TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

WTR wrote:Well, it may have been an accident caused by negligence. By the way, I like your choice of weapons.

That's my point.

Thanks. Let me know if you ever want to borrow some clips.

I could use a few. My kids keep opening bags of potato chips and letting them get stale. Do you have any of the extra long clips?

Jusme wrote:I look at it the same way I look at an automobile "accident".
The discharge of the firearm, was an "accident" in that the person handling the gun, did not "intend" for the firing pin to strike a live round and send projectile(s) from the barrel. The "accident" was caused by "negligence". The gun should have been made safe, by not only cycling, but by visually inspecting the chamber to ensure it was unloaded. So someone was negligent, and in my opinion, it was the last person handling it when it discharged, whether it was the vendor, or a customer.

Automobile "accidents" are in the same category. They are almost always caused by "negligence" on one or more of the parties involved, or even by a third party mechanic/installer/manufacturer.

Accident, simply means an unintentional action. Negligence implies responsibility, no matter the intent. JMHO

E.Marquez wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Was this an accident or negligence? I see it was referred to as an "accident" in the thread.

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... e+accident

Accident.. A part was created using established procedures and materials..a part that has been used successfully previously. The part and the machine were used in established known safe and prudent manner in accordance with all rules and laws.

Had I intentionally used a faulty part.
Had I intentionally used a part know to be substandard for the task
Had I intentionally created a part I knew to be substandard and used it anyway...
Had I intentionally used the motorcycle in an unsafe, imprudent manner, that was proximate cause for the part failure...
Id call that negligence..
Said another way.. I picked up a firearm believed to be in good condition, recently worked on, but passed dry fire tests, loaded it with the muzzle pointed a safe direction, aimed at the target, and touched the trigger but did not depress it, and the gun failed and fired unintentionally.

That would be an AD much like putting on all your gear, pre ride checking a motorcycle, riding it in a safe and legal manner and having a part believed to be in good working order fail..is an accident...not negligence.

E.Marquez wrote:

It's fun to see who gets hypersensitive over the negligent vs accidental terms as if they are always mutually exclusive.

.

Normally the only ones i see push to use the phrase " Accidental discharge" were involved in the event or have been previously involved in an ND...and most times will omit that gem...

Those responsible to investigate, review, recommend remedial action or punishment tend to call them negligent discharges based on findings...not just generalities....

If the shot gun fell off the counter due to not being secured and it discharged without having the trigger depressed by a human, it might be an accidental discharge.

If said human in a physical struggle with another human, or emergency event, depressed the trigger unintentionally, that might be an accidental discharge.

If said human depressed the trigger with finger, toe, nose or object by there doing intentionally.... it was a negligent discharge...IMHO...
An opinion that was made by me, accepted by many others and used several hundred times over the course of 28 years.

With many millions of humans, all very inventive and such, there are many ways to have an accidental discharge,,in my hard own personal experience, most are not an accident ..but negligent.

WTR wrote:Well, it may have been an accident caused by negligence. By the way, I like your choice of weapons.

WTR wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

WTR wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

JerryK wrote:

I'm glad the "shooting" was accidental and not intententional.

Actually it was negligent!!!

So the guy intended to pull the trigger?

What does that have to do with negligence?

You can ask him. I was just curious if the guy intended to pull the trigger.

I'm confused, as there is no intent is associated with negligence or an accident. However, negligence more closely describes the incident which occurred.

WTR wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

JerryK wrote:

I'm glad the "shooting" was accidental and not intententional.

Actually it was negligent!!!

So the guy intended to pull the trigger?

What does that have to do with negligence?

JerryK wrote:

I'm glad the "shooting" was accidental and not intententional.

Actually it was negligent!!!