Warning: Article has detailed accounts of the shooting

Breanna Gayle Devall Runions, 25, was charged with first-degree murder and aggravated child abuse in the death of Evangaline Gunter.

The child’s parents, Adam and Josie Gunter, told ABC affiliate WATE that Evangaline had been in temporary custody at a home in Rockwood, which Runions shared with girlfriend Christina Daniels and another child, a 7-year-old girl.

Before the shooting, Evangaline and the older girl were being punished that morning by Runions for not waking up the women and for eating Daniels’ food without permission, according to the warrant and a statement from Russell Johnson, district attorney general for Tennessee’s 9th Judicial District. Runions struck both girls with a sandal before forcing them to stand in different corners of the women’s bedroom, authorities said the older girl told them.

After the shooting, the women drove Evangaline to a nearby Walmart location to meet an ambulance, Roane County Medical Examiner Dr. Thomas Boduch told the Roane County News, and the vehicle transported the girl to a hospital where she was pronounced dead. Boduch could not immediately be reached by HuffPost.

    • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Kind of like every dog owner. Except that most dogs have redeeming value.

    • havokdj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      You didn’t even read the article, taking a gun and putting it to a child’s chest and pulling the trigger is not practicing gun safety, this child was deliberately killed.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        She took out the magazine, so it’s quite arguable that she’s just a fucking idiot and did not intent to kill the child. That being the case would make this a “responsible gun owner” discussion.

        • havokdj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          She didn’t rack the chamber. You can argue that she intentionally made it look like an accident.

          • Riyosha_Namae@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            You can also argue that it genuinely was an accident (albeit one that very much could have been anticipated and prevented).

            • havokdj@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              It wasn’t an accident because she intentionally put a gun against a child’s chest. That isn’t an accident.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        You didn’t even read the article

        Yes I did. It did not change my opinion. Every gun owner thinks they’re a responsible gun owner. Too few are right.

        • havokdj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          She pulled out a firearm and pointed it at child’s chest. If you take a firearm, and point it at someone, it is ALWAYS with malicious intent, loaded or not.

          People can downvote me all they want but I don’t give a shit, this is the truth, this is why she is getting charged with first degree murder ffs. This was not an accident.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Whatever you need to tell yourself to continue believing that you are a responsible gun owner.

            • havokdj@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I keep my firearms locked in a safe. I have no children in my household. The firearms stay clean and they only come out when I go to practice or in a life or death situation. The firearm travels totally unloaded with the slide removed in a hard case. It is assembled and disassembled on site, and I clean it when I come home, which is done about once a month, if a little less.

              If that’s not responsible gun ownership, then you can’t have responsible car ownership either. Simply looking in any direction besides right in front of you can kill someone! That includes checking the mirrors, but wait, shouldn’t you sometimes check the mirrors to make sure you aren’t in a dangerous position as well?

              Almost seems like something we use every day is more dangerous than an unloaded, disassembled firearm. But I don’t handle my firearms responsibly, nope.

              What was even your point in that statement? Did you even think before you wrote that? You totally missed the point of the article because you got starry eyes from the headline.

              • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Every gun owner, regardless of how responsible or irresponsible they are, thinks they’re a responsible gun owner.

                Some are right. Too many are wrong.

                You can continue to ignore this and go on for paragraph after angry paragraph about why you think you’re one of the responsible ones. It doesn’t matter. Soon there will be another victim of the malice or negligence of someone who thought they were a Responsible Gun Owner.

                Every car owner thinks they’re a responsible car owner as well. As you are no doubt aware, many of them are also wrong. Not sure how you thought your analogy negated my statement.

                What policies do you imagine I’m advocating for here?

                • havokdj@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Your tone is implying that you think I am somehow an irresponsible gun owner, but that doesn’t matter because the argument is not about me to begin with. Let’s not get sidetracked here.

                  Also angry? If I were angry I wouldn’t waste my time continuing this debate. If you are going into this debate with anger and a closed mind then not only are you wasting your own time, you are wasting my time too and I do not appreciate that.

                  My analogy negates your statement because nobody is rallying for the ban of cars, only guns. This is because cars at the moment are a necessity for medium distance travel because public transportation is ass and no business wants people to work from home. We also do not grow our own food and as such, have to drive in order to buy a week or two of groceries.

                  Conversely, guns are a necessity in a country where they are within every nook and cranny, they weave in and out between the cracks. Just like how every country has a nuclear stockpile and an army as a deterrent to others invading and waging war on them, you need firearms in a place that is full of people who use them maliciously. Not everyone needs a firearm, but all it takes is to have ONE PERSON with a concealed firearm in a public place to stop a threat.

                  I have no problem with licensing firearms whatsoever, and as a matter of fact, many places require you to register for conceal carry which is how you should carry a firearm in public to begin with. Would I rather this not have to be the solution? In a perfect world, yes, but in a perfect world we wouldn’t need self defense either.

                  Again, removing the gun in this situation would have stopped nothing. This wasn’t a public shooting, this woman had intent to kill in close proximity. Restricting all firearms based on this alone would be extremely naive, and it is not the solution to this problem. There was nothing indicating she wanted to kill people, it is all on this one singular child.

                  CPS needs better screening, kids in temporary custody get abused fairly often. If the government felt the need to remove this child from her parents, she should have went to a better home. This woman is to blame, but the government is as well. Their job was to protect and they ultimately failed. You can restrict firearms all you want, but if kids keep going to houses like this, they are going to continue to get hurt and damaged for life. That’s the point of this argument and article, not fucking guns like everyone likes to point the finger at.

                  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Your tone is implying that you think I am somehow an irresponsible gun owner,

                    I didn’t start out thinking it, but now I’m certain.