You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
gun shop employee shoots customer in the back
- Thread starter therealdeal
- Start date
Edward429451
Moderator
Anyone going into that store has a right to expect them to at least know how NOT to shoot the customers.
That's not going to look good on his Resume. Shooting someone is easy. It's harder to not shoot someone.
Some people don't understand the definition of negligence. To meet legal requirements for negligence the store employee had to be doing something that he knew was dangerous, or should have known would be dangerous and did not take precautions. The fact that he was trying to unload the gun is evidence that he was taking precautions to prevent an accident.
Does not say how the accident happened, but there are enough facts present to probably rule out negligence. Had the person handling the gun been under the influence of drugs or alcohol, had he been dry firing the gun without checking the chamber, had he given the gun to a 9 year old kid to unload, had he knowingly pointed what he thought was an unloaded gun at someone it would be negligence. To have a gun fire unintentionally while trying to make it safe is simply an accident.
There is almost never a criminal charge in an accident, but that does not mean the person who causes one is not responsible in a civil trial, and there probably will be one here.
Too many on the internet gun forums throw the negligence word around much too freely.
Does not say how the accident happened, but there are enough facts present to probably rule out negligence. Had the person handling the gun been under the influence of drugs or alcohol, had he been dry firing the gun without checking the chamber, had he given the gun to a 9 year old kid to unload, had he knowingly pointed what he thought was an unloaded gun at someone it would be negligence. To have a gun fire unintentionally while trying to make it safe is simply an accident.
There is almost never a criminal charge in an accident, but that does not mean the person who causes one is not responsible in a civil trial, and there probably will be one here.
Too many on the internet gun forums throw the negligence word around much too freely.
mightyoakwildlife
New member
"... To meet legal requirements for negligence the store employee had to be doing something that he knew was dangerous, or should have known would be dangerous and did not take precautions."
In response to the post above: Most (if not all of us) would consider that pointing a loaded firearm in the direction of another person is something which may lead to injury. As is repeatedly posted, the BASIC tenets of firearms safety have been disregarded. To claim the defense you attempt to frame, one that the accidental shooting was NOT negligent, the defense would have to show that the 'shooter' was not in posession of these BASIC tenets of firearms safety.
In contradicting jmr40, pointing a loaded firearm toward another person is something that "...he knew was dangerous, or should have known would be dangerous...", even when attempting to unload said firearm.
Law suit or not, I'm sure that the responsible party has a heavy conscience to deal with. Tough way to learn a lesson. May God's blessings be with the victim in his time of need.
In response to the post above: Most (if not all of us) would consider that pointing a loaded firearm in the direction of another person is something which may lead to injury. As is repeatedly posted, the BASIC tenets of firearms safety have been disregarded. To claim the defense you attempt to frame, one that the accidental shooting was NOT negligent, the defense would have to show that the 'shooter' was not in posession of these BASIC tenets of firearms safety.
In contradicting jmr40, pointing a loaded firearm toward another person is something that "...he knew was dangerous, or should have known would be dangerous...", even when attempting to unload said firearm.
Law suit or not, I'm sure that the responsible party has a heavy conscience to deal with. Tough way to learn a lesson. May God's blessings be with the victim in his time of need.
Again, I have to repeat that there just ain't enough fact in that article to render any kind of decision or place any blame.
Perhaps.......one customer brought in a defective loaded gun and placed it on the counter. While picking the pistol up, the employee kept his finger off the trigger and had the gun pointed at some large product display or at an internal wall. While removing the mag (we don't even know what type of gun or caliber was involved!!!) a defective sear let go and the gun fired, the projectile going through a wallboard wall or bouncing off something, and hitting another customer somewhere in the store.
My story also fits the article info. "My" employee would not be getting all your scorn, but instead might also be getting some of your sympathy. So many of you are just so ready to go off half-cocked, state how expert, professional, and legal you are, and throw blame around. Maybe the employee is an idiot and was negligent, but that is not evident from the posted news report.
Ok, back to the feast.
Perhaps.......one customer brought in a defective loaded gun and placed it on the counter. While picking the pistol up, the employee kept his finger off the trigger and had the gun pointed at some large product display or at an internal wall. While removing the mag (we don't even know what type of gun or caliber was involved!!!) a defective sear let go and the gun fired, the projectile going through a wallboard wall or bouncing off something, and hitting another customer somewhere in the store.
My story also fits the article info. "My" employee would not be getting all your scorn, but instead might also be getting some of your sympathy. So many of you are just so ready to go off half-cocked, state how expert, professional, and legal you are, and throw blame around. Maybe the employee is an idiot and was negligent, but that is not evident from the posted news report.
Ok, back to the feast.
Sure Shot Mc Gee
New member
Item 1._I hope that store owner has an umbrella insurance policy beyond the normal business policy limits. Quite possible being shot at his age the old gent may or may not fully recover. Only time will tell. However the outcome. The old gent again has many avenues to pursue if He chooses too.
It does not state anywhere that the gun was pointed at the man. Nor does it state what the employee was doing when the weapon was discharged. It is most likely that there was a degree of negligence involved but based on the given information from the article, the only REAL FACTS we know for sure are about the injured man's medical condition, the process of taking him to the hospital and that the store (wisely) refused to comment to the local news.
The article covered: Who?, Where?, When?, What? (but not entirely) and left How? to your imagination in regards to the shooting part.
Those are FACTS. Regardless, it will probably/hopefully be settled out of court with much more media coverage.
The article covered: Who?, Where?, When?, What? (but not entirely) and left How? to your imagination in regards to the shooting part.
Those are FACTS. Regardless, it will probably/hopefully be settled out of court with much more media coverage.
youngunz4life
New member
I don't think it is necessarily fair to cast extra blame on said gun store employee than any normal citizen(though I realize that is up for debate). Everyone is probably "picturing" in their mind said gun store employee commiting this act, and then the reality is it could've been a very young man or a woman who pulled the trigger. Again, that doesn't change the horrible circumstances for the 65 year-old gentleman; I am just saying the gun/slash outdoors store that is family-owned around my parts has workers that aren't as 'up-to-date' so-to-speak as some others maybe(and this is a very good, credible firearms locations + very honest & professional). Most of the time it is an older gentleman who has vast knowledge, years of experience not just behind a counter, and many times he is carrying a firearm. Other times it is the neice as one of many examples.
bottom line: never point a firearm at someone and I have ALWAYS had an issue with the fact that people do this at firearm stores. It's almost like a freepass that shouldn't exist. I know if a citizen handed this worker a loaded firearm, there are some extra upset individuals.
bottom line: never point a firearm at someone and I have ALWAYS had an issue with the fact that people do this at firearm stores. It's almost like a freepass that shouldn't exist. I know if a citizen handed this worker a loaded firearm, there are some extra upset individuals.
grubbylabs
New member
I hope that I never have to be judged by all these internet experts. No one really knows what happened and yet they already have the poor guy charged and found guilty waiting to be hung. I feel bad for both. Hard thing to live with, for both of them.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I have to disagree. That's like saying it's not so bad if the wheel falls off my car at 65 MPH on the Interstate because the mechanic was just a rookie who doesn't have 25 years of experience. Or it's okay if the EMP or paramedic hooked someone up to the wrong intravenous drip, because she's young and hasn't been on the job that long.youngunz4life said:I don't think it is necessarily fair to cast extra blame on said gun store employee than any normal citizen(though I realize that is up for debate). Everyone is probably "picturing" in their mind said gun store employee commiting this act, and then the reality is it could've been a very young man or a woman who pulled the trigger.
Some jobs require a fundamental level of training and expertise. Age is not an excuse for ignorance, incompetence, or negligence. If the person can't do the job, they shouldn't be in the job. This incident resulted in a person being critically injured, and the person may yet die. Who should we blame other than the person who pulled the trigger?
Get a lawyer. Sue them for everything. Enjoy a workfree life afterwards.
THAT right there is what is wrong with this country.
That said, the question still stands: Is the employee negligent? Almost certainly. He's a GUN store employee, and at least as neglignet as an auto mechanic that put a car on a lift and dropped it on a customer. THE FOUR RULES. You have to break at least two for anything really bad to happen ..... I'm guessing this guy broke all four.
If you disagree, please illustrate the mental gymnastics that you would have to excercise to come up with a scenario in which the employee was not negligent ..... I can not think of how the customer could get a bullet in his back without at least 2 of the Four getting violated .......
jimbob86, it would be an unlikely scenario, but a customer handing a loaded gun with some mechanical problem could do it, if combined with a ricochet off a hard surface.
Say a combination of an unextracted round and a shade-tree gunsmithed sear, the trigger might never be touched.
But that is admittedly an unlikely sequence of events.
Say a combination of an unextracted round and a shade-tree gunsmithed sear, the trigger might never be touched.
But that is admittedly an unlikely sequence of events.
youngunz4life
New member
Aguila Blanca
The problem is, despite age, some firearm employees aren't firearm employees but just actually working at another store that sells firearms along with many other items. They don't get special training to sell firearms; that is why the man is usually someone who knows what he is talking about. The first time I bought ammo, the young man was telling me that all ammo is the same so just buy the cheapest.
The other issue is that criminal and civil liability is different(obviously you know this). As far as criminally, just because this employee should bare more responsibility(if he/she does after debate), I don't believe you can 'up the charges' in this case because something 'seems right'. In actuality, you might have a better accident argument depending on the situation in the store doing business then some joe schmo on the curb hangin w/his buddy....
I have to disagree. That's like saying it's not so bad if the wheel falls off my car at 65 MPH on the Interstate because the mechanic was just a rookie who doesn't have 25 years of experience. Or it's okay if the EMP or paramedic hooked someone up to the wrong intravenous drip, because she's young and hasn't been on the job that long.
Some jobs require a fundamental level of training and expertise. Age is not an excuse for ignorance, incompetence, or negligence. If the person can't do the job, they shouldn't be in the job. This incident resulted in a person being critically injured, and the person may yet die. Who should we blame other than the person who pulled the trigger?
The problem is, despite age, some firearm employees aren't firearm employees but just actually working at another store that sells firearms along with many other items. They don't get special training to sell firearms; that is why the man is usually someone who knows what he is talking about. The first time I bought ammo, the young man was telling me that all ammo is the same so just buy the cheapest.
The other issue is that criminal and civil liability is different(obviously you know this). As far as criminally, just because this employee should bare more responsibility(if he/she does after debate), I don't believe you can 'up the charges' in this case because something 'seems right'. In actuality, you might have a better accident argument depending on the situation in the store doing business then some joe schmo on the curb hangin w/his buddy....
aarondhgraham
New member
I hope that I never has to be judged by all these internet experts. No one really knows what happened and yet they already have the poor guy charged and found guilty waiting to be hung.
This is a great post,,,
I can't believe the vehemence towards the employee,,,
You guys are treating him as if he came in off the street shooting on purpose.
An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-- Thomas Paine, Dissertations on First Principles of Government (July 7, 1795), thanks to Laird Wilcox, ed, The Writer's Rights (2002) p. 31
Aarond
.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
" 'Up the charges"? Who is "upping" any charges? Someone was seriously wounded due to a negligent act of a specific individual. Your argument is beginning to sound like the arguments of those who maintain that anytime a gun discharges unexpectedly it's an "accidental" discharge ... whereas many of us believe that probably at least 90 percent of "accidental" discharges are, in fact, negligent discharges.youngunz4life said:The other issue is that criminal and civil liability is different(obviously you know this). As far as criminally, just because this employee should bare more responsibility(if he/she does after debate), I don't believe you can 'up the charges' in this case because something 'seems right'. In actuality, you might have a better accident argument depending on the situation in the store doing business then some joe schmo on the curb hangin w/his buddy....
If you do something silly in your car, strike, and kill a pedestrian, would you expect NOT to be charged with either negligent homicide or vehicular homicide? Why should someone who does something dumb with a firearm be held to a significantly LOWER standard of care?