If that had happened I feel like the media wouldn't be as empathetic and use terms like accident but would be attacking the officer with negligence comments.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Accident vs Negligence
- Thread starter Andrew Blubaugh
- Start date
Forgive me if I'm having to repeat myself...
No one has said you are placing any blame on the child. But, if I'm not mistaken, one of your main points was "another issue is labeling this as an 'accident'".
"Boy, 4, accidentally kills Tenn deputy's wife".
"Authorities say a 4-year-old boy grabbed a loaded gun at a family cookout and (the boy)accidentally shot and killed the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy."
If you take issue with the term "accident" being used, these two statements are definitaly refering to the child, NOT the deputy. We keep bringing up the child because you did, by disagreeing with the use of the term "accident".
Then there is "Bryan says the shooting was a terrible accident..."
Here, Officer Bryan is refering to the totality of the event, not the deputy's actions themself. To see if the event was, indeed, an "accident", let's take a look at the very definition you gave (which, BTW, is perfectly in line with the difinition as I understand it):
Was the shooting intentional at any level? I don't see any intent involved anywhere. It was an "accident" by the very definition you give.
Again, nowhere does the article say "The deputy 'accidentally' placed a loaded weapon on the bed". You are arguing a point that is not even expressed in the article.
I agree. But nowhere in the article do I see the term being used to that end.
Now, negligence may very well have been involved. Many argue that is was. Fine. But that does not make the shooting any less of an accident since there was no intent involved (remember our definition?). "Negligence" merely narrows down a possible cause of an accident. You don't have to pick one term to the exclusion of the other ("Accident vs. Negligence"); one is a result, one is a cause, and that's what I think we need to be aware of if we are to accurately analyze the article you posted. The shooting was definitely an "accident", and "negligence" by one or more parties more than likely contributed to the accident.
No one has said you are placing any blame on the child. But, if I'm not mistaken, one of your main points was "another issue is labeling this as an 'accident'".
"Boy, 4, accidentally kills Tenn deputy's wife".
"Authorities say a 4-year-old boy grabbed a loaded gun at a family cookout and (the boy)accidentally shot and killed the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy."
If you take issue with the term "accident" being used, these two statements are definitaly refering to the child, NOT the deputy. We keep bringing up the child because you did, by disagreeing with the use of the term "accident".
Then there is "Bryan says the shooting was a terrible accident..."
Here, Officer Bryan is refering to the totality of the event, not the deputy's actions themself. To see if the event was, indeed, an "accident", let's take a look at the very definition you gave (which, BTW, is perfectly in line with the difinition as I understand it):
Was the shooting intentional at any level? I don't see any intent involved anywhere. It was an "accident" by the very definition you give.
Again, nowhere does the article say "The deputy 'accidentally' placed a loaded weapon on the bed". You are arguing a point that is not even expressed in the article.
I agree. But nowhere in the article do I see the term being used to that end.
Now, negligence may very well have been involved. Many argue that is was. Fine. But that does not make the shooting any less of an accident since there was no intent involved (remember our definition?). "Negligence" merely narrows down a possible cause of an accident. You don't have to pick one term to the exclusion of the other ("Accident vs. Negligence"); one is a result, one is a cause, and that's what I think we need to be aware of if we are to accurately analyze the article you posted. The shooting was definitely an "accident", and "negligence" by one or more parties more than likely contributed to the accident.
Last edited:
I failed to explain myself clearly. My point about labeling was concerning ALL incidents. I scan the news daily and pay attention to incidents like this one. This specific incident pushed me over the edge because it was absolutely avoidable. When someone shoots themselves or someone else gets shot because someone was not exercising safe weapons handling it should not be labeled an accident. It doesn't matter if they were handling the weapon or if they allowed someone easy access to the weapon.
Look at these incidents. All of which happened in the past few days. Some are cops, some women, men, old, young... All of them are sugar coated by the word "accident". I guess I am bitching about the media but I also hate hearing people talk about these incidents as though they are accidental. In one of the below incidents a 4 year old shot a 6 year old. The idiot reporter actually says something along the lines of, "It still isn't clear if the boy actually pulled the trigger or if the gun just went off". We, as responsible gun owners need to be hard on our peers and society when this happens. If we skirt the issue because we are afraid to offend someone then we are part of the problem.
10News - Man accidentally shoots himself outside Westfield Shopping Mall in El Cajon - 10News.com - News
Tennessee man accidentally shoots self while drawing gun in domestic dispute » The Commercial Appeal
Police: 6-Year-Old Accidentally Shot by 4-Year-Old - ABC News
Worthington: Woman accidentally shoots self in hip | ThisWeek Community News
DART police trainee accidentally shot himself during training exercise | Crime Blog
Auburn man cleaning gun accidentally shoots himself ? Lewiston-Auburn ? Bangor Daily News ? BDN Maine
Boy accidentally shoots himself in the groin while cruising with girls - Chicago Sun-Times
Look at these incidents. All of which happened in the past few days. Some are cops, some women, men, old, young... All of them are sugar coated by the word "accident". I guess I am bitching about the media but I also hate hearing people talk about these incidents as though they are accidental. In one of the below incidents a 4 year old shot a 6 year old. The idiot reporter actually says something along the lines of, "It still isn't clear if the boy actually pulled the trigger or if the gun just went off". We, as responsible gun owners need to be hard on our peers and society when this happens. If we skirt the issue because we are afraid to offend someone then we are part of the problem.
10News - Man accidentally shoots himself outside Westfield Shopping Mall in El Cajon - 10News.com - News
Tennessee man accidentally shoots self while drawing gun in domestic dispute » The Commercial Appeal
Police: 6-Year-Old Accidentally Shot by 4-Year-Old - ABC News
Worthington: Woman accidentally shoots self in hip | ThisWeek Community News
DART police trainee accidentally shot himself during training exercise | Crime Blog
Auburn man cleaning gun accidentally shoots himself ? Lewiston-Auburn ? Bangor Daily News ? BDN Maine
Boy accidentally shoots himself in the groin while cruising with girls - Chicago Sun-Times
Last edited:
LOL! Point taken. You're starting to sound like me now.
Greg, that won't work if you are keeping a firearm for self-defense. It's the same point of view of the Parliament a few hours south of you that passed a law making it a crime to load a handgun anywhere other than at an approved shooting range. Why did they do that? So that if you defend yourself with it, or have any kind of accidental discharge, they can charge you with a crime and confiscate your guns.
Loading the firearm doesn't get you negligence. If Rule #1 is followed it should not matter whether a gun is kept loaded or not. That's the point of Rule #1: That whether a firearm is considered or kept loaded or unloaded it should make no difference.
Last edited:
I like the idea of reducing or eliminating the word accident, but lets not let that become another separator between guns and all the other potentially dangerous things in the world. Next time you trade some paint or bend some fenders, we should have to call the negligent driving hotline to our insurance. Slip with a screwdriver and have it bite your hand? Negligent tool operation. Your wife burns some dinner? Negligent operation of a deadly fire-starting instrument. Your employee screws something up you asked them to do? Negligence report in their personnel file followed by termination.
I am actually OK with taking a hard line on this with regards to guns. But we can't discriminate or it becomes another component of us versus them in the 2A discussion. So every time something goes wrong from now on, "accident" is no longer on the descriptor table. When you really boil it down, one either has to believe we are responsible for our actions or not. If we are REALLY responsible for our actions, is there such thing as an accident?
I am actually OK with taking a hard line on this with regards to guns. But we can't discriminate or it becomes another component of us versus them in the 2A discussion. So every time something goes wrong from now on, "accident" is no longer on the descriptor table. When you really boil it down, one either has to believe we are responsible for our actions or not. If we are REALLY responsible for our actions, is there such thing as an accident?
I think that 4 year old must have some big mittens! I also think there is a possibility that it was neither negligent or an accident. I like the part where they state "the weapon discharged"!
Last edited:
I always believed that an accident was an occurrence over which you had no control. Like a meteor coming through your roof and striking you while you sleep. A mistake is something you did wrong. Negligence is when you should have known better. Like cleaning auto parts in gasoline while you smoke a cigarette....or leaving loaded firearms somewhere that children can get access to them.
I posted the definition of an accidental discharge above. If the discharge was not negligent, meaning less than negligent or not negligent, it was an accident. A meteor stike isn't an accident, it's an act of God. And a mistake can be accidental or negligent.
Obviously we differ on our definitions. I don't believe that a meteorite gets sent to earth..they merely follow a trajectory. I also believe that when someone leaves a firearm where any unauthorized person can get access to it, that is negligence. The discharge of the weapon was a direct result of the officer's negligence, so even though the child fired the shot, I will continue to believe that negligence was the base cause of the incident.
Of course we have no idea what the thoughts of the child who fired the shot were, whether deliberate, unintentional, or malicious.
I believe there are unintentional discharges, and negligent discharges. I do not accept accidental discharges as that indicates (to me at least) that there is no underlying responsibility. I believe that this discharge was due to the officer's negligence. If I knew more about the child's training,or state of mind, then I could decide whether I think the discharge was unintentional, or negligent.
With the information I now have, I continue to ascribe this incident to negligence, not an accident. More information about the child might change me to think it was an unintentional discharge.
I was taught that there are negligent discharges, unintentional discharges, and intentional discharges. I firearms do not discharge by themselves, so there are no accidental discharges. Someone, somehow chose to handle the firearm and cause it to discharge. No firearm goes off without someone being responsible for the discharge, hence I do not believe in accidental discharges.
Of course we have no idea what the thoughts of the child who fired the shot were, whether deliberate, unintentional, or malicious.
I believe there are unintentional discharges, and negligent discharges. I do not accept accidental discharges as that indicates (to me at least) that there is no underlying responsibility. I believe that this discharge was due to the officer's negligence. If I knew more about the child's training,or state of mind, then I could decide whether I think the discharge was unintentional, or negligent.
With the information I now have, I continue to ascribe this incident to negligence, not an accident. More information about the child might change me to think it was an unintentional discharge.
I was taught that there are negligent discharges, unintentional discharges, and intentional discharges. I firearms do not discharge by themselves, so there are no accidental discharges. Someone, somehow chose to handle the firearm and cause it to discharge. No firearm goes off without someone being responsible for the discharge, hence I do not believe in accidental discharges.
Definitions have nothing to do with one's beliefs.
Acts of God are simply called that, God himself doesn't send the meteor.
Your definition of negligence is incorrect.
A four year-old is incapable of malice.
And please read the Thread before posting unsubstantiated opinion.
Hold it. We've been discussing whether the shooting was an "accident" or "negligence". Discussing an "accidental DISCHARGE" or a "negligent DISCHARGE" is not the same as discussing the shooting. I was avoiding the whole ND/AD debate as that was not originally the subject of this discussion. But...
Think what you will, but "accidental" and "unintentional" are one in the same. Is negligence intentional then? (head scratch)
Why does there always have to be someone responsible? A firearm is a mechanical device made from various materials. Do you deny that a sear could be made having unforseen metalurgical flaws that happens to fracture under the weight of a mainspring? Who would be responsible for the resultant discharge in that case? Would you take responsibility if it were to happen to you? Would you blame the guy who mined the ore, smelted the ore, forged the steel, machined it to shape.....? Where does it end? Who would YOU sue?(LOL!) Some things are simply unavoidable, no matter how hard we try to make things "foolproof". Nothing, and no one, is perfect. There does not ALWAYS have to be a responsible party on which to pin blame.
You have been taught that. It does not hold up under common sense. It's a feel-good attempt to subsitute "unintentional" for "accidental". They are the same. I'm sure the person who started this "there's no such thing as an accidental discharge" had good intentions, but it's simply not true, and simply substituting one term for another does not change anything.
For the record, here are definitions given in Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1965 (so don't tell me they are new, liberal definitions):
"accident": n. 1a: an event occurring by chance or from unknown causes. 1b: lack of intention or necessity: CHANCE. 1c: an unforseen or unplanned event. 2a: an unfortunate event resulting from carelessness, unawareness, ignorance, or unavoidable causes. 2b: an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but from the consequences of which he may be entitled to some legal relief.
As you can see, I would hope, there is room for negligence as a cause for an accident.
"Lack of intention."
"An unplanned event."
"An unfortunate event resulting from carelessness."
Think what you will, but "accidental" and "unintentional" are one in the same. Is negligence intentional then? (head scratch)
Why does there always have to be someone responsible? A firearm is a mechanical device made from various materials. Do you deny that a sear could be made having unforseen metalurgical flaws that happens to fracture under the weight of a mainspring? Who would be responsible for the resultant discharge in that case? Would you take responsibility if it were to happen to you? Would you blame the guy who mined the ore, smelted the ore, forged the steel, machined it to shape.....? Where does it end? Who would YOU sue?(LOL!) Some things are simply unavoidable, no matter how hard we try to make things "foolproof". Nothing, and no one, is perfect. There does not ALWAYS have to be a responsible party on which to pin blame.
You have been taught that. It does not hold up under common sense. It's a feel-good attempt to subsitute "unintentional" for "accidental". They are the same. I'm sure the person who started this "there's no such thing as an accidental discharge" had good intentions, but it's simply not true, and simply substituting one term for another does not change anything.
For the record, here are definitions given in Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1965 (so don't tell me they are new, liberal definitions):
"accident": n. 1a: an event occurring by chance or from unknown causes. 1b: lack of intention or necessity: CHANCE. 1c: an unforseen or unplanned event. 2a: an unfortunate event resulting from carelessness, unawareness, ignorance, or unavoidable causes. 2b: an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but from the consequences of which he may be entitled to some legal relief.
As you can see, I would hope, there is room for negligence as a cause for an accident.
"Lack of intention."
"An unplanned event."
"An unfortunate event resulting from carelessness."
Nope. And negligence is by definition not intentional.
An accidental discharge is commonly understood to be a category of unintentional discharge of a firearm. More precisely, an accidental discharge is a non-negligent unintentional discharge. It is properly distinguished from a discharge that is merely unintentional.
A negligent discharge is an unintentional or allegedly accidental discharge caused by an action or event that the operator of the firearm could have and should have foreseen and/or prevented. It is an unintentional but grossly negligent discharge that results from flagrant violation of a basic firearm safety rule.
An accidental discharge is a category of unintentional and involuntary discharges caused by mechanical failure or some other event that the operator of the firearm could not have prevented and could not have foreseen. The description of the discharge as an ‘accident’ can mean either of two things: Either that the author makes no distinction between an accident and negligence, or that he distinguishes negligent accidents from justifiable and excusable accidents.
The determination that a discharge was negligent, as opposed to accidental, requires a finding with regard to the appropriate standards of care that the operator of the firearm could and should have been observing: What did the operator of the firearm know and when did he know it; and what should he have known, when should he have known it, and what should or could he have done to prevent the discharge?
Here it is the accidental discharge that raised questions of ethical and legal responsibility. The issues are culpability and liability. The flaw in Andrew's example was that the operator was a four year-old, and therefore not able to understand the basic gun safety rules and not legally capable of negligence. That's why I said it's not a gun issue, it's a parental supervision issue.
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree that my definition is incorrect.
Four olds are capable of malice, although some may want to call it misbehaving such as when a child deliberately damages something.
I have read the thread. here are at least 14 comments that agree with my conclusion that negligence was the cause of this incident, and there are 3 opinions (other than yours) that agree with the accident conclusion. Although I have attempted to not count opinions given by the same poster more than once, my numbers may be off a bit, but they clearly show that the overwhelming number of postings agree with negligence rather than accident as the root cause.
There are also a number of postings (3 or 4) saying something along the lines of this being an accident caused by negligence, the officer knows himself to be negligent (how would we know that?), the officer was not negligent, but his actions were negligent.
In any case the accident opinion is clearly the minority view, and the overwhelming opinion of the postings believes negligence to be the cause.
I DID read the previous postings, and believe they support my conclusion. With that, I am outa this thread, and will allow you to argue your point with other hide members without further input from me as I see no point in my offering further comments.
Agreed! And an accident is also not intentional. That's exactly what I was trying to get across.
"More precisely, an accidental discharge is a non-negligent unintentional discharge." Who says?
"More precisely, an unintentional discharge is a non-unintentional unintentional discharge." Makes no sense to me. Sounds like double talk.
An accident is something that happens by chance, or an unintentional event. Accidental is the adjectival form of the word.
Negligent describes how something is done, carelessly, marked by neglect. Negligence is the nominal form of the word.
Accident/accidental is the broader definition and describes the totality of the event without regard to cause, while negligence/negligent is useful to narrow the definition of "accident" to indicate a responsible party is involved who was neglecting proper use of care. All I'm trying to point out is that "accidental discharge" is not an improper term, regardless of whether negligence was involved or not. And while I understand the reason why we use the term "negligent discharge" when appropriate, it's improper by set defintions to say that a negligent discharge is NOT accidental or unintentional. Otherwise, the discharge would have to be intentional.
(I apologise if I edited my post in the middle of a response)
Last edited:
IALEFI
It makes no sense because you made it up.
Chance has nothing to do with it. In the absence of negligence it's an accident.
Nope. Negligence is the absence of due care. But it also requires a duty and a breach of that duty (and damage(s)s).
Nope. Like what Unknown did above, you can't simply decide on your own definition for something and then take a vote of the people who got it wrong. Definitions are not well-suited to democracy, but I suppose that's why we need them.
Last edited:
[Originally Posted by M40_A1
"'More precisely, an accidental discharge is a non-negligent unintentional discharge.' Who says?"
IALEFI]
So, it's a made up definition that does not adhere strictly to dictionary definitions.
[ Originally Posted by M40_A1
"'More precisely, an unintentional discharge is a non-unintentional unintentional discharge.' Makes no sense to me. Sounds like double talk."
It makes no sense because you made it up.]
No, you and Webster did...
Graham: "And negligence is by definition not intentional."
Webster: "unintentional: not intentional."
Therefore, negligence is unintentional.
Webster: "accident: 1b: lack of intention... 1c: an unplanned event. 2a: an unfortunate event resulting from carelessness,"
Webster: "negligence: n. form of 'Negligent': adj. 2: marked by a carelessly easy manner: NONCHALANT."
So, an accident is unintentional, and a negligent act is unintentional.
Look at this again with that in mind...
"More precisely, an accidental(unintentional, by definition) discharge is a non-negligent(i.e. non-unintentional, by definition) unintentional discharge."
The statement is untrue according to established English definitions. An accidental discharge is not limited to non-negligent discharges.
[ Originally Posted by M40_A1
"An accident is something that happens by chance, or an unintentional event."
Chance has nothing to do with it. In the absence of negligence it's an accident.]
In the presence of negligence, it's still an accident.
"accident: 2a: an unfortunate event resulting from carelessness,..."
"careless: 3a NEGLIGENT."
CARELESSNESS>NEGLIGENCE>ACCIDENT
[ Originally Posted by M40_A1
"Negligent describes how something is done, carelessly, marked by neglect."
Nope. Negligence is the absence of due care. But it also requires a duty and a breach of that duty (and damage(s)s).]
Requires damages? So, real damage is required to make a discharge negligent? Interesting.
Webster: "Negligent: adj. 1: marked by or given to neglect, 2: marked by a carelessly easy manner: NONCHALANT."
No damage required. Otherwise, you, I, and the dictionary agree.
[ Originally Posted by M40_A1
"Accident/accidental is the broader definition and describes the totality of the event without regard to cause, while negligence/negligent is the narrower definition, and indicates a responsible party."
Nope. Like what Unknown did above, you can't simply decide on your own definition for something and then take a vote of the people who got it wrong. Definitions are not well-suited to democracy, but I suppose that's why we need them.]
Then why not use them properly?
Per Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1965...
ACCIDENT/ACCIDENTAL
"ACCIDENT" is the root word. It is a NOUN. It comes from Latin, accidere, "to happen".
"ACCIDENTAL" is its adjectival form.
NEGLIGENCE/NEGLIGENT
"NEGLIGENT" is the root word. It is an ADJECTIVE. It comes from Latin, neglegens, present participle of neglegere (no translation given).
"NEGLIGENCE" is its nominal (noun) form.
My point in telling you this is that words in English typically come from root words from foreign languages, and the forms are changed to provide other parts of speach so we can use them effectively.
The root words are:
1) "accident", which is a noun form. If you think way back you might recall that a noun is a person, place, or thing. An accident is a thing.
-and-
2) "negligent", which is an adjectival form. An adjective is a describing word.
This is how an "accident" (thing) can be described as being a result of a negligent (descriptive) act, but not the other way around.
An accident resulting from negligence is still an accident. We can choose to use the term "negligent discharge" and "accidental discharge" interchangeably where negligence is involved, though I understand why "negligent discharge" is preferable in such a case as it conveys more information. Still, the term "accidental discharge" where negligence is the cause is still "accidental", and not an incorrect use of the term.
"'More precisely, an accidental discharge is a non-negligent unintentional discharge.' Who says?"
IALEFI]
So, it's a made up definition that does not adhere strictly to dictionary definitions.
[ Originally Posted by M40_A1
"'More precisely, an unintentional discharge is a non-unintentional unintentional discharge.' Makes no sense to me. Sounds like double talk."
It makes no sense because you made it up.]
No, you and Webster did...
Graham: "And negligence is by definition not intentional."
Webster: "unintentional: not intentional."
Therefore, negligence is unintentional.
Webster: "accident: 1b: lack of intention... 1c: an unplanned event. 2a: an unfortunate event resulting from carelessness,"
Webster: "negligence: n. form of 'Negligent': adj. 2: marked by a carelessly easy manner: NONCHALANT."
So, an accident is unintentional, and a negligent act is unintentional.
Look at this again with that in mind...
"More precisely, an accidental(unintentional, by definition) discharge is a non-negligent(i.e. non-unintentional, by definition) unintentional discharge."
The statement is untrue according to established English definitions. An accidental discharge is not limited to non-negligent discharges.
[ Originally Posted by M40_A1
"An accident is something that happens by chance, or an unintentional event."
Chance has nothing to do with it. In the absence of negligence it's an accident.]
In the presence of negligence, it's still an accident.
"accident: 2a: an unfortunate event resulting from carelessness,..."
"careless: 3a NEGLIGENT."
CARELESSNESS>NEGLIGENCE>ACCIDENT
[ Originally Posted by M40_A1
"Negligent describes how something is done, carelessly, marked by neglect."
Nope. Negligence is the absence of due care. But it also requires a duty and a breach of that duty (and damage(s)s).]
Requires damages? So, real damage is required to make a discharge negligent? Interesting.
Webster: "Negligent: adj. 1: marked by or given to neglect, 2: marked by a carelessly easy manner: NONCHALANT."
No damage required. Otherwise, you, I, and the dictionary agree.
[ Originally Posted by M40_A1
"Accident/accidental is the broader definition and describes the totality of the event without regard to cause, while negligence/negligent is the narrower definition, and indicates a responsible party."
Nope. Like what Unknown did above, you can't simply decide on your own definition for something and then take a vote of the people who got it wrong. Definitions are not well-suited to democracy, but I suppose that's why we need them.]
Then why not use them properly?
Per Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1965...
ACCIDENT/ACCIDENTAL
"ACCIDENT" is the root word. It is a NOUN. It comes from Latin, accidere, "to happen".
"ACCIDENTAL" is its adjectival form.
NEGLIGENCE/NEGLIGENT
"NEGLIGENT" is the root word. It is an ADJECTIVE. It comes from Latin, neglegens, present participle of neglegere (no translation given).
"NEGLIGENCE" is its nominal (noun) form.
My point in telling you this is that words in English typically come from root words from foreign languages, and the forms are changed to provide other parts of speach so we can use them effectively.
The root words are:
1) "accident", which is a noun form. If you think way back you might recall that a noun is a person, place, or thing. An accident is a thing.
-and-
2) "negligent", which is an adjectival form. An adjective is a describing word.
This is how an "accident" (thing) can be described as being a result of a negligent (descriptive) act, but not the other way around.
An accident resulting from negligence is still an accident. We can choose to use the term "negligent discharge" and "accidental discharge" interchangeably where negligence is involved, though I understand why "negligent discharge" is preferable in such a case as it conveys more information. Still, the term "accidental discharge" where negligence is the cause is still "accidental", and not an incorrect use of the term.
Last edited:
In this case, "Websters" has no value. What you should be reading, at a minimum, is Blacks Law Dictionary.
If you go flip through the pages a prudent person will find that this event is clearly an act of negligence.
If you go flip through the pages a prudent person will find that this event is clearly an act of negligence.
Last edited:
This is English- common, basic, fundamental English. I feel sorry for anyone who confuses himself using a law dictionary to interpret common English. It's a recipe for really fouling up easily understood language.
Well, it's been fun, but, really, I've said all I can say, as many ways as I know how. Hopefully someone else has learned something here, able to grasp and understand real English as opposed to dogmatic terms and phrases made up and preached by temporal organizations and defined by lawyers. Like the poor engineers I used to work with, they overcomplicated EVERYTHING to the point they failed to see the obvious.
Have at it boys. I'm done.
Well, it's been fun, but, really, I've said all I can say, as many ways as I know how. Hopefully someone else has learned something here, able to grasp and understand real English as opposed to dogmatic terms and phrases made up and preached by temporal organizations and defined by lawyers. Like the poor engineers I used to work with, they overcomplicated EVERYTHING to the point they failed to see the obvious.
Have at it boys. I'm done.
Last edited:
M40- I'm guessing that Blacks Law Dictionary is a bit beyond your comprehension. As you can see the back and forth opinions of what two words mean; the law dictionary attempts to remove this debate...a necessity in any court proceeding.
one at a time
one at a time
i only have corded power tools.
i knot the cord to an extension cord.
once done cutting drilling, i unplug - so i don't trip and fall on it, etc.
if the kids are not around, i might have 2-3 plugged in to wall at once.
if kids are around, definitely one at a time.
when the reptile ppl show the kids the reptiles, they show 1 snake at a time - if it gets loose, you don't have to have 1 person devoted to watching the second while 1 person chases the first.
here, there is not exactly a gun safety rule for showing people your guns, but maybe you should only pull out 1 at a time.
definitely unloaded.
if you want to do a comparison, double-check that each is unloaded, then let someone compare weight, sights, barrel length, etc.
but only if you are comparing.
if just appreciating / show-n-tell, then maybe 1 at a time.
one at a time
i only have corded power tools.
i knot the cord to an extension cord.
once done cutting drilling, i unplug - so i don't trip and fall on it, etc.
if the kids are not around, i might have 2-3 plugged in to wall at once.
if kids are around, definitely one at a time.
when the reptile ppl show the kids the reptiles, they show 1 snake at a time - if it gets loose, you don't have to have 1 person devoted to watching the second while 1 person chases the first.
here, there is not exactly a gun safety rule for showing people your guns, but maybe you should only pull out 1 at a time.
definitely unloaded.
if you want to do a comparison, double-check that each is unloaded, then let someone compare weight, sights, barrel length, etc.
but only if you are comparing.
if just appreciating / show-n-tell, then maybe 1 at a time.
WOW! I started reading all of this because in my opinion there is no such thing as a accidental discharge. A mechanical device only operates with input from something or someone. Being a parent, detention sergeant and firearms instructor, this thread really hit home. Although there are some very valid points, I do believe that firearm saftey rule 1 says all firearms must be treated as if they are always loaded, so why would a trained individual with this knowledge, place a loaded firearm down without first clearing the weapon, locking the slide to the rear and having someone else identify an empty chamber.
Complacency kills, everytime I have had a negligent discharge or near death experience it came from my own lack of being aware of the situation.
As a parent, it's my role to enable my son to make decesions when I'm not there.
I apologize for my grammer and know I'm out of my league here but it makes me feel better to speak my peace.
Complacency kills, everytime I have had a negligent discharge or near death experience it came from my own lack of being aware of the situation.
As a parent, it's my role to enable my son to make decesions when I'm not there.
I apologize for my grammer and know I'm out of my league here but it makes me feel better to speak my peace.
Maybe because he didn't think that a child was in the room, of if he did know that a child was present he thought that the child was with his parent and that the parent was in control of the child. In either scenario it could be argued that a man who momentarily puts down a gun and keeps it within arms reach is not being negligent. I agree with the application of Rule #1 as you stated it, but people momentarily put down loaded weapons all the time and doing that - without more - is neither negligent nor a violation of Rule #1. The truth is that we don't have enough facts yet to say that the man was, or was not negligent.
What so many people who posted and argued with me above above fail to realize is that Negligence cannot be determined by hindsight.
Last edited:
Most certainly negligence on the part of the deputy. If the deputy was "Showing" firearms to anyone they should have been unloaded, Period! The child Accidentally shot the deputy's wife. All guns are always loaded, even when you think they aren't. When unloading any fire arm verify Visually and Physically they are unloaded.
There are a lot of rules in life that you can play fast and lose with. This ain't one of them.
A close family member was NEGLIGENT when he shot himself cleaning a gun. He chose to clean a gun while the TV was on. While he did "Unload" the gun, he did not visually and physically inspect the cylinder. As a result he lost his life. That's the price you pay when you play fast and lose with rule number one. The police report listed his COD as accidental. There was no Accident only Negligence.
Chip
There are a lot of rules in life that you can play fast and lose with. This ain't one of them.
A close family member was NEGLIGENT when he shot himself cleaning a gun. He chose to clean a gun while the TV was on. While he did "Unload" the gun, he did not visually and physically inspect the cylinder. As a result he lost his life. That's the price you pay when you play fast and lose with rule number one. The police report listed his COD as accidental. There was no Accident only Negligence.
Chip
Except that there is no information yet that the deputy was showing to anyone the firearm that he momentarily placed on the bed.
You are contradicting yourself: What does verifying that a gun is unloaded matter if all guns are to be treated as if they are loaded?!
You can't use a rule that says there's no difference between a loaded and an unloaded gun to identify as the problem that the gun should have been unloaded. In your example the man did not lose his life as a result of failing to physically inspect the cylinder. If that was true, then there would be a difference between how one is to treat a loaded gun vs. an unloaded gun - which you just said would have been a violation of the first safety rule. Presumably the very purpose of obeying the first rule is to make sure that one could clean a loaded gun, having never verified its condition, and still never shoot anyone.
I find it amazing that so many people who have posted on this Thread are incapable of understanding a simple rule and applying it using reason to arrive at an objective, unbaised conclusion about what they know and what they do not know. I sure hope that none of them are investigators or police officers.
Last edited:
Graham, I can't believe you are incapable of understanding what so many of us do understand. In this specific case, not securing a loaded firearm is the problem. If that handgun was dedicated to home defense and needed to be loaded than it should have been brought out. If the officer was going to show it off then it should have been properly cleared, once they were done with it and the officer loads the weapon then secure it. This is the issue. Secure the loaded weapon. There are very few instances where a loaded weapon should just be laying out. Even on the range we shouldn't just lay a loaded weapon down with out a specific purpose.
You are so defensive about this it makes me wonder if you do this very thing or have you had an ND? I can tell you several stories of ND's or unsafe actions concerning firearms. People tend to walk away one of two ways. Either they become safety freaks or they make excuses why it happened and prepare a defense for why they are not at fault.
Concerning firearms, I am good. So good I am about to make a mistake. The more we handle weapons the more we need to fight being complacent.
CB, I agree with you in general about what you say about safety and about securing loaded firearms. What I have been taking issue with in this Thread is people, some of whom are paid to investigate for a living (I don't mean you), who are unable to define accident, or negligence, and who jump to conclusions without admitting what facts they don't yet have. Here key facts are missing before one can say that the deputy was negligent. I'm not defending him; I'm not saying that this accident could not have been avoided in some other way or by doing something that he did not do; what I am saying is that we don't yet have enough information to make the (legal or factual) conclusion that he was negligent. J-huskey ribbed me a bit about arguing so much on this Thread, but if he had had the problem, and I was the one sent to investigate, I'm sure he would appreciate me leaving my personal opinion at the door and looking only at the facts.
And I disagree with you that the issue is either about Rule #1 or about securing a loaded weapon. Because we know that loaded guns are not dangerous by themselves. It shouldn't matter in the handling of the firearm whether the deputy thought it loaded or unloaded (or whether the gun was loaded or unloaded) - that's the very point of Rule #1. Had no child been around, a loaded gun left momentarily on the bed would not have been negligent. Therefore the issue is one of supervision and not about whether the gun was loaded or unloaded. You say that you can't believe that I don't understand; and I say that I am disappointed when a police officer is incapable of discerning how a rule applies to a fact and when and why it doesn't. Here Rule #1 doesn't apply because the deputy did not mistakenly think that the gun was unloaded. Treating all guns as if they are loaded wasn't the issue because he DID treat the gun as if it was loaded. Supervision of children and the awareness of adults in their presence and in the presence of loaded guns, despite obeying Rule #1, was the issue that bit him.
I've never had an ND, but I have investigated them. And I agree: Not having had one just means that I might be due at any moment. That's one reason why, unlike in my personal life, when I investigate or judge someone with the authority of the State I give him or her every benefit of the doubt.
Last edited:
Graham,
I said it earlier. The point of the original post was my opinion that society needs to stop calling these incidents, "accidents". I said it earlier that you need to stop looking at this from an investigative point of view. I am not making an attempt to charge or convict the individual of a specific crime. The word "accident" in most of these cases gives people the idea that no one is really responsible. My point is, someone is almost always responsible for the discharge.
Just a few days ago we had a police Chief in a neighboring city shoot himself in the leg while getting ready for work. The news article infuriated me. The Chief ends up saying that this incidents are unavoidable! This guy has 30 years in the ATF and several years in local LE and he basically says there is nothing we can do to prevent these incidents from happening. Bull shit! We can limit the incidents drastically with training, personal accountability and peer accountability... Basically if your buddies do something stupid, call them out.
I said it earlier. The point of the original post was my opinion that society needs to stop calling these incidents, "accidents". I said it earlier that you need to stop looking at this from an investigative point of view. I am not making an attempt to charge or convict the individual of a specific crime. The word "accident" in most of these cases gives people the idea that no one is really responsible. My point is, someone is almost always responsible for the discharge.
Just a few days ago we had a police Chief in a neighboring city shoot himself in the leg while getting ready for work. The news article infuriated me. The Chief ends up saying that this incidents are unavoidable! This guy has 30 years in the ATF and several years in local LE and he basically says there is nothing we can do to prevent these incidents from happening. Bull shit! We can limit the incidents drastically with training, personal accountability and peer accountability... Basically if your buddies do something stupid, call them out.
Are we rushing to judgement regarding this particular incident? Maybe? Given the facts (Just the facts) the guy threw a loaded gun on the bed out of his direct control. That is negligence in my mind. Maybe there are mitigating circumstances? I don't know, but the fact remains the guy was showing off his guns at a cookout with kids around. An extra level of caution is called for in such circumstances.
Graham, I understand your point. I'm surprised that a guy with almost 8000 posts on a gun forum can't understand mine. How about applying a little bit of that logic to my statement. Once a firearm is unloaded it is to be treated as loaded. Would it make you feel better if I said "All guns are always loaded." and left it at that? Sometimes, despite Knowing a gun is unloaded, it behooves one to double check. That is the sole point of the latter half of my statement.
Also, I find it amazing how Pedantic many on web forums are. Text alone can be a difficult medium to express thoughts, concerns, ideas... etc. Why not open your minds a little and try to see my view, or the view of anther, before spouting off some dissertation on the err of my logic. If everyone did this more folks would find that our reasoning is not that far apart. Of course it would also reduce the number of posts on the site.
Chip
Huh...this is an interesting read. There seems to be a lot of emotion in this thread. I am surprised that a very short, four paragraph, article with such limited information has sparked so much debate with people taking such hard lines. The article is not particularly insightful, has nothing but superficial detail and most of the posts are way longer than the article. Heck, even my post has more words.
This could have been truly an accident or not and we would never know because we are assuming the fact pattern in the article to be complete and transparent. I am guessing, but it is probably not complete. This could have just as easily been a writer with some bias choosing to pick the facts they want to show that project a negative light or a bad writer or a lazy writer...who knows. This is why I stopped watching news on TV. There is to much bias in reporting to trust most information. Even if the facts are materially correct and true they may not be complete or may be selected to lead the reader to the wrong conclusion. This is usually the core of most anti gun arguments...a very myopic view of a few core facts that support your opinion without looking at the totality of the situation.
If you only need two facts, loaded gun+kid=negligence all the time, then your fact pattern is complete in the article. Everyone else, stay tuned for more information.
This could have been truly an accident or not and we would never know because we are assuming the fact pattern in the article to be complete and transparent. I am guessing, but it is probably not complete. This could have just as easily been a writer with some bias choosing to pick the facts they want to show that project a negative light or a bad writer or a lazy writer...who knows. This is why I stopped watching news on TV. There is to much bias in reporting to trust most information. Even if the facts are materially correct and true they may not be complete or may be selected to lead the reader to the wrong conclusion. This is usually the core of most anti gun arguments...a very myopic view of a few core facts that support your opinion without looking at the totality of the situation.
If you only need two facts, loaded gun+kid=negligence all the time, then your fact pattern is complete in the article. Everyone else, stay tuned for more information.
More facts are needed to get to negligence. Did the person in control of the firearm know, or should he have known, that an unsupervised child was present in the room?
Negligence is a tort; criminal negligence is a crime.
Personal attacks are a sign of desperation. They are also against the forum rules.
It wasn't an argument, and it's not circular.
We all understand: You can't believe that I would hold a four year-old blameless and incapable of negligence.
Graham, I applaud you for making an honest effort to continue to discuss these events despite the brow beating and table thumping. The comment directed toward you asking what horse you have in the race was particularly concerning, because the person who typed it apparently thinks that because you want to look at the precise circumstances at issue here, that you must be deferring to the deputy or must be biased. It is truly a shame that analysis is so uncommon that gathering the facts before making a decision is supposed evidence of bias.
I have just a few comments after reading much of the thread:
It has taken a while, but it seems that many now realize that an incident can be BOTH an "accident" and "negligent." Several of you are using words like "reckless," but that word suggests a disregard of a known risk--something more severe than negligence.
I also like that it was quickly pointed out that a 4 year old is incapable of negligence. I agree. A 4 year old is completely incapable of understanding that misuse of firearms can have lethal consequences, nor understanding what that means and how it affects them.
Onward to the particular facts here, I don't want to jump too far ahead, but my personal standard of care for firearms is that there must be at least two actions necessary for a discharge to occur. If I leave a striker-fired gun loaded in my house, it's in a holster. If it's a single action, I do the same, requiring three actions (draw, flick safety off, pull trigger). Rifles and shotguns, I am comfortable leaving them loaded, chambered, and on safe, if they are pointed in a direction where if the hammer fell, the round would not endanger anyone.
My personal standard of care is not the law anywhere, but I think it is sound to expect that a firearm should require two steps before it goes off. I apply this same standard to guns I carry on the street. Whether it's a pocket holster or a belt holster or whatever, it has to be drawn from the holster AND the trigger pulled to go bang. That's how I roll.
Is my standard above that which is "reasonable" for the circumstances? I don't know. I don't think it is. But since I shoot a lot and am more aware of the risks, I may be more comfortable with a lower standard and/or apply a higher standard to myself because of known consequences. That said, I know people with similar levels of experience that I have with firearms who think that keeping a loaded firearm in one's house is too risky; those people are happy to tell you that there are NO loaded guns in their house.
Under my standard, a person would be negligent for having a firearm out of its holster, while chambered and loaded, for anything longer than a few seconds to put the gun back in the holster or to face some sort of dangerous circumstances. One of the safest places for a loaded gun is in a holster. That's why even most primitive race holsters cover the trigger.
I have just a few comments after reading much of the thread:
It has taken a while, but it seems that many now realize that an incident can be BOTH an "accident" and "negligent." Several of you are using words like "reckless," but that word suggests a disregard of a known risk--something more severe than negligence.
I also like that it was quickly pointed out that a 4 year old is incapable of negligence. I agree. A 4 year old is completely incapable of understanding that misuse of firearms can have lethal consequences, nor understanding what that means and how it affects them.
Onward to the particular facts here, I don't want to jump too far ahead, but my personal standard of care for firearms is that there must be at least two actions necessary for a discharge to occur. If I leave a striker-fired gun loaded in my house, it's in a holster. If it's a single action, I do the same, requiring three actions (draw, flick safety off, pull trigger). Rifles and shotguns, I am comfortable leaving them loaded, chambered, and on safe, if they are pointed in a direction where if the hammer fell, the round would not endanger anyone.
My personal standard of care is not the law anywhere, but I think it is sound to expect that a firearm should require two steps before it goes off. I apply this same standard to guns I carry on the street. Whether it's a pocket holster or a belt holster or whatever, it has to be drawn from the holster AND the trigger pulled to go bang. That's how I roll.
Is my standard above that which is "reasonable" for the circumstances? I don't know. I don't think it is. But since I shoot a lot and am more aware of the risks, I may be more comfortable with a lower standard and/or apply a higher standard to myself because of known consequences. That said, I know people with similar levels of experience that I have with firearms who think that keeping a loaded firearm in one's house is too risky; those people are happy to tell you that there are NO loaded guns in their house.
Under my standard, a person would be negligent for having a firearm out of its holster, while chambered and loaded, for anything longer than a few seconds to put the gun back in the holster or to face some sort of dangerous circumstances. One of the safest places for a loaded gun is in a holster. That's why even most primitive race holsters cover the trigger.
You are so lost it is hopeless. You illustrate the absurdity of your argument better than anyone else could ever do.
Let me makes this crystal clear for you: nobody in their right mind would place negligence on a 4 yo child. Everyone with two brain cells to rub together understands intuitively that the negligence rests on the adult who allowed a child to get a hold of his weapon and discharge it killing someone.
Maybe you are a sea lawyer that loves to obfuscate and engage in circular reasoning to defend a ridiculous argument. I come from a different point of view that believes in absolute responsibility. The owner of the firearm bears absolute responsibility for the negligent act of allowing someone else to get a hold of his handgun.
Last edited:
You contradict yourself: Three of your posts ago you couldn't believe the argument I was making; now you are the one making it for me.
Except that, without more facts that are not present, one can't reach the same conclusion about the owner of the weapon that one can about the parents of the child.
There is no such thing as absolute responsibility in the example that you gave. You are, again, jumping to conclusions.
BTW, here is a fairly good definition of circular reasoning:
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You may want to review it prior to making baseless accusations.
Last edited:
Negligence is generally not criminal. There are exceptions, of course, but the criminal law is not well-suited to dealing with unintentional acts that result in injury, because the criminal law is organized around the concept of culpability--what the law calls "mens rea."
This is not to say that some oversights of the expected care necessary in a given circumstance are not so against the peace and dignity of a free society that they are not punishable by the criminal law, but the general structure of the criminal law is exceptionally poorly suited to dealing with negligent acts, because the level of culpability is limited to an omission rather than an affirmative act (that is, a failure to take the necessary care that a reasonable man would take in the circumstances).
If negligence were criminal, everyone who spun out on ice in their car and hit a light pole would potentially find himself in jail if the jury thought his speed was unreasonable given the fact that there was ice on the road. Of course, this would require that a legislature codify negligent driving as a crime, that a prosecutor decide that it was worthy of prosecution, and that the case actually reach trial--all things that are completely unlikely in the real world. But that doesn't mean this doesn't teach an important lesson to people just because it is not criminal, it merely notes that punitive sanctions are generally appropriate for situations in which the level of culpability is higher.
It is so well-established that a 4 year old is incapable of negligence (that legal conclusion predates our republic and perhaps predates even the common law) that arguing the point is almost a complete waste of time. It's no surprise that one who takes a contrary position must resort to insults when this is pointed out; arguing otherwise is like arguing the world is flat.
Even "absolute responsibility" fails to answer the question as to the appropriate standard for evaluating fault. Even strict liability torts (think explosives company imploding a building) require demonstrating that one's conduct is the cause of the plaintiff's injury. Otherwise your mother would be liable in tort for birthing you, as in some sense of the word, if she'd swallowed instead, the injury would have never occurred and there would be nothing to fight about.
This is not to say that some oversights of the expected care necessary in a given circumstance are not so against the peace and dignity of a free society that they are not punishable by the criminal law, but the general structure of the criminal law is exceptionally poorly suited to dealing with negligent acts, because the level of culpability is limited to an omission rather than an affirmative act (that is, a failure to take the necessary care that a reasonable man would take in the circumstances).
If negligence were criminal, everyone who spun out on ice in their car and hit a light pole would potentially find himself in jail if the jury thought his speed was unreasonable given the fact that there was ice on the road. Of course, this would require that a legislature codify negligent driving as a crime, that a prosecutor decide that it was worthy of prosecution, and that the case actually reach trial--all things that are completely unlikely in the real world. But that doesn't mean this doesn't teach an important lesson to people just because it is not criminal, it merely notes that punitive sanctions are generally appropriate for situations in which the level of culpability is higher.
It is so well-established that a 4 year old is incapable of negligence (that legal conclusion predates our republic and perhaps predates even the common law) that arguing the point is almost a complete waste of time. It's no surprise that one who takes a contrary position must resort to insults when this is pointed out; arguing otherwise is like arguing the world is flat.
Even "absolute responsibility" fails to answer the question as to the appropriate standard for evaluating fault. Even strict liability torts (think explosives company imploding a building) require demonstrating that one's conduct is the cause of the plaintiff's injury. Otherwise your mother would be liable in tort for birthing you, as in some sense of the word, if she'd swallowed instead, the injury would have never occurred and there would be nothing to fight about.
Last edited:
Similar threads
