Girl accidentally shoots her shooting instructor

[Keeland]

Regarding the judgment displayed by her parents at the shooting range, it's likely any psychological problems began long ago.

 

[Kulindahr]

Regarding the judgment displayed by her parents at the shooting range, it's likely any psychological problems began long ago.

Maybe, but doubtful. Many parents raise their children quite happy and balanced except for the point of letting them know that the world is not necessarily a safe place.

This girl just learned that big time.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Given the number of mistakes made in that short a period.... at best he was a very sloppy instructor. The number of things the girl was not told that she should have been is not negligible -- and if she was told before the video, he failed to verify and reinforce.

Well, OK. But I don't really understand where this conversation came from when my initial post quoted didn't have anything to do with whether he was a good instructor or not.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Maybe, but doubtful. Many parents raise their children quite happy and balanced except for the point of letting them know that the world is not necessarily a safe place.

This girl just learned that big time.

wot planet ?

anyway

thankyou

 

[KaraBulut]

That said, yeah -- a big chain of mistakes. Her footing was tolerable, but her stance sucked... among other things.

Maybe it's a generational thing but how did guns become recreation for 9 year olds?

There was an interview with the range owner and he commented that he had lots of young kids who came to shoot and even had their birthday parties at the shooting range.

He also made the comment that the girl begged her parents to let her shoot an automatic weapon and it was on her "bucket list" (an unfortunate use of that phrase).

 

[luckynumbah7]

Maybe, but doubtful. Many parents raise their children quite happy and balanced except for the point of letting them know that the world is not necessarily a safe place.

This girl just learned that big time.

Eh, not that doubtful. I can't think of any parents off the top of my head that use firearms that would let their kids anywhere near someone with an uzi, let alone let or volunteer that child to shoot one. 'Not necessarily a safe place' /=/ 'taking your child to a range and let them handle obvious weaponry that isn't for general use, let alone civilian use.'

 

[xbuzzerx]

Yeah, I would posit that. $100 donation to a peace organization wagers that her parents also drove one of the big-assed SUVs that project power much more aggressively than they do safety or utility. And yeah, that's profiling. Who the fuck lets a little girl "play" with an instrument of death like a machine gun. WHO?

Gun fanatics. And I'd put them in the lineup far before I'd put this down as just an extension of parents giving in and buying their kids iPhones. Maybe her parents were dropouts.

 

[nycguydowntown]

Regarding the judgment displayed by her parents at the shooting range, it's likely any psychological problems began long ago.

Yeah exactly---hope they had a good summer vacation. This country of guns is so sick.

 

[Keeland]

Maybe her parents were dropouts.

Ha ha ha ha ha. Well played!

Ha ha ha ha. . . .

 

[USEDCAR]

That was just crazy giving a girl a firearm at the age of 9, the news was showing how some gun places let kids shoot as young as 7 years old. I wouldn't even trust a child with a gun why does she need to learn how to shoot for? Let her play with video games and barbie dolls.

 

[Gentleheart]

wow. this stuff literally "writes" itself.

 

[Scealle]

I just saw this on the news

 

[frankfrank]

I would disagree about the rejection of homicide. The legal definition of homicide is not limited to criminal acts. The literal definition is pretty much it, the killing of a (hu)man.

I actually don't think of it as homicide, either...but isn't this the kind of thing covered by the legal concept of MANSLAUGHTER?

 

[johaninsc]

Originally Posted by [STRIKE]johaninsc[/STRIKE] Perseids

I would disagree about the rejection of homicide. The legal definition of homicide is not limited to criminal acts. The literal definition is pretty much it, the killing of a (hu)man.

I actually don't think of it as homicide, either...but isn't this the kind of thing covered by the legal concept of MANSLAUGHTER?

I fixed that quote...have no idea how that got attributed to me


I never said it


it's from Perseids post #62

 

[Kahaih]

I actually don't think of it as homicide, either...but isn't this the kind of thing covered by the legal concept of MANSLAUGHTER?

Negligent homicide?
Manslaughter?
Negligent manslaughter?
Criminally negligent homicide?
Criminally negligent manslaughter?
. . . .

It all depends on the laws and legal definitions of the local jurisdiction.

If the local law says it was ok for a child to be handling the gun, then the 'instructor' is likely to be held accountable for his own death – no charges filed.

However, if the instructor's next of kin/family, or the girl's family can prove that the 'instructor' was not sufficiently trained or unable to be trained, mentally and/or physically, they may be able to have charges brought against the business/company that put the 'instructor' and the girl in harm's way.

It's almost certain that charges of some sort will be filed as someone will have to be held accountable financially – 'someone' usually means someone's insurance carrier/company.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Do bring in race and bisexuality if you're just going to bait with unrelated cross references. No wonder Pat dotes on you.

The thread that you resurrect was about willful violent crime, not an ill-conceived accident.

It's nice to know that there is no need to stick to any real discourse. Just random pissiness will obviously suffice. Keep reducing the forum to the Roman sense of spectacle. There wasn't any personal attacking in this thread before your diversion. It was pretty much on topic. Well done.

Oh, and look. There was the commensurate village idiot to cheer you on. Well played indeed.

Oh please, Deja. All you did was give some big rant about how the cause of all of this is the degenerating values and behavior and increasing selfishness of the young whipper-snappers. That's substance? What academic research did you base that conclusion on?

Give me a break. It's clear that as far as some people are concerned, we're never going to address the real problem. The real problem is what the hell was a 9 year old doing with a combat uzi, how was such a scenario even remotely conceivable, let alone legal. But since our country has a religious fixation with gun ownership, we cannot blame that. We have to blame EVERYTHING else. Let's check out the instructor's teaching style and credentials, let's character assassinate the parents who we know virtually nothing about, let's blame it on an amorphous entire generation of attitudes you claim that younger generations have and purportedly older generations didn't.

Substance. My ass.

 

[evanrick]

hmmm revoke their business license?

 

[Keeland]

Well played indeed.

Inexplicably, i'm experiencing déjà vu.

 

[Kulindahr]

Maybe it's a generational thing but how did guns become recreation for 9 year olds?

There was an interview with the range owner and he commented that he had lots of young kids who came to shoot and even had their birthday parties at the shooting range.

He also made the comment that the girl begged her parents to let her shoot an automatic weapon and it was on her "bucket list" (an unfortunate use of that phrase).

I don't get it, either. Frak, we weren't even allowed cap guns until we were ten! It was a progression of responsibility; we were required to follow the basic elements of firearm safety even with squirt guns, e.g. don't point it at anyone unless you mean to shoot, keep your finger off the trigger till you're ready to shoot, and don't leave your 'weapon' laying around where someone else can walk off with it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Eh, not that doubtful. I can't think of any parents off the top of my head that use firearms that would let their kids anywhere near someone with an uzi, let alone let or volunteer that child to shoot one. 'Not necessarily a safe place' /=/ 'taking your child to a range and let them handle obvious weaponry that isn't for general use, let alone civilian use.'

But that doesn't mean there are any psychological issues already present, which was the claim. It just evidences ignorance and/or stupidity, which aren't in the DSM.