def of substantial risk of harm

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agreed...the view point was looking into the cab of the truck. If you were loking at ur vehicle from ur garage 18 to 20 feet away. The gun was in a door panel that when shut is 4 inches from the seat. It was midnight so the floor board area of the vehicle is pitch black. To us it does not seem practical that a 4 year old if he were to wake up and get out of his car seat would rather then look out at his mother and I gp to the darkest part of the vehicle and and find a door pocket that 14 inches or longer a begin to root through it find the weapon and remove it from the holster in the dark with out his mother or I seeing this. He is 4 ...got to beach at around 10 am played there and pooll on and off till 5 pm, shower, then dinner ,then a amusement park till 2330. The boys never woke, witnesses info from discovery staed we made multiple trips to car. We were there for 22 mins total. We were approached while we were standing on the railing. I know some people feel that it is ok for the charges to be pursued...I did also before this happened. Betty said for me to ask my lawyer s question...of course I've done that we feel strong about the case. I was just up trying to find a def of substantial risk, thought id ask. Many things should have been handled different that night on our part. The says what would a reasonable person do in same setting, im just wondering how does the law define the elements? Reasonable person after looking at is kinda open...a 80 year old thoughts to a 27year olds thought r im assuming going to be diffrent. The prosecution has had three continues so far...were begging to get on a stand and tell are side. We cherish our boys are lives are built around them. For two parents who were sober to make a decision and that decision result in no harm. Then to be charged with child abuse is frankly crazy. The oldest boy had know idea there was a gun in the truck and even that there was a pocket to look into, we only oowned the truck a week and a half before we left 2013 f150 to give you a visual. If we were impaired it would set better with me, makes sense. We checked the area , vehicle was close, weekday maybe 10 people if that in the place, kids were racked hard, checked on them constantly heck its ten steps from us. We see all the points....we just dont think it was criminal its missing alot of key points of criminal. Intent, harm, mental harm, lasting mental harm from the incident. If the state can do this on a maybe...what doors does that open to our future as far as evidence that most be presented against a person . If you take the bar part out of the picture...u hv two parents stood 18 feet away from the kids that were sleeping and talked about the future and if we were going to see dolphins the next day. Leave the gun part in we have them all over our house..ill save the question yes there secured in the home, but sine we are what ifin it that dont matter. Perception is all ways worse then the facts. I think if we can get past the perception issue we will be ok. I hope anyhow
 
Many people have left their children and ignition keys in cars and thought the idea of their child attempting to drive it was foolish also.
 
The issue has never been if the child could drive the car? But did the incident rise to the level of "substantial" compared to possibly. There seems to be a difference from what information I hv found
 
Even possibly could have happened is scary. What if for example the 4 year old shot himself & died or his younger brother & he died. That is something you would have had to live with for the rest of your life. :( It pays to be cautious.

Just work with your lawyer.
 
I'm going to go with "Yes", in this situation as described, there very well may be a successful allegation of "Substantial risk".
 
Just dont think we should be able to charge people on what ifs. There was no physical or mental harm or lasting mental harm . If ur saying yes becauseit was at a bar then ill bend a llittle. However if the scenario were changed to our home then there is a issue. At what point does a state have the right to tell me how to raise a protect my kids if the actions taken caused no injury. I felt it was safe im there father, my judgment was proven to be safe as a result of no harm. Why is it if I teach my kids gun safety and others dont, I get lumped into that. Could there be a allegation for substantial risk...sure...can it be proven beyond doubt..yet to be determined...hard burden for sate to prove. In fairness u folks dont hv visual evidence in front of you. We can show through video evidence received in the discovery that we were there for 22 mins. Officer states he observed me walk to truck and I was there aprox three mins. We along with witness statement says we made multiple trips to car. Break it down we stood 18 to twenty feet from truck ,for aprox 9 to 11 mins away from kids. While they slept in 71 degree weather and music on. Yes I am trying to get u to think outside the box, this is personal to me.statistically it seems it would of been more dangerous for my wife and I to be ten ft away from our son while he played in the ocean. Apple s and oranges perhaps . One plus is atleast discovery did not show were pd test fired the weapon, now I feel it would fire but they wont be able to if it does or doesn't. Im courious proserpina how would you prosecute this to a jury of aaverage joes...how would you show the substantial risk of a 4 yr old finding the gun in darkness, getting from the holster and useing it. Beyond doubt?
How do explain the probability of the child exting the car seat climbing to the front seat and then deciding to dive into the dark and find a door pocket, serch it find gun, rather then liok at all the lights and his parents.
 
Last edited:
But you weren't in your home. So what might have happened in that case is not at issue.
 
mwebb said:
Just dont think we should be able to charge people on what ifs. There was no physical or mental harm or lasting mental harm . If ur saying yes becauseit was at a bar then ill bend a llittle. However if the scenario were changed to our home then there is a issue. At what point does a state have the right to tell me how to raise a protect my kids if the actions taken caused no injury. I felt it was safe im there father, my judgment was proven to be safe as a result of no harm. Why is it if I teach my kids gun safety and others dont, I get lumped into that. Could there be a allegation for substantial risk...sure...can it be proven beyond doubt..yet to be determined...hard burden for sate to prove. In fairness u folks dont hv visual evidence in front of you. We can show through video evidence received in the discovery that we were there for 22 mins. Officer states he observed me walk to truck and I was there aprox three mins. We along with witness statement says we made multiple trips to car. Break it down we stood 18 to twenty feet from truck ,for aprox 9 to 11 mins away from kids. While they slept in 71 degree weather and music on. Yes I am trying to get u to think outside the box, this is personal to me.statistically it seems it would of been more dangerous for my wife and I to be ten ft away from our son while he played in the ocean. Apple s and oranges perhaps . One plus is atleast discovery did not show were pd test fired the weapon, now I feel it would fire but they wont be able to if it does or doesn't. Im courious proserpina how would you prosecute this to a jury of aaverage joes...how would you show the substantial risk of a 4 yr old finding the gun in darkness, getting from the holster and useing it. Beyond doubt?
How do explain the probability of the child exting the car seat climbing to the front seat and then deciding to dive into the dark and find a door pocket, serch it find gun, rather then liok at all the lights and his parents.
Click to expand...


You seem to be under the impression that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child was in imminent danger.

This would be incorrect.

You seem to be almost cavalier about this. Perhaps that's even more dangerous?
 
I've been through all stages of feelings, you did not answer my questions. You originally stated there is no definition for substantial risk. So that made me start to look at the physical , mental, and long term mental effects on the victims. This is a forum, so I've been discussing...the state not proving beyond a doubt is new to me. Of all the case law I've read that seems to be a aspect all the cases have in common. I guess im at the pissed stage in my case. By no means am I a person that has ever been on the hug a thug program, but rather a defendant be a thug or your neighborhood banker....any state should have the burden to support the charges they hv placed against a person. And show beyond doubt that the defendant is guilty.
 
Oh, I don't think they'll have any problem showing that the children were put at risk.

The fact that you were incredibly lucky and the children did not come to harm, does not negate the risk factor.
 
Let me put this another way.

If you were estranged from the other parent, and that parent found out about this, you could well be looking at only supervised visitation even if you were originally the primary caregiver.

And no, "beyond reasonable doubt" would not apply in that case.

No matter, really. Talk to your attorney. We're not going to sit and argue your case for you.
 
You honestly, truthfully cannot see how the State can believe you endangered your children?
 
Again yes of course I can see how that can be said. Again I dont feel it was a great idea. The conversation jumped into matters of law. What consideration are to be looked at. If the state can simply say two people were at a bar kids in car,gun in car and give no more detail then that to get a conviction then that as I know is not how the court proceedings work. When presented to a jury I feel there is more that needs to be known is all to decide if the actions were criminal, rather then just dumb...there is a difference
 
Actually, if the State makes the claim that BY leaving the kids in the car, with a gun present, while Mom and Dad were drinking elsewhere neglect and/or threat of harm was present I'd imagine most regular persons on a jury would agree.

Specially if they're parents themselves.

So what's dumb? Running across the street to borrow a cup of sugar while the toddler is in the bath? Split second, right?

Your definition matters not. You can argue until you're green at the gills and blue in the teeth - it won't matter to us one iota.

And yes, that is very often how the courts work.
 
Not arguing , you keep saying parents drank elsewhere. this was outside not in a enclosed structure. Parking was next to patio. Yes leaving kid in bath,then leaving the area is dumb. However we never left area. If the parent in ur scenario stood 18 to 20 feet away drank "a beer" and there was a gun under the bathroom sink , and they watched there child bath , I say that more like our case.
Im also talking about criminal court not child services civil cout as far as proving things.
 
This example you have given leaves the reader to assume the parent left the area, that in and of itself is not the same as the case I have presented. Cbg why when i give a comparison example you say , well didn't happen that way, but if others say a comparison you ok with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top