gun shop employee shoots customer in the back

therealdeal · November 21, 2012, 05:18 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/21...est=latestnews

I wasn't sure whether to put this one in law&civil rights or not.

Clearly this is a negligent discharge in my opinion even though the article lists it as an accidental discharge. Either way, I am usually one to hope someone can avoid prosecution or arrest when accidents occur, but I was wondering how fellow TFL members felt about this instance? Should this gun store employee face charges. I don't think he should face severe, drastic charges here. I just feel in this instance he should maybe at least receive some kind of citation or misdemeanor summons. I was hoping for some more thoughts on the issue from fellow members.

RobertInIowa · November 21, 2012, 05:48 AM

I would think they would charge him something like they would charge a reckless driver who injured a person.

youngunz4life · November 21, 2012, 07:26 AM

Yeah RobertInIowa, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Tinner666 · November 21, 2012, 07:35 AM

This may hinge on whether it was his firearm, or if he was unloading one brought in by a customer for repair, trade, or whatever. Even then, it should have been pointed elsewhere. For all we know, it could have been a riccochet.

throttleup · November 21, 2012, 07:37 AM

Let's see now. Handling a loaded weapon in the store, muzzle not pointed in a safe direction, finger on the trigger? Evidently didn't know what he was doing and proceeded anyway. Accident waiting to happen maybe but definitely not an accident. Negligent discharge and endangering the public in my opinion. Not to mention stupid! He needs to be fined, put on probation and find another line of work.

youngunz4life · November 21, 2012, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Let's see now. Handling a loaded weapon in the store, muzzle not pointed in a safe direction, finger on the trigger? Evidently didn't know what he was doing and proceeded anyway. Accident waiting to happen maybe but definitely not an accident. Negligent discharge and endangering the public in my opinion. Not to mention stupid! He needs to be fined, put on probation and find another line of work.

yeah accidents happen, but this is ridiculous for a number of factors(some mentioned by you). It is good the victim seems to be in a situation where he can get thru this. He'll probably have a lot going thru his mind this Thanksgiving.....

Loupgarou · November 21, 2012, 08:02 AM

Shot in the back at the age of 65 with a .45. That can't be good. I hope his prospects for full recovery are good though.

jonnyc · November 21, 2012, 08:20 AM

Way too many variables left out of the news report to render any kind of valid opinion.
-what operation was the employee performing?
-what kind of firearm?
-where was the victim?
-was the employee alone?
That's a good start.

MTSCMike · November 21, 2012, 08:53 AM

No variables required...fact: employee handling loaded firearm...fact: firearm is discharged = negligence...fact: innocent bystander is harmed = responsibility.

No pass...he has to take responsibility.

MLeake · November 21, 2012, 12:38 PM

I've been at my LGS when customers have brought in intended "trade-in" weapons that turned out to be loaded.

Should the employees treat all weapons as loaded? Yes.

Would such a case be a potentially mitigating factor? Yes, at least in my opinion.

What the employee was doing at the time should definitely be a factor for criminal charges, but may not be as much of a factor for civil suits, again in my opinion.

youngunz4life · November 21, 2012, 12:53 PM

that is a good point

**Tom Servo** · November 21, 2012, 01:43 PM

Quote:

It is good the victim seems to be in a situation where he can get thru this.

We don't know that. He had to be airlifted out. That's more than a scratch.

Yes, the employee should be charged with a crime. Yes, he should be open to a civil suit. I don't care if he's "one of ours" or not; his negligence caused grievous harm to another person.

Had I been the victim, I'd be pursuing both options, same as I would if the employee hit me with his car or injured me with an errant power tool.

Old Grump · November 21, 2012, 02:57 PM

Why was the gun loaded to begin with and why was he pointing it towards the customer and the street. That man is toast.

RobertInIowa · November 21, 2012, 03:05 PM

Well, the employee is "supposed to be" a professional. Anyone going into that store has a right to expect them to at least know how NOT to shoot the customers. Besides all the other reasons, it has to be bad for business when someone is air lifted from your store. Hopefully the customer comes out of this as good as posssible.

jmortimer · November 21, 2012, 03:12 PM

Broke one or more of the four rules. Could have been avoided. Civil liability six figures plus.

sc928porsche · November 21, 2012, 05:11 PM

I suppose that is one way to keep the customer from leaving without a sale.

So many things wrong with that situation. I consider it complete negligence

1 old 0311-1 · November 21, 2012, 05:13 PM

Looks like the store is going to have a new owner.

**Aguila Blanca** · November 21, 2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmortimer

Broke one or more of the four rules.

Which one? I'd say he broke at least four out of four. Lemme see:

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

Rule III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET AND YOU ARE READY TO FIRE

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT LIES BEYOND IT

Check. IMHO he got 'em all.

jmortimer · November 21, 2012, 05:18 PM

Seemingly, yes all four

**Tom Servo** · November 21, 2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Anyone going into that store has a right to expect them to at least know how NOT to shoot the customers.

That's going in the next revision of my employee handbook.

TXAZ · November 21, 2012, 05:47 PM

Criminal charges or not, I'd be willing to bet there will be a new minority owner at Copper County Sporting Arms after the civil trials over.
Any takers?

Apom · November 21, 2012, 10:44 PM

Get a lawyer. Sue them for everything. Enjoy a workfree life afterwards.

Edward429451 · November 21, 2012, 11:23 PM

Quote:

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.

RamItOne · November 22, 2012, 12:12 AM

Didn't read posts (on mobile device)

Anyone think the gun shop may be held liable for not training employees and having safe weapons handling practices in place. Premises liability....

jmr40 · November 22, 2012, 04:44 PM

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.

November 21, 2012, 05:18 AM	#1
therealdeal Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2010 Posts: 627	gun shop employee shoots customer in the back http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/21...est=latestnews I wasn't sure whether to put this one in law&civil rights or not. Clearly this is a negligent discharge in my opinion even though the article lists it as an accidental discharge. Either way, I am usually one to hope someone can avoid prosecution or arrest when accidents occur, but I was wondering how fellow TFL members felt about this instance? Should this gun store employee face charges. I don't think he should face severe, drastic charges here. I just feel in this instance he should maybe at least receive some kind of citation or misdemeanor summons. I was hoping for some more thoughts on the issue from fellow members. __________________ NRA Distinguished Life Member "Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan)

November 21, 2012, 05:48 AM	#2
RobertInIowa Senior Member Join Date: March 4, 2012 Location: Iowa Posts: 149	I would think they would charge him something like they would charge a reckless driver who injured a person. __________________ Guns don't kill people, fathers with pretty daughters do. Two wrongs don't make a right, but three comes pretty close. Proud NRA member

November 21, 2012, 07:26 AM	#3
youngunz4life Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2010 Location: United States of America Posts: 1,877	could go either way Yeah RobertInIowa, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out. __________________ "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864

November 21, 2012, 07:35 AM	#4
Tinner666 Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2012 Location: Richmond, Va. Posts: 353	This may hinge on whether it was his firearm, or if he was unloading one brought in by a customer for repair, trade, or whatever. Even then, it should have been pointed elsewhere. For all we know, it could have been a riccochet. __________________ Frank-- Member, GoA, NRA-ILA, SAF, NRA Life Member

November 21, 2012, 07:37 AM	#5
throttleup Member Join Date: February 12, 2011 Posts: 67	Accident? Let's see now. Handling a loaded weapon in the store, muzzle not pointed in a safe direction, finger on the trigger? Evidently didn't know what he was doing and proceeded anyway. Accident waiting to happen maybe but definitely not an accident. Negligent discharge and endangering the public in my opinion. Not to mention stupid! He needs to be fined, put on probation and find another line of work.

November 21, 2012, 08:02 AM	#7
Loupgarou Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2002 Location: Nunya Posts: 113	Shot in the back at the age of 65 with a .45. That can't be good. I hope his prospects for full recovery are good though. __________________ I know who I am. I'm the dude playing the dude disguised as another dude.

November 21, 2012, 08:20 AM	#8
jonnyc Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2009 Location: PA Posts: 1,731	Way too many variables left out of the news report to render any kind of valid opinion. -what operation was the employee performing? -what kind of firearm? -where was the victim? -was the employee alone? That's a good start.

November 21, 2012, 08:53 AM	#9
MTSCMike Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2011 Location: Middle TN Posts: 164	No variables required...fact: employee handling loaded firearm...fact: firearm is discharged = negligence...fact: innocent bystander is harmed = responsibility. No pass...he has to take responsibility. __________________ IDPA Member A00640 Founding Charter Member - Middle Tennessee Shooter's Club

November 21, 2012, 12:38 PM	#10
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	I've been at my LGS when customers have brought in intended "trade-in" weapons that turned out to be loaded. Should the employees treat all weapons as loaded? Yes. Would such a case be a potentially mitigating factor? Yes, at least in my opinion. What the employee was doing at the time should definitely be a factor for criminal charges, but may not be as much of a factor for civil suits, again in my opinion.

November 21, 2012, 12:53 PM	#11
youngunz4life Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2010 Location: United States of America Posts: 1,877	that is a good point __________________ "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864

November 21, 2012, 02:57 PM	#13
Old Grump Member in memoriam Join Date: April 9, 2009 Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in Posts: 3,144	Why was the gun loaded to begin with and why was he pointing it towards the customer and the street. That man is toast. __________________ Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster--

November 21, 2012, 03:05 PM	#14
RobertInIowa Senior Member Join Date: March 4, 2012 Location: Iowa Posts: 149	Well, the employee is "supposed to be" a professional. Anyone going into that store has a right to expect them to at least know how NOT to shoot the customers. Besides all the other reasons, it has to be bad for business when someone is air lifted from your store. Hopefully the customer comes out of this as good as posssible. __________________ Guns don't kill people, fathers with pretty daughters do. Two wrongs don't make a right, but three comes pretty close. Proud NRA member

November 21, 2012, 03:12 PM	#15
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	Broke one or more of the four rules. Could have been avoided. Civil liability six figures plus.

November 21, 2012, 05:11 PM	#16
sc928porsche Senior Member Join Date: May 29, 2008 Location: now living in alabama Posts: 2,433	I suppose that is one way to keep the customer from leaving without a sale. So many things wrong with that situation. I consider it complete negligence __________________ No such thing as a stupid question. What is stupid is not asking it.

November 21, 2012, 05:13 PM	#17
1 old 0311-1 Junior member Join Date: November 5, 2012 Posts: 89	Looks like the store is going to have a new owner.

November 21, 2012, 05:18 PM	#19
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	Seemingly, yes all four

November 21, 2012, 05:47 PM	#21
TXAZ Senior Member Join Date: September 5, 2010 Location: McMurdo Sound Texas Posts: 4,322	Criminal charges or not, I'd be willing to bet there will be a new minority owner at Copper County Sporting Arms after the civil trials over. Any takers? __________________ Cave illos in guns et backhoes

November 21, 2012, 10:44 PM	#22
Apom Senior Member Join Date: July 12, 2007 Posts: 165	Get a lawyer. Sue them for everything. Enjoy a workfree life afterwards.

November 22, 2012, 12:12 AM	#24
RamItOne Senior Member Join Date: May 24, 2011 Posts: 990	Didn't read posts (on mobile device) Anyone think the gun shop may be held liable for not training employees and having safe weapons handling practices in place. Premises liability.... __________________ M&P- the other dark meat https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...rtant/DJyvnHz0

November 22, 2012, 04:44 PM	#25
jmr40 Senior Member Join Date: June 15, 2008 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,805	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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search