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.

[archy]

Did no one else notice this? True, it was a mistake that sure as hell shouldnt have happened, but, to charge them with a felony for what was obviously not intentional?

Perhaps the lawyers here can help. Doesnt there have to be intent for there to be a crime?

It's much more likely that the idea is to *overcharge* them initially, then later to drop the charges to misdemeanors, particularly if the victim is agreeable. That'd particularly be the case if the kids are the sons of a local cop or retired cop, another possible reason for keeping their names from being disclosed.

In that case, I'd expect the victim will quite happily go along with the program, the charges will be much-reduced, and ATF will defer any possible federal charges.

That's a very short story, and I smell a lot of details having been left out....

-archy-/-

[archy]

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.

You're not from Montana, are you? -archy-/-

[I got the rope]

Man...I bet you were the kid with all the cool toys growing up.

[I got the rope]

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.

You would think that she would have better judgement. Why was she riding around in a tractor in the middle of a Live Fire Range? LOL.

[mbynack]

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.

I have to agree. I once bought a used Savage 22 semi auto and the first time I tried to fire it, the weapon fired eight rounds full auto and then jammed. I took it to a good gunsmith who discoverd that someone had tried to convert it to fire fully auto. It cost me more to fix the darned thing than a new one would have cost.

[new cruelty]

2 charged with accidentally shooting woman with machine gun

The article doesn't say anything about the machine gun the woman was carrying. : )

[Blood of Tyrants]

Ruger made a few Mini-14's into FA rifles back in the late 70's and called them the AC-556.

[Blood of Tyrants]

See my post #47.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Maybe, maybe not. Most likely the woman was hit by a ricochet.

[Blood of Tyrants]

See my post #47.

[MineralMan]

"Most likely the woman was hit by a ricochet.
"

That's certainly possible. It's still lousy firearms safety on the boy's part.

[Shooter 2.5]

Were I her husband, the weapon involved would never fire again,

You could blame the tractor for placing them in the line of fire. I wonder how long it would take to cut up a tractor? I think they have those crushers at junkyards that could do it. Maybe they could raffle a chance to hit it with a sledgehammer.

[MineralMan]

"Were I her husband, the weapon involved would never fire again,

You could blame the tractor for placing them in the line of fire.
"

Yes, yes. A 12-year-old boy on my street once shot out my rear car window with a pellet rifle as I drove up the street. I stopped, went back and knocked on the door of his house. His father emerged and I told him what had happened and that I had seen his son with the pellet rifle just before the window was shot out.

Dad called the boy from wherever he had run and told him to bring his rifle with him. The kid came out with the pellet gun. Dad took it away from him, and immediately broke it in half on a concrete post on his porch. He then told the boy to go back to his room and that he'd deal with him later. He then apologized to me and said he'd pay for the replacement window.

That's what I meant. If I had caught the boy, I'd have destroyed his pellet rifle myself. His dad did it instead. I have no idea what else his dad did as punishment, but the kid didn't have his prized rifle any longer.

It's not the weapon, it's the person holding the weapon, but sometimes, destroying the weapon is a good object lesson, don't you agree?

[Shooter 2.5]

No, I don't.

It teaches the kid destruction of property instead of disciplining those reponsible.

Get mad, slam a door. Get mad, break a window....etc.

Besides, they're going to need the thousands of dollars they would get for the sale of the AC556 to pay for the lawyers, hospital bills and the pain and suffering.

[GovernmentShrinker]

It's the parent(s) who should be facing criminal charges. If your 13 and 16 year old are this irresponsible, you need to keep the hardware locked up when they're unsupervised.

[MineralMan]

"It's the parent(s) who should be facing criminal charges. If your 13 and 16 year old are this irresponsible, you need to keep the hardware locked up when they're unsupervised."

Hmm...I'm not sure what the laws are in Montana regarding the age for unsupervised firearms use, but I'd guess that the 16-year-old was within the law.

Certainly, the parent(s) of these boys failed at teaching them to use their firearms safely. That's clear, since this woman has a bullet wound in her leg. That should never have happened.

Are they criminally liable, though? Probably not. Civilly liable? You bet. However, I'll wager that there won't be a lawsuit here. The parents will pay the woman's medical bills and that will be that. Montana farmers are not generally lawsuit happy.

The boys will probably be charged as juveniles with something or another and will get probation. Once they're adults, the records will be gone.

[PatrioticAmerican]

I don't go boo-hoo for every person that died yesterday. A person dies, what, every 6 seconds?

The topic of discussion wasn't the death or the other 14,400 people who died yesterday.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Attempted Negligence"?

;-)

[dark_lord]

The weapon didn't cause the injury. The shooter caused the injury.

Semantics. The weapon did cause the injury. The shooter was responsible for the injury. It is a semantic waste of time to say guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yeah, but in reality guns, cars, ladders, pails full of water and so forth do kill people, that is they are the direct cause. But as inanimate objects, they don't (usually) do it by themselves. A person is responsible for the inanimate object (in this case, a gun) and is responsible for the injury. Trying to say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" just makes us look like idiots.

[GladesGuru]

The chance of a Mini-14 being a full auto are somewhere between slim and none; and Slim saddled up and rode out of town yesterday.

That's assuming it was in "as manufactured condition", not modified.