Father of boy who shot friend gets 3 yrs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Father of boy who shot friend gets 3 yrs
186
Sun, 07-18-2004 - 1:21pm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Child%20Shot%20Sentence


Saturday, July 17, 2004 · Last updated 8:28 p.m. PT


Father of boy who shot friend gets 3 years


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


CLEARWATER, Fla. -- The father of a boy who shot and killed a playmate with a loaded gun he found stashed under a sofa was sentenced to nearly three years in prison, followed by probation during which he must speak monthly on gun safety.


Louis Mevec Sr. was sentenced Friday for felony culpable negligence in the 2003 death of Sean Caroline II. Mevec, who owned the .357-caliber Magnum used to kill the 12-year-old friend of his son Louis, was convicted last month.


During his father's trial, 14-year-old Louis testified that a small group of Largo Middle School students had skipped school and were playing video games at Mevec's apartment when he pointed the gun at Sean and shot him between the eyes.


"I blame you and only you for my son's death," Sean Caroline, Sean's father, told Louis Mevec Sr. in court Friday. "My wife and I are also serving a sentence ... but we got no trial. Ours is a life sentence."


Circuit Judge Brandt Downey sentenced Mevec, 53, to the maximum six-year prison term, but suspended more than half of it and replaced it with probation. His remaining sentence is 34 months, but with good behavior he could be released by late 2006.


The Caroline family had asked that Mevec be required to speak on gun safety after his release.


The younger Louis Mevec was sent to a juvenile facility and is now living in New York with his mother and younger brother.

 Sprinkler cl-nwtreehugger   


Community Leader:  In The News Newspaper 3  & Sports Talk Baseball 


I can also be found at Washington Washington   ,


TV ShowsTV 2 & QOTW Question Mark


 Sewing   Be sure to check out the CraftsPaint Pallet


messageboard for fun, creative & unique projects!






Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 2:06pm
"I am not uninformed I just see this different than you."

It is difficult to make the following statements if you know the facts about gun ownership and gun control laws:

"I also have a problem with the whole "protection" issue. Unless you deal with unsavory people or business or live in a "bad" neighborhood, what are you protecting yourself from?"

"...but we need better contol over hand guns, there has to be a way, other countries do it why can't we? This shooting would not have happened if guns were not so easy to get to begin with.JMO"


People live in fine neighborhoods and get burglarized. You don't have to be in a bad area or deal with unsavory people to need a gun or its protection. Just the possibility of ownership in an area can lower crime rates.

Like I said I understand the emotion involved with these types of laws. However, you can't state the above items, believe them, if you know the facts. This isn't a personal attack and I don't mean to offend and if I have, I apoligize. I just want people to understand the facts involved.

For instance which countries are you referring to and what have they done?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-01-2004
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 2:16pm
"I do not condemn anyone their right to ownership but I do hope that more "accidental" shootings such as the one in the OP or the deliberate one that took the life of my daughters' friend have the same results for the owner of the gun, even if the gun is stolen, I hope whoever it is regestered to is punished."

Isn't your last statement just a little extreme? Even if the gun is stolen, you want the registered owner to be held responsible? So if someone steals your car and kills someone while driving it, you think you should go to jail because the car was registered and licensed to you?

In cases where the gun's owner was negligable by not taking certain measures to make sure the gun was safe and out of the hands of children, then yes, I believe that person should be punished, but if someone breaks into my house, takes my husband's gun and then hurts someone with it...please....

Avatar for merlins_own
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2003
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 2:22pm
Thank you for your educated and informed posts. There has been undue twisting in the media of the facts and consequences of LEGAL and RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. And, recent studies, as you mentioned, and articles I've read from unbiased sources DO indicate the rise in crime the more restrictive gun ownership becomes, as you wrote. Interesting how the biased media doesn't give air time to this info, isn't it?!

Before we could buy a gun we had to attend an all day handgun safety course which included instruction in how to store handguns safely, how to handle revolvers and semi autos, unload and load, and actually shoot 6 different handguns, of varying caliber and make, semi autos and revolvers. We learned about safe handling, cleaning and so on. At the end we had to take a written test and demonstrate safe handling and loading and unloading. If we passed we earned a handgun safety certificate that is good for 5 years. Only then, with certificate in hand, could we go to a dealer to purchase a handgun, and when accepting delivery, had to again demonstrate safe handling back and forth between the dealer and ourselves. There is also a background check to be sure the purchaser does not have a criminal bacground or history of violent mental illness.

Although friends introduced us to handguns and taught us basic safety and safety policies at the local shooting range, the all day course was very beneficial and more detailed. We also practice twice a week at the shooting range as we enjoy the sport of target shooting. While I don't support too restrict gun policies targeting private ownership, I think the safety class we took is a good requirement. Bottom line, responsible gun and legal owners aren't the problem.

Now, we, too, invite friends and family down to the range to gain basic safety knowledge and experience handling and shooting. They don't rush out to buy guns of their own, but get some education so they're not as susceptible to our biased media and so they are aware that guns aren't evil and gun owners aren't crazed survivalists or irresponsible brain dead idiots, LOL!


Edited 7/21/2004 2:29 pm ET ET by merlins_own


Merlins_Own

AS ABOVE, SO BELOW!

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-01-2004
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 2:27pm
"People live in fine neighborhoods and get burglarized."

Most certainly! When I was 19 I lived in a very rural farming community, where everyone knows everyone else...the type of place one would say they'd "like to raise their children in" and my home was broken into while I was home. I wasn't feeling well that day and when someone came knocking on my front door and I didn't know who he was, I decided not to answer. He came around to the back door and proceeded to kick it in....ripping the locked dead bold right out of the door casing. Lucky for me, the combination of my dog and my voice from a few feet away asking him what the blankety-blank did he think he was doing was enough to scare him away.

Later the police told me that this guy and his buddy driving the car were linked to numerous burglaries in the area....but unfortunately the most he would face for kicking in my back door and stepping into my home was "unlawful entry" which is a misdemeanor in my state. I would have had to let him either take something from my home or harm me in some way to get him on a charge that would hold any weight. But that's another gripe of mine altogether....

But no...living in a "seemingly safe" neighborhood does not mean that you won't have to face crime in your home or protect yourself from that crime.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 2:43pm
That may be "some" individuals reason, but it certainly isn't the reason for all firearms owners. Speaking for myself, I don't know of a single individual who owns only a firearm purchased specifically for protection. There are those who purchase one for concealed carry in addition to having other firearms, and those who use just one for protection and recreational shooting as well, but nobody who only owns one purchased for self-defense alone.

"Didn't protect that dead kid! Did it?"

And that was the fault of the negligent owner, not a defect in the reasoning behind the purchase of it in the first place. If it had been stored properly this tragedy likely wouldn't have happened, regardless of why it was originally purchased.

~mark~

Avatar for merlins_own
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2003
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 3:09pm
Books by John R. Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime," "The Bias Against Guns," and "Our Second Amenment: the Original Perspective" are books about the "other side" of the anti gun position. Interestingly enough, my city library had plenty of anti gun literature but nothing on the presenting the other side of the issues. So, if the media is biased and a balanced source of information isn't available, how are people supposed to get ALL the information? It's easy to get sucked into the emotional end of it and lose sight of the whole picture.

Merlins_Own

AS ABOVE, SO BELOW!

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 3:29pm
I'm glad I'm not the only one on this issue.

I think your state's training program is a great thing.

Like I stated in an earlier post the Maryland legislature is so hypocritcal its amazing.

It is heavily controlled by democrats and liberals and they are grabbing guns every chance they get. It is nearly impossible to get a permit to carry a gun in this state unless you are a cop or one of the legislators who voted for banning carry laws.

They allow themselves to carry guns for protection but woe to the private citizen. Guess we just aren't as important.

Also they pass a law requiring training prior to getting a gun. Sounds great but the program is a joke. I watched a 10 minute video while the dealer packaged my gun and that qualified. It was so mind numbingly basic I wouldn't have been shocked if they said "Oh and don't chew on the barrell of a gun, it is a bad idea".

I really like the training course your state has setup.

Here in the land of Maryland we have armed hypocritical legislators, armed criminals, and unarmed citizens walking the streets.... Welcome to Maryland.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-01-2004
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 3:40pm
"So, if the media is biased and a balanced source of information isn't available, how are people supposed to get ALL the information?"

While it probably isn't a very popular opinion to hold, I have to say we will never truly live in a free society where all information is available to us. I think this because it seems to me that it's generally (I use this word loosely though) in people's nature to want to sway people to their side of the coin. Certainly, if I am a staunch supporter of the Pro-Life movement, I am going to be inclined to only put forth information that supports my point, not that of the opposition. It is in our human nature to want to be seen as the one with the opinion that is right. Then you look at the people who make decisions, federal government, state government, city councils, etc., and you see that these are all people who make decisions regarding what we hear, see and do. All of these people have their own opinions that they see as right, and will fight to see those opinions upheld and supported. There are some books, classics, that have been banned from schools because the powers-that-be think that children have no business reading them. This is also how you end up looking for literature in your library that isn't there. It's sad, but true.

"It's easy to get sucked into the emotional end of it and lose sight of the whole picture."

And this generally occurs with issues where the emotionally decided solution for the issue is not SO radical that it effects everyone as a whole. If that were the case, it would never happen. I'm outraged when I hear of a woman who is raped. Now, if I were to act on my emotions and start a movement to make all men sexually impotent, my idea wouldn't be too widely received. There would be too many men out there who said "hey, I shouldn't have to pay for the crimes of some men who get a kick out of brutalizing women." But when you get an issue where the people are divided, where the emotional, radical response makes sense to a good number of people, you get entrenched in a battle like the one surrouning our constitutional right to bear arms.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 3:47pm
True.

I for one don't mind that the "media" is liberal or biased. Like you I expect it, it is human nature.

The problem with the mass media being liberal is that the masses don't understand this concept or don't think about it and assume their news outlets to impartial.

I'll flip over from CNN to MSNBC to FOX and get the same basic information but the usage of a few choice words or phrases can change the "feeling" or context of the report. It is remarkable what you can pick up on when you look for it.

The press doesn't have to be impartial I just wish people would consider multiple sources and viewpoints before making up their mind.

Good Post.

Avatar for baileyhouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 07-21-2004 - 4:08pm
If the gun in question was not properly locked up and EVERY precaution taken by the owner, then yes. If someone I love is killed by a stolen gun because the gun owner was careless then they should be held responsible. If the keys are left in the car and the car left running then yes maybe the car owner should be made liable for being so careless. I will not let someone I love die in vain because someone else was thoughtless and careless.

Pages