Instructor Killed in AZ by 9 year old firing an Uzi

MGnoob said:
If someone got a lawyer, they would sue all parties, you could probably find a lawyer to sue me for my comments here.
Click to expand...

I can tell you right now any lawyer asked to sue this girl or her family (cause you can't really sue 9 year olds) would tell them "You're going full retard. Never go full retard." They wouldn't be getting any legal action without paying a huge contingency fee, and that is even assuming they found an attorney that was dumb enough to put their reputation on it. There is no way in hell any jury would ever hold them responsible, and everyone knows it.

ETA: about the only legal action viable here is the instructor's family might be able to sue the range/owners, depending on the facts of the case, but even that is a huge stretch. It's a lot more compelling than any other liability aspect of this, though.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
I can tell you right now any lawyer asked to sue this girl or her family (cause you can't really sue 9 year olds) would tell them "You're going full retard. Never go full retard." They wouldn't be getting any legal action without paying a huge contingency fee, and that is even assuming they found an attorney that was dumb enough to put their reputation on it. There is no way in hell any jury would ever hold them responsible, and everyone knows it.

ETA: about the only legal action viable here is the instructor's family might be able to sue the range/owners, depending on the facts of the case, but even that is a huge stretch. It's a lot more compelling than any other liability aspect of this, though.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Very true, it would also depend upon the state, AZ my not be as "full retard" as others.Different parties can enter into a "joint settlement agreement" to spread liability, and some states you can wage multiple lawsuits but if you already receive compensation and win a second time you'll only get the difference between the two ruleings/settlements.
As far as "There is no way in hell any jury would ever hold them responsible, and everyone knows it. " It's very true, but that's jury nullification.. had there been a success prosecution the case would be easier to convince a jury of... it's similar a a 30 year old claiming they didn't know what they where doing, and can't be held responsible. Just because the jury won't buy it doesn't mean it couldn't be true. You are correct most of it would fall the the FFL, but if it's your lawsuit you can pick whoever you want to sue..ffls protected by by waiver.. the participants may not be..once more, the family of the instructor are free to sue the parents regardless of what they signed with the ffl.....a shitty thing to do but very likely to happen, although the lawyers would steer you away from this
 
We should also take into account there are many things we don't know..did the parent pick the uzi, did the girl, or did the instructor recommend it? Alot of other details
My guess, parents will sue the ffl, instructors family will sue the FFL and/or the girl/parents.
No one will be prosecuted.
I wouldn't want to be the instructor/family or the ffl or the girl/family.
If the girl died and the instructor survived there would be a viggerious prosecution and a failed lawsuit by the girls family
 
Last edited:
MGnoob said:
It's very true, but that's jury nullification..
Click to expand...

It's not jury nullifcation, at all. Nowhere near this. Not even the same universe.

I've been impaneled on 2 different juries in the past 10 years that involved civil liability cases. A jury does not have to "nullify" anything to say "no" to a civil liability claim. Often times the verdict sheets are structured like a gauntlet. There's often question which establishes the connection of liability; then there is often a question which asks whether or not the defendant was negligent. Sometimes you can even decide the defendant was negligent but award some or all of the plaintiffs absolutely nothing. There are so many ways a liability case can fail. This differs from criminal law where a jury is asked "Do you believe the defendant broke law(s) XYZ." The Jury doesn't get nearly as much leeway in the matter in a criminal case.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
drgrant said:
It's not jury nullifcation, at all. Nowhere near this. Not even the same universe.

I've been impaneled on 2 different juries in the past 10 years that involved civil liability cases. A jury does not have to "nullify" anything to say "no" to a civil liability claim. Often times the verdict sheets are structured like a gauntlet. There's often question which establishes the connection of liability; then there is often a question which asks whether or not the defendant was negligent. Sometimes you can even decide the defendant was negligent but award some or all of the plaintiffs absolutely nothing. There are so many ways a liability case can fail. This differs from criminal law where a jury is asked "Do you believe the defendant broke law(s) XYZ." The Jury doesn't get nearly as much leeway in the matter in a criminal case.

-Mike
Click to expand...
You are correct, i mashed the criminal and civil suits into one thing.
In the civil suit it would be the jury's decision, in the criminal case for say involuntary manslaughter, it would be jury nullification...they would just not convict but not due to legal arguments, intent or understanding your actions wouldn't be required, but could still get her off

what do you think, is it semantics at this point?? or do you still think it's just a legal verdict even though the jury didn't follow the jury instructions?Still a binding decision either way...
 
My two cents.it's sad that it happened,and I will say a prayer for both of them.
 
Last edited:
MGnoob said:
You are correct, i mashed the criminal and civil suits into one thing.
In the civil suit it would be the jury's decision, in the criminal case for say involuntary manslaughter, it would be jury nullification...they would just not convict but not due to legal arguments, intent or understanding your actions wouldn't be required, but could still get her off

what do you think, is it semantics at this point?? or do you still think it's just a legal verdict even though the jury didn't follow the jury instructions?Still a binding decision either way...
Click to expand...

Law is always about semantics. [laugh] There is no criminal case to be had here. Period. Good luck sticking Mens Rea to any of the parties involved. Nobody went to that range knowing someone was going to get hurt, and the people operating the range likely didn't anticipate it, either, nor could it be proven that they wanted someone to get hurt, or that they were pretty sure that someone would get hurt and did nothing. There might be a more solid argument if a similar incident had occurred in the past (then they can't get away with denying the fact that they knew about the potential for range personnel to get hurt) and the range did nothing to remedy things; but the most that would come out of this is liability, and the only case your're likely to see is the family of the dead guy possibly suing the range or its owner.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
Law is always about semantics. [laugh] There is no criminal case to be had here. Period. Good luck sticking Mens Rea to any of the parties involved. Nobody went to that range knowing someone was going to get hurt, and the people operating the range likely didn't anticipate it, either, nor could it be proven that they wanted someone to get hurt, or that they were pretty sure that someone would get hurt and did nothing. There might be a more solid argument if a similar incident had occurred in the past (then they can't get away with denying the fact that they knew about the potential for range personnel to get hurt) and the range did nothing to remedy things; but the most that would come out of this is liability, and the only case your're likely to see is the family of the dead guy possibly suing the range or its owner.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Oh boy. You did it now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a huge bummer, and bad publicity for anything pro-gun but as the great George Carlin once said:
"The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own."

In this case, the range instructor.
 
drgrant said:
Law is always about semantics. [laugh] There is no criminal case to be had here. Period. Good luck sticking Mens Rea to any of the parties involved. Nobody went to that range knowing someone was going to get hurt, and the people operating the range likely didn't anticipate it, either, nor could it be proven that they wanted someone to get hurt, or that they were pretty sure that someone would get hurt and did nothing. There might be a more solid argument if a similar incident had occurred in the past (then they can't get away with denying the fact that they knew about the potential for range personnel to get hurt) and the range did nothing to remedy things; but the most that would come out of this is liability, and the only case your're likely to see is the family of the dead guy possibly suing the range or its owner.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Very true, you've got to figure in this guy life/career how many young children didn't shoot him in the face.
 
MGnoob said:
I can point a lot of fingers here...like why was he standing where he was if he wasn't going to put a hand on the gun, why he wasn't behind her with 4 hands on the gun like other have said..
I am just saying "Legaly" which case do you think is better after removing the fact she was 7
Click to expand...

Even the suggestion that one can remove the fact that she was 7, judge the remaining facts then apply them back to a 7 year old should get you a nice vacation from NES (even without looking to your initial post in the thread quoted below).

Using your logic, every toddler should go to jail for grabbing another toddler's toy... or hitting another toddler... or even screaming at another toddler.

You, sir, won the internet for today.

MGnoob said:
I think they should prosecute the child and the parents.......the surviving family should sue them.......
if that kid shot up a school they'd prosecute , regardless of intent, lesser charges still apply..
If i where somehow involved i know i would be both prosecuted and sued;Yet, i wasn't there or involved in any way but i am still suppose to give up my rights "For the children"

Ohh poor her.. to suggest a child doesn't know the consequences of their action is a joke. i don't get what's to feel sorry about. she killed someone and there will be no consequences just a bunch of sympathy and theropy...Ya that's a great lessened learned. we should extend those same consequences to everyone up to 26 years of age like health insurance.

Think i am being a dick? i'm dead serious. It's un american if no one gets sued and the waiver probably covered the business not the customers.
Click to expand...

I had the hardest time refraining from neg repping you till your rep goes negative. I am shocked people I respect even replied to your obvious trolling.
 
Last edited:
WatchCityCPA said:
Even the suggestion that one can remove the fact that she was 7, judge the remaining facts then apply them back to a 7 year old should get you a nice vacation from NES (even without looking to your initial post in the thread quoted below).

Using your logic, every toddler should go to jail for grabbing another toddler's toy... or hitting another toddler... or even screaming at another toddler.

You, sir, won the internet for today.



I had the hardest time refraining from neg repping you till your rep goes negative. I am shocked people I respect even replied to your obvious trolling.
Click to expand...


Everything with you guys is "trolling"
You think you can't remove the fact she was 7? They charge minors as adults all they time...
If you asked that girl what would happen if she pointed that gun at the instructor and pulled the trigger what would happen, she more than likely would have said he would die.
So how would she not understand her actions?
Two kids tried to murder there friend to please "Slender Man" via stabbing.....where these kid just confused?? The fictional character thing is stupid, their intent was murder.....Which they fully understood.
As far as how i should get a "Vacation" for sharing my thoughts regardless if you find them distasteful.. is bogus. I'm commenting on the subject of the thread, you are commenting on me...
"Using your logic, every toddler should go to jail for grabbing another toddler's toy... or hitting another toddler... or even screaming at another toddler."
it's parent job to deal with this so the law doesn't have to...kind of like how this girls parents should have not let here shoot without themselves being actively involved,
Would you let some stranger, even an instructor, teach your kids about firearms before you yourself have?

Trust me, i haven't won the internet by a long shot.There are no winners here.
 
Last edited:
So are you suggesting she be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder? Just trying to figure out if this is just herp... or herp derp.
 
Roland Deschain said:
So are you suggesting she be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder? Just trying to figure out if this is just herp... or herp derp.
Click to expand...

LOL, i like "herp...or herp derp" i'm going to use that.
What she/parents would charged with is hard to say...if it was me i would be charged with murder then offered a plea deal.

I think some of you guys are acting like no-ones ever been prosecuted with 0 evidence, or even worse for purely political reasons.

And things like she's not responsible because she trusted adults, is kinda weak. One time i trusted someone not to sell me stolen property, i'd have been laughed out of court if my defense was, well i trusted them.

For alittle background on all the trolling i do here and why i hate the word trolling look at the 1 thread i've been in other than this one, You'll see i dislike parents who make their childrens problems my problem, You'll also see why it enrages me that this happened.
 
MGnoob said:
Everything with you guys is "trolling"
You think you can't remove the fact she was 7? They charge minors as adults all they time...
Click to expand...

Yes, for actual crimes that involved malicious behavior. This doesn't qualify.

If you asked that girl what would happen if she pointed that gun at the instructor and pulled the trigger what would happen, she more than likely would have said he would die.
Click to expand...

She didn't do that though, please don't try to create a strawman. She lost control of the gun after she pulled the trigger.

Even insinuating that this kid is in ANY way responsible for this is going full retard.

Let me play a little analogy here. Say this 9 year old is in gym class. There's a climbing net in the gym, and the gym teacher tells her to climb up the net. She does, and when
she does that, the huge bar at the top that holds the net in place breaks off and comes crashing down, but the kid only falls a few feet onto a mat and is unhurt, but the bar crashes into
the gym teacher's skull and kills him. You're basically saying that the 9 year old should go to jail. This isn't any different. It's retarded.

Using your logic I should be sent to prison because when I was a toddler I ****ed up one of my dad's corneas when I accidentally poked him in the eye. [rofl]

it's parent job to deal with this so the law doesn't have to...kind of like how this girls parents should have not let here shoot without themselves being actively involved,
Would you let some stranger, even an instructor, teach your kids about firearms before you yourself have?
Click to expand...

People put their kids lives in the hands of strangers all the time. They do it when they drop their kids off at school, or a daycare center, or 900 other things.

-Mike
 
Guess that gun can be tricky to shoot. If you fast forward to 4:30 this guy who appears to be an experienced shooter almost lost control of the mini UZI. He blames it on the stock.



 
Last edited by a moderator:
drgrant said:
Yes, for actual crimes that involved malicious behavior. This doesn't qualify.



She didn't do that though, please don't try to create a strawman. She lost control of the gun after she pulled the trigger.

Even insinuating that this kid is in ANY way responsible for this is going full retard.

Let me play a little analogy here. Say this 9 year old is in gym class. There's a climbing net in the gym, and the gym teacher tells her to climb up the net. She does, and when
she does that, the huge bar at the top that holds the net in place breaks off and comes crashing down, but the kid only falls a few feet onto a mat and is unhurt, but the bar crashes into
the gym teacher's skull and kills him. You're basically saying that the 9 year old should go to jail. This isn't any different. It's retarded.

Using your logic I should be sent to prison because when I was a toddler I ****ed up one of my dad's corneas when I accidentally poked him in the eye. [rofl]



People put their kids lives in the hands of strangers all the time. They do it when they drop their kids off at school, or a daycare center, or 900 other things.

-Mike
Click to expand...

What took plce that day was "full retard" i'd say i'm more in the realm of "half retarded"
the difference in what happen compared to your analogy...is equipment broke and someone would be getting sued..I the case of this girl the equipment did not fail it function perfectly...which of these two events was the more obvious danger?

hypothetical are just about as good as hindsight.

for example if an 11 year took their parents car and crashed into me on the road killing the child and leaving me injured should i not sue the parents?? i mean their car was stolen and i'd be suing them...as bad of a president that sets.. they were negligent.

You don't have to put you kids in any of the situations you list people do is for convenience or perceived nessesity.

I'm not even trying to say if there were charges, conviction, sentencing it would help the situation. i am sure this girl feels more terrible then any "legal" justice could make her feel.
There is ether "legal" justice for all or none.... when some drunk kills someone should we just say" ohh, well they feel bad enough about what they did"

they just won't charge her/the parents because they know the world is full of softies.
 
MGnoob said:
for example if an 11 year took their parents car and crashed into me on the road killing the child and leaving me injured should i not sue the parents?? i mean their car was stolen and i'd be suing them...as bad of a president that sets.. they were negligent.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's liability, not criminal conduct on the part of the 11 year old. You were saying 5 minutes ago that someone should get prosecuted. I think you're still "crossing the streams" of civil liability vs criminal. The two things are not the same. At all. Ever. It's best not to mix them up.

they just won't charge her/the parents because they know the world is full of softies.
Click to expand...

No wrong, they won't do it because from a legal standpoint it's in the realm of "completely ****ing stupid." Even the moonbattiest activist prosecutor wouldn't even try to do it, because all it would do is make them
look bad, they'd be treated as a farce in the legal community and in the public. The notional of criminally charging the girl or her parents for this accident is mind numbing.

-Mike
 

Similar threads

43 Year Old Convicted Rapist Murdered GF and Killed Himself In Moxy Hotel
Replies
2
Views
203
pastera
pastera
Grand Jury Declines to Prosecute Texas Mother Who Shot 14-Year-Old Boy During Break-In
Replies
2
Views
163
Agnotology
Agnotology
85-year-old Idaho woman hailed as 'hero' in fatal shooting of home invasion suspect
Replies
7
Views
142
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Police: UPS Worker Shot, Killed in Targeted Attack
Replies
3
Views
205
timbo
timbo
16-Year-Old Shot Dead While Allegedly Trying to Steal Car in Texas
2
Replies
30
Views
706
rewster
rewster
Back
Top Bottom