Now look up the word "intentional" and see what you have so obviously missed for so long.
Which could also be "intentional."
Listen, for some reason you've decided to pick a fight and lawyers are nitpicky to begin with.
Of course the kid 'intentionally' pulled the trigger. I don't need to look anything up to determine if legal 'intent' existed. I'll leave that to you.
Many cops are less familiar with their own weapons than they should be. Many spend less time educating their own children about weapons so that they know what to do with them and how to handle them.
I don't know what happened in this case, the facts in the article are just to sparse and I have no desire to continue a pissinig contest with you.
All I know is that my strong suspicion is that this kid most likely took out his dad's gun, saw that it was unloaded and took it to a neighbors home where he got into an argument over whether or not the gun was harmful.
To make his case that the gun was not harmful, I suspect, beleiving that the gun was empty, he aimed it at another kid and pulled the trigger.
TOTALLY STUPID? YES! Criminally culpable? - probably himself as a minor.
His dad? - probably for improper gun storage. Perhaps other charges.
But did the kid inflict INTENTIONAL EMOTIONAL DISTRESS - I am arguing no, because I would argue that the kid didn't form the necessary INTENT TO INFLICT EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
But hey, your're the lawyer. You get paid by the hour.
If you think these kinds of CIVIL SUITS are what the courts should be clogged up with (inflicting emotional distress on a 5 yr old) - then have at it!
I'm done with this and am bowing out.
.