Megan Garcia sued Character.AI in federal court after the suicide of her 14-year-old son, Sewell Setzer III, arguing the platform has "targeted the most vulnerable members of society – our children"
Is Megan being sued for negligent parenting, not getting her child and/or being appropriate emotional support, and keeping an unsecured firearm in the home?
She details that she as aware of his growing dependency on the AI. She indicates she was aware her son knew the location of the firearm and was able to access it. She said it was compliant with Florida laws, but that seems unlikely since guns and ammo need to be stored in separate, secure (typically locked) locations, and the firearms need to have trigger locks on them. If you’re admitting your mentally unstable child knows the location of a firearm in your home and can access it,it is OBVIOUSLY not secured.
She seems to be saying that she knew he could access it, but also that it was legally secured. I find it difficult to believe both of those facts can be simultaneously true. But AI is the main problem here? I think it’s obviously part of what’s going on, but she had a child with mental illness and didn’t seem proactive about much except this lawsuit. She got him a month of therapy and then stopped while simultaneously acknowledging he was getting worse and had received a diagnosis. This legal filing frankly seems more damning of the mother than the AI, and she seems completely oblivious to that fact.
Frankly, and at best, this seems like an ambulance-chasing attorney taking advantage of a grieving mother for a payday.
Yes, that’s my point. Once she became aware that her mentally disturbed child had access to the firearm, which she acknowledged, then it is no longer secured. She also never mentions that it was locked in any way, so I suspect it never was. Considering he found it when he found his phone, this sounds more like a drawer or somewhere she thought he wasn’t likely to look, but not somewhere that is actually locked. The idea that the ammo and firearm were secured separately and that additionally there was a trigger lock seems even more unlikely.
Sounds to me that: 1) she was aware her child was having mental health issues. 2) she was aware it was getting worse. 3) she was aware he was becoming infatuated with the AI. 4) she was aware that the child had found and had access to a firearm. 5) she was aware her child’s mental health had been diagnosed by a mental health professional. 6) she did almost nothing about the things of which she was aware. 7) pikachu face better sue the internet!
And those are all things she quite literally describes as justification for suing. It’s completely bizarre and shows an almost complete lack of self awareness and personal responsibility.
The Florida law clearly implies that if you have a child under 16 in the home, they must not have access to the firearm. Giving a minor keys would be considered giving access.
Regardless, the point is, a parent that gives a mentally unstable child access to a firearm and then sues someone else for their suicide is a hypocrite and shitty parent.
“Implying” is how laws work. You rarely have laws that spell out each and every specific and individual example. The spirit and the letter of the law for edge cases is worked out in specific cases. For the same reason no one is going to convincingly argue they don’t have access to their home because the door is locked if they have keys, having keys to locked gun storage is considered access. Primary access in fact. Having keys to a lock is considered prima facie “access” and is borne out in settled case law. It’s so obvious that it isn’t even argued otherwise except in extreme circumstances.
Is Megan being sued for negligent parenting, not getting her child and/or being appropriate emotional support, and keeping an unsecured firearm in the home?
She details that she as aware of his growing dependency on the AI. She indicates she was aware her son knew the location of the firearm and was able to access it. She said it was compliant with Florida laws, but that seems unlikely since guns and ammo need to be stored in separate, secure (typically locked) locations, and the firearms need to have trigger locks on them. If you’re admitting your mentally unstable child knows the location of a firearm in your home and can access it, it is OBVIOUSLY not secured.
She seems to be saying that she knew he could access it, but also that it was legally secured. I find it difficult to believe both of those facts can be simultaneously true. But AI is the main problem here? I think it’s obviously part of what’s going on, but she had a child with mental illness and didn’t seem proactive about much except this lawsuit. She got him a month of therapy and then stopped while simultaneously acknowledging he was getting worse and had received a diagnosis. This legal filing frankly seems more damning of the mother than the AI, and she seems completely oblivious to that fact.
Frankly, and at best, this seems like an ambulance-chasing attorney taking advantage of a grieving mother for a payday.
It could be secured to hell and back, it’s all moot if he still has access, i.e. knows the combo, knows where the keys are, etc.
Yes, that’s my point. Once she became aware that her mentally disturbed child had access to the firearm, which she acknowledged, then it is no longer secured. She also never mentions that it was locked in any way, so I suspect it never was. Considering he found it when he found his phone, this sounds more like a drawer or somewhere she thought he wasn’t likely to look, but not somewhere that is actually locked. The idea that the ammo and firearm were secured separately and that additionally there was a trigger lock seems even more unlikely.
Sounds to me that: 1) she was aware her child was having mental health issues. 2) she was aware it was getting worse. 3) she was aware he was becoming infatuated with the AI. 4) she was aware that the child had found and had access to a firearm. 5) she was aware her child’s mental health had been diagnosed by a mental health professional. 6) she did almost nothing about the things of which she was aware. 7) pikachu face better sue the internet!
And those are all things she quite literally describes as justification for suing. It’s completely bizarre and shows an almost complete lack of self awareness and personal responsibility.
I haven’t read the laws, but I am willing to bet they say it has to be secured, but doesn’t say you can’t give the keys to a minor.
The Florida law clearly implies that if you have a child under 16 in the home, they must not have access to the firearm. Giving a minor keys would be considered giving access.
Regardless, the point is, a parent that gives a mentally unstable child access to a firearm and then sues someone else for their suicide is a hypocrite and shitty parent.
No argument on the second part. But not sure about the first. The laws “implying” something often isn’t enough to charge.
“Implying” is how laws work. You rarely have laws that spell out each and every specific and individual example. The spirit and the letter of the law for edge cases is worked out in specific cases. For the same reason no one is going to convincingly argue they don’t have access to their home because the door is locked if they have keys, having keys to locked gun storage is considered access. Primary access in fact. Having keys to a lock is considered prima facie “access” and is borne out in settled case law. It’s so obvious that it isn’t even argued otherwise except in extreme circumstances.