Do We Know Better All the Time? (Child Death Mentioned)

To stick with the first question: no, I do not think that I know better than a posted sign.

Actually, I am a stickler for obeying signs right now. I have a five year old in tow with me most everywhere. I used to jaywalk like a fiend, but now we will not cross unless the WALK sign is on. I am the example for my son. This means sometimes that we don't play in public fountains everyone else is playing in-- because the sign says no. (BTW- some of these fountains have recirculated, disgusting water and drop-offs, so there are health and safety reasons to avoid these places.) This is hard on Kiddo, sometimes, but there are also good reasons to obey those signs. He will learn a sense of discretion when he's older; right now, I need him to know that the letter of the law is what should guide his actions. And if I am modeling disregard for signs and notices, I would expect that he would also choose not to follow those posted rules.

In regard to the two situations you listed: what a toss-up about the bear/dog/gun situation. Because of the ambiguity of the converging laws, I don't really know what to think. As for the mother-- yes, I do believe she was negligent. We also have to factor in basic questions like "does she have an intellectual disability?" and "can she read sufficiently?" If yes, then I am so sorry to say, she was horribly negligent. What a tragic consequence.

Usually I try to see all sides to things like this, but I don't see any grey areas here.

Imo, Yes. The man should get whatever, fine, prosecution etc... that carrying his gun in the park where signs are clearly posted is prohibited. Would it have made a difference if the attack was not a bear, but another dog? To me there's no legiency because of a bear attack. If you know you are entering an area where bears could be present, don't go there. Plus the man shot his own dog... what a dumba$$. Maybe he should take target lessons before he goes around shooting things.

Secondly... yes the mom was negligent. It seems like we read about these situations every year. Why people put their children at risk swimming, wading, etc... in areas that are marked "no swimming" is beyond me. I hate to think of the kind of guilt she must feel from it... so sad.

I do believe the man should be prosecuted. He disregarded a law. The law exists to protect people and animals from getting shot which I, as an anti-gun person think is a good law!

I most definitely think the mom who talk her daughter swimming in a no swim zone was negligent. Again, the signs/rules are there for a reason. Anyone who disregards those, is taking a risk of injury or death. I can't believe she would take that risk, and she is suffering the consequences.

Hopefully people will learn from this and realize that there are reasons behind laws.

Yes prosecute and yes negligent.
People disregard rules (and laws) everyday.
Often with the blessing of others.
Example: People that are worried more about the comfort of their child on a long trip than the law that states use a rear facing seat until 2 years.
People gamble with possible outcomes every day. The difference is when the decision ends in tragedy.

we all seem to think it will "never happen to us".

that's one reason i am so black and white about rules. either it's okay or it isn't. if it's against the rules, we don't do it. period. it's not for me to decide, only to follow the rules which it was someone else's job to set. but i tell you what...i won't be getting in trouble for doing something i was warned not to, if i can help it.

i also believe no one else is my responsibility. the rules exist for a reason, and, callous as it may be, it's not my job to make sure others obey, only me and mine. honestly there's a huge part of me that feels if someone feels they can ignore the warnings/laws/rules, then yes, the consequences are theirs to deal with.

sometimes i hate that i am so black and white. it is a blessing and a curse at times. but yes, i'm a hardass about the rules 99% of the time. i'm that way at work too and it has made me enemies.

PS - HUGE flowers to Hazel - my 5 year old is a huge factor in my attitude. if anything happened to him and i had an inkling it was because of something i had taught him, i would never forgive myself. our kids are too precious to gamble with.

Yes, the man should be prosecuted. There is a reason why the town has asked that guns not be brought into the park. My guess is this is one of them. This man should be thanking God that it was his dog hit and not a person out for an evening stroll with their family.

Yes, the mother was negligent. Guess why they don't want you swimming there? That's right... a strong current and a 30 foot drop.

There are reasons for posted signs. My husband is a safety coordinator for a major corporation (and an engineer) and I can assure you that there is substantial research and thought that goes into "warning signs". Those who make a decision to ignore those signs and do as they please are breaking the law and at the same time releasing the "owner" of the property from all liability. Therefore, the liability lies squarely on the "rule breaker".

i am very very pro the right to bear arms, and yes, municipalities have the absolute right to say 'not here.' this is a perfect example of how idiots endanger ALL of our 2nd amendment rights.
yes, the mother was negligent. i'm much more laissez-faire about swimming than practically everyone else here (i grew up in the water, walked to the ocean and swam alone every day from age 7 on) but if there are 'NO SWIMMING' signs posted there's probably a reason.
in both of these instances the people clearly ignored and violated the law. i just don't see a lot of wiggle or debate room here, although the topics in a generic sense have a lot of grey area.
khairete
S.

I guess I am going to be the oddball. I think if your life is possibly in danger that carrying a gun is a constitutional right that a city ordinance does not have the right to take away. So I think if the man knew this park was one where wildlife lives in a big way then he has every constitutional right to carry a firearm. Some states are changing laws in this regard.

Oklahoma governor Mary Fallen just signed law into effect about carrying personal handguns in the public areas allowing them to be carried in a much more open way. It scares me to contemplate the outcome of this though. I know I can get hotheaded. If I felt threatened in any way and had a gun on me would I take it out and shoot someone? maybe harming a bystander accidentally?

So, if I were going to walk my dog in a park area where one can see wild animals at any given time you can bet I would take some sort of weapon where I could defend myself even if there was a sign stating I wasn't supposed to. What if the bear had decided to not run off after hearing the shots? What if the bear had killed the man and the dog? You would be feeling the other way perhaps, like too bad that man couldn't have carried a gun or something so he could defend himself.

He could also have been attacked by a rapist, a mugger, a drug dealer/addict needing money, a serial killer, etc...protecting your life against something like this is one of those things I am always going to be on the side of the more freer way. To be able to carry a handgun for protection should be allowed. it is our constitutional right that no city ordinance or policy should not be able to regulate. I would vote he was not guilty of any wrong doing.

Now the other thing.

This mother was truly neglectful. She saw the signs, she knew there was a physical danger, she chose to put herself and her child at risk. IF the child had fallen in and she dove in to try and save her that would be a different story. If the child and the mother put on their swim suits, or even chose to just get wet in their clothes, then walked to the edge of the water and made a knowledgeable choice to go into the dangerous water then she made that choice willingly. She is 100% responsible for her child's death. If I were on a jury of her peers in this case I would vote she was guilty.

I'm glad you clarified about the man not have a conceal and carry license, because it sounds like he's a REALLY bad shot and there are classes and tests involved in getting the license.

The mother is definately negligent, how very sad.

M

Not an anti-gun person, but I think the guy should be prosectued AND lose his permit!! It is idiots like him that make the rest of responsible gun owners look bad.

And yeah the Mom was seriously negligent. A tragedy, but she totally ignored the warning signs.

I don't ave any clue why folks feel that rules don't aply to them... It really aggravates me a lot. If there is a rule I do not like, I ask the purpose of the rule. Then if I think it does not apply to my sistuation, I ask the approriate authority for permission to do X anyway.

THis approach almost always gets me the yes to breaking the rule.

In the first case - I'm sure the man will ultimately not mind being prosecuted - he's alive.
If he died, would the park be liable for wrongful death because they deprived him of a means to defend himself?
You're allowed to carry a gun in state/federal parks now - for protection, not for hunting.
Laws change all the time.
I don't know if this park was private property or not.
It's hard hitting a moving target - ask any police officer.
At any rate, they've got a bear on the loose and they should consider what their liability issues are.
I'm sure the Connecticut Citizens Defense League will be watching what happens with this case.

In the 2nd case - of course she was negligent.

In either case - they took risks.
The first guy came out alive whereas he might not have otherwise - good gamble on his part.
The woman lost her child and will have to live with that - bad gamble on her part.

the man should get a fine because he could have hit a person.

The mom- I don't like judging people in these sittuations....who knows her and her famiyl could have been going here years and have been fine. Tragedys happen I don't think unless you know everything about her and her reason for going there and thoughts can you determine if she was negligent. Obviously she was a good mother...some moms dont even take their kids out let alone swimming in the ocean,,,its sad but it seems like a terrible tragedy, that yes could have been prevented, but I dont think I could judge her

the mother was grossly negligent-and has sadly received the most severe form of punishment

I think carrying the gun is okay...but the mother who was stupid and swam there, very negligent!

The man was definitely wrong and should be prosecuted. He obviously was a horrible shot if he missed something as big as a bear with eight shots! He should be carrying gun at all notwithstanding the law. But the ordinance was clear that he cannot carry a gun in the park so he should be prosecuted.

This is the problem I see with the "open carry" law. Even people who have no idea how to handle a gun or those who know but panic, can be extremely dangerous to those around him/her.

As far as the mom, she was obviously negligent. She ignored the warnings to her daughter's detriment. I don't know if I think she should be punished by the law; her punishment is going to be having to live with herself.

I sent a flower to SweetChaos as I fully agreed with the response. I just want to add that I get SO ANNOYED when people blatantly disregard as if laws and rules DO NOT apply to them!!!!!!!!!!

I believe that the man was within his rights to defend himself. And shouldn't be punished for discharging the fire arm. However, he clearly broke the law by carrying it in. However, I would take a common sense approach. The guy's dog died, and he might have had he not fired the gun. So I think you overlook bringing the gun in.

Yes, the mother was negligent. That said, I am sure she shouldn't be punished by the law. Nothing can match living with your child dying because you did something stupid. But on the face of it, she probably should be investigated to make sure she doesn't regularly do stuff like this - I mean, did they swim there because it looked fun and she made a bad decision. Or did she swim there because she wanted to go drinking with her boyfriend and it was easier than going to a public beach. Her motivation do matter. If she chronically is irresponsible, her other kids migh tbe at risk. But punish her for breaking the law? No.

These types of stories really tick me off. The general quote that I use is
" You can't fix stupid". It's negligent, idiotic, and brainless.

Both people were in the wrong. Couldn't the guy just take his dog & leave? Isn't that what common sense would dictate? The woman chose what she wanted to do was more important than following rules and her kid died because of it. I notice this more & more in society - everyone feels entitled & does what they want to do, regardless of the rules, or if it affects anyone else.

Kind of like the "stupid motorist" law we have here - you try to drive where it's flooded and you need to be rescued? Guess what? You'll get rescued, and you'll get bills for all the unnecessary b.s. you caused.