Man kills wife while trying to install Satelite TV

hero101

hero101

CAGiversary!
Feedback
207 (100%)
What are chances of this happening? I guess he was pro-guns or something.

http://www.kctv5.com/news/15698864/detail.html

DEEPWATER, Mo. -- Officials are trying to decide whether to file charges against a Missouri man who fatally shot his wife while trying to install a satellite TV system in the bedroom of their home.

Patsy Long, 34, of Deepwater, died after being shot in the chest with a .22-caliber handgun on Saturday. Her husband, Ronald Long, fired the shot from the inside of their home after several unsuccessful efforts to punch a hole through the exterior wall using other means.

Henry County sheriff's deputies said the woman was hit by the second of two shots fired by her husband.

Long was given CPR by neighbors and family until medics arrived, police said. She was transported by air ambulance, but was pronounced dead at the hospital just after 6 p.m.

"He was under the impression that everybody was inside the residence, that he knew where everybody was at,” said sheriff's department spokesman Maj. Robert Hills.

Hills said a person involved in such a case normally would be charged with manslaughter, but that would be up to the prosecutor.

"Once we complete a diagram of the incident, we will be submitting everything to the prosecuting attorney and let him decide if he wants to press criminal charges," Hills said.

Henry County Coroner Scott Largent declined to release details about Patsy Long's death until the sheriff's department completes its investigation.

On Tuesday morning, Henry County Prosecuting Attorney Richard M. Shields said he has yet to receive the case from the sheriff's department.

Neighbor Mark Lassince said he believed it was a tragic accident.

"Bad things happen to good people,” Lassince said.

Patsy and Ronald Long were raising their two children in their rural home overlooking Truman Lake.

"I was in the shower, and the son came in and told me his mom had been shot, so we went up there to see if we could help,” Lassince said.

Patsy Long worked as a carhop at a Sonic restaurant in Warsaw, Mo.

“She was a good person, you know, took care of her family,” Lassince said.
Copyright 2008 by KCTV5.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 
Preventable accident? Yes. Gross negligence and misuse of a firearm? Yes. Should he face charges? Yes. But the degree of charge depends. Involuntary/Recklessness seems to fit in this case, but it also depends on if using the gun in that fashion was illegal. If so, it could compound into a greater charge.

Either way, this goes to show that guns don't kill people, idiots do.
 
[quote name='UnderwaterMadman']The kids just lost their mom don't take their dad away too, no matter how much of a dumbass he is. Why the hell didn't he use a drill?

Stupid rednecks...[/quote]

With a dad of that caliber, they'd be better off with relatives.
 
[quote name='UnderwaterMadman']The kids just lost their mom don't take their dad away too, no matter how much of a dumbass he is. Why the hell didn't he use a drill?

Stupid rednecks...[/quote]

All the more reason to take the dad away.
 
Everyone tends to make stupid decisions when they are frustrated. I just don't have guns so I don't have to shoot anything when I can't solve a problem.
 
What is wrong with people... you just don't do stupid things like shooting holes through walls when there are other people in the house.

I don't really know what kind of sentence this guy should get. I guess just don't let it go unpunished.
 
[quote name='sp00ge']Either way, this goes to show that guns don't kill people, idiots do.[/QUOTE]

Explain this one to me. I see similar kinds of arguments brought up whenever guns are used to kill someone, but it always reeks of preventative paranoia: "no, no, the gun had nothing to do with it; the person was stupid, that's why someone died."

The way I see the equations is this:
idiot+gun=dead wife
idiot=(maybe) satellite TV
 
[quote name='sp00ge']Preventable accident? Yes. Gross negligence and misuse of a firearm? Yes. Should he face charges? Yes. But the degree of charge depends. Involuntary/Recklessness seems to fit in this case, but it also depends on if using the gun in that fashion was illegal. If so, it could compound into a greater charge.

Either way, this goes to show that guns don't kill people, idiots do.[/quote]

Well said.

And if his wife is 34, how old is he? 112? Houses are built shockingly easy to knock down, you get a hammer and smack the wall will have a hole.

I think he should be charged with manslaughter just because he's so fucking stupid, and he did kill someone.
 
hes either the worlds dumbest satellite installer or thats the worlds dumbest lie to cover up a murder........i really want to believe it was murdr because the idea of someone being that stupid to shoot into his house to make a hole while people were in the house is beyond belief. would it be that hard to get a longer drilling tool or if you have to use a gun tell everyone to go outside?????
 
This is like that Simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun and uses it for everything.

Only, this is really sad and dumbfounding.
 
[quote name='shieryda']He should have used a rail gun.[/quote]Shock Rifle combo is more effective.
072dj9.gif
 
Either way this is terribly sad. I cannot imagine losing my wife, and if it were by my own hands I might as well be dead myself. Seriously.
 
[quote name='sp00ge']With a dad of that caliber, they'd be better off with relatives.[/quote]
A dad of that.....caliber?

I'm going to hell.....:lol::lol::lol:
 
[quote name='jaso']All the more reason to take the dad away.[/QUOTE]

you think he will shoot the kids on accident?

It is better to be left with an incompetent father than going into the system. IF they had an aunt, uncle or grandparent that could raise the kids, then sure, throw the father in jail for a couple of years.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']A dad of that.....caliber?

I'm going to hell.....:lol::lol::lol:[/QUOTE]


I guess I will be there with you, that is what I thought of as soon as I read it!
 
Well clearly the wife was shot. If the kids were young then they would probably be too short for the bullet to hit them though the wall. So the man was probably standing up while shooting the gun. It is hard to image him crouching and shoot of course. Seems too much like counterstrike if so.

[quote name='dracula']you think he will shoot the kids on accident?

It is better to be left with an incompetent father than going into the system. IF they had an aunt, uncle or grandparent that could raise the kids, then sure, throw the father in jail for a couple of years.[/quote]
 
lol owned i thought from the title he was on roof or something and he fucked up the satellite dish and it fell on her head or something

he was using wall haxx
 
This reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons when Homer bought a gun and used it as an all purpose tool around the house.

This is tragic, but really stupid.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Explain this one to me. I see similar kinds of arguments brought up whenever guns are used to kill someone, but it always reeks of preventative paranoia: "no, no, the gun had nothing to do with it; the person was stupid, that's why someone died."

The way I see the equations is this:
idiot+gun=dead wife
idiot=(maybe) satellite TV[/quote]

Because even idiot Americans are still Americans, and Americans have the Second Amendment right to bear arms in their own home. He would need a permit to carry it anywhere else, but he did have a right to own one, just like anyone else with a clean record.

But you're right, the "gun isn't at fault" argument is pretty weak, but until we institute a nationalized "Idiot or Not" test in regards to owning a gun, driver's license, etc., nothing is going to change.

But even then, you won't see any legislation like that because it would be "oppressing the stupid", and prejudice against about 30-50% of Americans, if not higher.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='lokizz']hes either the worlds dumbest satellite installer or thats the worlds dumbest lie to cover up a murder........i really want to believe it was murdr because the idea of someone being that stupid to shoot into his house to make a hole while people were in the house is beyond belief. would it be that hard to get a longer drilling tool or if you have to use a gun tell everyone to go outside?????[/quote]

I believe according to the story that he actually shot from inside the house to make an exit through the wall to the outside, thinking that everyone in his family was inside the house. Though that is just about as moronic, unless he lives on a giant ranch with nothing but wilderness around for a mile (or more).

Either way, this guy was an absolute moron of the highest caliber (nice one Spooge, that's also what I thought of when I read your pun, intended or not).

Note they said it was the second shot that hit and eventually killed her. I wonder if the wife went outside after the first shot to see what was going on, maybe found the hole, and looked inside when hubby shot round #2.

[quote name='daphatty']No gun in the house, no murder, no tragedy.[/quote]

No moron in the house, no murder, no tragedy. I don't think we should vilify all guns and all gun owners since the vast majority in the US are responsible and take gun safety very seriously. I don't think we should get into another gun control debate due to this story...the guy was obviously an idiot lacking of common sense. Blaming guns is just a scapegoat for the real person responsible.
 
If he would have used mace this never would have happened.

It also pisses me off whenever there is a death caused by a gun and someone tries to say "Guns don't kill people."

Technically bullets ripping through flesh kill people. Or is it gunpowder that kills people. Or possibly rapidly moving small lead objects that kill people. Anything but guns, no not the guns, the guns don't kill people. Hell actually maybe it's blood loss that kills people, or physical trauma to the head that kills people?

A guy gets shot in the head and dies. Guns don't kill people, holes through the brain kill people.

fuckin morons.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']If he would have used mace this never would have happened.

It also pisses me off whenever there is a death caused by a gun and someone tries to say "Guns don't kill people."

Technically bullets ripping through flesh kill people. Or is it gunpowder that kills people. Or possibly rapidly moving small lead objects that kill people. Anything but guns, no not the guns, the guns don't kill people. Hell actually maybe it's blood loss that kills people, or physical trauma to the head that kills people?

A guy gets shot in the head and dies. Guns don't kill people, holes through the brain kill people.

fuckin morons.[/quote]

You trace back from the tragedy to the conscious decision that lead to it.

Bullet ripping through flesh -> Ricochets off wall (No decision-making)
Ricochets off wall -> Bullet fired from gun (No decision making)
Bullet fired from gun -> Aimed at target (Decision made by "gunman")
Aimed at target -> Bullet loaded into gun (Decision made by "gunman")
Bullet loaded into gun -> Gun picked up by "gunman" (Decision made by "gunman")

Victim laying down in bed (Decision made by "victim")

Now ask yourselves, knowing that the decisions were made by the gunman and the victim, not the gun itself: Who had a reason/right to be doing what they were doing?

Gunman:
Picking up the gun (Had a Reason & Right)
Loading the gun (Had a Reason & Right)
Aimed at target (Had a Reason & Right)
Discharges Gun (Had a Reason, but no Right)

Victim:
Laying down in bed (Had a Reason & Right)
Being shot (Had no Choice)

Automobiles kill about as many people as guns do, yet it's always the people or alcohol at fault when those deaths take place, never the car (damn machines). Inanimate objects cannot have motives, much less move on their own, that's pretty much the bottom line, so thus they cannot commit an act and be charged for it.

Even the "Human Destruction Machine wielding a machine gun and an AI capable of learning how to kill more efficiently" still has to be BUILT by someone.

Guns, Cars, Machines, they're all TOOLS to be used by HUMANS to make life EASIER for themselves. Despite this reasoning, there will always be those who use them inappropriately, regardless of what the law regarding its use/ownership is.

The bottom line is, no matter what the case is, be it car, gun, parenting, your taxes, etc. You ownership and operation of such lays the responsibility solely with you, and no one else. If you do not accept the responsibility, don't own one, and live life without it.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']You trace back from the tragedy to the conscious decision that lead to it.

Bullet ripping through flesh -> Ricochets off wall (No decision-making)
Ricochets off wall -> Bullet fired from gun (No decision making)
Bullet fired from gun -> Aimed at target (Decision made by "gunman")
Aimed at target -> Bullet loaded into gun (Decision made by "gunman")
Bullet loaded into gun -> Gun picked up by "gunman" (Decision made by "gunman")

Victim laying down in bed (Decision made by "victim")

Now ask yourselves, knowing that the decisions were made by the gunman and the victim, not the gun itself: Who had a reason/right to be doing what they were doing?

Gunman:
Picking up the gun (Had a Reason & Right)
Loading the gun (Had a Reason & Right)
Aimed at target (Had a Reason & Right)
Discharges Gun (Had a Reason, but no Right)

Victim:
Laying down in bed (Had a Reason & Right)
Being shot (Had no Choice)

Automobiles kill about as many people as guns do, yet it's always the people or alcohol at fault when those deaths take place, never the car (damn machines). Inanimate objects cannot have motives, much less move on their own, that's pretty much the bottom line, so thus they cannot commit an act and be charged for it.

Even the "Human Destruction Machine wielding a machine gun and an AI capable of learning how to kill more efficiently" still has to be BUILT by someone.

Guns, Cars, Machines, they're all TOOLS to be used by HUMANS to make life EASIER for themselves. Despite this reasoning, there will always be those who use them inappropriately, regardless of what the law regarding its use/ownership is.

The bottom line is, no matter what the case is, be it car, gun, parenting, your taxes, etc. You ownership and operation of such lays the responsibility solely with you, and no one else. If you do not accept the responsibility, don't own one, and live life without it.

~HotShotX[/quote]

That all makes sense, though you skipped a couple hundred steps (depending on how much you want to split it up) but in this situation, no gun = no death. So yeah, the gun, bullet, gun powder, firing pin, whatever you want to call it, killed her. If the guy had used a drill, no kill.

Gun = dead wife
drill = no dead wife

Get it?

Are you implying that my position is that guns, on thier own, (an inanimate object) could kill somebody, and should therefore be charged for it? I don't think you are but you seem to be confused about what I was saying.

Automobiles, like almost every other "tool" besides guns, have a useful purpose outside that of KILLING PEOPLE. And your statement about how tools are invented to make life easier doesn't really apply to guns; it's more appropriate to say that this "tool" makes death easier. To counter-argue w/ myself, there is a point to be made that guns make life easier for those using it, perhaps to hunt for food or somethign. But surely this doesnt apply to handguns, machineguns or rocketlaunchers.

Again, without the gun we wouldn't be having this conversation, though I do agree that without a really really stupid husband, we wouldn't be having this conversation either. But to equate cars to guns, c'mon.
 
[quote name='sp00ge']Either way, this goes to show that guns don't kill people, idiots do.[/quote]

More reason we should keep them away from them. Its easier to take things away from retards than to educate them.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Automobiles, like almost every other "tool" besides guns, have a useful purpose outside that of KILLING PEOPLE.[/quote]

So in your world do the police and homeowners use guns exclusively to kill people?

You seem to have no idea of how escalation of force works.
 
[quote name='camoor']So in your world do the police and homeowners use guns exclusively to kill people?

You seem to have no idea of how escalation of force works.[/quote]


Did you not read what I said about hunting animals, or did you just not understand it?

If you're talking strictly about the use of them outside of hunting, then the answer (pretty easy question actually) is an unequivocal "Yes! or at the very least to threaten to kill people." Well, it would be my answer until I heard about this dipshit in the OP using it as a fucking sledge hammer; but that is the first time. Other than that, yep it's always to kill or threaten to kill. Now of course I'm staying within the context of considering its "purpose" b/c that was my original statement. Unfortuantely I live in a world where kids like to play with guns, and dipshits like to do construction with them. But this is not their purpose so my statement stands.

Tazers, mace, less-than lethal weapons, are all used to control people but guns? Yep. they're used to kill or to threaten to kill people.

Maybe you watch too many movies or saw Speed too many times and think that police are trained to shoot people in the leg or the shoulder just to incapacitate them? Or is it common in your area for people, like the guy who killed his wife, to use guns for reasons OTHER than killing or threatening to kill?

For context, my "world" is a burb of Pittsburgh, where cops and homeowners don't use guns as something you'd keep in a tool shed.

Also, you may be surprised to know that in law school I took part on a student-run mock Police Review Board. We were given a hypothetical set of facts (short version: cops shot a fleeing/possibly armed suspect, but it was obviously much more complicated than that), and had to use the actual rules and esc. of force policies of the city to argue both sides. It was chaired by a law professor who actually was on one, and the City of Pgh chief of police was in attendance. We studied the ROE and escalation of force policies of Pgh city police in depth, in case you think I don't know what it is. Maybe I missed or forgot something and you can enlighten me and tell me something I don't know about how escalation of force works Camoor?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Explain this one to me. I see similar kinds of arguments brought up whenever guns are used to kill someone, but it always reeks of preventative paranoia: "no, no, the gun had nothing to do with it; the person was stupid, that's why someone died."

The way I see the equations is this:
idiot+gun=dead wife
idiot=(maybe) satellite TV[/quote]Accidents happen. I suppose if he shot her with a nail gun instead, then THOSE should be outlawed.
 
[quote name='sp00ge']With a dad of that caliber, they'd be better off with relatives.[/quote] Correction, With a dad of that "22" caliber..................
 
Yesterday I read about a dad killing there child over a xbox. Today I read about a man killing there wife over a satelite tv. What is on tabs for tomorrow. Someone killing someone over a computer. People are really messed up these days, and need to chill out.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

Tazers, mace, less-than lethal weapons, are all used to control people but guns? Yep. they're used to kill or to threaten to kill people.

Maybe you watch too many movies or saw Speed too many times and think that police are trained to shoot people in the leg or the shoulder just to incapacitate them? Or is it common in your area for people, like the guy who killed his wife, to use guns for reasons OTHER than killing or threatening to kill?
[/QUOTE]

With the escalation and deescalation of force, police officers are taught to draw their firearms to control a suspect. It's less a threat to kill (even if it appears so) that it is a control method taught by police departments and police academies. Only more recently have "less-than lethal weapons" become commonplace. The problem with most of those weapons is it's too easy for the suspect to close the gap at the distance they are used and an officer can not always draw his firearms quick enough. The firearm can be used to control the suspect and if it escalates, well, they already have have the firearm drawn. And maybe you perceive if that if they draw their firearm that they are intent on shooting someone, but that's fine for the public to believe. If the general public knew they usually draw their firearms to control the suspect and have no intention of shooting, well, it wouldn't be very effective, would it?
 
[quote name='jman619']Yesterday I read about a dad killing there child over a xbox. Today I read about a man killing there wife over a satelite tv. What is on tabs for tomorrow. Someone killing someone over a computer. People are really messed up these days, and need to chill out.[/quote]

You can't even compare this one to the guy who killed his kid over the broken Xbox. This one was an "accident," the Xbox incident was a fit of rage and blatant murder. I hope he gets frickin' murdered during his 20+ year stay in the pen.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']
...
Tazers, mace, less-than lethal weapons, are all used to control people but guns? Yep. they're used to kill or to threaten to kill people.
...
Also, you may be surprised to know that in law school I took part on a student-run mock Police Review Board. We were given a hypothetical set of facts (short version: cops shot a fleeing/possibly armed suspect, but it was obviously much more complicated than that), and had to use the actual rules and esc. of force policies of the city to argue both sides. It was chaired by a law professor who actually was on one, and the City of Pgh chief of police was in attendance. We studied the ROE and escalation of force policies of Pgh city police in depth, in case you think I don't know what it is. Maybe I missed or forgot something and you can enlighten me and tell me something I don't know about how escalation of force works Camoor?[/quote]

Wow, you sat in a class on the subject and even had a HW assignment! :whee:

Valor19 phrased it perfectly.
 
Wow is all i can say.

I dont think he will get anything since it was an accident..but is 150+ channels worth the death of your wife?

And dont most satilite TV companies offer free installation?
 
[quote name='sp00ge']With a dad of that caliber, they'd be better off with relatives.[/QUOTE]

seriously, what if one of the kids wants a piercing? :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top