commentary by Patrick H. Moore
In the course of our many attempts on All Things Crime Blog to find moral and/or ethical clarity in the midst of the rampant confusion that is part of everyday life, we’ve often discussed to what degree parents should be held responsible when their children run amuck at school and bully or bedevil other children unmercifully, sometimes to point of suicide. There are, of course, no easy answers to this pressing question and as we all know, parents are not typically punished when their kids act out against their peers in appalling ways.
A recent decision in Kitsap County Superior Court in the state of Washington once again places this issue squarely in the crosshairs of public scrutiny, albeit with a curious twist. This time around the mother of the child who “acted out” has been sentenced to 14 months in state prison, and the offending child was trying to protect himself from bullies.
Although the facts of this case seem fairly transparent, it is not an easy one to unpack from a moral or ethical standpoint.
In February of 2012, a nine-year-old boy brought a firearm to his elementary school in the city of Bremerton. His explanation, AFTER THE GUN WENT OFF (according to the authorities he accidentally pulled the trigger while the gun was still in his backpack), was that he had brought it to school to protect himself from bullies who were harassing him.
When the gun fired accidentally, 8-year-old Amina Kocer Bowman was seriously wounded. She not only required multiple surgeries and spent more than a month in the hospital, but – according to reports – was also (and understandably) severely traumatized.
The boy told investigators he took the gun from a dresser at the home of his mother’s boyfriend, Douglas Bauer, because he was afraid of other students. His mother, Jamie Lee Chaffin, did not have custody of her son, who lived with his uncle. The boy and his siblings, however, would sometimes sleep over at Bauer’s house.
The children testified that there were other firearms in Bauer’s home that were not locked away.
After the shooting, both the boy’s mother and her boyfriend, Douglas Bauer, were both charged with third-degree-assault.
Shortly after charges were filed against her, Chaffin agreed to testify against Bauer in exchange for the assault charge against her being dropped. The assault charges against both her and Bauer would appear to be based on a theory of criminal complicity (not unlike vicarious liability): i.e., if you have a firearm in your possession and your child or a child you are associated with takes the gun to school and shoots someone with it, you are responsible even though you had no criminal intent; that is, you did not intend to shoot anyone nor did you intend that your son (or the child you were associated with) would shoot anyone.
Bauer’s lawyers filed a Knapstad motion to dismiss the assault case against him based on the claim that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case. A Knapstad motion alleges there are no disputed facts and that the material facts do not constitute a prima facie case for the prosecution. It is noted that testimony appeared to establish that both Bauer and Chaffin had told the boy and his siblings on numerous occasions not to touch the guns because they were loaded and dangerous. On the other hand, they were apparently left out in plain sight.
The trial court denied Bauer’s Knapstad motion and the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Washington State Supreme Court, however, ultimately sided with Bauer under the theory that whereas he was arguably liable under tort law (civil law) for damages, under the higher criminal standard, there was insufficient proximate cause (actual cause and legal cause) to support the assault charge.
Given the fact that the State Supreme Court ruled in Bauer’s favor, they could hardly go back on their word and prosecute Chaffin for assault. Like many prosecutors, however, they were determined to extract their pound of flesh so they decided to go after the boy’s mom for unlawful possession of a firearm because she had been convicted of forgery in 2007, a felony, which therefore barred her from owning or accessing weapons.
With Bauer in the courtroom on Friday, Judge Leila Mills sentenced Chaffin to 14 months in prison, despite the fact her attorney, Michael Clark, sought a shorter sentence. Clark argued that Chaffin could not care for herself and was dependent on Bauer, leaving her with few options despite knowing guns were in the house, which constitutes access. But Judge Leila Mills imposed the full year and two months stating:
“I’m not finding there’s anything to justify or excuse this behavior. You were under orders not to have a firearm. It was a direct violation.”
For her part, Chaffin declined to make a statement in court, saying, “I’m not very good at speaking out loud with this many people around.”
Earlier this month, the Bremerton School District agreed to pay $900,000 to the family of the injured girl. Bauer’shomeowner’s insurance said it would pay an additional $300,000 in the legal settlement.
* * * * *
I’ll be curious to get Rick Stack’s take on this thorny case. There seems to be little doubt that Chaffin was technically guilty of being a felon with unlawful access to a firearm, and thus a prison sentence was to some degree justified (though people in this predicament in California often get probation in similar cases). The prosecution, however, was clearly determined to send someone to prison and Chaffin was all they had left.
This, however, doesn’t address the issue of moral responsibility on Chaffin’s or Bauer’s part. It seems obvious that notwithstanding their admonishments to the boy not to touch the loaded guns, it was not a good idea to leave them out in the open where any one of the children could have taken possession of one or more of them at any time. And, of course, it’s ironic that what brought all of this to a head was the fact that the boy was reportedly being bullied at school.
In a sense, the deeper issue would seem to be the fact that as a society, we have way too many guns lying around, which in this case led to an innocent 8-year-old girl being severely wounded and perhaps traumatized for life.
I’m curious to see what others think about this rather unusual case.