Court records: Husband shot wife dead during intruder game (had said before he was cleaning it )

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10557290

Published Friday February 6, 2009
Court records: Husband shot wife during intruder game
BY LESLIE REED
Omaha World-Herald

LINCOLN — Twenty-one-year-old Josh Beasley was pretending to clear his home of intruders on Saturday when he fired the shot that killed his 20-year-old wife, Alaina, according to court documents filed today.


Josh and Alaina Beasley

The affidavit, based on Beasley’s interview with a Lincoln police detective on the day of the shooting, was released by Lancaster County Attorney Gary Lacey.

Josh Beasley appeared in court this afternoon on a charge of manslaughter for unintentionally causing his wife’s death.

With about10 friends and family members in the courtroom, Lancaster County Judge James Foster released Beasley without bail. Beasley had turned himself into police this morning.

In an interview with the World-Herald, Beasley earlier said he accidentally shot his wife while cleaning his shotgun.

Josh Beasley’s brother, Dan Beasley, said today that he couldn’t comment on the case.


FULL story at link.


More than 500 at funeral of woman killed in shooting

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10556539

Published Thursday February 5, 2009
More than 500 at funeral of woman killed in shooting
BY CHIP OLSEN
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

At his young wife's funeral, Josh Beasley closed his eyes, opened them at random, bowed his head and wiped at his tears. Dressed in black, the 21-year-old's ring finger held two tokens of affection: His and his wife's.

Alaina Beasley died Sunday at age 20.

Police and family members have said that Josh Beasley accidentally shot Alaina Beasley Saturday while handling his shotgun. A manslaughter charge is expected today in Lancaster County Court.

Friends and family members gathered Thursday afternoon at Omaha's Emmanuel Fellowship Church to share stories about a red-headed child with sparkling eyes who grew into a kind woman devoted to those she loved.

Many shared fond memories of Alaina Beasley:

A sister who looked to Alaina for advice.

A cousin who remembered a little girl who liked to pinch.

A friend who cherished time spent together.

A grandmother thankful for what they shared.

FULL story at link.

[ogneopasno]

1. How terribly, terribly stupid. How awful.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

2. If you're playing a sex game, unload the gun

Unfortunately, a woman had to die because he's an idiot.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

3. At least he will be barred from owning any more guns!

[tyedyeto]

7. Where did you read that bit of info?

[Unrepentant Fenian]

12. A felony conviction makes him ineligible to possess guns.

[TWiley]

91. God forbid an idiot not being allowed to own a gun !

That would not be Christ Like !

[Pavulon]

118. Felons for sure, or anyone making or worth less

than say 40k above bottom line income. Majority of gun crime is poverty, gang and drug, driven.

Cant really do that, but gun control ignores root cause. Here stupidity of murder appear to be motive.

[kas125]

5. I kind of felt sorry for the guy until I read this -

According to an affidavit written by Lincoln Police Sgt. Greg Sorensen, Beasley told police that he had been working on his 12-gauge shotgun in his living room because he’d been having trouble with the way it ejected shells while using it earlier in the day, according to the affidavit. Family members have said the couple had been skeet shooting at targets earlier that day.

After he finished working on the gun, he loaded it with three rounds, one in the chamber and two in the magazine.

After putting some things away in his bedroom, he said he picked up the gun and began to pretend to clear the home of intruders, something he and his wife had practiced in the past.

He rounded the corner into the kitchen, where his wife was standing near the sink. She pointed her hand at him, pretending to have a gun. According to the affidavit, Beasley said he raised the shotgun to his shoulder and fired one round. He said he had forgotten the gun was loaded.
==

I thought the gun went off accidentally, but evidently not. He forgot that he loaded the gun a few minutes before. How the heck do you forget that?

[Historic NY]

8. Wait a minute, you have a problem with the gun & then you load it with live ammo..

WTF....he then raised the gun to his shoulder & fired one round. How does one forget that you just loaded the gun....more details will emerge.

[Larry Ogg]

50. Lack of common sense and foresight

it's common among conservatives who also lack critical thinking skills.

[depakid]

21. This just goes to show what happens when people live in fear

and feel the need to arm themselves.

They become MANY times more likely to be involved in a tragedy (including those perpetrated by intruders)- than household without those guns present.

Unfortunately- due to the frightening nature of crime- and its increasing exposure in the media over the past 20+ years, people can't grasp the breadth of the emprical evidence- or the concept, much in the same way as some folks won't accept global warming because they've just had a colder than normal winter.

[petronius]

23. If his story is true, that is stupid of epic proportions

My only knowledge of law comes from TV, but isn't it a crime (manslaughter? negligent homicide?) when a person dies as a result of an action so stupid that a reasonable person with common sense wouldn't do it?

:shrug:

[JonLP24]

33. Not all the time

A simple fist fight could result in someone dying therefore a manslaughter charge. It's basically accidentally killing someone.

A case from about 5 years or so, can't remember much about the details but it was a fight in a subway station where he accidently pushed the other guy onto an incoming subway train which resulted him in being convicted of manslaughter. I believe alot of auto accidents results in manslaughter charges as well.

[Skittles]

141. that story sounds utterly ridiculous

[slackmaster]

34. No, that's not right at all

Firearms are not toys.

If you want to simulate use of a firearm, use a piece of wood or some other object that cannot fire projectiles.

There are brightly colored plastic simulated firearms made specifically for that purpose.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

37. It was a joke

[slackmaster]

41. Sorry, I just started my mandatory cup of coffee

Sarcasm detection is too high of a brain function for me to engage in yet.

[Why Syzygy]

4. How horribly tragic.

:cry:

[aikoaiko]

6. I said it before, and I'll say it again. He pointed the shotgun at his wife and pulled the trigger.

The particular details only make this scenario go from bad to worse.

[WindRiverMan]

92. I tend to agree with you

Guns were a part of my life, have been, probably always will be. It comes with the territory living on a ranch. I was taught from a tender age NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, point a gun at a person. Be it loaded or unloaded, it makes no difference.

I hunt, most of our meat is deer, elk, moose, caribou, halibut and salmon that we catch. My kids all know how to shoot and have killed. They are all paranoid about pointing that gun at someone, mostly because I made them that way. My guns are all triggered locked, and ammunition stays in my kennel house for the dogs. No ammo in the home. No loaded guns in the home, EVER.

In fact, on a fly in moose hunt in Alaska, I was taking my cousin who had never done this kind of remote hunting. Up here, grizzly bears happen, so guns are always kept on hand. I told my cousin quite specifically, NO BULLETS IN THE CHAMBER! I will take my chances with a bear instead of a 200 grain bullet, thank you very much.

I made him check his rifle every time we got into the raft, climbed a hill, etc., and I always check mine repeadetly. I refuse to hunt with people who insist on having a bullet in the chamber while hunting. It is just too risky. If they reufuse to take it out, I hunt the opposite direction they hunt.

I once threatened a guy to break his gun over his head after he shot at a low flying pheasant that my dog had pointed. I was furious.

This kid treated a gun like a fucking toy. It is a tragedy that does not have to happen. He deserves jail time. If his testosterone levels are so high or maybe so deficient that he has to run around the house playing cop, he should have gone into the military or law enforcement.

[LisaL]

133. Yea, someone like that would be great in law enforcement.

:eyes:

[firedupdem]

9. Holy Shit! Crazy!

After putting some things away in his bedroom, he said he picked up the gun and began to pretend to clear the home of intruders, something he and his wife had practiced in the past.

He rounded the corner into the kitchen, where his wife was standing near the sink. She pointed her hand at him, pretending to have a gun. According to the affidavit, Beasley said he raised the shotgun to his shoulder and fired one round. He said he had forgotten the gun was loaded.

[Missy Vixen]

10. So, I'm going to shimmy out on a limb here

This was not an accident.

Even someone who does not own a gun knows that you NEVER point a gun at another person and "pretend" to pull the trigger, loaded or not.

Poor Alaina never had a chance, did she?

[mitchum]

13. I'll join you on that limb...

this is his second attempt at a cover story for murder.
Maybe the third offering will be "he thought she was a terrorist"

[Missy Vixen]

16. So, who's the other woman?

And how long do we all think it's going to take for her to surface?

I realize I'm oh-so-cynical.

This is just sad. If he was no longer interested in remaining married, why not file for divorce and walk away? Didn't work for Scott Peterson, buddy, and it won't work for you, either.

[Barack_America]

111. Is that limb strong enough for three?

I'm not buying a word of this either.

[Richard Steele]

18. Really sounds that way to me as well. nm

[JonLP24]

30. Well unfortanately for you he is not charged with murder

And what you're doing is called speculation.

You're exactly right about never pointing a gun unloaded or not but when I was in basic training soldiers would jokingly aim M-16's at each other. We had no rounds with us and we would go through shakedowns when leaving ranges so it was safe to say the weapons were unloaded which is why many engaged in such behavior. I knew personally not to because the company listed all article 15s on like a bulletin board and I saw a soldier got in trouble for pointing an M-16 at another soldier horsing around.

Just because he may lack common sense(Pending conviction) doesn't mean he is guilty of murder.

on edit: He is the same age of those soldiers I was with in basic training that were horsing around with unloaded M-16s

[Missy Vixen]

64. Really, Jon?

Let's see here: Loaded the gun. Pretended to "clear the area of intruders". Pointed the gun at his wife and fired. Claimed he didn't realize the gun was loaded. Tried to make up a story, that didn't work, and now one has to wonder why he shot his wife of three months. I'd have to say that the chances are more than good there's probably someone else as well, wouldn't you?

Furthermore, "just because he lacks common sense doesn't mean he is guilty of murder"? Hmmm. What part of "he pointed the gun at an unarmed individual and pulled the trigger" didn't happen?

[JonLP24]

68. He is charged with manslaughter

Appearently this isn't the first time they played this intruder game and this is according to his wife. Most of the evidence is his testimony and the one with a JD(prosecutor) deems fit that it was manslaughter and not murder.

[LisaL]

71. This is how the wife described the "game."

"Josh and I practice clearing the apartment. In case an intruder were to come, we have a plan of action in place. Josh takes the shotgun, and I take the glock. Since he goes out first, he didn't want me to be behind him with the shot gun. Lol," Alaina wrote in the entry."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29016838

Yet this time she apparently had no gun, and she wasn't behind him.

[JonLP24]

78. You know I know the story

I posted about the blog to you. Anyways it could've happened a number of different ways, she doesn't indicate how many times and I guess this time she used a finger gun this time. I have no idea, I haven't heard a single thing in court which is the appropriate setting to hash these things out. Anything else is just speculation. I prefer to let the ones with JD's argue these things out. I was just trying to explain that not everyone follows gun safety rules and the ones that don't doesn't mean there intentions is murder even though he quite possibly wanted to kill her. I'm not ruling that scenario out, I was just stating with personal experience that young people not far from high school horse around with dangerous weapons they think are unloaded.

[LisaL]

81. The link you posted didn't have the complete description.

[Missy Vixen]

73. Yawn

She's still dead, isn't she?

He lied about what happened, didn't he?

[JonLP24]

79. .

She's still dead, isn't she? Yes. I've never disputed that


He lied about what happened, didn't he? I didn't see where a lie was proven.

on edit: I see what happened. He updated his story. I don't know why, it could be for a number of different reasons. I'll wait to see how this is explained in court.

[slackmaster]

35. Everyone SHOULD know that, but sadly a lot of people are lacking in basic firearm safety training

Fewer and fewer people have the benefit of a parent who knows the rules and is able to teach them. That's why it should be taught in public schools.

[shrike]

39. Plenty of gun owners are that stupid

Trust me. I've met a few. Unfortunately, there's no law against being stupid.

For the record, I am NOT anti-gun. DH is a hunter, I've had guns in my house since we were married. He is a fanatic about gun safety. One of his best friends, who is a certifiable gun nut, is also fanatic about safety. The friend and I disagree about many things, but we are in perfect harmony on this issue: a gun is a lethal weapon, you handle it with caution, restraint, and a little bit of healthy fear.

[DeschutesRiver]

88. I know this limb is getting weighed down, but I am out there on it too

From my perspective as a responsible owner of deadly weapons (cars, heavy equipment, guns, horses), this wasn't even close to an accident. What a stupid f'g story he gave both times, probably because he is young and stupid.

Nobody does what he describes, unless they mean to kill someone. Esp in this case, there was no alcohol, or other drugs involved that might have clouded his judgment. Not an accident, not a mistake, it was a deliberate act of loading a shotgun, pointing it at his spouse and pulling the trigger. He knows he did it on purpose - he created a false story out of the gate about a "cleaning" accident to cover it up. I imagine the cops had figured out that the facts he gave didn't fit that story when they saw the crime scene and now the killer has come up with implausible story number two.

There will be more coming out on this story. He is just a more direct, but equally clumsy Scott Peterson.

[BuelahWitch]

95. I'm going to shimmy further

And wonder how much of a life insurance policy he took out on her...:hide:

[kiranon]

97. Sounds suspicious to me to or momentarily he just didn't care and

wanted to see what would happen. I'd look further into this "accident".

[Marr]

98. Personally, I think the man is just dirt stupid.

His story sounds completely believable to me-- it's the kind of thing morons do all the time.

He should've finished up by using the other shell on himself and raise the nation's average IQ a tick.

[LisaL]

129. If morons did this all the time, lots of people would end up dead.

[Marr]

131. Lots of people DO.

Morons do things LIKE this all the time.

[MrSlayer]

11. Paranoia the Destroyer.

"Pretending to clear the house of intruders." Something they did often. Can you imagine being so ridiculously paranoid that you feel you have to constantly drill against non-existent intruders? Something like this was bound to happen. Idiot.

[dysfunctional press]

14. i didn't take it that way at all...

it didn't seem to be a 'drill' so much as a 'game'.

[Marr]

99. I took it as something of a drill. The article said it was something they'd

"practiced" many times. I suppose that's a bit vague, but the impression I get was of a drill-- perhaps conducted lightheartedly, but serious in it's purpose.

[dysfunctional press]

132. i took it to be some kind of kinky foreplay role-play thing...

:shrug:

not an intruder awareness drill.

[Marr]

138. Your life must be much more interesting than mine. n/t

[LisaL]

15. So, apparently, the guy now admits he loaded the gun, then

later on he pointed the gun at his wife and shot her, because he forgot the gun was loaded?
What kind of game is it anyway?

[Missy Vixen]

17. The game: "I shoot an unarmed person. She's dead."

Hope he likes prison. Then again, he may walk. He's young, and I'm sure he'll be sympathetic.

[LisaL]

19. Looks like police believe what he told them, considering he was

released on no bail. Yet apparently he told reporter he was cleaning the gun, but told police that he shot his wife during the "intruder" game. Those are two different stories.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

22. If it hadn't happened when it did ........

If it hadn't happened when it did, it would have happened eight years later. When little sister picked up this same shotgun, or one of the many other weapons they had "To protect my family" and used it to kill the little brother. I just know these people are the same idiots that think "My kids will never touch my guns", "I teach them safety and respect and they know better".
So, at least no kids will be shot to death as a result of these paranoid, right wing gun nuts ever breeding!

[JonLP24]

44. Another source says it was $10,000

http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/39231342.html

[rucky]

65. I think he's full of shit. n/t

[Urban Prairie]

20. He forgot the rifle was loaded???

While practicing an "intruder" clearing game in his home?

I live in an area of the country where the odds are probably much higher for there to be an intruder invasion of my residence than Lincoln NE!!

I don't and never have owned a firearm, but if I did, I would never even consider pointing it at anyone who was not threatening my life, loaded or unloaded, what a jackass!!

If they had practiced this before, why would his young wife allow him to point a gun at her? Something is fishy about his story of what happened, IMO.

[TWiley]

24. Another gun enthusiest lives out his violent fantasies

How often have you heard someone say ..... oh I wish that fucker would break into my house. I would shoot them three times before they could get to the door. If they made it outside, I would drag em back in and shoot them again?

Myself, I have heard that comment dozens of times. Every gun enthusiest I know has fantasies of arriving in the perfect scenario so they can feel justified in killing someone with their gun.

These fantasies are actually prayers .... prayers to God that one day they will be able to kill someone.

[krispos42]

25. I think you comment does not differentiate between "being prepared for" and "hoping for"

I keep a backpack stuff full of food, water, and other short-term survival gear packed in my closed. Doesn't mean I'm looking forward to an emergency evacuation because of a gas leak, or my house being destroyed by a tornado, or spending three days in a Red Cross shelter because the river flooded.


Nobody I know or have talked to hopes for the chance to legally kill somebody.

[TWiley]

27. It is interpretation is it not?

In a metaphysical sense, if you are preparing for the worst, then you have already made it real. All kinds of things are actually prayers. Think about this one:

"If I win the lottery then I will do many good deeds with half of it" Greed with a halo? Murder with a halo? These really are prayers. The individual inwardly believes that they increase their odds of winning the lottery by appealing to a higher power or a higher justice. I will take another criminal off the street for you permanently .... just gimmee the opportunity.

The self-defense crowd is actually working out their alibi's in advance by attempting to identify the proper circumstance to justify their killing. The socially acceptable display of their violent nature.

Oh, and about your backpack. You are looking forward to an emergency evacuation. Otherwise you would not have one in your closet.

Why did Noah build an Ark?

[krispos42]

28. So when you wear a seatbelt...?

When you have a jack and spare tire in your trunk...?

When you have a lock on your front door...?

When you learn CPR...?


There are only about 200 justifiable non-police homicides per year in this country, out of an estimated million or so defensive gun uses. That means that only 1 in 5,000 times a gun is used defensively does it result in the death of an attacker. Probably another 10 times per 5,000 is the attacker wounded but survives, maybe another 20 or 30 times per 5,000 the gun is discharged but nobody is hurt.

This poll may be of interest to you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2903443

[KittyWampus]

42. Big difference between putting on a seatbelt for safety & REGULARLY playing a game with wife

that involves shooting home intruders.

And the simple fact that DU'ers never seem to get:

What we repeat to our subconscious through repeated CONSCIOUS actions are suggestions and tend to influence what becomes reality.

[krispos42]

66. But people who wear seatbelts encourages reckless driving

Right?

I mean, you're anticipating with your concious mind and with repeated actions an accident, right?

While I have no doubt that there are a few people that truly deserve the name "gun nut" and actively hope for anarchy and a legitimate cause for governence by the strong, violent, and ruthless, it neither fair nor appropriate, IMO, to classify or typify all 80 million gun owners in this country as such.

The problem with perceptions is that the left has been officially anti-gun for quite a while now, with much of their proposed laws gaining traction in the corporate media via the same combination of emotional, manipulative framing arguments and disregard of facts, statistics, and reason as the Bush Administration's rush to war in Iraq. Pro-gun people that had otherwise stalwart progressive principles stayed with the Dems but became an ignored, ridiculed minority, and pro-gun moderates were pushed into the Republican Party.

The "bitter" people Obama spoke of were abandoned economically by Republican Reaganomics and 3rd-way Democrats, and were given little choice for a party that would forge a truly progressive, working-and-middle-class-favorable economy. As a result they were left voting on emotional wedge issues. And the Democrats were happily holding the wedge planted on their foreheads so the Republicans could sledgehammer them at will.

Regardless of the ideal of a peaceful and disarmed society that some people have, the fact is that crime is driven by economic and social problems. If the Democrats are going to go down in flames for passing a law, I'd prefer a hemp/marijuana legalization bill over some silly, arbitrary "assault weapon" ban any day of week. For only one bill will actually reduce crime, increase personal freedom, and improve society.

And I say this as a drug-free gun owner.

[TWiley]

69. egads .. !

When will you cite the pencil and mis-spelled word argument? Sheesh, you even threw in the kitchen sink in order to distract this discussion.

p.s. who said gun nut?

[krispos42]

82. It's not the pencils, it's the erasers

They encourage hasty spellings of words. People should be forced to live with their bad grammar and spellings so they won't do it in the future!!!

:-)


I said gun nut. And I defined them in the post, too. Like I said, there are doubtless gun owners (and martial-arts students) who dream about injuring or killing people under the aegis of "justifiable self-defense".

[TWiley]

89. Well, in the book Freakenomics

the author makes a compelling argument that the presence of a gun during a physical altercation actually increases the violence level. Instead of a simple assualt resulting in a black eye or a fat lip, the third party vigilante intervenes and commits murder. So, instead of one victim and one defendant, we have two victims and two defendants.

[krispos42]

103. Or, instead of simple assault leading to crippling injuries and PTSD...

... it leads to the aggressor's bone-crunching activities being abruptly halted.


I'll also note, again, that in the vast majority of cases (something in exess of 99%) people using guns in self-defense never fire a shot.

It's like the old saying about why antelope can outrun tigers... the tiger is running for its dinner, the antelope is running for its life.

In nearly all cases, the attacker can end the assualt at any time he chooses simply by stopping and walking away. The attacker is dominant, not subservient, and has power. When confronted by either an armed would-be victim or a 3rd party, the attacker can simply leave. The intended victim or 3rd party can't use a gun once the threat of imminent serious injury is gone, so the reasonably savvy criminal can simply back away, then turn and run before the cops show up.

So, instead of one victim and one defendant, we have two victims and two defendants.

I find it interesting that you assume that a person that uses force to protect himself or a loved one should face a trial. It could just as easily be two victims and one defendent (the initial victim plus the aggressor-defendent-turned-victim) or one victim and defendent (the initial victim with the agressor killed).

Properly, to me at least, the investigating officers should be able to determine the circumstances and report them to the district attorney, and the DA should be reasonable in the evaluation of self-defense.

Just because the DA thinks he can get a murder conviction doesn't mean he should, if you get my meaning. However, since many DAs are politically or professionally ambitions attorneys and/or have anti-gun constituents I believe that that can influence the impartialness of such a prosecution.

This is where laws such as Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctine come into play... they set certain circumstances where justified self-defense is very hard to turn into homicide.

[TWiley]

112. What is the alternative to law?

QUOTE: "I find it interesting that you assume that a person that uses force to protect himself or a loved one should face a trial. It could just as easily be two victims and one defendant (the initial victim plus the aggressor-defendent-turned-victim) or one victim and defendent (the initial victim with the agressor killed).

Properly, to me at least, the investigating officers should be able to determine the circumstances and report them to the district attorney, and the DA should be reasonable in the evaluation of self-defense.

Just because the DA thinks he can get a murder conviction doesn't mean he should, if you get my meaning. " END QUOTE


You seem to advocate the same judicial system that the right wing extremists do. The county sheriff and his posse. Judge, Jury, and hang em high. The KKK worked that way for years in the south. Investigating officers never found murder in the case of a white perp and a dead black. How is this system of justice even worth considering?

We cannot have vigilantes patrolling the streets and deciding who to shoot. This is what is happening in Iraq. This is what gun self-defense classes promote. Things get pretty klanish and you wind up with a scenario like the Catholic / Protestant war in Ireland, or someone staging a murder under the guise of self-defense. Every case needs to be investigated thoroughly.

If the DA can get a murder conviction, then he is required by law to pursue it. I find it equally interesting that you unequivocally assume that the shooter is innocent simply because he has a gun.


Now, back to the origional topic. How does this pertain to a nut rehearsing murder under the guise of self-defense?

[krispos42]

136. I never said anything about vigilantes

Self-defense is not vigilantism. Nor is it justice. It is self-defense, no more, no less. Society and the legal system recognized the fact that there are circumstances where use of lethal force is acceptable because circumstances prevent the normal application of law.

"Vigilante" justice, where Charles Bronson/Sylvester Stallone/Bruce Willis/Arnold Schwartenegger hunt down and kill the evildoers that killed his wife/girlfiend/daughter/mother, is not self-defense and is not legal.

If somebody was trying to kick in the door to my apartment and I shoot him through the door, that's self-defense. If he hears the shotgun being shucked (cha-ching!) and runs, and I pull open the door and shoot him, that's "vigilante" justice, i.e., murder.

You seem to advocate the same judicial system that the right wing extremists do. The county sheriff and his posse. Judge, Jury, and hang em high. The KKK worked that way for years in the south. Investigating officers never found murder in the case of a white perp and a dead black. How is this system of justice even worth considering?

That is NOT what I am promoting. That is police and government corruption. That is injustice. The investigators LIED, the DAs LIED, the witnesses LIED... all with impunity.

However, what I am saying is that the opposite can happen. For example, in some cities like San Fransisco, New York City, and Chicago the people are anti-gun in the extreme. As a result, the elected officials (like city counselmen and districs attorneys) are anti-gun as well as politically mbitious. The public outcry whenever there's a shooting death, even a legitimate one, is extreme, and pressure is brought to bear to convict somebody.

Remember, justifiable self-defense is something the defendent must prove at the trial.

We cannot have vigilantes patrolling the streets and deciding who to shoot. This is what is happening in Iraq.

I agree, although Iraq is more local militias stepping into a power vacuum.

This is what gun self-defense classes promote.

No they don't. They teach basic gun handling and safety and firearm and self-defense laws, which do NOT include vigilantism.

Things get pretty klanish and you wind up with a scenario like the Catholic / Protestant war in Ireland, or someone staging a murder under the guise of self-defense. Every case needs to be investigated thoroughly.

Those were terrorist movements, and I don't think they staged very many murders as self-defense. They probably left a lot of bodies dumped in a river. But I agree, every case needs to be investigated thoroughly.

If the DA can get a murder conviction, then he is required by law to pursue it. I find it equally interesting that you unequivocally assume that the shooter is innocent simply because he has a gun.

Should he? There is pretty much always more information available in a murder case than is permissable or used in court. If the DA has information that's not legally permissable but is nonetheless valid that should be taken into consideration.

Not to mention the complexity of self-defense law. Say in the above situtation when I shot through the door and killed guy trying to break in and the DA decided to prosecute me for murder two because I had the option of grabbing my kid and jumping off a 2nd-floor balcony to freedom instead of shooting. In my sock and PJs. In the snow. In a Minnesota winter.

But hey, even if I sucessfully defend myself, I'm out thousands of dollars in lawyer fees.

Should the DA be wasting taxpayer money? There's little doubt that what I did was justified, but should the DA be spending thousands and thousands of dollars to prosecute me? If he wins, should the taxpayers be spending 40 grand a year to have me in jail for a decade or two?

But the DA might do just that because of public pressure or person ambitions. He might decided that under the law, he can make jumping off of a 2nd-floor balcony in winter in Minnesota in lounging clothing something that is "reasonable", and therefore making the shooting "unjustified".

Or I didn't wait until the guy broke all the way through the door.

Or the guy didn't have a gun, so it was an "unfair" fight.

Now, back to the origional topic. How does this pertain to a nut rehearsing murder under the guise of self-defense?

Either he fucked up and should be prosecuted for manslaughter, or he committed 1st-degree murder and is trying to cover it up.

Either way he should be in jail.

[TWiley]

77. Right you are Kitty

here .... read this DU poll

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=198425&mesg_id=198425

[TWiley]

67. Your examples do not correlate

These examples do not correlate

When you have a jack and spare tire in your trunk...?
When you have a lock on your front door...?
When you learn CPR...?

Cars are sold with jacks and spare tires already in the trunk. I believe it is a law as is wearing the seatbelt. Exterior doors and the associated hardware are sold in sets that include the lock. Learning CPR for the opportunity to save a life is different than rehearsing the opportunity to take one. (Read the article again before distracting the conversation into a red herring)

This is a false argument also:

QUOTE: "There are only about 200 justifiable non-police homicides per year in this country, out of an estimated million or so defensive gun uses." END QUOTE


Your comment does not compare justifiable homocides to non-justified homocides (murder). You are comparing "selective data" with the purpose of misleading the reader. Try comparing the amount of gun murders each year to the paltry number of 200 "justifiable non-police homicides" each year and see what impression that correlation gives to the reader.

I took a look at the poll link you posted, and I have no idea what relevance it has. Try this poll instead:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=198425&mesg_id=198425

You will notice that a stunning number of gun enthusiasts are frothing at the mouth when considering the opportunity to murder someone. And this is a liberal blog. Just think what the hard-core republican gun enthusiasts would say. This poll has a direct correlation with the story that inspired this thread. Rehearsing for murder ... oh but with a halo.

OF COURSE !

p.s. Noah built the boat because he thought it was gonna rain.

[krispos42]

80. They make you more self-confident so you're likely to do something stupid

After all, why avoid that pothole if you have a spare tire? I mean, there's a tiny possibility that the pothole could catch you in a certain way that causes you to lose control and crash, right?

And if you can hide behind locked doors, you can be ruder and more obnoxious to people. I mean, there's a tiny possibility that a person you're rude to will decide to beat you to a pulp, but if you can retreat behind locked doors at will, you'll be rude to a lot more people, thus multiplying that tiny possibility, right?

And with CPR.. more people knowing CPR means that more people will eat badly, knowing that a heart attack is no longer a fatal probability, right? In fact, obesity rates have gone up with CPR-certification rates over the past couple of decades.


:crazy:

Your comment does not compare justifiable homocides to non-justified homocides (murder). You are comparing "selective data" with the purpose of misleading the reader. Try comparing the amount of gun murders each year to the paltry number of 200 "justifiable non-police homicides" each year and see what impression that correlation gives to the reader.

No, it doesn't because the idea that murder is a hardware problem is rather foolish. A huge swatch of murders are drug-related, criminals killing other criminals. The people that commit murder are in general hardened, violent criminals who will not be deterred by a lack of hardware.

American citizens are, by any measure, the best-armed citizenry in American history. Gun ownership is at an all-time high, the guns are more ergonomic and more reliable, the bullets are faster and deadlier, the sighting systems are better, and the guns hold more ammunition on average then at any point in our history. The potential in terms of hardware is already there.

Our homicide rate is down over 40% from 1990 despite the ready availability of hardware. I'll also note that you don't need to fire a gun in order to use it.

You will notice that a stunning number of gun enthusiasts are frothing at the mouth when considering the opportunity to murder someone. And this is a liberal blog. Just think what the hard-core republican gun enthusiasts would say. This poll has a direct correlation with the story that inspired this thread. Rehearsing for murder ... oh but with a halo.

I notice a stunning number of people that would not hesitate to resort to lethal force to prevent somebody from being seriously assaulted, raped, or killed. How, exactly, is this a negative benefit to society?

And the people responding in that thread do not gloat over it, nor do they minimize the possibility of criminal charges to themselves, the financial cost of justifing their action in court, or the emotional/mental costs.

Keep in mind that this situation is independent of how often such a thing actually happens. Whether it occurs 1 time per 100,000 people per year, or 100 times per 100,000 people per year, the defensive actions are the same and equally justified.

[TWiley]

86. wow .... I had no idea how deep it went.

QUOTE: "I notice a stunning number of people that would not hesitate to resort to lethal force to prevent somebody from being seriously assaulted, raped, or killed. How, exactly, is this a negative benefit to society?" END QUOTE

Do you propose training your possee in law before they take to the streets as your vigilante? Oh, you already do. They are called GUN SELF-DEFENSE CLASSES. Ever go to one of those?

QUOTE: "Our homicide rate is down over 40% from 1990 despite the ready availability of hardware." END QUOTE

Again, you make a false correlation. It is raining so that is why Vista is so difficult to use. Read the book "Freakenomics" sometime. There is a very good statistical argument that shows that abortion has had the greatest impact upon the murder rate after economic reasons.

QUOTE: "No, it doesn't because the idea that murder is a hardware problem is rather foolish."

Well, I think your idea that guns make society safer is rather foolish. Lets put your ideas to the test. Give every student an AK47 with 10,000 rounds of ammo and allow them to take both to school. Will the schools be "safer"?

Better yet, lets end the war in Iraq by giving every citizen one M16, and one 50 caliber machine gun with an unlimited amount of ammo. By your reasoning, violence should drop to zero instantly because the population is saturated with armor.

How do you suspect your little test will work out in reality?

HINT: The US military has been confiscating weapons to make Iraq safer

Kind of like the title of your post. The false sense of security encourages you to do something stupid. Does this argument include having a gun during a physical altercation?

[krispos42]

101. Answers

Do you propose training your possee in law before they take to the streets as your vigilante? Oh, you already do. They are called GUN SELF-DEFENSE CLASSES. Ever go to one of those?

There is a difference between those that seek out trouble and those that deal with trouble that is thurst upon them. The first are called "law enforcement officers" and they have college degrees, departmental support and organization, and specialized authority and equipment for their jobs. The second is called "everybody else that is not a law enforcment officers" and do the best they can with what they have until and unless the first show up.

Again, you make a false correlation. It is raining so that is why Vista is so difficult to use. Read the book "Freakenomics" sometime. There is a very good statistical argument that shows that abortion has had the greatest impact upon the murder rate after economic reasons.

I'm merely pointing out the difference between potential action and actual action. The US homicide rate has dropped 40% despite the fact that the average lethality of guns and firearm ownership per capita (potential for lethality) has gone up. Some people would say that more guns equals more crime, some would say that more guns equals less crime. If you had asked instead of assuming, I would have told you three reasons why I think the crime and homicide rates dropped in the 90's... and not a single one of them has to do with banning protruding pistol grips or the spread of concealed-carry laws.

I could also argue that the homicide rate increased with the availability of cable television channels or the proliferation of cordless phones. :-)

Well, I think your idea that guns make society safer is rather foolish. Lets put your ideas to the test. Give every student an AK47 with 10,000 rounds of ammo and allow them to take both to school. Will the schools be "safer"?

Actually it would simply because the strain of carrying around 10,000 rounds of ammo would be extremely tiring. Exhausted kids don't cause much trouble.

:-)

I kid, I kid. However, we're talking about children, minors, non-adults. Not the kind of people I want carrying arms without competent adult supervision. OF COURSE it wouldn't be safer... their kids that don't know any better!

Better yet, lets end the war in Iraq by giving every citizen one M16, and one 50 caliber machine gun with an unlimited amount of ammo. By your reasoning, violence should drop to zero instantly because the population is saturated with armor.

How do you suspect your little test will work out in reality?

HINT: The US military has been confiscating weapons to make Iraq safer

The people in Iraq are in an insurgency with an foreign occupying military power AND a three-cornered civil war. The local organized militia are, by virtue of their organization, far more powerful and purposeful than a like number of individually-acting criminals would be. It's really not a fair comparison.

COUNTERHINT: The weapons confiscated in Iraq did not make Iraq safer. Nor did The Surge™. The Sunni Awakening, the cease-fire by the militia leaders, the ethnic cleansing, and the fortification of Balkanized urban neighborhoods did that.

[petronius]

102. That phenomenon is referred to as 'risk compensation', and it could apply

in a way to this situation (assuming the current explanation is true) in the couple might have felt - at least subconsciously - that it was OK for them to play around because they practiced so much. IOW, horseplay is stupid, but it was OK for them because they had the training to do it 'right.' :(

A take-home message of risk compensation is that people will find a level of risk that is comfortable to them, and if you give them more protection they will enter more dangerous conditions - keeping the perceived risk level constant. It's why all the training and safety equipment in the world is no good, if the user isn't taught objective analysis and common sense (is that possible?)...

[krispos42]

104. Well, in this case they have to deterime intent to charge them properly

It was either a horrible mistake or a lousy excuse to cover up a murder.

It's all about intent... if the man believed the gun was empty, that he had forgotten it was loaded, he should be charged with negligent manslaughter or something like that. Overconfidence killed his wife. He should have checked that the gun was empty before they began playing the game. He also should have had one of those range-safety flags in the chamber so that they BOTH knew it was unloaded.

But if he knew it was loaded, then it's murder one. Premeditated murder.


"Risk compensation"... didn't they use that argument when the automakers were fighting against mandatory airbags in cars?

[petronius]

121. It's the kind of argument that can (and is) be trotted out quite easily for

very cynical purposes. I'm just brining it in as a possible window for understanding human behavior, certainly not as an excuse or justification for what this guy did. I think your summary is correct - there have to be some criminal charges here, and even if the guy is truly devastated over his horrible error, an innocent person is still dead and he still deserves legal consequences...

[LisaL]

105. If the guy is telling the truth, he didn't follow gun safety rules.

http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp
Always keep the gun pointed in the safe direction.
Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
I wonder if he had any safety training, and if he did, why did he not follow it?

[petronius]

119. Absolutely, no question. Based on his story, this was an easily avoidable

and extremely negligent death. I'm no lawyer, but I can't imagine a case for not applying some sort of criminal charge here.

My speculation was just that he felt comfortable ignoring the rules because he 'knew better' than to screw up. Really, it was a tangent from the post I replied to, considering more generally why people who should know better often don't...

[Unrepentant Fenian]

140. And how'd it work out for this clown???

[Paladin]

38. Such Killing Fantasies Are Regularly Present In The DU Gun Dungeon

But you already know that, now don't you?

[TWiley]

72. here ... read this DU poll

I would conclude that your opinion is not only 100% accurate, but "justified" as well !

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=198425&mesg_id=198425

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. Look 94% of people answered the question correctly, as far as the law is concerned.

[TWiley]

115. 94% desperately want to kill someone is what it proves.

I bet you lie awake at night just trying to plan your next "legitimate" murder don't you. You seem to have a whole lot in common with the fella who killed his wife in this story.

Why are you so obsessed with defending him anyway?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

124. Please stop making false accusations, I've not defended him once, he should be charged..

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

125. 94% of respondents knew that it is legal to shoot someone who is seriously injuring another person..

during the commission of a crime.

David

[krispos42]

85. Of course it is

The Gungeon is about armed self-defense and gun-contol policy, which predominately affects armed self-defense, not recreational shooting or arms.

Since the discussion is about armed self-defense, there are going to be discussions about how to best achieve that goal. The assumption that you're willing to commit violence to protect yourself and your loved ones against physical attack in inheirent in that discussion, as are challenges to that assumption.

If there was a Pacifist forum, the operating assumptions would be different.

[slackmaster]

46. Internet bravado contrasts with how a thoughtful, properly trained person feels about use of force

I recommend that you take a firearm self-defense class some time, so you can see what it's really about.

[TWiley]

75. You do?

Well, since you are passing out recommendations, allow me to recommend one for you ......

Please seek psychactric help immediately to determine weather your obsession is reality based or a paranoid fear. Do that for me, and I will take the gun self-defense class for you. Besides, I always wanted to be trained on how to legally murder someone.

Lets just call it "cookin the alibi"

[slackmaster]

139. What obsession?

I'm all about freedom of choice. If you consider that an obsession, I think you are confused.

...I always wanted to be trained on how to legally murder someone.

Thanks for once again demonstrating that you are running on pure prejudice, and don't have a clue about the subject.

[aikoaiko]

63. Much like some anti-gun folks who wait for a tragedy in which to roll around in the victims' blood

...especially the blood of women and children.

"These fantasies are actually prayers ...." indeed.

[TWiley]

76. huh? Supress evidence much?

I suppose the only information you would allow are official statements from the NRA. Why not go to Iraq and roll around in the blood of all those civilians. After all ..... it is JUSTIFIED right?

[aikoaiko]

83. Supress evidence? I have no idea what you're talking about.

I thought we were talking about some of the ugly fantasies of people that involve gun violence.

[TWiley]

87. well we were until you made this comment:

Much like some anti-gun folks who wait for a tragedy in which to roll around in the victims' blood, especially the blood of women and children.

Hmm, it sounds like you would prefer that those stories were not discussed

And yes, we were talking about the ugly fantasies of people that involve gun violence.

[aikoaiko]

90. Not at all. I do want gun violence discussed.

You've probably seen the posts by anti-gun folks in a thread about criminal gun violence who show no sympathy for the victims and only use the tragedy to make political points.

I bet they fantasize at night for a AR15 being used in a massacre so that they can get new legislation passed.

[TWiley]

96. Well not really ....

But I have seen many many examples of gun enthusiasts negating a families loss by supporting the gun-user and not the victim.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. Please show the examples of gun enthusiasts supporting criminal activity.

[TWiley]

113. uh dave ..... YOU are doing it right this minute

Facts:

1) A gun enthusiast rehearses murder under the guise of self defense
2) The gun enthusiast murders his wife and covers up the game they were playing
3) You are defending the criminal because he used a gun to kill someone
4) You are doing this at the expense of the victim and her family
5) Completely obsessed with "gun rights" and your paranoid fear that you will no longer be able to safely kill people.
6) In typical NRA style, your headline is misleading, if not an outright lie.

DUH ... get a clue and go away dave

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

114. Wrong on several counts.

The man in this case hasn't been charged with a crime although I believe he should be. Show me one instance where I defended this man in particular. I've never killed anyone nor do I have the desire to do so. So you are going to have to come up with something a little better.

David

[TWiley]

116. uh dave .... wny not simply be honest here and cut the crap

You are attacking me in defense of the idiot who used a gun to kill his wife. Your point is?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

122. If asking you to back up your assertion is attack then you are far to thin skinned.

Just back up what you say and we'll be best buddies.

David

[ferrous wheel]

126. If you actually believe that last sentence, seek professional help.

Seriously.

[MadHound]

26. Mad deserves a long stretch in prison,

If for no other reason than being a complete idiot with a gun. Broke one of the key rules of gun ownership, never, ever point a gun at something or somebody you don't intend to shoot, after all the gun could be loaded.

I also am having a hard time swallowing this ever changing story. How the hell do you forget that you just loaded the gun a few minutes earlier. I wonder how long it's going to be before the truth comes out, that this guy was getting something on the side.

[JonLP24]

29. He hasn't been convicted yet or even gone to trial

There is nothing about what the defense has said or whether he is going to plead guilty or not. I'm not one who engages in the court of public opinion.

[TwilightGardener]

31. They routinely practiced "clearing the home of intruders"? In Lincoln, Nebraska?

Do they fucking watch too much TV, or what? Even my kids are outgrowing that sort of play. Very strange, what married people do in the privacy of their homes.

[mitchum]

55. Maybe they were afraid of Zombie Charles Starkweather?

[TwilightGardener]

56. Ha! I suppose.

[EFerrari]

94. My husband and I used to do dishes together and sometimes wound up

playing frisbee with them. We probably shouldn't have done that in front of the kids.

[TWiley]

120. It is NRA hype and bullshit ..... The NRA wants EVERYONE to be afraid.

They are the leaders in fear mongering anymore. They actually teach gun self-defense classes that show people how to legally murder others.

[Mosby]

32. I wonder if her father

still thinks this happened because it was "Gods will".

[TwilightGardener]

36. Don't know, but I'm pretty sure he wishes he could take back the moment

when he walked his daughter up the aisle and gave her away to an utter moron.

[shrike]

40. My husband called bullshit on this story

as soon as it came out. He's a hunter and a fanatic about gun safety. No way it could have happened the way the kid said it did, he said.

That said, I feel tremendously sorry for the family. I even feel a little sorry for him.

[JonLP24]

43. According to his wife

It's something Alaina wrote about in an Internet blog. She said, "Josh and I practice clearing the apartment in case an intruder were to come we have a plan of action in place."
http://www.kptm.com/Global/story.asp?S=9801954&nav=menu606_24_9_1

That's according to that source, I know the media gets things wrongs. So the story about doing clearing practices checks out. From my personal experience from basic training, many recently out of high school playfully pointed M-16s at each other so young people (he is 20, same age as the soldiers I went to basic training with) playing with dangerous weapons is not that unusual. Also according to the sources I've read he called 911 after firing only one shot and was there when they arrived which is unusual in most actual murders, many attempt to hide the body or deny doing anything. He turned himself in and the majority of the evidence revealed in this case is his testimony.

Not only is every poster in this thread acting like the prosecutor, jury, and judge all at the same time. Some are going one step further without evidence to support there claims. I thought we were believers of the constitution and all that shit about being presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[LisaL]

45. "Playfully" pointing weapons at each other doesn't sound

like my idea of fun.
:eyes:
Even if those weapons are thought to be unloaded. Furthermore, according to the OP, this guy's gun was loaded with 3 rounds, by him personally. How did he forget the gun was loaded just a short time later?

[slackmaster]

47. It sounds just plain dumb to me

Beyond naive.

[JonLP24]

49. I agree

[LisaL]

51. Gun safety rules-

Point the gun in a safe direction, so even if it were to go off, it won't hurt someone. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. Keep gun unloaded until ready to use.
http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp
According to the OP, this guy loaded the gun with three rounds, and a short time later pointed it at his wife and shot her dead. Doesn't look like any gun safety rules were followed. Apparently that doesn't matter and some will defend him just the same.

[JonLP24]

54. Can you clarify what you meant by

"some will defend him"

I agree in this case and based on his testimony gun safety rules weren't followed. However that doesn't mean he is guilty of murder and he isn't charged with murder either.

[JonLP24]

48. It's not my idea of fun either

However in basic training the weapons weren't loaded and we had shakedowns at ranges(However it doesn't stop someone from hiding a live round inside a boot) so it was safe to say the weapons weren't loaded, however soldiers could get an article 15 if a drill sergeant caught them or someone "snitched". My point was it isn't unusual from my experience that young people not far removed from high school horse around with dangerous weapons. However, if convicted he deserves the time he gets.

[JonLP24]

53. I don't know

Ask his attorney. I will say this, I recall when arriving at CSC Scania in Iraq, policy at the time was to clear your weapon before entering the gate which is simply place M-16 on safe, drop magazine, pull back on charging handle, observe chamber to make sure there are no rounds, release charging handle, place M-16 on semi, pull trigger, place weapon back on safe. Well that one time, I completely forgot to drop magazine and when I pulled back on charging handle I loaded a round into the chamber and I caught my mistake right away. If I would've contined I would've fired into the barrell. Later on FORSCOM changed it's policy that will never pull trigger during a clear because of a number of accidental discharges. Weapons scare me which is why I will never own one but I can see how this was an accident and appearently so does the prosecutor.

[TwilightGardener]

52. If my husband suggested we "drill" for shooting intruders...I'd think he was nuts.

I've never heard anything so silly.

[prayin4rain]

59. haha me too..

I can just imagine it... hey honey let's practice for when intruderS bust into our home and we have to clear the house of them at gunpoint.... haha I would assume that he was having some sort of psychotic break with reality and seek therapy for him.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

93. I wonder if it was some sort of wacky foreplay.

I've been on this planet nearly five decades and have never conducted drills in my home with weapons, nor would I ever think to. Granted, that would mean kitchen knives, a baseball bat, pepper spray, maybe a hot curling iron, but still...

People who live in constant fear of becoming a victim completely baffle me.

[shrike]

57. I must not have been clear enough. He called bullshit on the gun-CLEANING story

He hasn't even heard about the intruder-clearing story because he's in the hospital now. (Should be released tomorrow.)

From a practical point of view, he didn't believe that the shooting could have happened if the young man was cleaning his gun. In terms of where the girl was wounded, all that. He just didn't think it made sense.

I'm sure the shooting was an accident. It sounds like something young people do; they think they're going to live forever and take unnecessary risks (doing a gun sweep with live ammo in the gun is an unnecessary risk, IMO.) It sounds exactly like a young person's behavior, in fact.

I'm going to the hospital to see him now, and am going to have to eat crow: I argued that accidents have happened before while a gun was being cleaned. So I'll have to tell him he was right and I was wrong -- something I never enjoy doing. :)

[JonLP24]

61. I apologize for the misunderstanding

I agree if you're cleaning your weapon you certainly aren't loading it. Anyways I can't wait to see the facts presented in trial. It is still very early for this case to go a number of ways including a murder charge.

[LisaL]

60. Here is a little more on how they were practicing the "intruder" game.

He'd take the shotgun and she'd take the glock.
""Josh and I practice clearing the apartment. In case an intruder were to come, we have a plan of action in place. Josh takes the shotgun, and I take the glock. Since he goes out first, he didn't want me to be behind him with the shot gun. Lol," Alaina wrote in the entry."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29016838/
Apparently this time she had no weapon, as the OP article says she pointed her hand at him pretending it was a gun. Her blog post also doesn't say they'd pretend she was an intruder. Apparently he was also concerned about his safety as she says he didn't want her to have the shotgun.

[Missy Vixen]

70. Interesting

>Apparently he was also concerned about his safety as she says he didn't want her to have the shotgun.

Again: I do not think this was an accident.

I'm with the poster who stated above that the young woman's father must be absolutely sick he walked his daughter up the aisle to marry this clown.

[LisaL]

74. The article I've read while back on DU quoted the father as saying he didn't blame

the husband. Of course at that time the story reported was that the gun went off while it was being cleaned.

[Missy Vixen]

84. Somehow, I'm thinking he may have had a change of heart. n/t

[Marr]

100. Of course it could happen that way.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence doesn't handle a gun like it's a god damned toy, but unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who haven't got a modicum of intelligence.

[janx]

130. I do too. What a hideous situation. n/t

[madmom]

58. NEVER point a gun at something/someone you don't intend to destroy! That being said....

my SO and I have gone over what to do in case of intruders. BUT we discussed it, talked about it. No need to "act it out".

[LisaL]

62. The way she described the "intruder" game in her blog,

they both'd have guns. She'd do go behind him with a glock. He'd go ahead with a shotgun. He didn't want her to have the shotgun because she was behind him.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29016838
Doesn't sound like the game he was playing when he accidentally shot and killed her. When she was shot and killed, she didn't have a gun, and she wasn't behind him.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. Sounds fishy.

[Javaman]

107. another dolt that...

1) keeps his weapon loaded at home 2) doesn't check his weapon to see if it's loaded. So much stupidity, so little gun safety.

[LisaL]

110. As far as the story in the OP article goes, he loaded the gun,

and later on (apparently on the same day) forgot it was loaded, pointed it at his wife and shot her because he was playing an "intruder" game.

[Javaman]

137. yeeeeeahhhh, forgot...nt

[Jack_DeLeon]

117. What a fucking dumbass, I hope he spends a long time in jail.

Its one thing to train firearms proficiency with your significant other, but its something entirely else to point one at them and pull the trigger.

Over the years I've shown my girlfriends my firearms and taught them how to handle them and use them, but loaded or not I've never pointed at them. Thats fucking stupid to do anything like that.

[janx]

123. "I didn't know the gun was loaded."

Not this again...

Either this guy was never taught firearms safety or he deliberately shot his wife. What a horrible tragedy.

[LisaL]

128. He didn't say he didn't know the gun was loaded.

He apparently admits he loaded the gun himself. His claim is that he forgot the gun was loaded.
Even though he loaded it on the same day, according to the OP article.
But it sure looks like police believe his story. He is out either on no bail, or a very small bail.

[janx]

134. "I didn't know the gun was loaded" vs. "I forgot the gun was loaded."

Police know guns and gun safety.

The first gun safety rule I learned as a kid was that any gun is always loaded. ALWAYS.

[earth mom]

127. How many times have I heard that gun owners always keep their guns unloaded at home?!

Sorry, but I don't buy this guys story for a minute. He wanted his wife dead.

[janx]

135. You are right. Responsible gun owners keep their guns clean

and unloaded in their homes. While growing up, I was taught that a gun was always loaded.