ND that almost killed me.

[Mark 1911]

Good thing it didn't have a compensator!

 

[92ThoStro]

I thought the whole ND argument was going to go in another direction, not into an "AD" debate lol.

Would it REALLY be a ND, seeing as how it says you didn't take the steps necessary that a reasonable person would take.

Would a reasonable person EVER shoot a gun at someones head? Even if it was (thought to be) unloaded?

More like reckless discharge.



This was pretty crazy, amazing that you still have the picture too!

 

[EdC]

I thought the whole ND argument was going to go in another direction, not into an "AD" debate lol.

Would it REALLY be a ND, seeing as how it says you didn't take the steps necessary that a reasonable person would take.

Would a reasonable person EVER shoot a gun at someones head? Even if it was (thought to be) unloaded?

More like reckless discharge.



This was pretty crazy, amazing that you still have the picture too!

Yes, reckless. The act (pointing the revolver at OP and pulling the trigger) was intentional, even though the result (parting OP's hair) was not. Intent is the distinguishing feature.

Deliberately pointing an "unloaded" gun at someone and pulling the trigger is recklessness, not negligence.

 

[HoughMade]

The whole reckless vs. negligent discussion could be a law school exam in and of itself. From my perspective, there are elements of both, but I'll use my handy-dandy Black's Law Dictionary rather than Merriam Webster:

1. Trying to clear the gun, but failing to do it properly, negligent.
- failed to take the steps an ordinarily reasonable person would deem prudent in clearing the gun....like check all the chambers.

2. Pointing the gun at a person, possibly reckless.
- "For conduct to be reckless it must evince disregard of, or indifference to, consequences, under circumstances involving danger to life or safety to other, although no harm was intended." I only say "possibly" because when we start getting to 'reckless', we start examining what is in that particular person's mind whereas with 'negligent' we only look at what a 'reasonable' person should have done. Having believed he cleared it, albeit negligently, it is tough to say that he "disregarded consequences or was indifferent to consequences" as he believed there was no chance of the gun firing.

3. Pulling the trigger, same as #2 above. Yes, pulling the trigger was intentional, but under the law, there has to be some awareness of intending to cause a harmful result (even if the intent to harm was much less than the result) before you would convert this over to a specific intent situation. A doctor in an operation may intentionally cut a structure, but be mistaken about what the structure is. He may be negligent, but he did not commit an intentional tort or crime.

But let's not forget one thing- I am assuming that since you were 11, the other kids involved were around the same age. Children are, generally, not held to the same standards as adults until the age of 14. It's more complex than a broad rule (there are rebuttal presumptions involved), but what is reckless for an adult may not even be negligent for a child because a child is (generally) compared to other children of the same age and maturity level, not to some general set of rules which may apply to adults.

All that to say this- guns should not be left unsecured where children can get to them. Kids and parents failed this time, glad it was not a permanent fail.