Girl Killed in Wii remote Mix Up

stripysocks85

A girl has been killed after picking up a loaded gun, apparently mistaking it for a Wii Remote gun-style controller.
Three year-old Cheyenne Alexis McKeehan from Wilson County Tennessee died from a single self-inflicted shot to the abdomen from a .380 calibre semi-automatic pistol. The loaded firearm had been left on the coffee table in the living room of the girl’s house, after her stepfather thought he had heard a prowler outside.
According to the child’s mother, Cheyenne had been playing a Wii game that uses a gun peripheral - not one manufactured or approved by Nintendo (seen in the picture, underneath the handgun used in the shooting) - shortly before the accident occurred. The youngster was rushed to hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.
Wilson County Sheriff Terry Ashe is investigating the case, although has not yet brought any charges relating to this tragic incident.

http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/blog/article/8388/

I ask you, what in the name of Jesus was he thinking leaving the gun on the table?

Also, the kid shouldn't have been playing computer games with guns at that age - take notice parents!!!

Very sad though. Freak accident. They'll never forgive themselves [the parents].

OutlawPete

The one time I can think of a good pun and it is wholly inappropriate .. ah s***

Dunjohn

Yes, very sad accident, and anybody who tries to blame this on violent computer games (and somebody will) is an ass.

Fizman

Very sad.

I'd put money on the stepfathers name being Cleetus.

Xluna

Dunjohn wrote: »

Yes, very sad accident, and anybody who tries to blame this on violent computer games (and somebody will) is an ass.

Damn you beat me to it.

smythwicks

Very tragic
Stupid father!

alwaysadub

Hopefully charges will be brought.
Who the fcuk leaves a loaded gun on the table,specially with small kids around

Cheap Thrills!

...if I was going outside to investigate a prowler I'd bring the loaded gun with me....wouldn't leave it on the coffee table with a 3 year old in the house....

carrolls

Well Charlton Heston got his wish. Although someone elses cold dead hands.

stripysocks85

Dunjohn wrote: »

Yes, very sad accident, and anybody who tries to blame this on violent computer games (and somebody will) is an ass.

I disagree, particularly if you're attempting to make a jibe at my comment.

Computer games, particularly violent ones, can be very influential on a young child. I know this for a fact.

Young children are like sponges and do not have an immediate knowledge of what is wrong or right. Therefore, they look at what is around them and what other people do - this is how they learn.

If they see somebody fighting, shooting etc are they to blame when they grow up with such an attitude towards violence?

In a different example, children to grow up with certain phrases, ways of doing things, likes/dislikes in music according to their social surroundings in their home. It makes sense to conclude that it is similar with the case of violence.

JohnNightmare

in which case the perents are still to blame for letting the young girl play such games or even let her watch people play such games.

either way, it is the fathers/mothers fault for leaving the gun where their child could get it and should be sent to jail and never allowed to live it down.

hitlersson666

Yeah but she did'nintendon the child mistaking the remote for the gun :rolleyes:

Dunjohn

stripysocks85 wrote: »

I disagree, particularly if you're attempting to make a jibe at my comment.

Nah, I wasn't jibing at all. Violent computer games weren't to blame for this girl's death, her idiotic father was. And I likewise wouldn't let a kid that age play a game like this, especially using a realistic gun peripheral like that. Seriously, that alone is plain sick. I fully agree with you.

But as somebody who does play computer games and has for years without ever killing anybody, I also know that certain narrow quarters will take any chance they get to blame an incident like this on "video nasties." A case like this could easily be twisted into a call to ban violent games entirely.

stripysocks85

JohnNightmare wrote: »

in which case the perents are still to blame for letting the young girl play such games or even let her watch people play such games.

either way, it is the fathers/mothers fault for leaving the gun where their child could get it and should be sent to jail and never allowed to live it down.

I agree.

stripysocks85

Dunjohn wrote: »

Nah, I wasn't jibing at all. Violent computer games weren't to blame for this girl's death, her idiotic father was. And I likewise wouldn't let a kid that age play a game like this, especially using a realistic gun peripheral like that. Seriously, that alone is plain sick. I fully agree with you.

But as somebody who does play computer games and has for years without ever killing anybody, I also know that certain narrow quarters will take any chance they get to blame an incident like this on "video nasties." A case like this could easily be twisted into a call to ban violent games entirely.

I agree. Similarly, I've played computer games, watched films etc that I maybe shouldn't have, but some people ARE more easily influenced.

landsleaving

Violent games aren't a big deal, I've played them since I was a kid and I turned out fine.





And if anyone says any different then I'll kill you with my chainsaw gun. Or jump on your head.

drunkmonkey

stripysocks85 wrote: »

Computer games, particularly violent ones, can be very influential on a young child. I know this for a fact.

that's complete bollix, i've been playing violent computer games since I was a kid and i've never shot anyone or anything, yet I have access to a gun.
Some people are just wrong in the head, that's a fact.

Manic Moran

it is the fathers/mothers fault for leaving the gun where their child could get it and should be sent to jail and never allowed to live it down.

They've just lost their daughter. What is a jail sentence going to do for them or for society?

But as somebody who does play computer games and has for years without ever killing anybody, I also know that certain narrow quarters will take any chance they get to blame an incident like this on "video nasties." A case like this could easily be twisted into a call to ban violent games entirely.

That's OK, I've played with guns for years without killing anybody (at least, not that I wasn't trying to kill), and I've played computer games for years. I can have both the anti-gun and the anti-computer-game lobbies coming after my interests!

NTM

amacachi

drunkmonkey wrote: »

that's complete bollix, i've been playing violent computer games since I was a kid and i've never shot anyone or anything, yet I have access to a gun.
Some people are just wrong in the head, that's a fact.

Aye, them three year olds are mental.

JohnNightmare

drunkmonkey wrote: »

that's complete bollix, i've been playing violent computer games since I was a kid and i've never shot anyone or anything, yet I have access to a gun.
Some people are just wrong in the head, that's a fact.

in fairness they said "CAN" NOT ARE:)

Herb Powell

landsleaving wrote: »

Violent games aren't a big deal, I've played them since I was a kid and I turned out fine.





And if anyone says any different then I'll kill you with my chainsaw gun. Or jump on your head.

bull****, I'll respawn

JohnNightmare

Manic Moran wrote: »

They've just lost their daughter. What is a jail sentence going to do for them or for society?



That's OK, I've played with guns for years without killing anybody (at least, not that I wasn't trying to kill), and I've played computer games for years. I can have both the anti-gun and the anti-computer-game lobbies coming after my interests!

NTM

so what are you saying? let the mother/father off? crazy crazy crazy

hitlersson666

See leaving your child play house of the dead does have its affects :rolleyes:

wolfpawnat

What about the biological father, he will surely be gutted. It was a step father caused it!

And yes, having a gun on the table even if licenced is illegal, they are supposed to be locked in gun case!

smellslikeshoes

I dislike the way that the wii angle is brought into this, it almost seems like the wii is having some of the blame put on it. The idiot father left a loaded gun on a table where a child could get it, the fact that the child thought it was a wii gun is irrelevant.

MementoMori

I blame the father for bringing a gun into the house and then carelessly leaving it lying around a hell of a lot more than I would blame "computer games".

Have very little in the way of sympathy for the parents, given the fact that if you bring a gun into a house you have to be aware that no matter how careful you are, there is always a chance of someone getting shot with it.

Gulliver

Never having fired a real handgun myself - how much pressure does it require to pull the trigger? Could a three year old actually do it?

I just remember having a go with a shotgun at a clay shoot and IIRC the trigger gave more resistance than I believe a child of that age could apply.

Catari Jaguar

stripysocks85 wrote: »

I disagree, particularly if you're attempting to make a jibe at my comment.

Computer games, particularly violent ones, can be very influential on a young child. I know this for a fact.

Young children are like sponges and do not have an immediate knowledge of what is wrong or right. Therefore, they look at what is around them and what other people do - this is how they learn.

If they see somebody fighting, shooting etc are they to blame when they grow up with such an attitude towards violence?

In a different example, children to grow up with certain phrases, ways of doing things, likes/dislikes in music according to their social surroundings in their home. It makes sense to conclude that it is similar with the case of violence.

Hmm if only they'd put ratings on video games so that parents would know what they're subjecting their kids to. Oh right, they DO! You wouldn't take a 3 year old to see an 18s in the cinema, so don't let them play an 18s game.

It's the idiots that are responsible, not the games.

MementoMori

Gulliver wrote: »

Never having fired a real handgun myself - how much pressure does it require to pull the trigger? Could a three year old actually do it?

I just remember having a go with a shotgun at a clay shoot and IIRC the trigger gave more resistance than I believe a child of that age could apply.

Three-year old could easily do it. Doesn't require that much actual strength.
I speak with the experience of having both used handguns and having extensive dealings with three-year olds.

alwaysadub

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

I dislike the way that the wii angle is brought into this, it almost seems like the wii is having some of the blame put on it. The idiot father left a loaded gun on a table where a child could get it, the fact that the child thought it was a wii gun is irrelevant.

Well, if anything, it should have made the father realise even more that the child might pick up the gun. (But obviously he is an idiot)
I don't leave my phone lying about when my niece is about cos she loves playing with her toy phone and is too young to understand the difference..

mikom

MementoMori wrote: »

I speak with the experience of having both used handguns and having extensive dealings with three-year olds.

That sounds so dodge.

stripysocks85

Lil Kitten wrote: »

Hmm if only they'd put ratings on video games so that parents would know what they're subjecting their kids to. Oh right, they DO! You wouldn't take a 3 year old to see an 18s in the cinema, so don't let them play an 18s game.

It's the idiots that are responsible, not the games.

I agree. I was making my point in reference to others who would deem computer games etc to have no influence. i.e. it is okay for kids to play such games, which obviously isn't true, but I don't believe the fact the kid 'thought' it was a Wii remote makes any difference. It is the fault of the step father leaving such a thing around.

MementoMori

mikom wrote: »

That sounds so dodge.

Yeah when you read it back it does:)

Substitute minding for extensive dealings.

o1s1n

Damn noobs and their friendly fire

amacachi

stripysocks85 wrote: »

I agree. I was making my point in reference to others who would deem computer games etc to have no influence. i.e. it is okay for kids to play such games, which obviously isn't true, but I don't believe the fact the kid 'thought' it was a Wii remote makes any difference. It is the fault of the step father leaving such a thing around.

30 years ago in a similar situation a child might think it was a toy gun that he/she'd been playing cowboys and indians or cops and robbers with.

Can I also just ask what Wii game involves shooting oneself? Or is it just someone clutching at straws?

o1s1n

amacachi wrote: »

Can I also just ask what Wii game involves shooting oneself? Or is it just someone clutching at straws?

The new Wii Sports Suicide edition.

One mini game involves standing precariously on the edge of the Wii fit board while a negotiator attempts to stop you jumping off.

...

Vidjogames are evil! Evil!

Catari Jaguar

Omg, O1s1n, so so wrong and hilarious

Sleepy

It upsets me that someone could be so retardedly fvcking stupid and the victim is an innocent 3 year old instead of themselves.

Overheal

MementoMori wrote: »

Have very little in the way of sympathy for the parents, given the fact that if you bring a gun into a house you have to be aware that no matter how careful you are, there is always a chance of someone getting shot with it.

I have sympathy.

The guy had the gun out because he thought - according to the article - there was a Prowler around. So anyone saying it should have been locked: technically, the gun was Active in that it wasnt just lying around for 3 weeks hoping someone would shoot themselves in the face. It was being used for a legitimate purpose (not legitmate in Ireland, but we need not go there)

I mean obviously the guy will never be able to live down his negligence: He should not have put the gun down even after the Threat/reason he pulled it out for was gone: Lock it up or keep it on your person. Especially with a tot.

Its a horrible tragedy but not one that carries nearly as much condemnation as many here seem to want to place on the guy. It does go further in displaying just how vigilant owners need to be with their guns.

I think though, if you want to own a gun (and thats your own thing, and we dont need another endless debate about that) you should as a responsible parent show the gun to your kids and say "____, you are not to ever touch this. It can kill you, Its Very Very bad, etc. etc." And then store it somewhere unknown to the kid all the same. But just so in that one in a million chance that the kid encounters the gun they know not to pick it up and to get away from it and find a grownup [a grownup being an adult, not some other kid who may be older than you, but still too risky]

citizen_p

ffs....
1 loaded gun on a table with a kid, bad idea

thats the only thing....ffs now theyll ban that controller for some stupid reason....


its all fun and games until somone goes on a rampage or kills themselves and ruins it for the rest of us.

and in most other storys with banning game violence....the guys didnt play it alot....like saying omg this guy has seen a war movie...maybe thats why he did this

amacachi

Overheal wrote: »

I have sympathy.

The guy had the gun out because he thought - according to the article - there was a Prowler around. So anyone saying it should have been locked: technically, the gun was Active in that it wasnt just lying around for 3 weeks hoping someone would shoot themselves in the face. It was being used for a legitimate purpose (not legitmate in Ireland, but we need not go there)

I mean obviously the guy will never be able to live down his negligence: He should not have put the gun down even after the Threat/reason he pulled it out for was gone: Lock it up or keep it on your person. Especially with a tot.

Its a horrible tragedy but not one that carries nearly as much condemnation as many here seem to want to place on the guy. It does go further in displaying just how vigilant owners need to be with their guns.

I think though, if you want to own a gun (and thats your own thing, and we dont need another endless debate about that) you should as a responsible parent show the gun to your kids and say "____, you are not to ever touch this. It can kill you, Its Very Very bad, etc. etc." And then store it somewhere unknown to the kid all the same. But just so in that one in a million chance that the kid encounters the gun they know not to pick it up and to get away from it and find a grownup [a grownup being an adult, not some other kid who may be older than you, but still too risky]

Of for ****sake, I have no problem with America's liberal gun laws but this guy is ****ing retarded.

Columbia

stripysocks85 wrote: »

I disagree, particularly if you're attempting to make a jibe at my comment.

Computer games, particularly violent ones, can be very influential on a young child. I know this for a fact.

Young children are like sponges and do not have an immediate knowledge of what is wrong or right. Therefore, they look at what is around them and what other people do - this is how they learn.

If they see somebody fighting, shooting etc are they to blame when they grow up with such an attitude towards violence?

In a different example, children to grow up with certain phrases, ways of doing things, likes/dislikes in music according to their social surroundings in their home. It makes sense to conclude that it is similar with the case of violence.

You know when the game of chess first came to Europe, there was absolute uproar amongst religious circles over how it would currupt the youth, since it directly represented war, violence and murder.

What happened? Nothing, and people got used to the game and enjoyed it for what it is, and these days chess is regarded by most as an extremely tame pastime. Video games are the 20th and 21st Century equivalent, even if you refuse to believe so.

MementoMori

Overheal wrote: »

Its a horrible tragedy but not one that carries nearly as much condemnation as many here seem to want to place on the guy.

I think though, if you want to own a gun (and thats your own thing, and we dont need another endless debate about that) you should as a responsible parent show the gun to your kids and say "____, you are not to ever touch this. It can kill you, Its Very Very bad, etc. etc." And then store it somewhere unknown to the kid all the same. But just so in that one in a million chance that the kid encounters the gun they know not to pick it up and to get away from it and find a grownup.

Have you much experience with three year olds as you seem to think that educating them about the dangers of guns could possibly have made a difference in this case?

My view is that if the stepfather hadn't brought the gun into the house, an innocent three year old would be alive today. Hard to have much in the sympathy in a case like this.

o1s1n

Mousey- wrote: »

ffs....
1 loaded gun on a table with a kid, bad idea

thats the only thing....ffs now theyll ban that controller for some stupid reason....

I always find that hilarious/mind boggling. 'Lets not ban the thing that killed but the thing that looks like the thing that killed'

Mousey- wrote: »

and in most other storys with banning game violence....the guys didnt play it alot....like saying omg this guy has seen a war movie...maybe thats why he did this

Always reminds me of this Simpsons quote -

Meyers: I did a little research and I discovered a startling thing...
There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.

Kent: I see. Fascinating.

Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance.
Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went
on for thirty years.

Kent: And this was before cartoons were invented?

Meyers: That's right, Kent.

bonzodog2

If the stepfather is any kind of decent human, the guilt will f**k him up more than any court proceedings could ever do.

Overheal

MementoMori wrote: »

Have you much experience with three year olds as you seem to think that educating them about the dangers of guns could possibly have made a difference in this case?

My view is that if the stepfather hadn't brought the gun into the house, an innocent three year old would be alive today. Hard to have much in the sympathy in a case like this.

Thats your problem, and your view on gun laws.

Would we be saying the same thing if a prowler did break in and try to attack the family?

The gun was in the house: just eat the fact and get over that little hurdle. After that all you have is the luxury of Hindsight.

amacachi

Overheal wrote: »

Thats your problem, and your view on gun laws.

Would we be saying the same thing if a prowler did break in and try to attack the family?

The gun was in the house: just eat the fact and get over that little hurdle. After that all you have is the luxury of Hindsight.

OK everyone, eat the fact, let's move on, nothing to talk about.

Coriolanus

Never mind the guild fucking the guy up, hopefully the girls biological father gets to be alone in room with just him and a baseball bat.

opinion guy

Overheal wrote: »

I have sympathy.

The guy had the gun out because he thought - according to the article - there was a Prowler around. So anyone saying it should have been locked: technically, the gun was Active in that it wasnt just lying around for 3 weeks hoping someone would shoot themselves in the face. It was being used for a legitimate purpose (not legitmate in Ireland, but we need not go there)

Absolutely NO EXCUSE. You do not leave a loaded weapon down on a table for anyone to pick up, especially not a child.

I think though, if you want to own a gun (and thats your own thing, and we dont need another endless debate about that) you should as a responsible parent show the gun to your kids and say "____, you are not to ever touch this. It can kill you, Its Very Very bad, etc. etc." And then store it somewhere unknown to the kid all the same. But just so in that one in a million chance that the kid encounters the gun they know not to pick it up and to get away from it and find a grownup [a grownup being an adult, not some other kid who may be older than you, but still too risky]

This is ridiculous. A three year old is YEARS away from having a concept of death for one thing. Quite apart from that really how do you expect a three year old from grasping and following all this, assuming you have an obedient three year old ?

Sheeps

BAN VIEDO GAMES

Giselle

Its much more likely that the three year old never played a violent game at all, but watched her stepfather or older siblings play.

Just because she picked up a gun doesn't mean she was playing Call Of Duty or Biohazard (those are Wii games, right?).


And telling a 3 year old to NEVER touch something, instantly makes it 65million times more attractive to them and 345million times more likely to touch it at the first opportunity.

I may have those stats slightly wrong, but most people who've met a 3 year old will get what I'm saying.