Amish man kills teenager with bullet 1 mile away

Interesting story--  they even have the same last name--



I don't think that is a felony---guy shouldn't get a day in jail from what the article reads..

Sad story, but I agree that he shouldn't go to jail for this, there was no intent

what a weird incident.............. but..... i say its Involuntary Manslaughter

 

Accidents happen all the time but if you kill someone because of negligence....... then thats on you.

 

If they say no jail time for him..... it sets the precedent

 

 

people would be getting away with murder by refering to this case.

 

 

Bottom line is if this dude would have used more caution with his firearm,  a young girl would still be alive.  Its his fault the girls dead.

 

When i clean my gun i dont just aim for the sky

 

 

fire it where you know it wont cause anyone any harm. Dumb guy deserves jail time in my opinion

if he intentionally shot the bullet into the air, he definitely needs to go to jail. 

Being in jail is an upgrade from Amish country.

Holdem00:

Good way to look at it--but what about this.


Other cases would refer to this; however---the only cases that would become relevant to this case are accidental homicides---next--you have to look at the degree of negligence that lead to the accident, and second, you have to look to see if the 15 year old was somewhere they should not have been---in the case of Amish, that is unlikely given their culture--but, maybe she was trespassing, maybe she was stealing milk, or getting drugs----

The 2nd is unlikely--so I'll just concentrate on the first since it's the point you used----

The degree of accidental in this case---has to be one of the most, if not, the most extreme rare accidental homicides (it is as far as what i've heard about).    Given that the accident degree is so high, yes the Amish man is still guilty to your other point, Negligence.


he should know there is a chance for that to happen, even if it is 1 in a trillion to kill a person---its probably 1 in a million to kill a person or a cow out in that country, and he had to some what be conscious of that possibility.  so for that--he deserves some form of punishment--is it jail?   maybe..but I say no, if you consider my next point..



Amish culture----remember the Nickel Mines shootings?   They felt more sorry for the killer and their family then for themselves---  SO..



If we could honor this dead teenage child--who shares the same last name with this man---if we could honor one last wish from her--do you think it would be revenge..or freedom?

If the girl could be the judge to his case---what would she deliver him?  


Now you may say that is not fair to even speculate--and that she is not worthy to judge in this position, because it would set precedent for future cases----but so what---if its the right way---then we need to change---our ancestors got it wrong, and they knew they would--thats why they called the most significant laws amendments, to be evolved as our culture does.

football, do you know how many people have a few drinks and drive every week?  millions.  do you know the odds of one of those people killing someone?  astronomically low.  however, if you have 3 drinks with dinner, your blood alcohol level is .081 (just over the legal limit) and then someone pulls out in front of you, maybe you rect a split second slower than you normally would, get into an accident and kill the person, do you think you are going to jail?

now, i'm not saying the odds of killing someone are the same in those two situations.  but the similarities are: in both cases, the odds of killing someone are astronomically low and in both cases, the person who caused the death is doing something that should not be done, should be done another way and has no benefit to anyone. 

Involuntary manslaughter results from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while performing a legal act, or while committing an act that is unlawful but not felonious.

I'd say that fits this case, he was performing a legal act with improper care

Damn--pimpson and clubdirt--much respect--great points I never considered..



I also respect that you acknowledge the fact that the cases are similar, but the odds are not even---I would say not even close---out to eat,how many more people are there out to eat, then out in Amish country?-------multiply that by the amount of time you are in that danger zone with the car, as compared to the bullet---and then multiply it AGAIN by the amount of people you COULD POSSIBLY kill---

So--
--the car poses a threat to involuntary homicide much longer then the bullet---exactly how much, who the fuck knows but we know it's a lot.
--the car is far more likely to crash into a school bus and kill 55 people---the bullet could take out a bus driver too---but we have to consider the traffic and likelyness for that to occur in the country, and out to some public restaurant.



Pimpson--you are right--it fits the description---but that is not enough---because otherwise---driving 70 in a 65 when your wife is ready to deliver baby Pimpson---you would say a speeding ticket is just right.?




--also--should we consider---would it change anything if the person that died was a 15 year old non-amish?

my mistake---70 in 65 is not legal---


what about this example-----you are mowing the lawn with a regular gas powered lawn mower---you are doing all just right----2 squirrels are in mating season and running all around the place---they climb up a tree, and an acorn comes falling down just perfectly to bounce at the right degree to hit the inner blade of your lawnmower---creating a perfect splint that launches into the mailman's neck across the street---did the owner of the tree, the man mowing that lawn, use improper care by not considering to eliminate any acorns that could potentially fall?  or was it the creators of the lawn mower themselves who are negligent for not seeing that possibility?

that the best you got?

Yeah

looooool     that one made me laugh--that was a surprise

i don't like this example because you have to distinguish between the odds of a death occurring (which are extremely low in all cases) and the impropriety of the act (which distinguishes your example).  they are two different issues, although related.  there is nothing wrong with mowing your lawn near a tree where an acorn might fall.  there is something wrong with shooting a gun in the air and driving when you've had a couple of drinks.  there is a reason and benefit to mowing the lawn.  there is no legitimate reason/benefit to firing the gun in the air or drinking and driving. 

manslaughter - give me 5 yes

Homeland Security needs to take a closer look at those damn Amish, they could become a real menace to society...

That statement is false--- a legitimate reason/benefit in firing the gun IN AIR(how else do you shoot a gun? water?)--is to determine if it will work when your 10 year old daughter is getting her hands and feet bound by wires at school, moments away from an executioner style death---- also-- it happened as he was cleaning his gun--or else you would say he neglected to keep the maintenance standards up to par---

I could also give you a legitimate reason for driving at .081 but--that proves no relative point to this subject except that it discredits the value of your assertions to be be mere assessments and exaggerations.

i think you secretly wish you were amish so you had a good reason to wear a black country hat to Tukey Hill

football and dirt, try this one on for size...

a man legally owns a firearm registered to him.  The guy has a history of practicing good gun safety practices...  So while he is cleaning the gun one day he mistakenly leaves bullet in the gun and it goes off...
shoots through his window and then through the window of his neighbor and hits the girl that lives there with a fatal shot...

so there was no aiming, no intent to fire the gun, in fact quite the opposite... it is also his gun, he owns it, he is responsible for it...

what should happen to this guy?

i'm not following you.  i'm not saying there isn't a benefit in testing it, i'm saying there's no benefit to shooting it in the air.  why shoot it in the air when it will come down somewhere and possibly hit someone.  why not shoot it into the ground or somewhere where you know it won't hit someone?

if it was an accident, then nothing.  different situation from the original example. 

What particular gun was fired that killed someone a mile away???? What ammo? Geez, talk about crappy journalism.