Friday, May 17, 2013

Toms River Dad Responsible for Accidental Shooting Death Finally Arrested One Month Later


Brandon Holt (Photo: Provided to The Asbury Park, N.J., Press)

Local news reports further to our post at the time of the tradedy.

The lawyer for the man whose 4-year-old son shot and killed a 6-year-old playmate in Toms River says his client is cooperating.

Robert Ebberup held a news conference this morning in which he criticized the Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office for arresting his client in front of his family while they ate dinner.

The lawyer says Anthony Senatore would have voluntarily turned himself in to face charges of child endangerment and enabling access by a minor to a loaded firearm. He said Senatore and his family “are deeply sorrowed over the death of Brandon Holt.”

Authorities say Senatore's son took a loaded .22-caliber rifle from a bedroom on April 8 and fatally wounded neighbor Brandon Holt while they were playing outdoors.

Officials say four shotguns were found close to ammunition and accessible to Senatore's three young children in their Toms River home. 

I can't get over the fact that it takes so long in certain cases for the actual arrest.  I understand the need for an investigation and for due process, but ONE MONTH in a case like this seems excessive.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

9 comments:

  1. Mike,

    In this crazy country, we have limits on how long someone can be held in custody without being charged. You'd have to ask Laci, but I think the whole Probable cause, due process and bail thing is covered under the fourth amendment. In the US, law enforcement has 36 hours, or so to bring him before a judge to be charged. Japan for example, can detain a suspect for up to 23 days before seeing a judge. The decision to bring charges is made by the prosecutor.
    Since the guy obviously wasnt a flight risk, and as it seems to be an unintentional crime, there was little likelyhood for him to reoffend, what's your beef? The wheels of justice turn slowly, but for the most part surely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Defend these negligent irresponsible assholes all you want. I say, when a kid is killed with a gun, the owner of that gun should be in jail that very night.

      Delete
    2. Showing once again, Mikeb, that your hatred of the Second Amendment makes you ready to throw aside the others.

      Delete
  2. Actually I agree with Mike Greg. Well this is also in my own opinion that I'm sure I also have some things I try to ignore but human nature, you react when you hear something like this. I just hope the law would do something fair on both sides.

    Tim Jones in Spokane

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for saying that, Tim. Greg is hopeless though. If I said the sky is blue, he would question it and demand proof.

      One way to get arrested immediately is to be a felon in possession, another is to give the cops a hard time, lying to them and refusing to cooperate. And of course, being black is often enough.

      Delete
    2. Tim, I don't object to the arrest and trial of someone who harms innocent people by breaking the law. What I do object to is the notion that we have to rush to judgement without due process. The legal system moves at a deliberate pace for a good reason.

      Delete
    3. It is not rushing to judgment or a violation of due process to put the responsible (irresponsible) person in jail and removing his guns. It should not take a month.

      Delete
    4. It's not a rush to judgement? Mikeb, you're begging the question. Notice that you said the "responsible (irresponsible) person"? That's exactly the point to be determined.

      Here's a parallel case. Republicans in Congress have blocked efforts to bring Guantanamo detainees to the United States for trial, saying that we can't open our court system to terrorists. But that's exactly what we need to find out--if the detainees are, in fact, terrorists.

      Delete
    5. Bad comparison, Greg. The Republicans are blocking the Guantanamo prisoners for one reason only, to force Obama to continue breaking his promise.

      Delete