But this was an accident... Not following the logic.

"Accident" doesn't equal "no criminal charges". People, children too...go to prison for accidents all the time. Heck...here in the good ol US we imprison (and put to death in many states) people who didn't have anything to do with any crime whatsoever.

Manslaughter is defined as


Accidents can fall into this category. And if the instructor were alive, he could have been charged with negligent homicide:


There's depraved indifference, where someone doesn't give a hoot about whether his actions kills someone. I don't think the instructor did that, but wow, was he stupid!

Anyway, it IS logical to say a crime was committed.

There is none. If logic was applied and actually ruled then we would outlaw alcohol because more people die of drunk driving then of guns.

||

Naw, I agree to disagree here. This was a tragic accident. No crime.

I DO think the parents were stupid to let their little girl do this, although the odds of what happened are beyond low. A freak accident.

Not paying a traffic ticket is a crime. Just because there was no malice or intent to kill someone doesn't make this a crime free incident. Someone will be charged here just watch and see.


The freak accident where the kid in Mass. at the gun show shot himself had all of the organizers standing trial. The kids father and the event workers are pointing the fingers at each other when in reality its everyone's fault. A 15 year old supervisor at the event warned the kids father twice not to let him shoot the uzi but "father knows best" until he doesn't.

In that case it was a kid shooting himself. This time the kid shot someone else. Someone in the instructors family will be out for blood. This wont just go away with a hallmark card.

I dont think a 9 year old has the capacity to understand that her actions could cause a death.

even in manslaughter, there has to be intent.

she was just doing what her instructor told her to do.

I do support the 2nd amendment..... But come on.. 9 years old is far to young to be playing with guns.

Now stay civil folks.

I agree that maybe a 9 yo should not be given an Uzi, but your original post implied "guns", which I interpreted as guns in general, hence my reply.

I am not arguing that Uzis should be given to 9 year olds...except Texans, which can be given to as young as 4. (it's in their DNA to handle guns at a younger age)

I'm fine with kids that age with .22 rifles and close supervison... but guns with powerful recoils are dangerous in the hands of a 8 or 9 year old.

My buddies and I use to go shooting... we all had .22's but one time my friend took his dad's double barrel shotgun. I wanted to see what woulod happen if I shot both barrels at once. It knocked me on my ass. I was about 16 or so. Could have been bad.

There was no adult supervision for us... our dads would just say... Aw hell have fun, don't shoot anybody. Times have changed.

...That being said, I'm still trying to figure out how the instructer got shot... she fired off a shot, the gun recoiled and then did she squeeze the trigger again when it was recoiling???

Anyways sad deal... must have totally freaked her out (for life).

What the hell was thename of the place??? Burgers and Guns or something like that???

Nope

I think the words are getting in the way of the reality- it was an accident waiting to happen because she wasn't well-trained, from all indications. Since she wasn't, it should have had snap caps in it, rather than live rounds. Then, she should have had the fact that the muzzle will rise drilled into her mind so she knew it well before she got a single live round to fire.

People will introduce guns to their kids and that's up to them, but they could have made sure this couldn't happen, so I would call this negligence.

agree

nope, for the most part it is the opposite. If there is "true" intent it is murder. Voluntary man slaughter can have some intent either to kill or harm (for example if someone dies in a fight because of a hit, in this case there was intent to harm but not to kill)
and involuntary manslaughter (as the term implies) never has any intent (such as the drunk driver that causes the death of someone).

that is what makes this so hard. I can see the shooting range taking some responsibility for what happened as well as the adult (assuming one is needed) that brought her there and said OK to her using an Uzi, but it is hard to blame her of criminal negligence if all she did was go along with what the adults where telling her to do.

Its just sad. It must have been a horrific scene for her and her parents. She'll never forget that sunny day that took a turn for the worse.

This could turn into a lawsuit, I'll bet.

Just a bad day at ol' Burgers and Bullets --- where BTW they also served booze, I mean what could go wrong there?

As long as they don't serve people who will be shooting, I fail to see a problem with booze at this event. It's easy enough to get a breathalyzer for testing anyone headed to the range and if someyone complains about their rights being infringed, they should be turned away with a kick in the ass.

It was a full automatic submachine gun. The exact Uzi model would dictate the rate of fire - it varies a lot with the year and variant. And the clip size can also vary from 20 to 70 rounds in the magazine.
But any of these models can dump the entire magazine in a matter of a second or two, with trigger held.

If you had ever shot a full automatic weapon before, with that high of a rate of fire, you would know that it is a steady push until that trigger is released (or runs out of ammo). That push pivots on your hand from the grip. Sending the weapon not only pushing back but upward with force.
For a 9 year old girl, who had never shot one before and had no idea what to expect - it was inevitable that this would happen.
So why was the instructor not right up behind her, with both his hands, on both her arms, to help steady her?
And I would argue to, why a 9 year old even had that kind of weapon in hand.