chuckx

Don't show off your gun to the kid next door.

Could you point out where it says the guy was showing off the gun to the kid? Or as others are saying. Let the kid play with the gun? It was mostly a case of an unsecured weapon in the home. Like you read about almost everyday. The kid found it. And when the man walked in and saw the kid with the gun. He tried to get the gun and it went off. Or the kid just pulled the trigger.

flnobody

The kid found it. And when the man walked in and saw the kid with the gun. He tried to get the gun and it went off. Or the kid just pulled the trigger.

And could you point out where the kid found the gun. Or where Mr. Delucia tried to take it from him? I didn't see it in this story or the linked story.

Let's let the police sort out the details before the speculation begins.

speculations are so much more fun.

What ever happened to getting the whole story, before printing it.

Your missing the point hear the "much beloved trash collector" ,seven year old inside house can you say pedophile.

If any charges are to be filed they will be against the beloved victim, Delucia, the owner of the apparently unsecured and loaded gun!

tvstatic1, go back to school or were the teachers all pedophiles too? This man has been shot, most likely through his own carelessness and there's people calling him a child molester without cause. This story mentions very little detail as others have pointed out. It didn't say if they were the only ones present, they didn't say how the kid found and shot the gun. Until you can write basic, first grade english you need to leave the thinking to people who used their time wisely while in school.

Guns don't shoot/kill people, 7 y/o's do. This message brought to you by Arms Manufacturers and their puppet, the NRA.

What rubbish! sandrich the panderer must be bored! Still using the weak liberal argument against gun ownership. He also believes that food doesn't cause obesity... it's the spoon that is to blame!

The owner of the gun in this is to be blamed. Owning guns requires responsibility, DeLucia may be 'beloved by the community', but is still irresponsible!

I'm glad that the kid didn't shoot himself or some Innocent person. Screw the trash-man he let his gun fall into the hands of a 7 year old so he got what he deserved. I hope the child will be OK.

kevin

And could you point out where the kid found the gun. Or where Mr. Delucia tried to take it from him? I didn't see it in this story or the linked story.

Let's let the police sort out the details before the speculation begins.

Typical rightwing nut. Leave out the 1st part of the comment to make a point.

Could you point out where it says the guy was showing off the gun to the kid? Or as others are saying. Let the kid play with the gun? It was mostly a case of an unsecured weapon in the home.

Looks like some parents are going to be doing some time for not locking up and putting away their weapons.

RIP to the man killed, and the poor kid probably will be ruined for life knowing he killed someone and didn't mean to.

It does not say the man was killed, he is in the hospital. He is listed in stable condition. I would like to know what the 7 year old was doing in this mans house, and how would he have gotten the gun. Need more Info!

Much more information needed. Not Time to judge.

It was mostly a case of an unsecured weapon in the home.

Any weapon is an unsecured weapon. There is no such thing as perfect security. So long as we stay a gun-happy society, accidents like this are going to continue to happen.

I happen to believe that hand guns are a scourge. We should try to reduce the number of hand guns in our society. By golly, I guess this is just one more reason to do that.

what is a 7 year old doing in that guys house, sounds wierd, if the gun is legally regist.to the man that means he let the gun get into the wrong hands , thank god the boy isnt hurt , it sucks to be shot by your own gun, kids used to be lured in with puppies and want a piece of candy lil boy . now its hey kid wanna see my gun geeze , know where and who your kids are with

What the hell does the NRA have to do with this? NRA bashing is becoming just as over done as the old "your a racist" routine!

Agree.

They're starting them early up there..

It was mostly a case of an unsecured weapon in the home.

Surely you mean "It was most probably a case...". Remember, your fellow forum members can only respond to what you actually wrote, and not what you wished but failed to express. Further, what followed was no less speculative than the comment that preceded yours, the very one you so (hypocritically)admonished.

Signed,

Most certainly not a "right-wing nut"

HighwayStar-what the hell are you talking about? Next thing you know, you are going to make another stupid comparison like comparing guns to cars. Damn Cons.

Ah yes - the two usual liberal suspects sandtrich and bluelake, gun-haters extraordinaire and typical liberal NRA-bashing drama queens, speak their emotion-driven minds on guns. You will note that these gun control fascists (along with their fellow childish liberal brethren) will say NOTHING about the FAILURE of gun control regulations in Obamaland Chicago and Washington DC. Because after all, the success of regulating DRUGS has been such a huge success in this nation that liberals just want to LEGALIZE them like pot. Liberals: emotion-driven minds of children in adult bodies.

Right with you Jhawke. A armed person is a citizen, an unarmed person is a peasant!

There are several misguided people in here who seem to think guns are bad, all gun owners are wackos waiting for their chance to gun someone down and that zero gun tolerance is the answer. Well, Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the United States, although they actually loosened them up (or actually, a citizen through the court system [McDonald v. Chicago] did) about 2 years ago.

Now, for a city with super strict gun laws, how did this just occur?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57500026-504083/19-people-wounded-in-chicago-shooting-attacks-overnight-including-13-within-30-minutes-police-say/

We do not need "gun control" if we actually enforce the gun laws that are in effect now. Look, it's not really hard to figure out. If someone uses a gun, or actually, any weapon in the commission of a crime, whether it is a rock, a knife, a rattle snake or a machine gun, they must do 10 years beyond what the penalty for the crime is.

How about we make a person sentenced to 10 years serve 10 years? As it stands now most inmates only have to serve between 50% and 85% of their sentence to get out.

Make the death penalty a deterrent; bring back hanging, gas chamber and execution. Make it open to the public, not "in your face" open and not as a form of entertainment, like "Saturday Night Hangings", but visible enough that people know the consequences of criminal actions. The current procedure of lethal injection is too antiseptic and to secretive. What use is it? Death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent, not vengeance. "Cruel and inhuman" I heard? What about the victims? How many of them were treated humanely? They are dead, for goodness sake; taking an innocent life is cruel and inhuman.

Finally, gun owners, use common sense. I have owned guns while raising five children. I have kept my guns loaded and available throughout my home. I have taught my children from the time they were able to comprehend, the importance of never touching my gun. I have been adamant and very strict about that. I have never had a problem, a mistake or a disobedience from my children. My youngest is 9 and my children know the only time they can touch any of my weapons is if I request one of them bring one to me or if I place it in their hands to use under supervision. It is also imperative that you know your children; teach them to be logical to be logical. If you cannot teach your children to be logical then either lock your guns up or get rid of them. With rights come responsibilities.

http://www.fredforcongress.webs.com

richardharrow

HighwayStar-what the hell are you talking about? Next thing you know, you are going to make another stupid comparison like comparing guns to cars. Damn Cons.

Since YOU mentioned it.... Using data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, in the 2012 Statistical Abstract for the year 2007 (and 2008, where data for 2007 is not available):

• Table 1106. Motor Vehicle Occupants and Nonoccupants Killed and Injured (I am listing only deaths, not injuries): 41,259
• Table 310. Murder Victims—Circumstances and Weapons Used or
  Cause of Death; Total Firearms (including firearms, type not stated): 11,315
• Table 127. Suicide Deaths and Death Rates by Age and Method: 2007; Firearms: 17,352

Total deaths by firearm (murder and suicide), 28,667. Deaths by motor vehicle, 41,259. Hey, look at that, the combined number of deaths from firearms is still less than all motor vehicle deaths. Cars are more dangerous than guns after all.
Oh, and I'm a "liberal", so don't even try to label me as a Right-wing CONservative anything.

boltonbill

The Island of Maui fire department stated two years ago, that 30% of the annual home fires on the entire island,occur on Fireworks night...New Years Eve.

So how about the other 70% of house fires throughout the rest of the year, is anyone trying to ban the items that "just happen" to be the primary causes of THOSE fires? Oh, right, those fires are most likely "accidental" and just simply beyond the control of even God...

The 7 year old kid may have lunged at the trash man with a butter knife,if obtaining use of a hand gun was tough in America.

Did you know that in the UK (Britain, aka England) there is a push to have ALL knives with a sharp, pointed end 100% banned? That "just happens" to include all pocket knives, all kitchen knives and all utility knives. Are you really sure you want to go that route, as well?

And if you think "it won't happen in the U.S." -- that's what was said in the UK, too.

p.s., look at Switzerland, with one of the lowest crimes rates world-wide -- and one of the highest firearm ownership rates world-wide. Puts the lie to any claim that the mere presence of a gun is going to lead to gun crime.

I handled guns at the age of ten, a .45, 30.06, 20gauge, 12guage, 25.35, all except for the 45 used for hunting (don't hunt any more, but that's irrelevant). And at age 10, I KNEW better than to load a gun in the house, or any where else, for that matter, until I was going to use it (not implying anything here). Point is, I learned these gun-handling basics from a father who instilled that little bit of wisdom in me, and a NRA/state sponsered hunter/gun safety course. THAT is something that should be required to purchase a gun, and we have to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people, and, more importantly, criminals. Wish I had a reasonable way to accomplish that, I could get elected to ... something. How about this, then - we all stop bashing each other, and name calling, and propose some way(s) to prevent these tragedies from happening. I'll settle for any idea that will save one watsed life, beloved or not.

Agnon, you are dumb as sh*t

Otherwise known as the "stand your playground" law.

Can you read? No one died, he's in the hospital in stable condition.

@CharlieBubbles LOLOLOLOL. THAT is a classic.

Re: Burlyone. Where in this story does it say anything about the guy dieing?

CharlieBubbles

Otherwise known as the "stand your playground" law.

Good one, and voted up one as well.

<thumbs-up>

Also what about the Florida law that allows you to shoot anybody that sneaks up on you.

And what law would that be? May as well put the whole foot in your mouth now that you got the toes lodged there.

Unfortunately, children kill people far too often. Here's an article I wrote not too long ago which you may find interesting:
http://thelunatic.newsvine.com/_news/2012/07/02/12524132-americans-and-their-guns

I also think that he should be charged even though he was the one that got shot. We need Arizona Tumbleweed to weigh in here!

I don't know how much thought you put into your comment XDm9mm, but obviously you didn't bother to read before commenting. The article states the man is in the hospital, not dead.

May I ask why you would want to charge a dead man?

Who wants to charge a dead man?

Delucia was taken to St. Mary's Hospital where he is listed in stable condition.

As short as the article is at the time of my posting, you couldn't even bother to read it all? Hell, you could have just read about 70 words and know that he is in stable condition.

At least we now know that you vote yourself up.

leroy brown

My apologies... didn't have my coffe yet when I posted earlier.

As telcogirl notes, he's in the hospital.

So, I must agree with you. Yes, he should be charged for allowing a child access to his firearm.

NYMike

I apologized and actually agreed with Leroy.

And for your edification, I don't "vote". That must have come from someone else who also wasn't fully awake.

All the kids in the gheto play with guns - it's their right...

NYMike

May I ask why you would want to charge a dead man?

Who wants to charge a dead man?

^^^^^

It happens when people wake up drinking their oj and vodka in the early morning and calling it breakfast.

lol

How do we even know that the man invited the kid into his home? There are a lot of Assumptions going on here. It is possible that the kid sneaked in and when the man found him with his gun he tried to take it away and was shot. Lets refrain from condemning the man until we know all the facts. Guess that is rto much to ask from the BAN ALL GUNS crowd.

So either he was showing the kid the gun and accidentally got shot, the neighbor's kid was wandering around his house for god knows what reason, found the unsecured gun and shot him, or the neighbor's kid decided to sneak into the local garbageman's house, found the unsecured gun, and shot him. I'm pro gun ownership for personal protection when they are handled and stored correctly, but man, are Americans lackadaisical in handling an instrument of death.

And for your edification, I don't "vote".

As late as this reply is, I wish to apologise for my hypocrisy within my previous reply.

Gun should've been locked.

What was this guy thinking allowing a seven year old to handle his weapon, particularly while it was loaded.

Where did the article say he allowed the 7 year old to handle the gun, or even knew that the kid was near the gun? Kids always stay where they are told and never go snooping where they shouldn't, right?

arguesforsport,

And by not locking the gun up, he was allowing the kid to touch it.

And by not locking the gun up, he was allowing the kid to touch it.

Again, where in the article did it say that the gentleman even knew the kid was in the house? I have no kids, my gun is never locked up. Locking up a gun unnecessarily kind of defeats the purpose, "excuse me Mr. Burglar, I need a minute to unlock my gun and load it before you rob me".

If you leave your house unlocked and your gun unlocked and someone comes in and takes it, you have allowed that to happen. With rights comes responsibilities. One of the responsibilities of owning a gun is taking reasonable precautions that it can not be picked up and used by any Tom, Dick, or Harry. As far as I'm concerned, if you own a gun, you are responsible for every bullet tht comes out of it. It is up to you to secure it. If you don't, who will?

So parents have no responsibility to teach their children "don't touch something if it isn't yours"? That's one of the first things I was taught as a child. It starts with upbringing. Child or adult, if someone, anyone, takes what isn't theirs, it is the fault of failed parenting. I own many medieval weapons too, they hang on my walls as display pieces. I suppose if someone broke into my house and stole one of those and later used it in a crime I should have had them all locked up too....and my kitchen knives, they should all be locked up when not in use, right? I'm sure you have all your kitchen drawers locked and any hammers or screwdrivers secured so nobody can take them and hurt someone else.

Of course children should be taught not to touch other people's belongings. However, that doesn't absolve the gun owner. Because, newsflash, kids do not always behave. Let's say Kid A picks up a gun belonging to the neighbor and shoots Kid B. I suppose that was Kid B's fault? No.

And your Mr. burglar comes in and sees your gun sitting out in the open and shoots your son with it. Are you going to feel no responsibility for that?

Actually, better yet, here's a true story. There was a woman who ran a day care. Her son came by to visit her. He had a gun and he left it on the table. A 3 year old picked it up and shot and killed his 5 year old brother. Are we really going to blame the 3 year old? Really? Seriously?

My knives are all really dull. I seriously doubt that you could kill anyone with them. And yes, if you have medieval weapons that are deadly, you should lock them up. Invest in a case with breakproof, or at least, break resistant glass and a lock and display them that way. Common sense.

My knives are all really dull.

If they have a point, they are deadly weapons. So are screwdrivers and hammers. Better rush off now and get breakproof cases for them before your blamed for a crime if someone gets their hands on them.

And yes, if you have medieval weapons that are deadly, you should lock them up.

Other than in a museum, when have you ever seen swords and such displayed in that manner? I'll tell you when, never. I have no kids, and the weapons are hanging on walls. Anyone touching those are going out of their way to do so and are doing it without my permission. I bet you're in favor of suing the homeowner if a burglar cuts himself on a window he broke too.

No, I think burglar's pretty much have coming to them whatever they get. But, if the burglar steals your gun and shoots someone with it and the victim wants to sue you, I'm all for that.

So if a burglar breaks into your home and steals your knives or hammer or screwdriver and use them to commit a murder or any other crime, you should be sued by that logic. You want to lay the blame on an inanimate object, or the legal owner of said object, rather than the person committing the crimes.

Entering someones residence uninvited is a crime, theft is a crime, having your property stolen and used in a crime is not the fault of the victim.

Not just a trash man but a beloved trash man? I mean I like the garbage guy well enough but I'm not really in love with him as these town folks seem to be. Apparently quite a boring town?

The "Trash Man" fact is very important; let me explain. For the first six years of his life the boy was the "Cutest, sweetest thing". He was an "adorable" baby, a "very bright" toddler and an "awefully cute" child.

However, townspeople started to talk. He pulled a cat's tail." "He ate Tommy's cupcake at the summer picnic." "He splashed mud all over Stephanie Petterson's school picture dress."

"Come on now", the thought, "Don't they know 'boys will be boys'?" As if that wasn't enough, he walked into the kitchen to hear his mother telling Mabel down the road, "That Anthony J. DeLucia is one of the nicest people I know. He is always on time to take my trash, and so polite. You know, I think he's the most beloved person in all of our small Connecticut town." Well now, Little Unnamed Boy had heard enough. He was the town's darling for the first six years of his life. Now here in his 7th year his own mother had turned against him. Imagine! Dethroned by the garbage man! Little Unnamed Boy had reached his limit.

And that is why the mention of his profession was so important. If only the details like how many people were there and how the boy got the gun were revealed it would be helpful.

Please re-read the article. Nowhere does it state that the man was showing the kid his gun. In fact there is no info on what happened other than the man being shot by the kid. You have attributed all kinds of motives here without any info to back those motives up and have said the the shooting victim was either developmentally delayed or a pedophile! Go back to bed and start over later.

I guess it must be something a little less than human nature for some people to ricochet about like a rubber ball jumping to nine different conclusions on any story they read, especially the ones with absolutely NO details involved. Either that, or they just can't resist the vain hopes of furthering their own agendas.

There really are only 3 possibilities:

1. He was showing the kid the gun.

2. He left the gun out or at least in an unlocked place.

3. The kid is a safecracker or lockpick.

The first two fall under criminal stupidity. And the third is unlikely.

If the kid wasn't invited into the home then maybe he was breaking in looking for something to steal. Don't laugh, there was a 8 year old in my neighborhood who sneak through dog doors and steal what ever struck his fancy including guns. The only reason he was caught was he got bit by a dog and had to go to the hospital. The home owner saw the blood and the cops put 2 and 2 together and found a load of stolen good in the kids toy box.

I would not at all be surprised to learn that the garbage collector just so happened to have one or more young children himself and the seven year old neighbor boy was, in fact, the friend/playmate of one or more of his own children. The boy was, more than likely, an invited guest. Yes, they state none of this in the short article, but the odds are more than even that this is the case. Much more likely than that he was a pedophile or whatever else people may accuse him of.

Now, about the handgun...

It should have been secured, but too many people don't do that for whatever the reason. Just like too many people still don't wear seatbelts, even though they know better and the law requires it. Merely hiding guns tends to not end well, especially with kids in the house. Burglars seem to know all the good hiding spots, anyway! Some people lock up guns but leave the key out of their direct control, only to find that curious hands use that key to unlock the gun and get it out. Such a key needs to either be on the person responsible for the gun or else also locked up somewhere, such as in a key safe or with other valuables stored under lock and key.

I cannot think of any reasonable legal restrictions on small frame and/or small caliber handguns. I have always felt that the ones that the Gun Control Act of 1968 impose are rather worthless and have never really solved or fixed anything. I consider the possession of these handguns to be much more a matter of wisdom, taste, and decorum more than anything else. As far as hard regulations go, anyone allowed to possess any handgun should not be barred from possessing a small pistol or revolver. That said, however, there needs to be some education and counseling involved.

A good dealer will want to discuss a prospective customer's choice of firearm before consummating the sale, instead of just taking someone's money and writing up the paperwork. There are many types and models of firearm available for purchase; is the one the person is interested in a good choice for them? It is, after all, a rather major purchase as several hundred dollars or more are about to change hands!

Very small handguns fill a niche that most people just don't need filled. If you are in a situation where it is to your benefit to be lawfully armed some or much of the time and concealing a handgun in very demanding circumstances is a challenge you face, then these are available and do the best possible job of meeting that need. Naturally, there is a compromise. A small handgun that is easy to keep hidden will also be about the least powerful and effective firearm available and the size that makes it easy to keep hidden will also make it much more difficult to use effectively when needed. It's an option that's considered better than nothing, but most experts will tell you, not by much!

If a person needs a gun for personal protection, the first one they need is a 'house gun'...one that's meant to serve as a threat management tool on the home turf. A 12 gauge pump shotgun with number 1 buckshot is ideal, but a .410 or a good fast action repeating (pump, lever) or autoloading .22 rifle will work well enough. Any of these are much cheaper than a handgun, much less punishing on the ears than most handguns, easier to aim well, look more intimidating in the eyes of a home invader who has just been confronted, and in most cases, will be more powerful and effective than most handguns, especially very small ones. Legally, if you shoot someone in self defense, you are obligated to wait until the very last practical moment to pull the trigger, in other words, when you are out of other options and the alternatives boil down to either 'your attacker dies' or 'you die'. Whatever you use had better work, because you're out of time and you probably won't get a second chance to save yourself.

Handguns sacrifice power and overall effectiveness in the name or portability and concealability. They're somewhat like a fire extinguisher whereas a rifle or a shotgun is like a fire hose. You'd rather have the fire hose to put out a fire with, but the extinguisher is what you'll have handy in most cases and what you're going to try to use to put out the fire as you're retreating from it. When the firefighters get there, they won't be messing around with extinguishers! The ONLY advantage a handgun has is portability and concealability. Cops have handguns on their belts where they can reach them in a hurry, but when serious trouble breaks out, they retrieve riot shotguns and patrol rifles from their cars as soon as they can reach them! For a person at home, a handgun can be useful while retreating to a safe room, as well as for checking out a potential housebreaking where it is known that the odds are at least fair that it is an unannounced family member or friend showing up. A hidden handgun can be kept hidden and discreetly returned to secure storage later on, drop-in guest none the wiser. Encountering that same person with a rifle or a shotgun in your hands, or even if it's slung over your shoulder, tends to be a bit awkward in most cases!

For the homeowner who wishes to augment a basic shotgun or rifle with a handgun, a full size professional (police, military) model (9mm, .38, .40, .45 caliber, etc.) is just fine as they can be used with one hand if need be, and still conceal under a shirt or in a waistband easily enough. They're reasonably easy enough to use effectively and have adequate power in most cases. Most people who carry a concealed handgun in public choose a full size or near full size model, too.

When someone is looking to acquire, or already has, a .25, .32, or .380 caliber pistol or revolver, more often than not they really don't know what they're getting into. Ammunition really isn't any cheaper in the smaller centerfire loads, so recreational shooting isn't really a good reason to get a small frame handgun that isn't a .22 rimfire. These very small guns tend to be quite difficult to shoot well, and they also tend to be uncomfortable to shoot, too. The people who these would be a good match for are relatively few in number, and they find themselves in situations most of us just don't want to be in, like the undercover narcotics detective not far from my home a few weeks back who found himself with a drug dealer's pistol in his face and narrowly escaped being shot while shooting and killing the dealer with a small pistol he kept concealed in the small of his back. If you're a law abiding citizen and you're not in that line of work, a very small pistol probably isn't going to benefit you in any way, but the drawbacks may very well work against you. If you choose to be armed, fine, but try to go with the best available options (shotgun or a rifle) first and if you find that doesn't meet your every need, then consider a duty grade handgun to fill the gap.

A small frame, small caliber pistol or revolver in anything other than .22 rimfire (poor choice for serious use, okay for recreational target shooting, though) is, in most hands, the badge of ignorance, especially if that's the only gun you've got. It implies that either you don't know what you're doing, you don't care enough about your personal protection strategy to get it right, or that you're perhaps really intending to use the gun in the commission of a crime where small size and ease of concealment would be helpful.

Did you not bother to read the article, XD? It says that he was taken to a local hospital and is in stable condition.

Again, the man is not dead!

Larry B-711148, Timea L.

As I noted in 4.5 above, hadn't had any pick me up. Morning groggies got me.

My apologies if I offended your sensibilities.

If the guy had died the headline would have went something like this: Beloved trash man doing his part to control global warming by refuse recycling slaughtered by 7 yr old NRA card-carrying Sarah Palin love child tea partier racist with a single shot revolver fully automatic assault rifle!!!!!!!!

I guess it must be something a little less than human nature for some people to ricochet about like a rubber ball jumping to nine different conclusions on any story they read, especially the ones with absolutely NO details involved. Either that, or they just can't resist the vain hopes of furthering their own agendas.

Alan, who ever said gun owners are smart?

LMAO!!

Might be a good dog deterrent...

R Battle......lol

After all he allowed a minor to handle or have access to a loaded weapon.

Where exactly in the article did it say anything even remotely like that?

I guess it must be something a little less than human nature for some people to ricochet about like a rubber ball jumping to nine different conclusions on any story they read, especially the ones with absolutely NO details involved. Either that, or they just can't resist the vain hopes of furthering their own agendas.

Unfortunately, your equation is wrong. According to the crime stastics released by the Department of Justice, while the number of guns has increased significantly in the last 10-15 years, violent crimes have dropped to near all-time lows. Therefore, more guns actually = less crime. Do some research before posting your drivel.

Valid Viewpoint and his ilk disregard known facts as blatant outright lies if they go against thier agenda in any shape form or fashion.

why is it that the 7 Year old did not know how to properly handle a weapon or how to respect a weapon in someone else's home

Lol, maybe because they don't teach gun safety in kindergarten in Connecticut?

Maybe it should start and it should start at home and not at school.

And I suppose you feel that no one should be armed other than the government?

Why not, Col?

Perhaps he shouldn't have shown it to a 7 year old in the first place. Natures way of thinning the herd.

I guess it must be something a little less than human nature for some people to ricochet about like a rubber ball jumping to nine different conclusions on any story they read, especially the ones with absolutely NO details involved. Either that, or they just can't resist the vain hopes of furthering their own agendas.

"State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said he believes no charges will be filed and the investigation is still ongoing."

Why would the police think that no charges will be filed if any laws were apparently broken?

I guess it must be something a little less than human nature for some people to ricochet about like a rubber ball jumping to nine different conclusions on any story they read, especially the ones with absolutely NO details involved. Either that, or they just can't resist the vain hopes of furthering their own agendas.

Lain42, WOW! Your comment is one of maybe 3 or 4 on this entire page that hasn't went off half cocked and jumping to multiple conclusions assuming baseless scenarios without any information whatsoever to back them up. Congratulations!

I think the biggest unanswered question is: WHY was a 7 year old alone in this guy's house in the first place? Did his parents know he was there?

Guarantee you there's more to this story than meets the eye.

Yes, I am so wary of Big Men who loves kids but is often seen with boys. Was the kid instinctively defending himself against a Sandusky Moment?

WHY was a 7 year old alone in this guy's house in the first place?

Where in the article did it say the kid was alone with the man in his house?

From what I can gather, even though your post is literally dripping sarcasm, it's still STUPID!

satire? right