Accident vs Negligence

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Reading the news this morning I came across this story....

Boy, 4, accidentally kills Tenn. deputy's wife

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Authorities say a 4-year-old boy grabbed a loaded gun at a family cookout and accidentally shot and killed the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy.
Investigators say Wilson County Deputy Daniel Fanning on Saturday was showing his weapons to a relative in a bedroom of his Lebanon home when the toddler came in and picked up a gun off the bed. Sheriff Robert Bryan says the weapon discharged, hitting 48-year-old Josephine Fanning.
She was pronounced dead at the scene. The child is not related to her or her husband.
Bryan says the shooting was a terrible accident and that within seconds of Fanning placing the gun on the bed, the toddler picked it up.
The gun was not Fanning's service weapon and the sheriff says the deputy's weapons are normally stored in a safe.


I think we can all agree it is an absolutely horrible time for all of those who are involved. Though, I want to touch upon a few points. I scanned over dozens of the comments on Yahoo and found many people commenting on the "deputy's training". The comments ranged from he wasn't trained to the training must have been inadequate. I am positive he was trained and I would be willing to bet he was trained about safe weapons handling. Though, one still has to apply the training they are given. People adopt the attitude, "It will never happen to me", that is the fundamental flaw. I have been instructing firearms to civilians, law enforcement and military for the last 15 years. I am good, so good I am about to make a mistake. I keep telling myself and my students that very thing.

Another issue is labeling this as an "accident". We say things like "accident" to make people feel ok about their mistake when they really should have known better. If you are trained or knew better we need to be honest with everyone and call it what it is, complacency or negligence. I feel for all those involved, their lives are forever changed but call it what it is, complacency and negligence.

Another issue is the lack of repetitive training for firearms safety. For most classes I start with a 10-20 minute talk about the four basic firearms safety rules. For agency in-service training I cover it 2-3 times a year. No matter who you are or how long you have been involved in firearms you need to revisit the rules. At the end of the day if we follow the 4 basic firearms safety rules and these incidents will never happen.
1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded.
2. Never allow the muzzle to cover anything you are not willing to kill, destroy and take full responsibility for.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger and long the frame until you have made a conscience decision to fire.
4. Identify your target, the backstop and the area behind the backstop prior to firing.

 

[B3dlam]

I agree this was clearly negligence not an accident. The weapon should have been cleared as his intention was to show people the weapons.

Society does like the term accidental discharge rather then negligent discharge as people don't feel they have to be accountable anymore. The way I was taught an accidental discharge occurs only when you do everything right and the weapon still discharges due to a mechanical failure possibly from being dropped things like that. Any other time it's a negligent discharge.




Sent from my iPad autocorrect at your own risk.

 

[Sniper Uncle]

Negligence WITHOUT Question. Why was there a round in the chamber? Did it not have a safety? I would not ever have guns lying on the bed with kids any where in the house. When guests come over, if I want to show a fire-arm, then there is no magazine in it, and the chamber is opened before the guest touches the weapon. This is also done in a place where no children under the age of 10 are present, and certainly none whose parents are not present with the child.

Terrible way to learn a lesson.

 

[That Guy]

+1 for what B3dlam said... No quesion in my mind that this was negligence for not clearing the weapon first.

 

[Graham]

It's NOT negligence: The Deputy didn't pull the trigger. A four year-old is not capable of negligence. There is no way that child can be expected to understand the rules of firearm safety or be held responsible for knowing them.

The child reportedly picked-up the gun when it was set down for only a brief moment. No gun safety rule mandates that only unloaded guns be placed on a bed. Therefore what happened has NOTHING to do with the gun safety rules quoted by the OP.

And it's not negligent entrustment because the child was not given the gun. In fact, if the child was being supervised at the time and, like the article says, the discharge took place 'within seconds' of otherwise proper supervision, assuming a few more facts it might turn out to have been an accident. But, if the child was not being properly supervised, it could be a case of negligent supervision.

So - and this should not be a surprise to Second Amendment supporters - what happened is NOT a gun issue. It's more like creating a dangerous condition in the home, like poison in an unsecured closet, and having an unsupervised child hurt himself or someone else with it.

Those of you who are making this about gun safety are only a hair away from blaming the gun.

 

[Bushmaster11]

I think it was not a negligent discharge but negligence around the child, he put it down briefly but in a situation where you know there are small children around, you have to remember that and be extra careful. Unfortunate

 

[Sniper Uncle]

I think it was not a negligent discharge but negligence around the child, he put it down briefly but in a situation where you know there are small children around, you have to remember that and be extra careful. Unfortunate

Thanks, that is my point too. The Officer should not be showing guns to a friend in a situation where there is any possibility of children getting them, certainly not unsupervised kids. It is an accidental death, but it was set up and brought about by negligence on the part of at least one adult, a officer of the law, no less. The Libs try to tell us that these are the only ones who should have guns, and then you see one of them do a really bone-headed thing like this. You don't place a loaded, and chambered gun on the bed, even for a moment when there is any chance a kid could be around to get his or her hands on it. Not EVER! And this is exactly why. The gun had to have been chambered, because what 4 yr old do you know who knows how to chamber the weapon, or even has the strength to do so. If the child did, then it even goes further to prove negligence was involved

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Graham, It was negligence. Rule #1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded..... This rule is broad and is the common sense catch all for all weapons handling. In this case, don't set the firearm down where any unauthorized user may get their hands on it.

 

[Lowlight]

I think it is a form of negligence, it may not be mechanical in the context of range safety, but it is certainly negligent in the broader sense.

I think once removed from the body, if it is within reach of any one it should be cleared, especially if a round has been chambered. It's one thing to insert a loaded mag and have it within reach, it is another to have the round chambered.

Another thing that points to negligence is the fact it is now being used against gun owners painting them as irresponsible. If your actions portray that image, you are negligent in your duties as a responsible owner. In this case the negligence is not maintaining positive control within reach of a minor. But I think Graham does have one point... the child cannot understand "treat all guns as if they are loaded" and putting a loaded gun down does not violate that rule. We have no objection on the range pointing a rifle downrange, or laying a pistol on a table with the barrel pointed in safe direction. We do however on many occasions clear them, dropping the mag and opening the bolt when it is no longer in our control. Making it safe... that was overlooked the fact they no longer controlled it.

 

[Graham]

Graham, It was negligence. Rule #1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded..... This rule is broad and is the common sense catch all for all weapons handling. In this case, don't set the firearm down where any unauthorized user may get their hands on it.

I see what you are assuming about the owner failing to use his common sense, but we can't conclude about either negligence or causation without making sure that the facts fit the elements of the allegation. If this incident had happened - heaven forbid - at your friend's house I'm sure you would want an investigator assigned to the case who didn't engage in sloppy reasoning when evaluating whether or not a crime (or a tort) was committed.

The person who caused the discharge is not legally capable of negligence, so it wasn't a negligent discharge. Period. The issue, absent more information, isn't negligent firearms handling which resulted in a discharge, it's negligent supervision of a child which resulted in the child getting the gun.

Here the gun WAS loaded, so a rule that says to treat it AS IF it were loaded is not relevant because the owner of the firearm wasn't treating it as if, or claiming that he thought it was, UNloaded. If the owner thought that he was putting down an unloaded gun, then if not for a violation of Rule #1 there would have been no discharge. But that's not what happened in this case. Here the owner reportedly knowingly put down a loaded gun. As an officer/investigator I can't simply jump to the conclusion that a safety rule which says to always treat a gun as if it is loaded can automatically change to 'don't put a gun down if you think that it is loaded'. A negligent person might (or might not) do that, but for the purpose of deriving causation (and determining responsibility) it's not the same thing.

Was putting down a loaded gun a dumb thing to do in the presence of a four year-old? Maybe. But was a violation of the four safety rules a proximate cause of the discharge? Not on these facts.

 

[McLarenross]

Sad and unfortunate, but not an accident. Negligence pure and simple. I dont care if its gonna be outta my hand/holster/safe for five seconds or five minutes or five days, it gets cleared by me and then the person I had it too if I am handing it off.

 

[M40_A1]

Hey, I found the forum where this thread should have been posted, since it is not about marksmanship- "The Bear Pit"
The Bear Pit

 

[roggom]

IMHO its negligence of the deputy, his weapon, his house. He should be in control of his weapons at all reasonable times. If he was out of the house and someone broke in and shot someone, that would be different story. While he was there, He should have had positive control of his weapons at all times. The child could have been taught never to touch, but still the Deputy should have prepared for company.

I have 4 kids, now from 21 down to 13, I taught them gun safety from the get-go. From the age the youngest could understand, they have never, ever touched our firearms without me being present, period. When and if there is company, everything gets put away, If I show my weapons, I certainly clear them first. Some states have child access laws, and this kind of incident is why. The incident is tragic, especially for the family and the young one who will have to grow up with this burden.


Tennessee Statutes

Title 39. Criminal Offenses

Chapter 17. Offenses Against Public Health, Safety and Welfare

Part 13. Weapons


Current through 2011 Legislative Session
§ 39-17-1320. Providing handguns to juveniles - Penalties

(a) It is an offense for a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun with or without remuneration to any person that the person providing the handgun knows or has reason to believe is a juvenile in violation of § 39-17-1319.

(b) It is an offense for a parent or guardian intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun to a juvenile or permit a juvenile to possess a handgun, if the parent or guardian knows of a substantial risk that the juvenile will use a handgun to commit a felony.

(c) Unlawfully providing or permitting a juvenile to possess a handgun in violation of subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor and in violation of subsection (b) is a Class D felony.

Cite as T.C.A. § 39-17-1320

History. Acts 1994, ch. 802, § 1.

 

[seanh]

without a doubt, the deputy should go to prison. He is solely responsible for the death. The parents of the child should also spend time in jail...not being present and having control of the child.

This is one of those things that were easily avoidable...an example should be made for all parties.

 

[Graham]

Sad and unfortunate, but not an accident. Negligence pure and simple. I dont care if its gonna be outta my hand/holster/safe for five seconds or five minutes or five days, it gets cleared by me and then the person I had it too if I am handing it off.

He didn't hand-off the gun, so that's not an issue. There's no such thing as 'negligence pure and simple' because negligence by definition requires a finding of 'proper' or 'reasonable' care under the circumstances - so it can never be either pure or simple. And in fact this discharge DOES meet the definition of an accident: It was a non-negligent unintentional discharge, caused by an event that the operator of the firearm could not have prevented and could not have foreseen.

We look to the behavior of other than the operator of the firearm precisely because it WAS an accident. To find any culpability at all we must examine at least one step removed from the event, to the appropriate standard of care that the owner of the firearm could and should have been observing. We ask: What did the owner of the firearm know and when did he know it? Or, in the alternative: What should he have known, when should he have known it, and what should or could he have done to prevent what happened? Because we don't have answers to these questions, or even enough detail about the circumstances, we don't have negligence yet. All we have so far is premises liability.

39-17-1320. Providing handguns to juveniles - Penalties

(a) It is an offense for a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun with or without remuneration to any person that the person providing the handgun knows or has reason to believe is a juvenile in violation of § 39-17-1319.

(b) It is an offense for a parent or guardian intentionally, knowingly or recklessly to provide a handgun to a juvenile or permit a juvenile to possess a handgun, if the parent or guardian knows of a substantial risk that the juvenile will use a handgun to commit a felony.

(c) Unlawfully providing or permitting a juvenile to possess a handgun in violation of subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor and in violation of subsection (b) is a Class D felony.

§ 39-17-1320 doesn't apply because he didn't knowingly give the kid the gun and there is no proof recklessness - a standard far-above that of negligence.

without a doubt, the deputy should go to prison. He is solely responsible for the death. The parents of the child should also spend time in jail...not being present and having control of the child.

This is one of those things that were easily avoidable...an example should be made for all parties.

Think for a moment about what you just wrote: Was the deputy solely responsible for the actions of another person's child? What about if that child's parent was present?

Have you ever been not present with your child, or present but not in control of your child? Should you go immediately to jail if that child does something unexpected and hurts himself or someone else? Has your child ever hurt himself in your presence?

What about if your son takes your gun and uses it in a crime - are you yourself solely responsible for the crime? What if he's mentally challenged, you are his guardian and he steals them? Same result?

And about the making of examples... That's the same argument that people use when they say you should be the example to prevent avoidable tragedy and turn-in your high capacity magazines.

So how about it: Are you still on board with the hang' 'em high mentality if your own made-up solutions were to be applied against you?

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Graham,

You are over analyzing what I said. Read my post again, I am not trying to make a case for charging Deputy Fanning. My point is specifically from a weapons handling point of view and how the public and media describe such incidents.

A definition for negligence I use in training is, "the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care." You have to exercise care. Laying down a loaded weapon so that anyone can put hands on it is not a safe practice. I don't know of any firearms school that allows loaded weapons to be set down during training. Our medics are trained to remove and make a casualty's weapon(s) safe early on in treatment. When we come upon firearms at a crime scene we typically don't touch it for the purpose of evidence but we will place an officer right with that weapon not only to secure it as evidence but also because it is a danger.

Graham, I can not believe that you "maybe" think it was dumb for Deputy Fanning to place a loaded weapon down near a four year old. This is a no brainer in my book. It was beyond dumb. I have loaded weapons in my home, but each one is in a safe that is controlled by a biometric lock. When the weapon comes out it is either on my person being carried or it is in my hand because I am going to use it. The unloaded weapons in my house are in a safe and the ammo is not close at hand. I take these precautions specifically because I have young kids and I know that things like this can happen to me.

From what the article says, Deputy Fanning took little to no precautions to avoid this.

 

[Graham]

I agree that putting down a loaded weapon in the presence of a child is not a good practice. I am not arguing otherwise. But I admit that I don't know WHY he put the gun down or WHAT happened immediately before the four year-old got control of the gun. We know that it was not the deputy's service weapon. We know that it was not the deputy's child. We know that there were other people, perhaps the child's parents, in the room.

I have seen enough of these kinds of incidents to know that there's probably more to the story that what was printed in the article. Call it an occupational hazard, but I try to be as objective as possible when finding the facts and I make my conclusions after I get the facts, not before. The reason I engage in this kind of very specific analysis is because the system does not permit me to make up my own definitions of terms like 'accident' and 'negligence'. I don't know whether complacency was an issue here or not, but I do know that there is a framework for analysis of these kinds of events and that it's important for me to recognize that in order to conclude about causation and culpability.

What I am saying is that this example is not appropriate to illustrate the reason why the four basic gun safety rules should be taught to avoid negligent discharges. In this case it was not the operator of the firearm who had the discharge. That makes all the difference. This incident is a good example of why MORE THAN the four safety rules should be taught to deputies - because this WAS an ACCIDENT caused by a third party that probably could have been prevented, but by means OTHER than obeying the four rules.

 

[roggom]

I am not a lawyer of attempting to play Sea Lawyer, I simply posted the law as it reads. In my opinion, leaving a loaded firearm on a bed while unsupervised children are about is reckless. A simple definition of Negligence "Failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another".

It will be up to the DA if he or she decides to prosecute, if so, it will be up to a jury of his peers top decide if the Deputy is guilty or not.

 

[Graham]

In my opinion, leaving a loaded firearm on a bed while unsupervised children are about is reckless.

There is no evidence that the child in the room was unsupervised.

 

[seanh]

He didn't hand-off the gun, so that's not an issue. There's no such thing as 'negligence pure and simple' because negligence by definition requires a finding of 'proper' or 'reasonable' care under the circumstances - so it can never be either pure or simple. And in fact this discharge DOES meet the definition of an accident: It was a non-negligent unintentional discharge, caused by an event that the operator of the firearm could not have prevented and could not have foreseen.
Yes there is "pure and simple" negligence. Fact- The gun was loaded, fact- it was his gun, fact- he handled the gun prior to discharge. All point to negligent behavior...very simple concept. Could this have been easily and reasonably avoided...absolutely

To say this was an accident is naive. It assumes that there was no way to avoid the problem and no one is responsible

We look to the behavior of other than the operator of the firearm precisely because it WAS an accident. To find any culpability at all we must examine at least one step removed from the event, to the appropriate standard of care that the owner of the firearm could and should have been observing. We ask: What did the owner of the firearm know and when did he know it? Or, in the alternative: What should he have known, when should he have known it, and what should or could he have done to prevent what happened? Because we don't have answers to these questions, or even enough detail about the circumstances, we don't have negligence yet. All we have so far is premises liability.

§ 39-17-1320 doesn't apply because he didn't knowingly give the kid the gun and there is no proof recklessness - a standard far-above that of negligence.

his negligence and recklessness was improperly handling the weapon...child in the room doesn't matter at this point, anyone could have grabbed and discharge the weapon. It is the gun owners responsibility to ensure this doesn't happen. This isn't a case where someone broke into the gun safe or cabinet...the deputy deputy handled the weapon and put it within reach of another person.

Think for a moment about what you just wrote: Was the deputy solely responsible for the actions of another person's child? What about if that child's parent was present?

In Houston, a gun owner is responsible for shootings involving a child accidental or not. Even if Nashville doesn't have any ordinance to that effect, he would be responsible for providing the opportunity...a responsibility that we gun owners have a duty to ensure doesn't happen.

Have you ever been not present with your child, or present but not in control of your child? Should you go immediately to jail if that child does something unexpected and hurts himself or someone else? Has your child ever hurt himself in your presence?

Yes, if a parent has items that a child can use to kill someone, and that child has access to those items and that child kills someone, the parent should go to prison.

What about if your son takes your gun and uses it in a crime - are you yourself solely responsible for the crime? What if he's mentally challenged, you are his guardian and he steals them? Same result?

Yes, I'm responsible. Mentally challenged? Yes, absolutely my responsibility to ensure that the child will have no access to any firearms. Steals them? Yep, I'd be responsible. For the theft to occur, the child would have to have access to them.

And about the making of examples... That's the same argument that people use when they say you should be the example to prevent avoidable tragedy and turn-in your high capacity magazines.

So how about it: Are you still on board with the hang' 'em high mentality if your own made-up solutions were to be applied against you?

As you can see...I'm all for proper placement of blame and acceptance of liability. I take it by your response that everyone should just say "sorry for the accident" and be on their way.

There were three times that this negligent action could have been avoided...1, don't keep the gun loaded; 2, should the gun be loaded in the cabinet, mechanically and visually inspect the gun, 3 don't let the gun out of your control. The deputy failed in every opportunity.

 

[roggom]

There is no evidence that the child in the room was unsupervised.

Nor to to the contrary.

 

[Graham]

As you can see...I'm all for proper placement of blame and acceptance of liability. I take it by your response that everyone should just say "sorry for the accident" and be on their way.

Yes, the four year-old should do just that.

But seriously?! After the analysis I did to give context to finding blame all you got from it was that everyone should say 'sorry'? I'm not sure I agree with your police work on that one.

There were three times that this negligent action could have been avoided...1, don't keep the gun loaded; 2, should the gun be loaded in the cabinet, mechanically and visually inspect the gun, 3 don't let the gun out of your control. The deputy failed in every opportunity.

There are countless ways this could have been avoided, like deputy Fanning could have been in Cleveland at the time, none of which are relevant to what actually did happen. I agree that it doesn't look good for him, though, because he was the last one to have the gun before the kid got a hold of it.

 

[Graham]

Nor to to the contrary.

There were at least three other adults in the bedroom with the child at the time: Fanning, his wife, and another adult.

 

[Sniper Uncle]

I would suggest you go and watch the video provided. This officer was a "school resource officer at a local elementary school." This officer set a loaded and chambered gun either with the safety off, or it had no mechanical safety down on the bed within reach of a child while family was over for a picnic. This definitely means that he knew there were children on the premises. Whether he knew the child was in the room or not is rather irrelevant. The rest is a tragic story.
Having said that, this officer is in an elementary school for the kids' protection. Talk about giving a bad name to armed guards in schools, and playing right into the hands of the GC crowd. This officer should have known better than to ever lay a loaded and chambered gun with the safety off or no mechanical safety where a child could even possibly get his hands on it. That is negligence, Graham, and there is no denying it nor excuse for it. I don't care what you think, you may be the smartest lawyer in the world, and I don't care. This is a case of negligence on the part of the officer. Should he go to jail for it? That really is for the DA to decide on charges if any, and a jury to decide if charges are brought before them. I think losing his wife is probably punishment enough, but that is my opinion. Certainly I don't want him armed in a school at any time.

 

[Sterling Shooter]

All,

I expect incidents like this to rise. Whether prompted by ignorance or a caviler attitude, there are it seems a lot of folks out there today using guns without any thought about the awesome responsibility they are undertaking.

 

[40xs]

Call it what you want, but here in my state there is a law that says you are guilty if a firearm is left accessable to a minor. Unforseen as it may have appeared he was in direct violation of that law. Granted, who would have thought that a four year old would, or could have accomplished that? but it shows us that we have to think outside of the bubble. Expect the unexpected. does'nt seem fair, but fair does'nt enter into it. If it can happen, it will happen. We don't have any young children, but my biggest fear is guests coming to visit when i'm not there and having nosey children messing around unsupervised. It is possiible that one of my pieces could be found, Heaven forbid, and me not know anything about. Kids are not as well behaved today as they were when I was coming up and like one of the previous posts eluded, you can not impune negligence on kids, it's all on us.

 

[Graham]

Whether he knew the child was in the room or not is rather irrelevant...

Actually, that might be the crux of whether or not he was negligent: Setting down a loaded gun for a few seconds, when one thinks that only responsible adults are present, might not be a breach of a duty. Absent a statute like the one 40xs talks about above, whether the gun was located somewhere that a child could have possibly gotten his hands on it is not the issue.

 

[Sniper Uncle]

Graham, you seem to be hell bent on finding this guy to be totally not at fault. What horse do you have in this race????
This story proves beyond shadow of doubt the foolishness of laying a loaded, chambered gun within reach of a child, whether any children are present or not. If there is ANY POSSIBILITY that a child could get their hands on it, YOU DON"T PUT IT DOWN, NOT EVEN FOR A FEW SECONDS. The gun must have been either without mechanical safety, or the safety wasn't on. This makes it even more IMPERATIVE that gun safety rules be followed-----YOU DON"T PUT A LOADED, CHAMBERED GUN DOWN WHERE A YOUNG CHILD CAN GET IT!!!!
Get THAT through you THICK SKULL!!!!!!
People like you really piss me off! You are trying to defend the INDEFENSIBLE! This kind of mentality has in large part contributed to the current climate where folks can even countenance having a push to control guns. The officer here broke a fundamental rule of gun safety, and his wife died as a result. You try to make him bear no blame for this. RESPONSIBILITY needs to be accepted and faced, or we might as well believe that guns kill people, so therefore none of us should have guns.

 

[M40_A1]

O.K. Even though this thread is in the wrong forum, I'll bite.

"Accident vs. Negligence"? Really? Again?

According to the quote, the article simply said the BOY accidentally killed the deputy's wife. Everyone here is arguing about what consituted the deputy's actions. The article doesn't even touch on that being an "accident" or "negligence". Was the boy "negligent"? Was the boy "the deputy"? Why are so many confused about why the word "accident" was used in the article?

Boy, 4, accidentally kills Tenn. deputy's wife

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Authorities say a 4-year-old boy grabbed a loaded gun at a family cookout and accidentally shot and killed the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy.

Now, if the boy intentionally pointed the gun at the wife and "play" fired it, then the term "accident" might be debatable, because even if he didn't know or intend to actually shoot someone, there would have been an element of intentional action. But that's not what's being debated here, right?

(Sheriff Robert) Bryan says the shooting was a terrible accident...

Yes, it was...caused by negligence. Simple.
------

Now, how do some pick in which forum to put their thread? Do they close their eyes, point to the screen and say, "This is the forum in which I will post today"?

 

[j-huskey]

A friend, colleague, brother in arms, partner, co-worker was recently involved in a legitimate shooting where the other party died. He is in the clear. Then he started to read the chat room comments where he was castigated venomously. These comments disturbed him for days. He is succeeding in dealing with the comments.
Similarly, the deputy has to deal with the incident, his wife is dead. He has to live with that. Which some of us know will be hell on earth. He has to clear the legal process which is another form of hell here. And when he reads threads like these, knowing some comments are from brother officers, this will be many gallons of gas poured into the flames of the hell he will live with forever. Karma is a bitch. Be careful in your judgment, it may come back to you.
Seen it happen many times.
The deputy is in hell. If I was a moderator I'd delete this thread bc snipers hide should be above this.

 

[Graham]

Graham, you seem to be hell bent on finding this guy to be totally not at fault. What horse do you have in this race????
This story proves beyond shadow of doubt the foolishness of laying a loaded, chambered gun within reach of a child, whether any children are present or not. If there is ANY POSSIBILITY that a child could get their hands on it, YOU DON"T PUT IT DOWN, NOT EVEN FOR A FEW SECONDS. The gun must have been either without mechanical safety, or the safety wasn't on. This makes it even more IMPERATIVE that gun safety rules be followed-----YOU DON"T PUT A LOADED, CHAMBERED GUN DOWN WHERE A YOUNG CHILD CAN GET IT!!!!
Get THAT through you THICK SKULL!!!!!!
People like you really piss me off! You are trying to defend the INDEFENSIBLE! This kind of mentality has in large part contributed to the current climate where folks can even countenance having a push to control guns. The officer here broke a fundamental rule of gun safety, and his wife died as a result. You try to make him bear no blame for this. RESPONSIBILITY needs to be accepted and faced, or we might as well believe that guns kill people, so therefore none of us should have guns.

I am not trying to find the deputy either culpable or not culpable. Please read my posts. I said that we likely don't have all the facts, and I gave a framework for proper definition and investigation and analysis of the event.

There is no fundamental rule of gun safety that says one doesn't momentarily put down a loaded firearm. Anyone who says they have never done that are not being truthful. The question in this case is whether, under the totality of the circumstances known to the deputy at the time, doing so was a breach of the standard of care required by by him, again, under the circumstances.

Andrew and others here are officers. If this had happened to you I'm sure you would want an officer to show up who leaves at the door the kinds of biases and personal judgments that you have demonstrated in your posts. In my experience, people who claim to be 'pissed off' at objectivity because they demand someone's head on a stick are the first to whine and cry and demand a lawyer when the tables are turned and they are ones being investigated.

Kindly don't be so transparent.

 

[Sniper Uncle]

Obviously you haven't ever met me, and don't know the first thing about me. I hate people who go whining to lawyers. I also cannot stand those who will not take responsibility for their own actions. I am not saying that you are either of these things. I am saying that I do not EVER lay a Loaded, Chambered Gun down where a child could even begin to think about accessing it easily---NEVER, NOT EVER. When there are kids in my house, all the loaded guns have no round in the chamber, are on safety, and ARE ALWAYS PUT OUT OF REACH OF SAID CHILDREN.
This officer should have know better, and I believe in your deepest heart you know that I am right.
I agree that there are more facts that are not revealed here, but this was a totally preventable and tragic accident which stemmed from (gross) negligence.
ACCIDENTS do not Happen---They are CAUSED! That is the first axiom of safety. Gun Safety is a HUGE RESPONSIBILITY. It was not handled responsibly in this case, and a woman is dead. I do not advocate punishment for the officer----it's his wife dead, for God's sake. I advocate that everyone learn the lesson here that YOU NEVER HAVE A LOADED, CHAMBERED GUN OUT OF YOUR COMPLETE CONTROL IF THERE IS ANY CHANCE A CHILD COULD GET HIS HANDS ON IT.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

O.K. Even though this thread is in the wrong forum
Now, how do some pick in which forum to put their thread? Do they close their eyes, point to the screen and say, "This is the forum in which I will post today"?

M40A1, Any firearms or tactical training starts with safe and proficient weapons handling skills. That should be a focus of any firearms/tactical training program. Without that foundation everything else will fall apart. Read my original post. I specifically talk about the lack of safe weapons handling skills being part of training curriculums. I was a participant in two different classes over the last 15 years where students were injured by gun fire. One instance a student shot himself in the leg and in another, a student was shot in the shoulder. I was at Fort Bragg a few years ago for a class and the guys we were on the range with had story after story about various training incidents. Read policeone's web site and you will see several stories every year regarding "training accidents" or "accidents" that occur in an officer's home.

Every opportunity we have to manipulate our weapons and equipment is a training opportunity. Do something out of the norm enough and it can become a bad/deadly habit or it may just show it's ugly head when you least expect it. We should study history and learn from it so we don't repeat it. Unfortunately, society likes to forget or brush it under the rug because it is painful to remember.

 

[usmc02xx]

I dont think the discharge was negligent, but the officer , imho, was negligent in there firearms handling. One day my son asked me why i took my pistol out of the truck every time i came in the house. I told him becuase its my responsibilty to secure my dangerous stuff. If i left it where someone got ahold of it, i would be negligent in my duty to keep my weapon secure. Criminally, nope probably not. But if something happened with my unsecure weapon i dont think i could forgive myself for not giving the weapon its proper respect.

Come to think of it, if a recruit left his rifle unsecure or not in his posession (minus guarded weapons) it was one of the most horrific things he could do. It was considered a grossly irresponsible act. Let someones lock not be secure or a weapon be in ready status when its not time to fire... Such things in the service rarely go over well.

In short, if something happens i could have prevented by my proper actions, its negligence. True accidents are few and far between. To error is human, to forgive is divine. Nether is Marine Corps policy.

 

[Sniper Uncle]

I dont think the discharge was negligent, but the officer , imho, was negligent in there firearms handling. One day my son asked me why i took my pistol out of the truck every time i came in the house. I told him becuase its my responsibilty to secure my dangerous stuff. If i left it where someone got ahold of it, i would be negligent in my duty to keep my weapon secure. Criminally, nope probably not. But if something happened with my unsecure weapon i dont think i could forgive myself for not giving the weapon its proper respect.

Come to think of it, if a recruit left his rifle unsecure or not in his posession (minus guarded weapons) it was one of the most horrific things he could do. It was considered a grossly irresponsible act. Let someones lock not be secure or a weapon be in ready status when its not time to fire... Such things in the service rarely go over well.

In short, if something happens i could have prevented by my proper actions, its negligence. True accidents are few and far between. To error is human, to forgive is divine. Nether is Marine Corps policy.

Well said, sir. You have said very succinctly the point I was trying to make. I personally would never hold this particular officer criminally negligent given what little I know of this case, but I am sure in his own heart he knows himself to have been negligent in his action.

Sad, sad story, but a lesson for all.

 

[dbowhunter]

Society does like the term accidental discharge rather then negligent discharge as people don't feel they have to be accountable anymore.

Agreed Sir.

 

[M40_A1]

M40A1, Any firearms or tactical training starts with safe and proficient weapons handling skills. That should be a focus of any firearms/tactical training program. Without that foundation everything else will fall apart. Read my original post. I specifically talk about the lack of safe weapons handling skills being part of training curriculums. I was a participant in two different classes...

Oh, I think I know what happened. The forum right above this one is "Training/Classes". You must have clicked on "Basic Marksmanship" by accident (or was it negligence?;-).
(Unless we're here to discuss the four-year-old's breathing or trigger control)
But, hey, I see threads in the marksmanship forum having to do with exterior ballistics and fitness to name a couple of other recently posted misplaced threads.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Oh, I think I know what happened. The forum right above this one is "Training/Classes". You must have clicked on "Basic Marksmanship" by accident (or was it negligence?;-).
(Unless we're here to discuss the four-year-old's breathing or trigger control)
But, hey, I see threads in the marksmanship forum having to do with exterior ballistics and fitness to name a couple of other recently posted misplaced threads.

M40A1, The sub title for this forum says, "Discussion of Firearms Training to include Handgun & Carbine". I think safe and proficient weapons handling falls in that category.

 

[M40_A1]

M40A1, The sub title for this forum says, "Discussion of Firearms Training to include Handgun & Carbine". I think safe and proficient weapons handling falls in that category.

Ah, I see what you're saying. O.K. I don't think the subtitle helps to define "marksmanship" very well. Oh, well.

My take.... cause and effect. Cannot mix up the two. An accident is an "effect". Negligence is a "cause". Negligence can cause an accident, but an accident isn't necessarily caused by negligence. Calling an accident caused by negligence an "accident" is not incorrect; It just doesn't convey the weight of responsibility.

The automotive insurance industry grasps this concept. They properly call it "accident caused by negligence". Why can't we likewise understand it is not one-or-the-other, as in "accident vs. negligence"? It's like saying "lightning vs. forest fire". Lightning can cause a forest fire, but a forest fire isn't necessarily caused by lightning. We get so caught up in semantics that we stray from accurate definitions.

Nevertheless, the article is talking about the boy having an "accident", not the deputy.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

We get so caught up in semantics that we stray from accurate definitions.

Nevertheless, the article is talking about the boy having an "accident", not the deputy.

We are straying? Do you know the definitions or are you pretending to know?

Per dictionary.com...

Neglect-to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight.

Negligence- the quality, fact, or result of being negligent; neglect. (law)- the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care.

Accident- an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.

You and others continue to bring up the child. I am not placing any blame on the child. The original post is specifically about the Deputy and his involvement. I am going off what little information that is in the article. The deputy did not accidentally place a loaded weapon on the bed with in reach of a child. He neglected to exercise safe weapons handling practices.

 

[Jedi]

The officer was negligent, leaving gun loaded

The child had an accidental discharge which was a direct result of the officers negligence

My 2 cents

 

[McCrazy]

+1 to Jedi.

 

[Flying Goose]

without a doubt, the deputy should go to prison. He is solely responsible for the death. The parents of the child should also spend time in jail...not being present and having control of the child.

This is one of those things that were easily avoidable...an example should be made for all parties.

SeanH, I'm going to guess that you don't have kids and if you do you never look away from them and they never end up in a room where you are not present. I will not dispute that the owner of the gun should be reprimanded (if a jury decides jail time then so be it) however saying the parents should be in jail is a little extreme. Even the best most attentive parents look over and see their kid about the touch the stove or grabbing an electrical cord coming out of the wall. Children have a knack for finding what they shouldn't and trying to get at something thats dangerous thats why when children are present it is the responsibility of the owners of the firearms to ensure they are in a safe place out of curious hands.

 

[seanh]

So what you're saying is that parents negligence should be over looked because "kids will be kids".

 

[Graham]

You and others continue to bring up the child. I am not placing any blame on the child. The original post is specifically about the Deputy and his involvement. I am going off what little information that is in the article. The deputy did not accidentally place a loaded weapon on the bed with in reach of a child. He neglected to exercise safe weapons handling practices.

You missed a step: The deputy also had to either know, or he should have known, that placing the loaded gun on the bed was within reach of the child and that the child was not being properly supervised. There are many reasons why the deputy could have momentarily put down a loaded gun, and none of them, without more facts, gets you to negligence.

My issue with the first post is that you used this example as an illustration of why we must teach the four basic guns safety rules, but here the discharge was not caused by failing to follow any of the four rules that you mentioned. Thus it was a bad illustration. Mostly becuse the person who had the discharge could not have understood the four rules, but also because the discharge itself was accidental and not negligent. Also, on the facts that you gave, what happened doesn't establish complacency. Therefore it's not a clear example, absent more facts, of someone having a discharge due to his being complacent, either. The example is a better illustration of why it is important to teach people about gun safety in addition to the four basic safety rules. But it has nothing to do with negligent discharges, only accidental ones. This case is in a category with premises liability, general forms of civil negligence regarding dangerous conditions in the home, and the negligent supervision of children.

 

[Graham]

So what you're saying is that parents negligence should be over looked because "kids will be kids".

No, what he is saying is that you are jumping to extreme conclusions without looking in the mirror.

I still find it remarkable that so many rabid anti-Liberals and pro-gun people refuse to look at this incident through the filter of it being anything but a gun or gun safety issue and instead seek to immediately involve the object - the gun - in the process of placing blame. Seanh is the only other person speaking about what this incident is a better and clearer example of than what CB said it was an example of: The negligence of the parents of the child.

 

[sandwarrior]

Negligence.

You have someone over, who has a kid. You want to show him your guns. With the possibility of a kid in the room that who knows what they will do (because that's how I was when I was four), you secure those firearms that you keep loaded. If showing a firearm, you always treat it like it's loaded, but when handling you ensure it's not loaded.

The loaded firearm was not secured from an unknowing child. The unsupervised/supervised child only took a couple seconds to make this a rotten day. The way to make this a non-negligent accident is to secure all loaded firearms and ensure that any weapon handled around unpredictable children is unloaded.

 

[seanh]

the mirror has nothing to do with the issues at hand. If that were the case, no one would be in prison.

 

[ridenrunwv]

If that child had accidentally shot and killed himself the terms used to explain the situation would be much different. I'm guessing the officer could even face criminal charges???

 

[Graham]

If that child had accidentally shot and killed himself the terms used to explain the situation would be much different. I'm guessing the officer could even face criminal charges???

Why would the terms used be different if the victim changes? And why would whether or not he faces charges be dependent on which person the bullet penetrated?