Man Arrested After 5-Year-Old Son Fatally Shoots Himself With Gun Left In Glove Box

[marble falls]

Source: Huffpo


Man Arrested After 5-Year-Old Son Fatally Shoots Himself With Gun Left In Glove Box
The suspect faces a criminal negligence charge.
By David Moye


A Florida man is facing negligence charges after his 5-year-old son fatally shot himself in the head with a gun he found in the glove box of the man’s car.

Jamal Daniel Todman was arrested Monday and charged with negligent storage of a firearm in connection with the Oct. 4 death of his son Judah.

The accidental shooting happened outside an Orlando day care center, while Todman, 34, was inside picking up his 3-year-old son, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

It’s unclear how long Judah was left in the car by himself. However, when his father and brother came back, the gun from the car’s glove box was on the floor, and Judah was slumped over with blood on his head, according to WESH.

The boy was rushed to a hospital across the street, but died from self-inflicted shooting wounds.

<snip>

Gunshot wounds are now the third leading cause of childhood deaths in the U.S., according to a study published earlier this year in the journal Pediatrics.

Read more: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jamal-todman-negligence-son-gun_us_5a3ac313e4b0b0e5a79f3cc4

---

Another issue that affects public health and safety a GOP Congress ignores.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. More guns than people who can shoot them, of COURSE this happens all the time!

[marble falls]

5. Its unexplainabe.

[jiminvegas]

33. Aren't we just supposed to say "thoughts and prayers" then forget about it?

[Kaleva]

2. In many of these cases, the police and DA label it a tragedy and nothing is done

They need to charge Todman's wife, the mother?, too as the gun was registered in her name.

[marble falls]

3. I so agree: arrest those whose gun it is.

[paleotn]

4. Another "responsible gun owner"

until he wasn't.

[Kaleva]

6. The man's wife was the "responsible gun owner".

The man, being a convicted felon, was prohibited by law from owning,possessing or having constructive possession of a gun.

[SoCalMusicLover]

9. Constructive Possession?

You mean like having it in your Fucking Glove Box?

That's OK. So many guns, it's hard to keep track of where each one is at all times.

[Kaleva]

10. It's a legal term

"Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), it is a federal crime for felons to possess a firearm. Proof of the crime is easy enough when a felon is found actually carrying a gun. ... Thus, under the doctrine of “constructive possession,” a felon may indeed be convicted based on the discovery of a firearm in his home."

https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2009/09/27/seventh-circuit-criminal-case-of-the-week-the-limits-of-constructive-possession/

[SoCalMusicLover]

13. So Why Wasn't The Felon Charged With That Too?

Sounds like he was in possession to me.

I guess if a cop pulls me over and finds weed in my glove box, I can say that I was not in "constructive possession" of it?

Probably not. The argument only works with non-lethal things like Guns apparently.

[Kaleva]

14. He should be charged and the man's wife ought to be charged too.

[SoCalMusicLover]

18. Logic Would Dictate That

Reality, however, is that any charges will be minimal. The "wife" will probably get to keep her guns. And of course, the felon husband, would never go near one, since he's not allowed to. Gun owners are very responsible that way.

Sad to say, I have little sympathy for these people. Waiting for their Go Fuck Me account to be set up.

[COLGATE4]

23. If it was in the glove box of the car he

was driving he had constructive possession.

[Kaleva]

24. Yes, he did.

[avebury]

53. If she left the gun in an unlocked glove compartment

then she was not a responsible gun owner. She in effect put it in the possession of her husband which would create a whole other issue for the guy.

[irisblue]

7. For Judah, his 3yr old brother & the mother

[Kaleva]

12. I think the mother was the owner of the gun.

[irisblue]

21. I saw that in the story.

I couldn't tell from the story who, mom or dad, put the weapon in the glove box. She wasn't there, some cop had to find her and tell her that Judah was dead, some cop took her to the hospital where her life, forever was changed.

When my brothers aged 7&6 & mother & I, 10, were at our grandparents house, snoopy boys found a Saturday night special in Pops drawer.

They brought it to Mom. She burst into tears. It could have been us. I'm cutting their Mother slack until& if I learn more from trial proceedings.

[Kaleva]

25. I don't think much will change unless we stop cutting gun owners slack

[irisblue]

27. Ok. While I can see your point, I just feel differently.

Needs be, she can be charged later.

[TexasBushwhacker]

47. Mom is married to a felon who cannot legally possess firearms

Therefore she should not have firearms either.

[irisblue]

49. You want to limit person A because of person B's actions?

Very slippery slope you are describing and recommending there.
We've heard that before.
The posted story does not give much information about the parents living situation.

[TexasBushwhacker]

50. I will happily go down a slippery slope if it saves childrens' lives

Yes, I am assuming the parents live togetger. Unless she didn't know he was a felon when she married him, I hold her partially responsible.

[irisblue]

52. I share your wish to keep children safe.

I am not a gunhumper. I spent too many years working in ERs to be comfortable with limitless access to weapons by poorly trained people.
I still am not comfortable with punishment of person A because of person B's actions.

[SoCalMusicLover]

8. Negligent Storage Of A Firearm

The parents will probably get a harsh warning, not to be careless again.

Charge 'em with Murder, and take away their gun rights Forever.

OH NO!! The NRA will never go for that.

[alphafemale]

31. They are only charged with their kids death if they aren't white.

Period.

[raccoon]

35. You got that right. Nt

[radical noodle]

42. Bingo!

If it had been a white guy, he would be given thoughts and prayers and there would be a gofundme for the funeral expenses.

[Plucketeer]

11. I think the NRA

should provide really nice headstones for idiots and innocents that blow themselves away with a gun. As much money as they manage to slather on the dead-heads of Congress, some nice monuments would likely be cheap recompence.

[SoCalMusicLover]

15. And Corporations Will Raise Wages & Hire More Workers

Things that will NEVER, EVER happen.

The NRA will simply have no comment on cases like this. They're happy that the gun was not harmed.

[Fred Sanders]

16. Third leading cause of death is gunshots. Not to mention the first leading cause of mass murder.

Entirely preventable or reducable by simple gun control.

But Sandy Hook proved gunners do not give a fuck about the lives of children if the Gun is criticized.

[SoCalMusicLover]

19. Country Music Fans Did Not Let A Little Vegas Massacre Deter Them

The country music industry believes that more guns would have helped in Vegas, most likely.

[Nitram]

44. Don't 9/11 and Oklahoma City have that record wrapped up?

[bucolic_frolic]

17. Poor little guy didn't even know what he was doing

[JDC]

20. And we just keep letting this happen. Heartbreaking

[Squinch]

22. Should be a murder charge for mother (gun owner) and father (guy who let the kid in the car

with a loaded gun.)

[mainstreetonce]

29. The charge should be homocide

And accessory to homocide

[FakeNoose]

38. Negligent homicide is 3rd degree murder in most states

I don't live in Florida, so I'm not sure about their laws.

Yes both parents are definitely negligent. Whoever loaded the ammo and left the gun in the glove compartment (probably the father) is MORE guilty in my book. The mother bought the gun so she has to take responsibility for that.

[ClarendonDem]

26. Hopefully charges will be filed

Perhaps manslaughter or some sort of negligent homicide? Doesn't strike me as murder since that requires intent.

[Motley13]

28. The only good thing about a 5 yr old with a gun is another 5yr old with a gun

[alphafemale]

30. Haven't even read any of link.

Father was black.

Only blacks get arrested for some things.

[marble falls]

32. Thats true. Amazing how outraged the authorities get when the culprit is black.

[Egnever]

41. Father was a felon in possession of a gun

not saying being black wasn't part of it but the charges are appropriate IMHO. I would hope a white felon in possession of a gun would get similar treatment.

You might be entirely correct though that they would not.

Selective punishment based on race is wrong.

[renegade000]

51. Guessed it as soon as I saw the headline...

If the family was white it would have been, "the family has suffered enough already..."

To be fair, I could also see a white parent be arrested for such a thing if they were poor and had addiction problems or something that would make them an easy object of revulsion by the media. But yeah, you're not likely getting arrested for leaving a loaded gun stashed away if you're in an upper-middle class suburban neighborhood.

[3catwoman3]

34. Rule #1 - Do not leave young children alone in cars...

...ever, anywhere, for any reason.

Rule #2 - Do not leave loaded guns near small children, ever, anywhere, for any reason.

It infuriates me beyond words when these incidents are called "tragic accidents." They are NOT accidents. They are NEGLECT, pure and simple. 100% preventable.

[enough]

36. Criminal charges for black gun owners, it was a tragic accident if you're white. NT

[alphafemale]

54. Exactly. A broken blinker is a Friendly Notification if you are white.

Possibly a death sentence to a POC

[Sancho]

37. People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[FakeNoose]

39. Yes to all 10 points, however I would add to #5

I believe liability insurance is too easy to get and not painful enough to make sure people act responsibly with their guns. If something happens and kid kills himself (like this story) or another bad thing happens, the insurance company cancels the policy. The gun owner says "oh well" and shops around for another insurance company. There's no penalty paid for the negligence & mistakes.

My proposal would be to require a $100,000 bond posted (in lieu of insurance) by the gun owner in order to buy the gun or be issued a license. Assume in advance that something bad will happen, and dear gun owner you will prepay for the damage that will probably happen with that gun. If anyone is injured or killed with your gun, you dear owner will forfeit your $100,000 bond. If you sell or transfer ownership of the gun and the bond was never forfeited, you dear owner, can have your money back.

What's that? You can't afford a $100,000 bond? Well it means you can't afford the damage that would probably happen with it either, so you don't get the gun.

[Sancho]

40. Sounds like a good alternative to me.

[marble falls]

45. People control is gun control. Guns without people are paperweights.

[Sancho]

46. Exactly...guns without people aren't dangerous. My pet schnauzer wouldn't shoot anyone.

The dangerous part that needs to be controlled are the people.

Dangerous people should not easily possess, own, or have access to guns.

There's nothing wrong on society putting limits on any dangerous products, but in the case of guns it's too easy for obviously dangerous people to obtain whatever guns they desire (at least in the US).

----------------------------

The 2nd Amendment did not intent to arm dangerous people. For a good review, read this book: The Second Amendment: A Biography

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/1476747458/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1513864789&sr=1-1&keywords=the+2nd+amendment

Widely acclaimed at the time of its publication, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.

At a time of increasing gun violence in America, Waldman’s book provoked a wide range of discussion. This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.

The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the twentieth century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.

The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.

In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.

[Nitram]

43. "Third leading cause of childhood deaths in the US." Let that sink in.

It's not guns that kill people. It is stupid children who kill people. According to the NRA, if those kids had just been armed they could have defended themselves from themselves and they'd be alive today.

[BigDemVoter]

48. What a terrible, terrible, terrible waste and what a shame.

Nonetheless, I would rather see the man's son fatally shoot himself than another person's child. How awful and tragic.