Man Sentenced For Giving Son Rifle He Used To Kill Four

OneEyedDiva

OneEyedDiva

SF VIP
Location
New Jersey
Last edited:
This father should be convicted as an "accessory" to his son's murder spree. He certainly knew about his son's long record of mental disorders, and ban from owning firearms. Giving his son guns was a ticking time bomb....and he should be given the harshest sentence possible, IMO.
 

OneEyedDiva said:
Do you agree with his sentence?
Click to expand...
Probably right. I suspect many people illegally give guns to their kids and it is almost never detected or prosecuted. In this case, because of the consequences, I think an example should be made.

I'm no lawyer, but I suppose in some states it might be possible to charge someone in this situation with murder under the felony murder rule.
Mike said:
Since all gun owners are required to be registered
Click to expand...
Not here, I have a lot of guns, all legally and none registered. And none purchased since the requirement that gun sales be reported.
 
He should get the same sentence Adam Lanza gave his idiot mother, Nancy.
Giving a mentally-ill person a gun is like giving a drunk Ted Kennedy car keys. And we know what that result was.
 
Last edited:
OneEyedDiva said:
Do you agree with his sentence? Should he have gotten more time, less time, no time?
Click to expand...
It's a tough call, unless from a strictly emotional level. Prison sentencing varies from state to state, most wish to punish the individual, with hopes that it will be a deterrent. If the father is remorseful(genuinely) then maybe serving time would accomplish nothing. If he is genuinely hateful, then no prison sentence could be long enough to change him.
Some people want revenge, but revenge is not rewarding, only validates evil for evil. Some talk about 'closure', but even the death sentence doesn't provide closure, except to the DA and the police.
 
I think he should have been given more. Here in Canada, we have a strange/stupid/dumb (your pick) law where you get a "life" sentence but you could be out in 10 years. Our society here in Canuck country strongly believes in trying to reform the criminals. We try to be nice to them which means we don't try to upset them too much. We give them a lawyer and a nice comfortable jail to sit in. We are a "kind" nations. It's good for the crooks but not so good for the victims!

If I was a criminal, I can't think of a better country to operate than Canada. Certainly not China or Russia.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
"An Illinois man faces up to three years in prison after being convicted of illegally giving his son an assault-style rifle he later used to shoot and kill four people in 2018 at a Waffle House in Tennessee."
https://news.yahoo.com/illinois-man-convicted-giving-son-172401976.html
Do you agree with his sentence? Should he have gotten more time, less time, no time?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, he was complicit in the murders and should get a sentence commensurate with that.
 
Packerjohn said:
I think he should have been given more. Here in Canada, we have a strange/stupid/dumb (your pick) law where you get a "life" sentence but you could be out in 10 years. Our society here in Canuck country strongly believes in trying to reform the criminals. We try to be nice to them which means we don't try to upset them too much. We give them a lawyer and a nice comfortable jail to sit in. We are a "kind" nations. It's good for the crooks but not so good for the victims!

If I was a criminal, I can't think of a better country to operate than Canada. Certainly not China or Russia.
Click to expand...
Amusing how some Canadians brag about their "superior" strict gun laws, while they coddle criminals.
 
Packerjohn said:
I think he should have been given more. Here in Canada, we have a strange/stupid/dumb (your pick) law where you get a "life" sentence but you could be out in 10 years. Our society here in Canuck country strongly believes in trying to reform the criminals. We try to be nice to them which means we don't try to upset them too much. We give them a lawyer and a nice comfortable jail to sit in. We are a "kind" nations. It's good for the crooks but not so good for the victims!

If I was a criminal, I can't think of a better country to operate than Canada. Certainly not China or Russia.
Click to expand...
The son got life without chance of parole and in the USA, that's pretty much set in stone. The father who provided the weapons - who should have known his son's mental health history - should have been given far more than the slap-on-the-wrist sentence. Or perhaps he also needed a long-term mandatory stay in a mental facility, because his actions were insane.
 
Is there not a "Statute of Limitation", he only assisted
his son on the date that he gave him the gun, which
may have been many years ago.

So maybe the Judge just has to follow the rules!

It's still wrong though.

Mike.
 
ohioboy said:
To be considered an Accomplice (Complicit), ILL requires certain elements.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your post Ohio, you always bring rationality to these things. I went to the link and found the quote below, do you think by this definition the father might be legally complicit?

A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when:

(a) having a mental state described by the statute defining the offense, he or she causes another to perform the conduct, and the other person in fact or by reason of legal incapacity lacks such a mental state;

The father should have known of his son's mental illness and the dangers of it. Don't know that he encouraged the shootings, but he should have known that with the gun they were a possibility.
 
ohioboy said:
To be considered an Accomplice (Complicit), ILL requires certain elements.

https://casetext.com/statute/illino...tion-720-ilcs-55-2-when-accountability-exists
Click to expand...
“A person is not so accountable, however, unless the statute defining the offense provides otherwise, if:...(2) the offense is so defined that his or her conduct was inevitably incident to its commission;” 720 ILCS 5/5-2

I haven't read the trial transcript, but I think this might apply. My first impression was: "Let's give the paranoid schizophrenic an automatic weapon and see what happens."
 
Nathan said:
If the father is remorseful(genuinely) then maybe serving time would accomplish nothing.
Click to expand...
In this case I think this is more about making an example of him than rehabilitation. Showing that people can go to jail for irresponsibly providing firearms to the mentally ill is important. And I have no problem with making an example of this man.

I also think it is very hard to know if someone is remorseful or just trying to look good for a sentence reduction.
 
Alligatorob said:
In this case I think this is more about making an example of him than rehabilitation. Showing that people can go to jail for irresponsibly providing firearms to the mentally ill is important. And I have no problem with making an example of this man.

I also think it is very hard to know if someone is remorseful or just trying to look good for a sentence reduction.
Click to expand...
People who are capable of remorse cannot do something evil in the first place.
That's how we know remorse is an act. A criminal attorney is doing his job.
 
The Prosecutor may believe he or she could probably not get a conviction on a Complicit charge beyond a reasonable doubt if it went to trial? Case law could have played a major factor?
 
Mike said:
Since all gun owners are required to be registered, then it is
very bad to circumvent the system, he is an accessory of the
actions that he helped to create.

He should get the same as a murderer.

Mike.
Click to expand...
You are applying UK rules to a US situation. With 50 American States, each of which has it's own rules about firearms ownership , you have made a blanket statement that does not apply in America. Stick to things that you actually know some thing about, please. JimB.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top