you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -28 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Not sure what the goal is here. The dad had no intent to kill, so it literally can't be murder. The disincentive aspect is irrelevant because deterrence only works against planned crimes.
This looks like the usual "we had to do something". Nothing changes.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago

    If you accidentally run someone over in a car being negligent, you get charged with manslaughter. If you're a getaway driver in a crime where someone dies, you're charged with murder.

    This is no different. He was a key part of a scheme to kill children, whether it was intentional or because of negligence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    The kid had an unhealthy interest in school shooters, including having a photo of one on his wall. The police spoke with the father about concerning statements from the kid. And yet the father still bought the kid a semi-automatic weapon. It's a short, straight line of responsibility here.

    I suspect the father had his own unhealthy interest in weapons, considering he named his own kid Colt. You can understand how a guy who worships guns is likely to dismiss anything that means he's going to have to dial it back. He loved guns more than he loved safeguarding his sons literal future.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    The deterrence is (obviously, I thought) further upstream. Parents should not treat firearms as toys to give their children. Hopefully the risk of spending years in prison will make the next parent who is considering buying their kid a gun also consider how they'll keep control of it and ensure safe, responsible use. (As opposed to this guy, who just left it unsecured in his kid's closet)

    If you haven't read the details of this case, I encourage you to do so. This isn't a "it could happen to anyone" situation we're talking about here.

  • source
  • parent