Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Boy, 4, accidentally kills Tenn. deputy's wife

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Truly a sad situation.

My thoughts to the family.

But what possessed him to put his gun down at the cookout?

I understand why he brought the gun to the cookout for a just in case situation, but to put it down where a 4 year old could get to it? What was he thinking?






Boy, 4, accidentally kills Tenn. deputy's wife

By SHEILA BURKE | Associated Press – 5 hrs ago

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Authorities say a 4-year-old boy grabbed a loaded gun at a family cookout and accidentally shot and killed the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy.

Investigators say Wilson County Deputy Daniel Fanning on Saturday was showing his weapons to a relative in a bedroom of his Lebanon home when the toddler came in and picked up a gun off the bed. Sheriff Robert Bryan says the weapon discharged, hitting 48-year-old Josephine Fanning.

news.yahoo.com...



edit on 9-4-2013 by Manhater because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-4-2013 by Manhater because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


Originally posted by Manhater

I understand why he brought the gun to the cookout for a just in case situation, but to put it down where a 4 year old could get to it? What was he thinking?

Not only do I not understand why he brought it, but I cannot even understand why he even has a weapon. Cop or not, if you cannot handle your weapon responsibly, then you should not be legally allowed to carry one.


The gun was not Fanning's service weapon and the sheriff says the deputy's weapons are normally stored in a safe.
It appears that he did not bring the weapon because of the possibility for a 'just in case situation'.

He brought it to 'show it off'.

Investigators say Wilson County Deputy Daniel Fanning on Saturday was showing his weapons to a relative





Bryan says the shooting was a terrible accident and that within seconds of Fanning placing the gun on the bed, the toddler picked it up.

news.yahoo.com...

If it all happened within a matter of seconds, that means that he sat a loaded weapon down right beside a 4 year old. Isn't that referred to as 'Negligent Homicide'?







edit on 4/9/13 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by BrokenCircles
 




Cop or not, if you cannot handle your weapon responsibly, then you should not be legally allowed to carry one.

You have a valid point there. You know that when they administer IQ tests to prospective police hires... it isn't to see if they are intelligent enough to do the job, it is to see if they are stupid enough to be stuck with that job for the rest of their lives.




Isn't that referred to as 'Negligent Homicide'?

I would refer to it as being stupid.
I am sure if it was just an everyday 'Joe Schmuckitelli' that did it, there would be charges filed. But since it is a law enforcement officer, he may get a promotion.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


I suspect the deputy will be brought up on charges of Child Endangering and Involuntary Manslaughter. Definitely a show of Negligence and Dereliction.

It is so damn sad. The 4 year old has No Clue what is going on or even what he did.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum
 


Yeah, later down the road someone is going to tell him and it may or may not affect him for the rest of his life.

Rather than the theory of showing off his weapon, I thought officers were suppose to carry their weapons even while their not on duty? Aren't they suppose to carry their weapons at all times?
edit on 9-4-2013 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
As some people pointed out if he wasn't a police officer then charges would have filed instantly. This is just yet another example many similar cases that I can think of right off hand. They are piling up at such an alarming rate nowadays that I couldn't keep up with them all if I wanted to.

My condolences to the family, no one should have to go through this. I feel for the officer and I think the punishment should be lenient but then I also feel that it should be lenient for anyone else in this position. This special privilege crap needs to end.


-Alien



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 

At first, I was under the impression that this occurred at the relative's home, but now after skimming over a few other articles, I see that I was wrong. It did occur at the cop's home. So that also means he was in his own bedroom, which does change things a bit.


Josephine G. Fanning, 48, died Saturday at her home about 7 miles south of Lebanon, according to the local sheriff's office.

www.dailymail.co.uk... ss&ns_campaign=1490



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 




Aren't they suppose to carry their weapons at all times?

I don't think that they are required to.

More important, they should be in control of them at all times. If they can't be in control of them, they should be locked up.
edit on 9-4-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


According to the article. The sherriff said that the deputies Service Weapon is locked up in a safe when he is not on duty. So, this must have been his personal weapon.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Thanks, I didn't have time to find and look through all the articles because I had to work. If it happened in his home then those guns should been locked up.

Such a tragedy that could of been prevented.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
If he was showing this weapon off, why was it loaded with 'one in the chamber', and safety off??
This is utter and complete negligence on the LEO.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Having a few cop friends, they are required to either have it on them or secured (i.e. locked) at all times. They don't have to have it on them if off duty, but if not, it should be locked.

Personally, I adopt the same policy with mine. Right now, or at any time, my firearms in a locked place or places.


If he was showing this weapon off, why was it loaded with 'one in the chamber', and safety off??


An even better question... I've only shown weapons to very close friends, and each time, they were unloaded (and I had checked the chamber and barrel before allowing them to handle), and instructed them to do the same, and made sure they didn't point it at anyone all the same.
edit on 10-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Why has it not occurred to anyone here that officer Fanning murdered his wife?

It has to me ......and my intuition about these things is usually spot on.

What say you?
edit on 10-4-2013 by POXUSA because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by POXUSA
 


Because I think it was just an accident.

Like the 4 year old knew?


I don't think it was planned, but who knows.

He is an officer. So, he does know the routine..

I'll play devil's advocate.
edit on 10-4-2013 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
reply to post by POXUSA
 


Because I think it was just an accident.
Like the 4 year old knew?
I don't think it was planned, but who knows.
He is an officer. So, he does know the routine..
I'll play devil's advocate.
edit on 10-4-2013 by Manhater because: (no reason given)


I think POX might be on to something here in his intuitive thoughts on the matter -

The possibility occurred to me as well - in my warped sick mind - that the young boy never touched the weapon, which means its a setup for the so-called "perfect crime." After all - who's gonna check the boy for gun-powder residue? Are they even going to interview the l'il tyke?

Lets wait and see.........perhaps the husband will be 'officially' cleared by the normal methods as stated above.

BTW - they keep referring to a 'relative' - does this relative not have a name?
edit on 11-4-2013 by CasaVigilante because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-4-2013 by CasaVigilante because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Kind of a gamblin' man relying on a 4 yr old, if he did kill his wife, eh?



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
As I said - the kid might have been merely a prop! A ruse to throw off the investigators as to the true nature of the crime - if indeed there was a crime of murder rather than a crime of negligence.

Why is it that so many respondents here @ ATS ofttimes don't always (fully) read the posts that they are responding to? Happens a lot.
edit on 11-4-2013 by POXUSA because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by POXUSA
As I said - the kid might have been merely a prop! A ruse to throw off the investigators as to the true nature of the crime - if indeed there was a crime of murder rather than a crime of negligence.

Why is it that so many respondents here @ ATS ofttimes don't always (fully) read the posts that they are responding to? Happens a lot.
edit on 11-4-2013 by POXUSA because: (no reason given)


Yeah, we are dealing with a law enforcement official here.
He probably did kill her and blame it on the child. I have known more than one LEO that would do such a thing.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by POXUSA
As I said - the kid might have been merely a prop! A ruse to throw off the investigators as to the true nature of the crime - if indeed there was a crime of murder rather than a crime of negligence.

Why is it that so many respondents here @ ATS ofttimes don't always (fully) read the posts that they are responding to? Happens a lot.
edit on 11-4-2013 by POXUSA because: (no reason given)


Yeah, we are dealing with a law enforcement official here.
He probably did kill her and blame it on the child. I have known more than one LEO that would do such a thing.


Perhaps, but please know that I am in 'speculative' mode here, and following an intuition that usually turns out to be correct - but that doesn't necessarily mean that it surely is - there's always that 1 '%' - ya know?
edit on 11-4-2013 by POXUSA because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by POXUSA
 



but does not necessarily mean that it surely is - there's always that 1 '%' - ya know?

That's why we have innocent until proven guilty.









 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join