Gun instructor accidentally killed by 9-yr-old girl. Question, who was at fault?

by Joe Mobley

Posted: 11 years ago 39 replies

OFF TOPIC

I was looking through Alexa's thread, http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...-girl-uzi.html and got to wondering.

Who was responsible for the instructors death?

Joe Mobley

Dan Riffle

11 years ago

The instructor. He was supposedly the expert.

You can argue it could be:

The girl

The government

The range

The parents

...however, the error in judgment directly related to his death was his own.

[ 3 ] Thanks
4 replies

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479752].message }}

discrat

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

None of the above.

The bullet in the Gun is probably the most likely to be responsible.

After all it can be concluded that it caused massive damage to brain tissue and the arteries and veins

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479771].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

None of the above.

The bullet in the Gun is probably the most likely to be responsible.

After all it can be concluded that it caused massive damage to brain tissue and the arteries and veins

But the gunpowder wouldn't explode without all the proper atoms! The metalatoms ALSO did their part.

The bullet didn't even EXIST! It was simply our understanding of that alignment of properties!

Steve

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479793].message }}

Dan Riffle

11 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

I see where you're headed, Steve. It's Quantum Physics fault!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479798].message }}

seasoned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

I see where you're headed, Steve. It's Quantum Physics fault!

EXACTLY!

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479805].message }}

Dan Riffle

11 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

None of the above.

The bullet in the Gun is probably the most likely to be responsible.

After all it can be concluded that it caused massive damage to brain tissue and the arteries and veins

That's a nice attempt, try using similar thinking with a judge or your wife.

"I didn't kill him, your honor. The bullet did. Neener neener neener."

"No, honey, I did not buy a new TV. Our credit card did. Where's my sammich?"

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479796].message }}

candoit2

11 years ago

You can argue it could be:

The girl

Not her, she is a child. Overseen by an "expert" and brought by her parents. Enough said.

The government

Allows young children on the range

The range

Hires instructors to fire weapons with children who don't even understand where to stand or the potential of the weapon in the hands of a little girl.

The parents

Think bringing a child to shoot uzis is a good way to pass the day.

The Bullet

The bullet can only go where the operator of the gun is directing it. It is a tool not an operator incapable of decisions and fully under the control of a decision maker..

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479799].message }}

positivenegative

11 years ago

We've already got another complete thread on it. You can talk about it till doomsday and it won't make a shred of difference.

It's all a bit old hat now.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479806].message }}

Dan Riffle

11 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

We've already got another complete thread on it. You can talk about it till doomsday and it won't make a shred of difference.

It's all a bit old hat now.

So old hat is this thread that you took time to post in it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479828].message }}

positivenegative

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

So old hat is this thread that you took time to post in it.

You used to be a fun guy a few years back. You're getting sarcastic and cantankerous in your old age.
.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479851].message }}

Dan Riffle 11 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

You used to be a fun guy a few years back. You're getting sarcastic and cantankerous in your old age.
.

I was always sarcastic, but I am getting cantankerous. While we're at it, stay off my lawn.

On a note unrelated to my jackassery, it's funny the way you worded that first sentence considering your join date of 2014. There's been a familiarity in your posts that's been scratching at my the back of my head. I thought I might have known who you were, but then you used some British spelling and it threw me off the scent. I don't mean this in a bad way, just one of those things you notice.
- Thanks
Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479854].message }}

Claude Whitacre

11 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

You used to be a fun guy a few years back. You're getting sarcastic and cantankerous in your old age.
.

I wish I knew Riffle a few years back. But now I'm stuck with this guy. (Dan as a baby)

I feel your pain.

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

Is the instructor directly responsible? His poor instruction and improper positioning is directly responsible and is the closet direct action to the event, that if removed, eliminates the negative outcome.

I read this post three times, and can't fault your logic.

That's as close as I get to crying.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

â€œDo not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.â€ - Matsuo Basho

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479896].message }}

Dan Riffle

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I read this post three times, and can't fault your logic.

Don't worry. Somebody will. I left a few theoretical loopholes due to laziness, but I'm comfortable with the gist.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479937].message }}

positivenegative

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

On a note unrelated to my jackassery, it's funny the way you worded that first sentence considering your join date of 2014. There's been a familiarity in your posts that's been scratching at my the back of my head. I thought I might have known who you were, but then you used some British spelling and it threw me off the scent. I don't mean this in a bad way, just one of those things you notice.

Sure you know who I am, and the sentence was worded that way deliberately.

I've been around this forum for over 10 years, but you'd only know me by a previous username, or two. Some OT stalwarts know who I am.

Smart man Dan. Sometimes too smart for your own good.

Looking from the outside in, so to speak, with a new username - it's quite eye-opening watching the "mutual admiration society" at work. I see many quality posts, refreshing takes on things, or wry subtle humour by "newish members" that is either ignored, or in many instances put down or derided by the "part of the furniture" crew . . . sublimely ensconced in their oh so important little clique.

I also see many posts - including some of my own - that I know for certain would receive a "thanks" had they been posted by a "known" name.

Not that any of the above is important in any way whatsoever. Just curious behaviour, and quite often childish or churlish.

Shame that WF, overall, seems to be hemorrhaging visitors dramatically. I've never seen user stats so consistently low. Still, the OTF is as sprightly as ever, albeit in reduced numbers, and after all these years I still get a kick out of the intelligence and humour in this section of WF.

Keep guarding your lawn Dan.

[ 1 ] Thanks
5 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479944].message }}

Dan Riffle 11 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Sure you know who I am, and the sentence was worded that way deliberately.

I said I thought I knew who you were. I'm pretty sure I was wrong. Now, if you told me who you were, I may or may not remember you.

As for the rest of your post, you'll have most of that in any group. It's not something unique to this forum.

Out of curiosity, why the need for several different user names?
- Thanks
Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479967].message }}

Midnight Oil

11 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Sure you know who I am, and the sentence was worded that way deliberately.

I've been around this forum for over 10 years, but you'd only know me by a previous username, or two.

Pleased to meet you.

.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Smart man Dan. Sometimes too smart for your own good.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9480202].message }}

Dan Riffle 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

<dramatic hamster video>

Yeah, I thought that part was a little bit Scooby-Doo villian-esque.
- Thanks
Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9480606].message }}

Claude Whitacre

11 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

. I see many quality posts, refreshing takes on things, or wry subtle humour by "newish members" that is either ignored, or in many instances put down or derided by the "part of the furniture" crew . . . sublimely ensconced in their oh so important little clique.

I also see many posts - including some of my own - that I know for certain would receive a "thanks" had they been posted by a "known" name.

Not that any of the above is important in any way whatsoever. Just curious behaviour, and quite often childish or churlish.

Are you insinuating that after we get to know someone, we tend to read their posts and enjoy them? guilty. Or, after we get to know someone, we tend to ignore their posts, because they are mean/insane? Guilty.

But I can only speak for myself (The head of my cliche). I thank posts that are either very well thought out, very witty, or funny.

Young man; Half of my posts don't get any thanks at all. But that's not why I'm here. I'm here to enjoy myself, insult Rifle, and play with a few people I like.

Welcome to the real world, where people are loyal, crazy, vindictive, jealous, angry... did I mention crazy?

"Smart man Dan. Sometimes too smart for your own good." See? That was a funny line. And I thanked your post.

Thanks

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

â€œDo not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.â€ - Matsuo Basho

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481111].message }}

Frank Donovan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Looking from the outside in, so to speak, with a new username - it's quite eye-opening watching the "mutual admiration society" at work. I see many quality posts, refreshing takes on things, or wry subtle humour by "newish members" that is either ignored, or in many instances put down or derided by the "part of the furniture" crew . . . sublimely ensconced in their oh so important little clique.

I also see many posts - including some of my own - that I know for certain would receive a "thanks" had they been posted by a "known" name.

There may be some truth in that, but with seven thanks given in five months, you're not exactly spreading the love yourself.

Join Date: 2014
Posts: 34
Thanks: 7
Thanked 89 Times in 51 Posts

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Shame that WF, overall, seems to be hemorrhaging visitors dramatically. I've never seen user stats so consistently low.

Yep, that's been my impression, too. Sad, if that's the case.

--

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481133].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

I thank posts that resonate with me, that I agree with or that make me laugh (and it makes no difference to me whether they are a new member or someone I feel I know better). I have no clue who you are or were in a past life, or if I used to thank your posts under another user name, but your posts haven't really grabbed me under this user name ... hence no thanks. But then again ... I see you haven't gone overboard thanking others either. Why have you only thanked people 7 if you have seen many quality posts, refreshing takes on things, or wry subtle humor by "newish members?"

...And aren't you a part of the "oh so important part of the furniture" crew if you've been around here for 10 years, no matter how many times you make yourself all brand new with a new account?

Now to answer the question, the instructor would be primarily to fault. They are trained to keep their hands and their minds ready to grab the barrel before a mishap like this occurs. That's what he was supposed to be doing when he got shot.

In addition, to handle the recoil of this type of gun, you not only have to be physically capable, but mentally prepared. Did he do anything at all to prepare this kid for what was coming when it went automatic? Not that it would have made any difference. She was too young to be handling this type of gun. I fault the parents for being complete idiots. The kid probably would have had more fun at a water park.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481290].message }}

positivenegative

11 years ago

My post was directed to Dan, but seeing as you ask . . .

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

with seven thanks given in five months, you're not exactly spreading the love yourself

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Why have you only thanked people 7 if you have seen many quality posts . . .

. . . maybe my standards are more exacting and I don't dish them out like candies in a sweet shop, like some.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481477].message }}

Claude Whitacre

11 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

My post was directed to Dan, but seeing as you ask . . .

. . . maybe my standards are more exacting and I don't dish them out like candies in a sweet shop, like some.

Say it! "...like Claude"....just say it!

If you do, I'll thank your post.

I'm pretty tight with the Thanks button too. After all, they are soooo expensive. And I don't just hand them out like candy. But I'll thank your post...if you just change your post to say "...like Claude"

And it will be funny.

And maybe your standards are too high. Like I say to everyone "The best way to join my club, is to lower your standards." Words to live by.

Hey! Hey! So far, I've posted 3 times in this thread, and not one "Thanks". Let's snap to it!

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

â€œDo not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.â€ - Matsuo Basho

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481537].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

My post was directed to Dan, but seeing as you ask . . .

. . . maybe my standards are more exacting and I don't dish them out like candies in a sweet shop, like some.

Well, you're just a stingy old grouch. No candy for you

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481813].message }}

lanfear63

11 years ago

Take advantage of my "Warrior Forum Thanks" gig on Fiverr!

That's 500 thanks for just $5.00, yes, you heard me right, 500 thanks to your posts spread over a year for five measly bucks (just one measly cent a thank you). This is not an automated bot doing it either. I have a team of top class spammers who will sign up, seek out your posts and thank them,

Spend an extra 15 dollars and every post you make will have at least 7 thanks for a whole year. Look for my gig extras.

Think of the envy of all other posters as even your most banal, uninspired replies are thanked multiple times while their, intelligent, well thought out or genuinely funny posts or replies just get one or two or none at all.

Want to cheer up a fellow poster, look for my Thanks Gift Gig. They will get 7 thank you's on every post for a year plus regular PM's from people showing their appreciation for their wit and wisdom, all for just 25 bucks. Make it a secret, anonymous gift!

Finally, we have our deluxe gig. Using special hacking software we can have only the finest names on the forum thanking you. Imagine every post thanked by Claude, Whitacre, Dan Riffle, Seasoned, Tagiscom, Kurt, Stoltingmedia Group and many others. Imagine what your fellow posters will say. Things like: "He Knows Quantum Physics, he knows killer one liners, he knows fluffy bunnies etc. You will be a giant and respected amongst your peers. All for just 50 bucks a year!

Sign up now!

[ 6 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481907].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

I have a team of top class spammers who will sign up, seek out your posts and thank them,
....

Finally, we have our deluxe gig. Using special hacking software we can have only the finest names on the forum thanking you. Imagine every post thanked by Claude, Whitacre, Dan Riffle, Seasoned, Tagiscom, Kurt, Stoltingmedia Group and many others. Imagine what your fellow posters will say. Things like: "He Knows Quantum Physics, he knows killer one liners, he knows fluffy bunnies etc. You will be a giant and respected amongst your peers. All for just 50 bucks a year!

Sign up now!

what a time to be out of thanks.
So THANKS!!!
I'm in.

[ 3 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481916].message }}

seasoned

11 years ago

Originally Posted by AaronJones

You can argue it could be:

The girl

Not her, she is a child. Overseen by an "expert" and brought by her parents. Enough said.

AGREED!

Originally Posted by AaronJones

The governmentAllows young children on the range

Not really. This is actually a good thing.

Originally Posted by AaronJones

The range

Hires instructors to fire weapons with children who don't even understand where to stand or the potential of the weapon in the hands of a little girl.

I said my argument here. Technically, there was NO instructor.

Originally Posted by AaronJones

The parents

Think bringing a child to shoot uzis is a good way to pass the day.

Did they even KNOW it would go this far? It could have been fun. You know, driving a CAR can be dangerous ALSO.

Originally Posted by AaronJones

The Bullet

The bullet can only go where the operator of the gun is directing it. It is a tool not an operator.

PART of the problem,is that this is NOT TRUE! There is often a deflection of sorts. Recovery can take like 1/6th of a second to SEVERAL seconds. It tends to be LONGER with weaker and smaller people. The deflection ALSO increases with the frequency of the shots.

What this means is that a person that is large and shooting two shots in quick succession could be several inches off. A little kid shooting a machine gun could be off by several FEET if they are surprised.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479823].message }}

candoit2 11 years ago

Not really. This is actually a good thing.

Obviously, what could possibly go wrong when a child is allowed to fire automatic weapons at a range?

I said my argument here. Technically, there was NO instructor.

Still the ranges fault. Who else is responsible for the hiring practices and safety training & enforcement?

Did they even KNOW it would go this far? It could have been fun. You know, driving a CAR can be dangerous ALSO.

So what? You can say that about anything. The parents choose the activity still. There are less risky activities to expose a 9 yr old too..

PART of the problem,is that this is NOT TRUE! There is often a deflection of sorts. Recovery can take like 1/6th of a second to SEVERAL seconds. It tends to be LONGER with weaker and smaller people. The deflection ALSO increases with the frequency of the shots.

What this means is that a person that is large and shooting two shots in quick succession could be several inches off. A little kid shooting a machine gun could be off by several FEET if they are surprised.

How does that disprove my statement that "the bullet can only go where the operator of the gun is directing it. It is a tool not an operator"?
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479833].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

Yep that right there. The instructor was the one who switched the gun to full auto and told the girl it was ok to fire it.
The girl isn't to blame because instructor was the authority closest to her.
The range isn't at fault as they weren't involved in the exchange between the girl and the instructor.
The govt. wasn't involved between the two either, so they're off the hook.
The parents are also off the hook as long as the instructor was certified and they did their homework.
So it was the instructor's fault and his alone.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481559].message }}

Claude Whitacre

11 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I've been following your logic, and Riffle's. Nicely done. But isn't it also an intuitive answer? Meaning that our brains go through the same process, without our conscious involvement?

I love watching the logical process.

And so far, only 3 Thanks in the whole thread. Let's get moving people....I don't have all day.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

â€œDo not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.â€ - Matsuo Basho

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481570].message }}

discrat

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

And so far, only 3 Thanks in the whole thread. Let's get moving people....I don't have all day.

uhmmm... okay. Its like that, huh ?

Okay guys, lets inflate those Thanks so it looks like we are more important than we really are lol

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481598].message }}

Claude Whitacre

11 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

uhmmm... okay. Its like that, huh ?

Okay guys, lets inflate those Thanks so it looks like we are more important than we really are lol

Well...Thank God somebody gets it!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

â€œDo not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.â€ - Matsuo Basho

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481657].message }}

Dan Riffle

11 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

uhmmm... okay. Its like that, huh ?

Okay guys, lets inflate those Thanks so it looks like we are more important than we really are lol

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Well...Thank God somebody gets it!

What is with the thanks issues lately? People act like we get paid in chocolate coins for them or something. I really don't understand the importance people put on them.

Sure, I play the role of dancing monkey down here, but I don't do it for thanks. I do it because I enjoy (attempting to) mak(e)ing people laugh.

By their very nature, I don't know how they can be "inflated," unless there was some nefarious "thanks syndicate" working to undermine the value that they (don't) have. However, I don't sell things here and rarely do I venture into other parts of the forum, so maybe it's just me that doesn't see an inherent value.

Discrat, don't take this personally as I'm only quoting you as an example and I know you're post was more of a joke. However, the idea has been coming up frequently lately from multiple sources.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481778].message }}

Claude Whitacre

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

Sure, I play the role of dancing monkey down here, but I don't do it for thanks. I do it because I enjoy (attempting to) mak(e)ing people laugh.

Not funny enough to make me laugh. I don't just give out Thanks like candy, you know. Try harder...Dance, Monkey, Dance.

(as a point of clarification. I'm just making fun of positivenegative's complaint about not getting the Thanks he deserves. I've heard the complaint a few times, and I'm always puzzled why they think about it at all.)

Claude Whitacre
Acting Director
Nefarious Thanks Syndicate

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

â€œDo not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.â€ - Matsuo Basho

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481882].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Not funny enough to make me laugh. I don't just give out Thanks like candy, you know. Try harder...Dance, Monkey, Dance.

Well, this whole silly topic of who and when to give out thanks made me go on a thanks spree, giving out thanks to those I had never given out thanks to before.

I feel so cheap.

... and I'm all out of thanks now.

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481900].message }}

ThomM

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Now you've got 4

Forget all that brain stuff, I'm not consciously involved with mine enough to answer you

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9481602].message }}

Joe Mobley 11 years ago

Of course, the only one responsible for the death of the instructor was, sadly, the instructor. The correct answer was quickly pointed out by Dan in post #2.

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

The instructor. He was supposedly the expert.

...however, the error in judgment directly related to his death was his own.

Joe Mobley
- Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9485910].message }}

seasoned 11 years ago

She could have used an INSTRUCTOR! An instructor would have assessed the pace, and progressed appropriately. THIS guy DIDN'T! He went As fast as possible for anyone! An instructor would have demonstrated, and helped. THIS guy was touchy feely and made changes WITHOUT suggestion.

HECK, ALL she got out of it was maybe a decent stance, because she can feel it, and had to help guide things, and she can aim and shoot.

Can she load the gun? Turn the safety off? Turn the safety on? Load the magazine? Cock the gun? WHO KNOWS?

So she needed an instructor.

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479803].message }}
Dan Riffle 11 years ago

Fault is found in the closest direct action to an event that, when removed from the chain of actions, would eliminate the resulting negative outcome. Everything else is simply part of the circumstances.

For example, Karen taunts Timmy who, upset, pushes Katie into Bobby, who promptly gets hit by a bus.

Is it Bobby's fault? No, because he has no direct action.

Is it Katie's fault? She did push Bobby into traffic. This is the action closest to the negative outcome. Nope. Her action was not a direct action. It was indirect.

Is it Timmy's fault? Is it Karen's fault? Karen was the cause for Timmy pushing Katie, who sent Bobby into traffic. If you remove Karen from the scenario, Bobby lives. However, she is indirectly involved and one step removed from the actual direct action: Timmy's push. Karen and Katie are part of the circumstances.

Apply this to the range.

Child kills instructor at firing range which legally allows children to fire automatic weapons.

Is the government directly responsible?

Is the range directly responsible?

Is the girl directly responsible? Not insofar as she's a child being instructed by an adult by which the instruction (or lack thereof) is responsible for the negative outcome.

Is the instructor directly responsible? His poor instruction and improper positioning is directly responsible and is the closest direct action to the event, that if removed, eliminates the negative outcome.
- Thanks
Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9479852].message }}
Rick Rodd 11 years ago

We should blame Society for it. or Social Media. Yellow Journalism? Sanrio for revealing hello kitty is a girl? Obama! Westboro Baptist Church... Wait, The Mythbusters. FN Herstal: makers of quality uzi submachine guns?

None of the above.

Who was responsible for the instructors death?

The butler did it.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Please follow our Warrior Forum Rules and Regulations!
WSO Marketplace Rules[/URL]

Do You have any Questions, Comments or Suggestions?
Warrior Forum Knowledgebase ▪ Warrior Forum Help Desk ▪ Suggestions Forum
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9480621].message }}

Gun instructor accidentally killed by 9-yr-old girl. Question, who was at fault?

Trending Topics

Automated AI to pull weekly weather forecasts for Hunting, Fishing, and Golf

Heads-up, New Warriors! Welcome!

Should I add a AI chatbot to my website?

What is best Backlink strategy?

How can I start learn copywriting the right way?