'Court Jesters' File: Accidental Shooting Ruling

[Warph]

The Supreme Court also ruled this week on a case involving a robbery during which the perpetrator accidentally fired his gun. He claimed that the automatic 10-year sentence for firing a weapon during a crime was too harsh for something that was an accident. The Court disagreed. Mandatory minimum sentences are another can of worms, but we agree with Chief Justice John Roberts, who pointed out that if criminals wanted to avoid the penalty for firing the gun, even by accident, they should "lock or unload the firearm, handle it with care during the underlying violent or drug trafficking crime, leave the gun at home or -- best yet -- avoid committing the felony in the first place."

Funnier still is the dissent, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Stephen Breyer, which said, "Accidents happen, but they seldom give rise to criminal liability. Indeed, if they cause no harm, they seldom give rise to any liability. The court today nevertheless holds that petitioner is subject to a mandatory additional sentence -- a species of criminal liability -- for an accident that caused no harm."

Call me crazy for pointing it out, but these are two of the justices who dissented from last year's Heller ruling, which affirmed the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In other words, they are in the unusual position of defending a criminal who accidentally fired a weapon during a crime while maintaining that law-abiding citizens have no right to own a firearm.

[Wilma]

Am I reading that wrong?  It seems to me that the two latter justices were upholding the sentence.  I see nothing that says that the sentence should not be upheld, that the perp is innocent because the gun being fired was an accident.

Oh, of course, it is lawyer talk.  We aren't supposed to be able to interpret it.

[Varmit]

I don't think it is so much what they said, but how they said.  They seemed to imply a reluctance towards the sentence.  I could be wrong though.

[Warph]

This article should answer your question:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_on_go_su_co/us_scotus_accidental_gunfire_1

Court: Different shootings bring same penalty

Wed Apr 29, 10:56 am ET

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says accidentally shooting a gun during the commission of a crime should bring the same penalties as intentionally using a firearm.

This came as the high court on Wednesday upheld the conviction and sentence of Christopher Michael Dean, who was arrested for trying to rob a bank in Rome, Georgia, in 2004.

A gun went off accidentally during the attempted robbery when Dean tried to switch the weapon from one hand to the other. The discharge brought an automatic 10-year sentence for firing a weapon during a crime. Dean appealed, saying the automatic sentence shouldn't count since the firing of the gun was accidental.

Federal prosecutors said the law doesn't care why the gun went off, and the high court agreed.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who called it "the case of the bungling bank robber" in his bench statement, said the law "does not require that the discharge be done knowingly or intentionally."

If criminals want to avoid the penalty for accidental gunfire, they can "lock or unload the firearm, handle it with care during the underlying violent or drug trafficking crime, leave the gun at home or — best yet — avoid committing the felony in the first place," Roberts said.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented, saying Congress intended the automatic sentence to only apply to intentional discharges of weapons.

"Accidents happen, but they seldom give rise to criminal liability," Stevens said. "Indeed, if they cause no harm, they seldom give rise to any liability. The court today nevertheless holds that petitioner is subject to a mandatory additional sentence — a species of criminal liability — for an accident that caused no harm."

Roberts replied in his opinion that the accidental gunfire did cause harm. "By pure luck, no one was killed or wounded," he said. "But the gunshot plainly added to the trauma experienced by those held during the armed robbery."

The case is Dean v. United States, 08-5274.

[Wilma]

I still can't see that it is being said that the prisoner is not guilty just because it was an accident.  Maybe the judges should be more specific with their opinion.  This man was guilty of committing a crime with a firearm.  He is just as guilty whether or not the firearm was fired.  If there is a distinction between intentional firing and accidental firing, the law is being too specific.  He committed a crime with a firearm.  Hang him from the nearest tree and forget about it.

[Diane Amberg]

I would think that liberals and conservatists alike could agree on this one.

[Varmit]

Wilma I agree with you on this one.

[Wilma]

Oh, no, Billy is agreeing with me again.  Or was it I who agreed with him?  Whose turn is it to agree, Billy?

[Varmit]

well, yours of course

[Wilma]

Of course you would say that.