TexasCHLforum.com

Forgive me if I did not come off all that well. In no way would I wish to try and define what is or is not an accident for anyone but myself. I comprehend the dictionary definition. I just personally have a problem with the word itself and how it can be used to avoid personal responsibility for incidents that need not have happened.

Should I foul up and create a non-intentional discharge I have no problem with being labled negligent.

Let's all focus on safety. Double check, triple check, and look again. Best way to avoid giving anyone fodder is to never create the fodder in the first place.

Mr Bug,

You came off fine!

I agree that a person should be accountable for the results of their actions: accidental, negligent, on purpose or otherwise. However, accountability and consequences don't necessarily mean a person was criminally negligent, even if a mistake was made.

GrillKing wrote:

Liberty wrote: If we applied that ND logic to the automobile, 99% of all accidents wouldn't be 'accidents'!!

Sounds like "Accident" in the insurance world might really be "Sugar Coated Negligence".

A mule in a horse harness is still a mule.


O.K., I said I was gonna get out of this. Sorry.

We could always just start using a fault-neutral term like, "Unintentional Discharge"...

To me, that term doesn't imply negligence or mechanical fault. "Accidental" seems to imply no fault whatsoever, while "Negligent" implies fault through ignorance orfailure to act prudently. To me, the word "unintentional" implies fault without implying negligance or other "actionable" behavior.

We can always use the term Negligent Discharge for those that are truly negligent (i.e. the officer shooting herself in the wrist by keeping a gun under her pillow might be argued Negligent)

To me, "negligent" implies a legal finding.

Why the need for the adjective in the first place? Until a legal conclusion has been made, none needs to be used. For example, "On Saturday, a man discharged his pistol striking himself in the hand..." I presume the media would find that less than dramatic.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I suggest that whether an intended discharge of a firearm rises to the level of negligence will depend upon the circumstances surrounding each specific event. Undoubtedly, some will be caused by negligent conduct while others will be simple accidents.

On this point, I agree wholeheartedly. I had been in the camp of any unintentional discharge (thanks nitrogen) was a negligent discharge. Because of your thought provoking post, I'll no longer be an extremist on this point.

However, I will continue to claim a UD is a ND whenever the folllowing criteria are met:
(1) the trigger was pulled by the holder's trigger finger, and
(2) the direction of the muzzle was not consciously controlled to be "safe".

This allows for quite a spectrum of "accidental" unintentional discharges. I've heard of clothing getting into the trigger guard during reholstering...AD. I heard of a cat jumping onto a surface with a loaded rifle and actuating the trigger and shooting the gun owner (true story as told to me by the surgeon that worked on him)...AD. Demonstrating an "empty" gun at the end of an IDPA stage...AD. I'd even allow for "dry fire" practice as long as a consciously selected safe direction is chosen...AD.

I believe that a reasonable and prudent person would ensure that these two criteria are met. Violating either of these criteria, added onto the fact that the gun was loaded when the gun holder thought it was not makes for two "mistakes", not one. Folks, that is why we have four (4) gun safety rules...so when we accidentally violate one, we've got one or more other rules in force to prevent a serious negative consequence.

I will make an exception for someone handling a firearm that is not gun savvy. Such is the case with untrained children or "gun ignorant" persons--they simply are not reasonably expected to know these four rules. Gun owners are.

In handling firearms, we all must must violate one or more of the rules in various circumstances. I have personally pulled the trigger when I did not intend to shoot. I have personally pointed my muzzle at something I did not intend to destroy. I have personally treated my firearm as if it were not loaded. (I guess I've never shot at a target that I was unsure of or what was beyond it, though.) However, when I violate one or more of these gun rules, I take extra care to ensure that the others are followed. Before I point my gun at my partner to practice disarms, I (and my partner) make darn sure that it is unloaded. Before I pull the trigger to dismantle my Glock, I make darn sure it is unloaded. To do otherwise, is negligence, in my humble opinion. It will also be an accident.

So, to the extent I've quoted Charles, we agree. There is room for an AD which is not considered a ND. There is also room for a 'true' ND. The distinction will be determined by the specific events of the case, as it should be. But that really doesn't get us anywhere if all we can say is "it depends". To explore the judgement we each have, we need cases to discuss. But that launches us into the never ending world of hypotheticals....

One last point,

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I suggest that calling every unintentional discharge “negligence� plays into the hands of the anti-gun crowd, just as we did years ago when we started using the term “assault rifle� when referring to guns that clearly were not. Calling an AD and ND does not result in greater safety and fewer events, nor does using the term “accidental discharge� condone unsafe gun-handling practices. Perhaps it’s time for us to reevaluate the application of the term “negligent discharge� to every single unintentional discharge.

I will certainly agree that not every unintentional discharge is a negligent discharge (as discussed above). However, I would think that the gun community would want to be 'self-policing' to the extent that we would be willing to call a bona fide ND an ND and not try to sugar coat it. I think that might give more fuel to the anti-gun crowd--the appearance of trying to protect our own even when 'we' are out of line.

GrillKing wrote:Mr Bug,

You came off fine!

I agree that a person should be accountable for the results of their actions: accidental, negligent, on purpose or otherwise. However, accountability and consequences don't necessarily mean a person was criminally negligent, even if a mistake was made.

Bingo!

GlockenHammer wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I suggest that whether an intended discharge of a firearm rises to the level of negligence will depend upon the circumstances surrounding each specific event. Undoubtedly, some will be caused by negligent conduct while others will be simple accidents.

On this point, I agree wholeheartedly. I had been in the camp of any unintentional discharge (thanks nitrogen) was a negligent discharge. Because of your thought provoking post, I'll no longer be an extremist on this point.

However, I will continue to claim a UD is a ND whenever the folllowing criteria are met:
(1) the trigger was pulled by the holder's trigger finger, and
(2) the direction of the muzzle was not consciously controlled to be "safe".

Going back and looking at what we do know about this one is that the guy had a Glock...

Clearing the Glock, IIRC, requires the trigger to be pulled to allow someone you are handing the weapon to to be dissassembled to be worked on, for whatever reason...More than likely the procedure may be repeated to do so...Depends on how much you want to fiddle with it...This is all probably one of the reason some people do not like Glocks...I can totally understand...

I would have handed the weapon to someone with the action open, but in the process of clearing it, I will make doubly sure the weapon absolutely (compulsively, and visually) does not have a round in the chamber, just in case the extractor failed to do its job...And thinking about it, considering the environment he was in, where would anyone reasonably determine what a safe direction would be in a gunshow???

This is all common sense, and good manners...I would probably not accept handling a weapon from someone else if the same courtesy was not afforded to me...Call me crazy...

Considering the nature of the incident, all of our valid opinions, and the reasoning behind what we may or may not know about what happened...This is obviously very important for all of us to be able to reinforce how we conduct ourselves as safely as possible in all situations...

The disposition of this case will afford us the ability to actually see up close what the consequences are for being distracted, and not as safe as you should be at all times...

I believe it is a good lesson to be learned all across the board...

I agree there has to be a difference between negligent and accidental.

In the army I saw two accidental discharges when soldiers running with M16's tripped and fell. The weapons discharged because the firing pin was free floating and impacted the round in the chamber when the M16 was slammed into the ground.

I have heard of two ND in my own family. One, when a brother was running with a loaded 30.06 in my dad's house with the safety off and his finger on the trigger. He killed a ceiling light. The other time my dad was unloading his colt 45 revolver and shot the floor.

If the shooter violates one or more of Cooper's four laws, then its an ND.

If the shooter does everything right, then its an AD.

But if someone is shot or worse, killed, it does not matter.

The biggest weapon the Antis have is the claim that more innocent people are hurt with guns than criminals. It is a potent cliche.

austin wrote:The biggest weapon the Antis have is the claim that more innocent people are hurt with guns than criminals. It is a potent cliche.

That is true only because of suicides and criminal assaults. The number of accidents, by whatever name, is a small percentage of people who are shot (about 1 percent).

It also ignores the large number of crimes that are prevented or interrupted with no shots fired.

- Jim

stevie_d_64 wrote:And thinking about it, considering the environment he was in, where would anyone reasonably determine what a safe direction would be in a gunshow???

Muzzle within an inch or so of an Academy Pad.



As I said (somewhere on this forum), if I was a dealer at gun shows, I'd be sure to have an academy pad on my table. At the very least, I'd have a surplussed NIJ-IIA or -III vest.

Kevin

well, call me Johnny Come-Lately, but I have to put in my 2 pence, just the same.
you see, in the medical field, or at least the area that I know of, there is a vast chasm of difference between Accident and Negligent.
shewt, I took a class in medical legalese, and one chapter, all by it's lonesome, was dedicated to Negligence.

basically, an accident meant you didn't mean to do it, Negligence meant a concerted effort on the part of the person in question to disregard.

case study #1: A nurse (no, I'm not bashing on nurses ) grabs the wrong syringe, and administers the wrong medication. A or N?
In this particular case, it's an accident, and here's why:
He/She did not intend to give the wrong medication, true, but that has no play here. There are safeguards in place to help insure things like this don't happen, sure. The nurse did not willfully ignore those safeguards, in this case. He/She merely grabbed the wrong syringe.
If the patient is injured, the nurse is still held accountable (disciplinary action, lawsuit...), but they are not charged with a crime.

case study #2: After repeated urgings by a CNA, a nurse does not check on a patient, and they have a sudden Vital Sign crash (cardio, or pulmonary, doesn't matter).
A or N?
This one is Negligence. I actually saw this one (in a land far, far away, no where near where I work now ). A nurse had not checked on a particular patient in hours upon hours. now, this sometimes happens when vitals are stable, patient's sleeping yadda yadda. On this particular floor, patients typically get fooled with every two hours.
so, you have a Nurse Tech (CNA) telling the RN that X Patient is having X condition, every two hours (give or take a little bit). the RN ignored the Tech, and continued to read her book.

these little examples are pretty easy, and off the top of my head. However, we don't always get all the facts up front.
wise man once said, "There's more than meets the eye."

[/ramble]