants, there would be rants about closing the borders.

None of those things are the case. It's a couple of stupid kids, poorly trained in firearms safety, who caused an injury. The weapon didn't cause the injury. The shooter caused the injury.

Again, if it was your wife or daughter who had been shot, I suspect you'd feel differently and the discussion might be a different one.