SF Off the Hook for Murder of Kathryn Steinle

[sf250gto]

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Kathryn-Steinle-s-parents-get-OK-to-sue-feds-10841273.php

Judge finds that San Francisco has no responsibilty for the death of Kathryn Steinle. However, the parents can pursue a negligence lawsuit against the Feds for the gun being stolen from a ranger's car.

 

[bruceflinch]

Thank you Sanctuary City.

 

[Gawernator]

Just break it off into the ocean

 

[Shaggy]

I think the premise of the lawsuit is ridiculous. Some shithead stole a gun and they are going to sue the victim (and employer) of the firearm theft? Storing a gun in a car (locked or unlocked) is fucking stupid and it's now a crime in CA, but suing them for a negligent act that enabled the murder is a big leap.

What's next? My bicycle was stolen from my porch and a drunk got hit by a car while riding it so I get sued for leaving my bicycle unsecured since it enabled stupid drunky to ride it into traffic?

 

[byke]

If you run from law enforcement and the officer is injured while giving chase, there's additional charges for it. If you leave a gun out and your kid uses it in a crime, you may be charged. In the super basic concept, I'm not sure I see it as being much different. Do something dumb and/or illegal and you *may* be on the hook for the result. I don't see it as being a big leap, but I'd expect it to come down to how gross the error was. I don't remember where exactly the dude got the gun, was it out of sight in the trunk? That doesn't sound like a gross error to me, but if it were left in plain sight inside the car? That would sound like a gross error to me.

 

[Gawernator]

They tried to sue manufacturers and retailers over sandy hook or one of those shootings and failed miserably. Same concept but to a retarded extreme. It's like suing Volkswagen because someone drunk drove one of their cars

 

[byke]

Maybe more like suing someone who left their Volkswagen running and unattended in front of a bar and then someone took it and drove drunk...?

 

[Gawernator]

I meant in the selling Ammo online lawsuit. This is different with SF. They knew he was a violent criminal. Almost like they wanted him to go do something

 

[enki]

I meant in the selling Ammo online lawsuit. This is different with SF. They knew he was a violent criminal. Almost like they wanted him to go do something

wasnt he shooting at a seal? thats a an enhancement in sf.

 

[Shaggy]

If you run from law enforcement and the officer is injured while giving chase, there's additional charges for it. If you leave a gun out and your kid uses it in a crime, you may be charged. In the super basic concept, I'm not sure I see it as being much different. Do something dumb and/or illegal and you *may* be on the hook for the result. I don't see it as being a big leap, but I'd expect it to come down to how gross the error was. I don't remember where exactly the dude got the gun, was it out of sight in the trunk? That doesn't sound like a gross error to me, but if it were left in plain sight inside the car? That would sound like a gross error to me.

It's still vastly different.

In your first example, running from LE, the officer is in the performance of their duties as a police officer and the suspect has a legal obligation to submit to the officer's attempt to detain them.

I'm not sure the second example is a crime either. At least I've never heard of it. I'm aware of criminally storing a firearm in a home where a child gets it and hurts him/herself or someone else INSIDE the home. I don't think it applies to thefts from the residence.

If the park ranger left the gun in plain sight inside an unlocked car, I'll be the first person in line to slap that idiot. Otherwise it feels like a litigious overreach.

EDIT: Here are the applicable sections for criminal storage of a firearm:

§ 25100. (a) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm in the first degree" if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under the person's custody or control.
(2) The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian, or that a person prohibited from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon pursuant to state or federal law is likely to gain access to the firearm.
(3) The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes death or great bodily injury to the child or any other person, or the person prohibited from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon pursuant to state or federal law obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or any other person.
(b) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm in the second degree" if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under the person's custody or control.
(2) The person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian, or that a person prohibited from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon pursuant to state or federal law is likely to gain access to the firearm.
(3) The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to the child or any other person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in violation of Section 417, or the person prohibited from possessing a firearm or deadly weapon pursuant to state or federal law obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to himself or herself or any other person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in violation of Section 417.
(c) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm in the third degree" if the person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under the person's custody or control and negligently stores or leaves a loaded firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian, unless reasonable action is taken by the person to secure the firearm against access by the child.

§ 25105. Section 25100 does not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
(a) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry to any premises by any person.
(b) The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure.
(c) The firearm is carried on the person or within close enough proximity thereto that the individual can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person.
(d) The firearm is locked with a locking device, as defined in Section 16860, which has rendered the firearm inoperable.
(e) The person is a peace officer or a member of the Armed Forces or the National Guard and the child obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the person's duties.
(f) The child obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person.
(g) The person who keeps a loaded firearm on premises that are under the person's custody or control has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to be present on the premises.

Note the clause regarding illegal entry in 25105 PC...

 

[enki]

It's still vastly different.

In your first example, running from LE, the officer is in the performance of their duties as a police officer and the suspect has a legal obligation to submit to the officer's attempt to detain them.

I'm not sure the second example is a crime either. At least I've never heard of it. I'm aware of criminally storing a firearm in a home where a child gets it and hurts him/herself or someone else INSIDE the home. I don't think it applies to thefts from the residence.

If the park ranger left the gun in plain sight inside an unlocked car, I'll be the first person in line to slap that idiot. Otherwise it feels like a litigious overreach.

EDIT: Here are the applicable sections for criminal storage of a firearm:





Note the clause regarding illegal entry in 25105 PC...

That code doesnt apply to lae enforcement :teeth

 

[Shaggy]

That code doesnt apply to lae enforcement :teeth

What gives you that idea?

There is an exemption for a firearm obtained while the officer was in the performance of duties. An example of that would be if an officer had his gun taken from him while fighting someone and that person fled with the firearm, or if he/she dropped his gun while chasing someone and was unable to locate it afterward.

Other than that, I don't see any place where LE and citizenry are codified differently.

 

[RRR70]

Of course Sam Framcisco is not liable for the actions of a felon. It's Sam Framcisco. Protecting criminals is a high priority.

 

[byke]

It's still vastly different.

In your first example, running from LE, the officer is in the performance of their duties as a police officer and the suspect has a legal obligation to submit to the officer's attempt to detain them.

I'm not sure the second example is a crime either. At least I've never heard of it. I'm aware of criminally storing a firearm in a home where a child gets it and hurts him/herself or someone else INSIDE the home. I don't think it applies to thefts from the residence.

If the park ranger left the gun in plain sight inside an unlocked car, I'll be the first person in line to slap that idiot. Otherwise it feels like a litigious overreach.

EDIT: Here are the applicable sections for criminal storage of a firearm:

Note the clause regarding illegal entry in 25105 PC...

I'm just talking conceptually, but I realize there are legal differences. Like if I concealed carry versus someone with a permit, we're doing the same thing. The simple concept is doing something dumb which leads to something bad. If the charge includes an ambiguous word like "reasonable", well we all know how much nonsense they've been able to fit under that umbrella.