Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 3/27/2009 9:29:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2009 9:47:04 AM EDT by Bedore]
Interesting story I came across today. I currently have no reason to believe it was intentional. Still quite tragic but I am glad that the surviving family had no 'revenge' intentions. It's rare that, under those circumstances, the surviving family doesn't try for revenge. Read it, and don't forget to check out the letter written to Detective Peary.

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/102466.html
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 9:50:45 AM EDT
"It just went off."


Link Posted: 3/27/2009 9:54:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By WinstonSmith:
"It just went off."




Link Posted: 3/27/2009 9:55:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2009 9:55:43 AM EDT by VBC]
I've seen a person unfamiliar with guns take a loaded/chambered Glock, think they know what they're doing, and cycle the slide to eject the chambered shell. Then drop the magazine.

Link Posted: 3/27/2009 9:56:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rapracing:
Originally Posted By WinstonSmith:
"It just went off."







+1






Um, what? :

Jordan Manzo legally owned his .40-caliber Glock and state police found no evidence that anything he did with it when he accidentally shot Tyler Emerson once in the face in the early morning hours of Jan. 18 deserved a manslaughter charge, Stokes said.

“The whole issue for us is how did that round get chambered. We don’t know,” Stokes said Thursday. “We’re guessing, and part of the problem in my line of work is that you can’t guess. We can speculate what happened, but I really shouldn’t be speculating about something or base a criminal charge on speculation. I can’t do that.”

A semiautomatic with a scope, Manzo’s handgun fired as Emerson handed it to Manzo at the Manzo family camp outside Millinocket during an overnight snowmobiling trip. Manzo had the weapon, Stokes said, because he was uncomfortable staying at the remote camp without it.



??

Link Posted: 3/27/2009 9:59:46 AM EDT
Probably a Doctor Optic red dot or maybe even an undermount laser.

Writers tend to be a bit ignorant in this department ya know?
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 10:05:01 AM EDT
I knew who the manufacturer was before I even read the article...........
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 10:11:39 AM EDT
I think he should have charges filed against him. Just because he didn't mean it doesn't make the other kid any less dead.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 10:45:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By quantim2:
I think he should have charges filed against him. Just because he didn't mean it doesn't make the other kid any less dead.


Based on the linked story what would appropriate charges be? I didn't read anything that amounts to negligence or gross negligence IMO.

Does Maine have a BAC level specified in their Public Intoxication law? It bugs me when people cite 0.08 BAC as the level for being drunk when, at least in CA, 0.08 BAC is only codified in the DUI laws - not the public intox law.

Brian

Link Posted: 3/27/2009 11:03:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2009 11:04:53 AM EDT by Bedore]
Guys

Read the letter written to Detective Peary from the Maine Attorney General. It states what happened based on investigation.

The Glock in question was a model 35, so it had a scope setup for competition shooting or what not.

According to the article, the kids were underage, so they are only trying to pursue lesser criminal charges like underage drinking and what not. I don't see a basis to charge anyone here. It is tragic, and none the less negligent on the kid who took the guns part. Apparently, he "always puts his finger in the trigger guard when being handed a gun" so he def. pulled the trigger, but since there was no evidence of horseplay, or any other evidence stating it was intentional, it was certainly just negligence and poor handling on both the kids part.

But, ethically, should he be charged? The family did not pursue charges. The state did not either. But the question I have for you guys is if you think charges should have been filed. We all know it could have been prevented, especially if the kid was taught proper safe handling. The article states he was, but why did he put his finger on the trigger when it was handed to him. Furthermore, why did the kid hand him a loaded gun without checking it? All basic rules that were not followed, and ended up in a tragic youth death.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 11:06:33 AM EDT
Though known among his friends for being a safe and responsible gun owner, Manzo typically handled the handgun with his finger inside the trigger guard and said he believed the gun had no bullet in the chamber.


Rot in hell, you stupid POS.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 11:14:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2009 11:14:57 AM EDT by usp4u]
I've never read a more poorly written article.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 11:30:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By brian4wd:
Originally Posted By quantim2:
I think he should have charges filed against him. Just because he didn't mean it doesn't make the other kid any less dead.


Based on the linked story what would appropriate charges be? I didn't read anything that amounts to negligence or gross negligence IMO.

Does Maine have a BAC level specified in their Public Intoxication law? It bugs me when people cite 0.08 BAC as the level for being drunk when, at least in CA, 0.08 BAC is only codified in the DUI laws - not the public intox law.

Brian



Negligent homicide? I don't really know, I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on tv. But I'm sure there's something to cover being stupid and killing someone.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 11:32:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rapracing:
Originally Posted By WinstonSmith:
"It just went off."






Yeah, what they said. where's that damn BS flag when you need it?
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 11:34:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By VBC:
I've seen a person unfamiliar with guns take a loaded/chambered Glock, think they know what they're doing, and cycle the slide to eject the chambered shell. Then drop the magazine.



I've seen a bunch of female privates do that, and then they are surprised when they fire a round into the clearing barrel.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 11:34:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 11:38:06 AM EDT
Kids, alcohol, loaded gun and no one should be held responsible including the shooter. Well, hell. I guess it "just went off"

Link Posted: 3/27/2009 11:38:26 AM EDT
It didn't just "go off", the dumb fuck pulled the trigger.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 11:39:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MrYar:
Is this what happened? (pulp fiction)



Pulp Fiction, damned good movie!!

Link Posted: 3/27/2009 12:07:47 PM EDT
The kid broke ALL 4 rules and now someone is dead....Fucking idiot.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 12:17:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By d_striker:
The kid broke ALL 4 rules and now someone is dead....Fucking idiot.


No No No...it just went off. I bet it aimed itself at the other boy too. Pesky guns.
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 12:36:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TearsInRain:
It didn't just "go off", the dumb fuck pulled the trigger.

And the dumb fuck victim handed the other dumb fuck a loaded gun butt first with the barrel pointing at his OWN FACE. Had either of these two dumb fucks paid attention to any of the three cardinal rules of gun safety no one would have been shot and killed.

Rule 1: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

The only exception to this occurs when you have a firearm in your hands and you have personally unloaded it for checking. As soon as you put it down, Rule 1 applies again.


Rule 2: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY

You may not wish to destroy it, but you must be clear in your mind that you are quite ready to if you let that muzzle cover the target. To allow a firearm to point at another human being is a deadly threat, and should always be treated as such.


Rule 3: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

This we call the Golden Rule because its violation is responsible for about 90 percent of the firearms disasters we read about.


Link Posted: 3/27/2009 12:43:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Um, what? :

Jordan Manzo legally owned his .40-caliber Glock and state police found no evidence that anything he did with it when he accidentally shot Tyler Emerson once in the face in the early morning hours of Jan. 18 deserved a manslaughter charge, Stokes said.

“The whole issue for us is how did that round get chambered. We don’t know,” Stokes said Thursday. “We’re guessing, and part of the problem in my line of work is that you can’t guess. We can speculate what happened, but I really shouldn’t be speculating about something or base a criminal charge on speculation. I can’t do that.”

A semiautomatic with a scope, Manzo’s handgun fired as Emerson handed it to Manzo at the Manzo family camp outside Millinocket during an overnight snowmobiling trip. Manzo had the weapon, Stokes said, because he was uncomfortable staying at the remote camp without it.



??



Could have been something like this...
Link Posted: 3/27/2009 12:58:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nueboch:
Kids, alcohol, loaded gun and no one should be held responsible including the shooter. Well, hell. I guess it "just went off"


I don't think the ME DAG is saying that. What he is saying is that based on the facts as he knows them to be and not on speculation a culpable mental state and all the elements required for an appropriate criminal charge and prosecution do not exist in this case.


Link Posted: 3/27/2009 1:02:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By nueboch:
Kids, alcohol, loaded gun and no one should be held responsible including the shooter. Well, hell. I guess it "just went off"



Responsible does not necessarily equal criminal - my favorite example is Dick Cheney was most definitely responsible for shooting his hunting partner but according to TX DA his actions weren't criminal.

Brian

Top Top