USA Today has the story
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/02/11/josh-morgan-gun/80223146/
Hate to see anyone get hurt, especially our beloved Hokies. Get well soon Josh. Glad it wasn't a serious injury.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I am not understanding why he is charged with a crime? Was he drunk or showing off, or was this an honest to goodness accident?
It is a crime in that jurisdiction to recklessly handle a firearm.
That it discharged while not intending it to discharge is proof it was recklessly handled.
Apparently, it is a crime there to have an accident that involves a firearm.
That seems so ridiculous. What if the gun malfunctioned?
Your mistake is in thinking that the law is logical.
zblaetz, I have someone with experience on the line who would like to speak with you...
LOL Plax can weigh in on this issue for sure
Seems like the gun was working just fine
What malfunction did it have? Seems like any loaded gun firing when the trigger is pulled is pretty much exactly what it is designed to do. The statistics show that the likelihood of a gun "just going off by itself" is exceedingly rare, and by that I mean most gun accidents usually mean accidentally pulling the trigger.
The reason there is a law concerning it is so hopefully people will take the utmost care and caution when handling a deadly weapon. Hopefully Morgan will be perfectly fine, and fortunate that the results wern't much worse for him or someone else.
I agree with almost everything you said, but I do take exception to some of the last bit. The law should be there to protect OTHERS from your negligence, which is how it is written and enforced in other states. But Virginia has had cases where there was no danger posed to anyone, or the property of anyone, except the individual charged. The purpose of law is not to protect people from themselves, but to ensure that the rights of others aren't infringed upon.
I really have no issue with enforcement in all cases. It can be a factor in reinforcing the proper behavior for responsible gun ownership and use, even if no one else is around.
What happens the next time when someone doesn't know someone else is around and is careless? Full disclosure, my own personal experience with something like this is with a client I have that is paralyzed from the waist down since age 19 because his roommate was improperly handling a firearm in their apartment and did not know he was sleeping in the next room over. Gun went off, hit him in the spine, college baseball career and more or less experience most of life over for him while laying asleep in his bed.
I firmly believe that you have a right to own a firearm, but that does not give you the right to be irresponsible with it, whether accidentally or otherwise. Whether you COULD have hurt someone else in an accident other than yourself is not terribly important.
I think our disagreement simply stems from differing views on the purpose of laws. To me, reinforcing desirable behaviors is not a valid role for law. I will say I disagree with your last point. In instances in which I am the only person affected, I should have damn near limitless liberty. To illustrate, let's say I have a cube made entirely of bulletproof material. Inside, it's only me and my loaded gun. Zero chance of it harming anyone other than me, or damaging property other than mine. If I, whether by choice or by accident, were to shoot myself in the foot, or the head for that matter, I should have the unequivocal right to do so. Now, of course this wasn't the case with Josh Morgan. We don't know where he was, or if anyone else was around. But assuming he was the only one around, there should be no crime.
We can also look at it in just a practical sense. Dude already got shot, and had to pay medical expenses. Seems like enough punishment to drive home the gun safety point without the state stepping in and trying to further the message, at taxpayer expense.
It's against the law if I'm not wearing a seat belt. But maybe they are just trying to prevent my fat 230lb butt from becoming projectile and taking out a crowd of pedestrians.
That would be another law that, in my opinion and based on my understanding of the concept of law, I generally disagree with. There are already laws that would hold you accountable if you injured another person through negligence by not wearing a seatbelt.
Disagree. I'd rather you just follow the law than have to sue you for damages or suffer the consequences of your idea of "liberty". This, however, is based upon my understanding of the reasons for wearing the belt in the first place. Driving is a heavily regulated privilege from start to finish and if wearing your seatbelt can keep you in the car and possibly more likely to be in control of your vehicle in a bad situation, then what's your beef with the law?
I'm not trying to start an argument here, just have never understood the opposition to what seems to me, from what I've read, to be a reasonable "common sense" requirement.
If you need a seat belt to keep you in your seat so you can regain control, you are past that point of no return.
Modern passenger tires on modern cars just won't have control grip on road surfaces to exceed the g forces acting on them, if you are experiencing an event that would throw you out of your seat.
You know how on that rare occaision you may have to stop suddenly and your body "falls" forward against the seat belt?
Yeah, that's modern tires in modern cars stopping your vehicle easily in a situation where the seat belt is the only thing keeping your teeth from being knocked out by your steering wheel, or worse.
I do not experience that. I grip the steering wheel.
Doesn't happen to my on my motorcycle either, so sometimes the passenger slides into me.
I use my hands and arms to steady me in my seat by gripping and using the handlebars or steering wheel, depending on which vehicle I m in.
Found a study from UM identifying average deceleration rates of various vehicles at 60 MPH without using ABS. Comes out to be about .8g. If at any given moment while operating a vehicle we could be assured that a person had sufficient grip on the steering wheel to support 4/5s of their body weight, and that the windshield was reinforced enough that in the event of a collision the person would be contained inside their vehicle, and we knew that the cost of any additional injuries that come about from not wearing a seatbelt wouldn't be pushed back onto the general population, then yes I would be prepared to admit that seatbelt laws are frivolous.
Like I said. On my motorcycle, added on the weight of the passenger also slamming into my back, I have no problems maintaining grip on handlebars and remaining stable on the bike.
Do not forget, you have additional contact points of feet as well. So, even if your entire weight was behind that .8 G. Which I think it is not, assuming a 300lb person, that's 75 lb per limb.
No sweat.
That's not true. Guardrail, for example, is designed to deflect a driver. The lateral g force could easily throw you out of your seat and then be redirected into traffic, where if wearing your seatbelt, you could likely control the vehicle, at least to some degree.
First, I'll point out that I do always wear a seat belt. I believe it's an important safety measure, and that it would be a good idea if everyone wore them. My opposition to the seatbelt law is not due to it's intention or results, but the principal of it. The rightful purpose of law is not to use coercive methods to promote things that are good for you as an individual, but solely to regulate your interaction with society to ensure that you don't violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else. Therefore, even something as "reasonable" and "common sense" as seat belt laws are an overreach by the state.
I'd say regulating my ability to go flying through my windshield and seriously injure or kill someone, or damage their property, while I'm a projectile is a pretty smart regulation to prevent my harmful interaction with society.
But you could already be charged under existing laws for those eventualities. The seat belt law takes it a step further, and makes it an offense even if literally none of those things happen. In fact, let's look at the statute and break some things down:
So it's not even a misdemeanor, merely a a way to collect revenue, it cannot be enforced unless you were stopped for something else, and cannot even be considered a factor in trials for larger offenses.
TLDR: the state of Virginia doesn't care about you flying through the air, they just want an excuse to fine you.
I can only be charged if I'm alive. If I become a projectile, smash through someone else's windshield, I die and kill them or cause serious them bodily harm, what then? If I'm wearing a seat belt, the damage and injury is almost certainly mitigated.
Moreover, driving is a privilege, not a right. The state can do whatever it pleases to regulate an optional activity that I choose to engage in provided that it doesn't actually cross into some guarantee of my rights. There's no infringement on my rights or individual liberties in the case of seatbelt laws. So I really don't understand this "overreach" argument. There are rules for the road. Most of them fall under the same classifications re: tickets and fines. They serve the purpose to enforce behavior that is largely deemed to be otherwise potentially harmful to people or property, public or private. Do the penalties generate revenue for the state? Sure, but that doesn't make the laws themselves invalid or some sort of government overreach.
I just want to reiterate that I'm entirely pro seat belt. Merely anti-coercion. Though in this case, I'll have to concede the argument to you guitarman. The privilege vs right point is basically the end of it. Well done.
Good discussion. I enjoyed the debate.
It's also able to mitigate potential liability in an accident. You hurting someone else as a projectile isn't the only thing that can happen with negative consequences to others.
If I hit you because I am inexperienced driving in bad weather it is my fault and I am liable for damages. If you are not wearing a seat belt and fly through the window , die, or seriously injure yourself then that is something extra I am liable for that could be avoided if you were wearing it in the first place. Yes, I killed or disabled you, but you would have been less likely to have that problem if the seat belt kept you in place. This keeps you alive and me from having to deal with criminal courts and possibly a hefty civil settlement due to death or serious injury.
It would be terrible to have killed someone in an accident when if they were wearing their seat belt it would have just totaled the car and caused a non serious injury.
Well, that standard could apply to all kinds of laws. Unless I'm driving like a maniac, crash or injure somebody, I should be able to drink beer while driving. I can handle it and if I screw up, well, that's what jails, traffic cops, lawsuits and insurance companies are for. Same would go for speeding and vehicle inspections and on and on. I realize that this is a larger issue than just driving and handling a gun, but my feeling is that since it is the state's responsibility to regulate the privilege of driving, then it is the state's prerogative to set the rules they deem necessary to promote safety for all of us involved. Would our insurance rates rise if more folks got messed up in accidents because of their failure to wear seat belts? If so, that alone would prove injurious to me. Yeah, I'm being a bit facetious, it's crappy out and I'm a little bored, and there are a ton of crimes that I would call "victimless" crimes that I would possibly be more likely to rail against, but seat belts? Nah.
Impaired diving has a higher chance of causing an auto accident.
I do not think you mean to say that driving without a seatbelt will increase the incidence of accidents?
There were some studies performed about 10 years ago where it appeared as if wearing seat belts had people felling more secure and the incidents of accidents actually rose because of it. Fatalities did not increase and dropped as a percentage of incidents because they are effective in reducing fatalities in those that wear them.
An overall larger threat thN not wearing seatbelt a is distracted driving such as holding a cell phone and talking, texting while driving, fiddling with internal controls on the vehicle such as temperature or entertainment systems.
Edit: found an article that discusses this.
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html
Driving without a seatbelt increases your chance of becoming a projectile and injuring pedestrians
That's a strong reach
The threat of a projectile driver is really tough to see.
Meanwhile the state is not required to put seat belts on school buses in order to save the State money.
If the lives of school children are not important or at risk, then the threat of projectile drivers is a non-starter.
Reference my response to guitarman above. To further address points you bring up, I'd actually agree with your point on open container laws while driving (even if you were being facetious). I see that I'm in the distinct minority here, taking a very hard line on the rightness of certain government regulations. I'm entirely okay with this, and I gotta say, I really appreciate the discourse. I fucking love thekeyplay and all you guys for that very reason.
As a former (short lived, four semesters) Highty Tighty myself, I definitely didn't want to start an argument with one so named, and you obliged with considered discourse and handled my facetiousness with aplumb. I did, indeed, read all of the comments you all made and agree that it was an interesting conversation. The argument about certain gov't regulations could rage until we're playing football again, I have a bunch I think are really stupid, but this one has run its course, thanks to all who responded.
"What malfunction did it have? Seems like any loaded gun firing when the trigger is pulled is pretty much exactly what it is designed to do. The statistics show that the likelihood of a gun "just going off by itself" is exceedingly rare, and by that I mean most gun accidents usually mean accidentally pulling the trigger."
While you're correct for most modern firearms, it isn't the case for some older and/or poorly designed guns, notably the Type 94 Nambu used by parts of the Japanese military in WW2:
I'm not defending the law or the charge against JM in any way (a crime needs to have a victim, in my opinion, and it's stupid to punish a man criminally for hurting himself), but cleaning a gun with a round in the chamber does sound pretty dumb, perhaps even reckless, to me. Unless the malfunction happened while trying to remove the round, I don't think that defense will fly.
To add.
While talking with a firearms expert about how someone could accidentally fire a pistol while cleaning it he stated, that it most commonly occurs while the owner is clearing it.
For instance, while pulling back the bolt to clear the breach, the hammer or bolt is not completely retracted, allowing the hammer to fall home because it is not retained due to a partial rack or:
the individual does not fully pay attention and the magazine is not ejected prior to racking. A round is ejected from the breech but the first round from the mag is loaded into the pistol and the trigger is pulled to release tension on the spring so disassembly can begin.
Or, a single round is left in position in a revolver when it is unloaded.
Which is why we are trained to always examine with your eye that the breach is empty while the magazine is in view on the table.
Sorry. I just felt like talking for a bit.
Step 1: Remove magazine.
Step 2: Remove bullet left behind in the chamber.
Step 3: Confirm steps 1 & 2.
I get ticked off every time I hear a story like this. Being a person who's carried a gun for a living the past 17 years I know this to be fact: It is absolutely impossible for a negligent discharge to occur if these SIMPLE rules are followed in order. 1. Always assume every firearm is loaded. 2. Always point the muzzle in a safe direction when picking up a firearm (and keep your damn finger out of the trigger well). 3. REMOVE THE SOURCE OF AMMUNITION. 4. OPEN THE ACTION COMPLETELY and observe the chamber/bolt to ensure that it is clear. If you don't want to take the time to learn how to safely and effectively operate a firearm, don't own one! Rights come with responsibilities. I know this will come off as preachy but I am very passionate about this subject.
Some discussion on the thread where this topic already came up.
Morgan was charged under 18.2-56.1 of the VA code. Essentially, if you endanger the life, limb, or property of any person (which includes you), then you are guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. In my opinion, a negligent discharge constitutes prima facie evidence of guilt.
In any event, Morgan either never learned or failed to follow the four cardinal rules of gun safety:
1. Always treat every gun as if it were loaded.
2. Never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot.
3. Always know your target and what's behind it.
4. Keep your finger off the trigger until you have made the decision to fire.
Luckily he wasn't seriously injured and no one else was hurt.
While theoretically possible, it is EXTREMELY unlikely with modern firearms that haven't been abused or modified. And even if that's what happened here, he's still guilty of not handling the gun in a safe manner, i.e., not treating it as if it were loaded, and not pointing at something he didn't intend to shoot.
Perhaps, but as you know that's not what the law says. It also doesn't matter in this case. Morgan has neighbors well within the range of most firearms. Since he obviously wasn't in control of the weapon when it fired, anyone within a mile or so was in (theoretical) danger.
At the end of the day it comes down to this: there is never -- repeat NEVER -- an excuse for a negligent discharge. If, as he claimed, he was cleaning the gun when this happened, then he's guilty. Now, in light of the circumstances I hope the court goes easy on him. He's probably beating himself up worse than the judge will, and he's certainly never going to hear the end of it from his buddies.
That is a monumental stretch of the known facts, and under your logic, firing a weapon at a gun range would be illegal, since ricochets happen, putting everyone around at (theoretical) danger.
Not how I see it. As long as you're in an environment that can reasonably be expected to be safe (i.e., appropriate caliber given the range design, aiming in the general vicinity of the target, and otherwise not being a dumbass), then an unexpected ricochet wouldn't be considered to be the result of a "reckless" act.
On the other hand, shooting yourself while cleaning a firearm is by definition a reckless act. He could easily have missed himself by an inch and sent the round toward a neighbor's house. It's not like he was in control of where it was going...
Anyway since I'm not an expert on this, here's a quote from someone who is. This is in relation to an incident in Manassas City a couple years ago where a woman discharged a firearm while attempting to clear it before taking it in to Virginia Arms. Her lawyer (Dan Hawes) said:
Emphasis mine. As you can see, the key question is whether the CA will consider not pointing the gun in a safe direction and failing to clear it properly to meet the legal definition of "reckless".
ETA: Luckily for the woman involved, the prosecutor offered that if she took an additional NRA pistol safety class that the case would not be prosecuted, and it was eventually dismissed. Hopefully Loudoun County's CA office is equally reasonable to work with and Morgan gets similar treatment.
RULE ONE: ALWAYS be sure that the barrel and action are clear of obstructions.
(Not sure all the details but this always seems to be the case)
The REAL NUMBER ONE RULE of firearms is this:
TREAT EVERY GUN AS IF IT IS LOADED, EVEN IF YOU CAN VISIBLY SEE THAT IT ISN'T!!!
Sorry for shouting, but that really is the Number 1 rule of guns and firearms, and you can't go wrong with assuming every single gun is loaded. It creates better habits even if you "know" the gun isn't loaded.
He pulled a Plaxico
Wasn't Plaxico at a club and it was illegal to have a gun at all in New York? DUMBASS
It really bothers me when people compare this situation to Plaxico's. They are in no way similar and when a headline by a news agency is done that says they are its to draw clicks.
NSFW language:
This looks fake.
Careless handling is virtually always the reason firearms are unintentionally discharged. Having been around a few instances, it was lucky the persons handling the firearms was practicing the most important rule of handling firearms, and that was being careful where the barrel was pointing.
Cleaning it and it went off? I've used the same excuse with my wife before.
I wonder if the charges would be the same if he had a different story? "So yeah officer....the thing is my buddy bet me 10 bucks that wouldn't shoot myself. Guess who's laughing now."
'Shot himself accidentally cleaning his gun' is exactly why this former resident of 420 Slusher Hall and Center St apartments is listed here:
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/washingtonpost/obituary.aspx?n=phil-com...
Josh would do well to be more careful. It's literally a life or death situation
Not to nitpick or anything but is there a chance we could alter the title to "Josh Morgan Accidentally Injures Self with Firearm"? Sounds better.
Dude shot himself. It's accurate. No need to sugarcoat it.
I prefer "Josh Morgan's Firearm shoots him"
"How's that for gratitude? Josh Morgan's bullet and gun conspire to grievously injure their owner"
Something Soviet Russia something.
Who owns guns? It is a DA move. Hey let me clean a loaded gun. I'm not so sure you can do that properly. Because the F'ing bullet is in the chamber!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dumbass.