Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Instructor Shoots Student Accidentally in Ohio Gun Safety Class

Local news reports

Police say an instructor at a central Ohio gun safety class has accidentally shot a student. 

The Columbus Dispatch reports 73-year-old Terry J. Dunlap Sr. was demonstrating a handgun at a training facility on Saturday when he fired a bullet that ricocheted off a desk and into the right arm of 26-year-old Michael Piemonte. 

The student says the .38-caliber bullet hit him between his elbow and armpit. He says many of the students in the class were nurses who helped stabilize him before he was transported to a Columbus hospital. 

Piemonte tells the newspaper it appears Dunlap didn't know the gun was loaded. Dunlap hasn't responded to requests for comment. 

A police report lists the shooting as accidental.

"Listing the shooting as accidental" is code for "no charges will be filed."

What's your opinion.  Please leave a comment.  Please tell us how in the world a gun safety instructor who does something like that should not forfeit his gun rights.

17 comments:

  1. Why do you ask for answers that you've already been given? We treat unintentional events differently from intentional crimes. Whatever you want to label each of those, this is a fact in law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it's not, Greg. It's a capricious and haphazard application of the law. Sometimes we see negligence being charged as such, other times no.

      Delete
    2. Negligence is charged as NEGLIGENCE, not as an INTENTIONAL ACT. Hence a similarly defined crime in many states having different names such as: Negligent Homicide, INVOLUNTARY Manslaughter, etc.--crimes that result from killings ruled accidental but with a criminal amount of negligence as opposed to a non-criminal amount.

      Please don't pontificate on the law unless you actually spend some time figuring out what you're talking about.

      Delete
    3. Now, Tennessean, Mikeb will regard that as an attack on his freedom of speech. He pontificates on so many things about which he has not the slightest clue.

      Delete
    4. "A criminal amount of negligence as opposed to a non-criminal amount." That sounds like the Dick Cheney way of justifying it.

      Delete
    5. Ah, yes, the citation to Darth Vader--not only a non-sequitur here, but also not far off from a Godwin.

      If you're done with the pointless snide remarks, maybe you'd like to explain what's incorrect in my statement if you have a problem with it. Otherwise, it's clear to everyone that you're invoking the dark lord only to distract from the fact that your position has no ground to stand on.

      Delete
  2. "Please tell us how in the world a gun safety instructor who does something like that should not forfeit his gun rights."

    That would be up to law enforcement and the prosecutor.

    "He says many of the students in the class were nurses who helped stabilize him before he was transported to a Columbus hospital."

    This sounds very strange. At the risk of sounding sexist, a large majority of nurses are female (92% according to the Department of Labor), and I had heard that few women are interested in firearms. Must be a typo in the article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And many hospitals provide a hunting license to wackos by declaring themselves to be gun-free zones.

      Delete
    2. Of course it's up the the prosecutors, but what do you think?

      Delete
  3. No, listing it as accidental is code for he didn't Mean to shoot the other guy. Whether or not charges are filed will depend on whether he was grossly negligent and whether the other guy presses charges.


    But then, you can't be bothered to truthfully describe our justice system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Calling unintentional shootings "accidents" is dishonest. It downplays the negligent person's involvement and responsibility.

      But, you like that, I suppose for the day when you need that kind of tolerance and understanding.

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, why must you slide in that slur every time? A person can approve of the way our laws work without himself ever violating those laws. A person can recognize degrees of wrong action without himself ever committing any degree of that wrong.

      But by all means, continue being a hateful and vindictive person. We thank you for your support.

      Delete
    3. I don't mean to be mean and vindictive. I just can't understand how you support and defend these negligent assholes.

      Delete
    4. Stop lying, Mikeb. I don't support them. I simply don't see the need for what you want to do to them.

      Delete
    5. Except that I'm not supporting or defending them. I'm merely correcting your intentional distortion of our legal system and noting that there is a difference between criminal negligence and non-criminal negligence in our current system. If you want to get rid of that distinction, propose a law, and justify doing it only with regard to guns, or across the board.

      As for your contentions on the use of the word accidental, we use this for all sorts of events caused by negligence, from gun accidents to car accidents, to accidental killings via food allergies, etc. They all involve negligence, and we all know that because we ask "Whose fault was the accident?" Our system also reflects this with civil penalties for negligent acts and criminal penalties on top of that for those acts that rise to the level of gross negligence.

      Delete
    6. The difference between criminal and non-criminal negligence is a capricious and subjective call on the part of the prosecutors or arresting officers. How else can you explain the disparity between similar cases in which some go to jail and others walk?

      Delete
    7. And the same criticism can't be leveled against the call between criminal and non-criminal negligence when it comes to vehicle accidents and other accidents, especially when prosecutors aren't careful to with how and where they draw the line?

      If you want to see clearer lines, then propose a way to do that. Right now, your proposal is to make all negligence criminal--whether any actual harm is caused or not, and regardless of the amount and proportion of negligence. Common sense shows that this type of rule would not be just in any other type of accidents. Neither would it be just here.


      And what's up with acknowledging that the concept of criminal v. non-criminal negligence exists? Just above here, you were mocking that legal distinction as a tool of the dark side?

      Delete