Bauer Review This report shall contain a review and analysis of the case State v. Bauer as it occurred and transpired in 2014. There will be a summary of the issues of the case, an account of the case, the thoughts of the author of this report when it comes to the case, whether there is a clear understanding of the decision, whether there is agreement when it comes to the decision and what the American public thinks of the system. The case centers on gun safety and whether (and to what extent) an owner of a gun could or should be held responsible when the gun involves being used in a crime of some sort, whether it be intentional or incidental or on accident. While Bauer certainly is at least somewhat culpable for what happened, many feel an affirmative and intentional act is necessary to have him charged or convicted of the crime faced.

Analysis

The plight of Mr. Bauer is one that does not get a lot of sympathy with a lot of people. Indeed, a negligent act that is entirely preventable on the part of someone else can...

An example that most people might think of is when a person is charged with a crime or crimes that are often treated as if they are intentional and pre-meditated even though that is not technically true would be enhanced charges due to a DUI or something else like that. In the case of Bauer, the separation between him and the criminal act is actually a lot higher. Indeed, Bauer was charged with third degree assault due to the fact that his gun was apparently left unsecured and it led to the nine-year-old son of his girlfriend procuring said gun and then accidentally shooting a classmate. The state of Washington held that since the gun as not secured, Bauer bore criminal responsibility for what happened even though he did not himself shoot the other person, tell the child to shoot that person and was not directly involved in the incident in question. Beyond that, he argued that the statute was unfairly vague and thus was not enforceable. After all, the gun was stolen without Bauer's knowledge and he presumably did not know what would happen. However, the state held that this was not an acceptable defense…