For goodness sakes stop repeating this nonsense. In the unlikely event this was caused by an accidental discharge it is STILL manslaughter.
Feel free to ignore if you want, but this claim is, to me, an interesting
theoretical legal claim about manslaughter when,
hypothetically, a gun goes off "by itself", by which I would guess we mean as the result of some more or less normal interaction that does not normally cause firearms to discharge, e.g. the Type 94 Nambu problem.
This is purely hypothetical and I'm not arguing for the "gun goes off by itself" theory, merely exploring it legally.
In Massachusetts, to prove Involuntary Manslaughter the state must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt (1-3, and 4 if applicable):
- The defendant caused the victim's death;
- The defendant intended the conduct that caused the victim's death;
- The defendant's conduct was wanton or reckless;
- [Where there is evidence of self-defense or defense of another] The defendant did not act in proper self-defense or in the proper defense of another.
Given that we're exploring the consequences of a hypothetical AD/ND sort of thing at the moment, we need not concern ourselves with #4. Also, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the prosecution can show that the victim was alive when the second shot occurred. Then they have #1 in the bag.
We run into some trouble with 2 and 3. What conduct that caused the victim's death would you like to focus on?
Normally when a firearm is involved and the discharge is unintentional, we can hang our hats on merely pointing the gun at the victim. That doesn't work here because it is not wanton or reckless to keep the gun pointed at the downed invader. It is what virtually every reasonable and prudent person
would do. Watch any police video where they light somebody up, and you'll see it
every time. So that's out.
We need something that is wanton or reckless
while pointing a gun at somebody you do not mean to shoot (in that moment). Keeping your finger on the trigger works. I've seen police videos where I think this could have happened. The cop doesn't admit to it because that's tantamount to a guilty plea to Involuntary Manslaughter. However, we were talking about a gun going off "by itself", which obviously precludes unintentionally pulling the trigger. So what conduct which caused the victim's death was wanton or reckless?
The only thing I can think of is when the flaw is
well known, e.g. the Nambu, but I don't think that would be the case with the Sig.