The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Gunset Training Group or its affiliates.
Click HERE to view the original post on the GunSnobbery Blog
Author’s note: this article deals with Ohio law and procedures. Laws and procedures vary from state to state. Keep that in mind as you read this.
If you haven’t read Part 1, take a few minutes and do that. Otherwise this won’t make as much sense.
So how does a state certified firearms instructor and SWAT Team Commander, who has attended dozens of hours of firearms training, and who used a questionable training technique without following the policy that allows him to use such a technique, walk away from killing his team member during a training session with just a misdemeanor conviction? Especially when, according to this article, the Ohio State Highway Patrol was investigating the incident as a felony (Reckless Homicide).
I know many of you are thinking, “no surprise he got off easy, he’s a SWAT guy/LE/Corrections and they get away with everything”. But that isn’t true. We are seeing more and more Officers being charged with criminal offenses for on-duty or training related shootings than ever before. Do an internet search and you’ll find a list of them. But since I’m in Ohio and this article is focused on Ohio incidents and Ohio law, I’ll just point out that a couple of years ago I wrote this article about a Deputy Sheriff Sergeant from a county a little further south from where this incident happened. A county I’d consider a very conservative law and order type county. Despite that, the Sergeant was charged with Reckless Homicide for a shooting that happened at the end of a pursuit. A shooting that he says was not intentional. He claimed that his Sig 320 just went off. Fortunately for the Sergeant he was found not guilty at trial, but the fact remains that he was criminally charged with a felony for an incident which was much more chaotic than this training incident.
There really isn’t an easy answer to “how did the Commander walk away with a misdemeanor charge?” You see, there are a too many variables that come into play. Too many opportunities for individual opinions and beliefs to come into play and affect the outcome. At multiple levels. Years ago a case came across my desk (I was a Detective at the time) that is a good example. In the picture below, the blue dot represents a residence (the dot is in the approximate area, I can’t remember exactly which house was involved) that is outside my jurisdiction and in the township that surrounds the City I work in. In Ohio there is no law that prohibits people who live in the township from shooting guns on their own property. With that in mind, imagine you live in the area of the red dot and on a beautiful fall Sunday afternoon while you’re sitting in your living room watching an NFL game a bullet suddenly comes through the wall of your house and lands in the living room. Or you happen to be walking your dogs in the area of the red dot and suddenly hear bullets whistling past your head. Or you happen to hear bullets hitting your back deck. Right next to your kid’s swing-set. Ya, that happened. Since the bullets landed in the City, we got the call and asked the Sheriff’s Office to help since my patrol guys knew the gunshots came from outside the City. Turns out, the residents out in the township thought it would be a good idea to shoot at clay birds with an AK style rifle. Yes, I mean they threw the clay birds in the air like they were trap shooting and shot at them. The red dot area was about 1000 yards away from where they were shooting. Thankfully no one was injured.
My patrol guys took the rifle used by the shooters and wrote it up for me to look at. After looking at the report, I reviewed the case with both prosecutors (county and municipal) because I was thought the shooters should be charged with SOMETHING. Why? I am a firm believer that irresponsible gun owners who recklessly endanger other people’s lives need to be held accountable. And those idiots could have killed several people. I pushed hard for some sort of criminal charge but was told no. Someone else may not have pushed as hard. Why was I told no? Even though the elements of at least one criminal charge (2923.162(A)(3)) were met, they didn’t think they could get a conviction since the shooters didn’t MEAN to do it. It was, an “accident”. To me, it didn’t matter that they didn’t mean to do it. The statute in question didn’t require the state to prove they meant to do it. We just had to prove that they did it. Fast forward 10 years. I am confident that if I presented the same case to the municipal prosecutor we have now I would walk out of their office with a blessing to charge them.
What about the green dot, you ask? A few months after the initial call, a family that lived in that area went into an unused bedroom to get ready for Christmas visitors and found that a bullet that had come through the bedroom window. A bullet shot from roughly 1500 yards away. Ya, that report came across my desk as well. It was a tough conversation – “Sorry folks, there’s nothing we can do. Maybe if you’d been injured”. And to rub salt in an open wound? Since the people doing the shooting were uncharged suspects, Ohio public records law wouldn’t let us release their names to the people whose houses they damaged. And the suspects? I gave them a stern talking to. And then gave them their rifle back. Does your insurance cover random bullet damage?
Let’s get back to case at hand. There are two ways that the Prosecutor could have filed charges against Pearson. If the Prosecutor knew all along they were going to charge him with a misdemeanor they could have just filed those charges in the Circleville Municipal Court and been done with it. But a search of the Pickaway County Clerk of Courts shows that Pearson was indicted for one count of Negligent Homicide, a misdemeanor of the 1st degree. The fact that he was indicted for a misdemeanor is important. Why? To be indicted, the State must present the case to a panel of Grand Jurors, who then vote on whether there is probable cause that a crime occurred. 7 of the 9 voting members must vote in the affirmative to get an indictment. This means that at least 7 people agreed that Pearson committed the elements of Negligent Homicide. Since Grand Jury proceedings are secret, we’ll likely never know for sure what happened behind those closed doors. My guess? Since the case was written up as a Reckless Homicide, I’d be shocked if the Prosecutor didn’t present the facts of the case and then ask the Grand Jury to decide whether there was probable cause for either Reckless Homicide or Negligent Homicide. But what evidence was presented? Without that information, we’ll never know how or why the Grand Jury came to their decision. I’ve done a public records request for the case documents. When those come in, I’ll write a more in depth article about the incident.
So what about the case of Matthew Seymour? Well, according to the NRA, Seymour did, in fact, violate one of their safety rules since he left his pistol unsecured and accessible to “unauthorized persons”. But was that enough to justify a charge of Involuntary Manslaughter? The Grand Jury thought so. But what evidence was presented? Once again, without that information, we’ll never know how or why the Grand Jury came to their decision.
If you take nothing else away from these two articles, remember this – the criminal justice system is composed of people. And people, no matter who they are, bring their own baggage with them when they come and sit down at the table of criminal justice.
Having a hard time with that? Let’s look at some opinions and beliefs that may have impacted decisions in cases like these:
- Are people who don’t believe in private gun ownership going to look at safety violations that result in injury or death differently than gun owners?
- Are people who support the police and law and order going to look at an incident involving an on-duty or training incident the same was as a person who doesn’t think highly of law enforcement?
- Are people who have had a family member injured or killed by a firearm going to have the same attitude as someone who hasn’t?
- Are people who are intimidated by firearms going to be sympathetic to someone who commits a safety violation that they themselves have made without the negative outcome? A case of, “There but for the grace of God go I”?
- Are anti-gun cops going to look at a case like the ones we’ve discussed the same way as a pro-gun cop looks at the case?
- Are pro-gun cops with extensive firearm training (beyond what their agency gives them) going to look at cases like these in the same way as a cop who is intimidated by their duty gun and barely passes their state qualification course does?
- And last, but certainly not least – is an anti-gun prosecutor going to look at cases like these through the same lens as a pro-gun prosecutor? Always remember this – in Ohio, a county prosecutor is an elected position. Which means they have to keep the voting masses happy to keep their jobs. So politics may always be a factor, especially if part of their campaign had anything to do with curbing gun violence.
The fact of the matter is this – there are 88 counties in Ohio. You could take the same set of facts in the cases we’ve talked about in this article and present them to Grand Juries in all 88 counties and you would get many different outcomes. Having a good attorney isn’t a guarantee of a good outcome. I know Pearson’s attorney. He’s represented people I’ve helped prosecute. He’s an excellent attorney, but defense attorneys have nothing to do with what someone is indicted for. They are not present when the Grand Jury hears evidence. The only way to guarantee an outcome is to keep yourself from being placed in that position to begin with.
So how could Pearson and Seymour prevented themselves from being put in this position? It isn’t hard to figure out. I don’t feel bad for Pearson. In 2024 there was no justifiable reason to do a “mirror drill” with real weapons. I don’t know a single reputable and competent instructor that would do such a drill. Blue guns, red guns and orange guns (or whatever color training gun you choose) have made using real weapons for anything like this a totally unjustifiable risk. He got off lucky. I would have voted for Reckless Homicide if I was a member of the Grand Jury.
And Seymour? He owned a firearm and lived with children, and he had a plan to keep his pistol secure (he normally kept it locked up). He should have followed the plan. He didn’t and will now pay the price. Without knowing more about the evidence, it’s hard for me to say whether I agree with the price he may have to pay. I have to wonder if he taught his children gun safety? Teaching your kids gun safety costs nothing. There’s no excuse once they reach a certain age. And 14 was well beyond that age. I started teaching mine about gun safety when she was 3 years old.
So what’s your plan? Remember – it’s ok to be paranoid about gun safety. A little paranoia may keep you out of court.
End note: to add insult to the injury Lt. Osborne’s family suffered, during my research for this article I discovered that due to a clerical error, Pearson was released from his jail sentence 2 weeks early. The State tried to get him put back in jail to serve his last 14 days, but the Judge denied the request.
