I often see debates between the terms "Accidental Discharge" and "Negligent Discharge". As with many gun issues, some people put a lot of passion behind their opinions. I have seen many people get very passionate about there being no such thing as an Accidental Discharge. To them all AD's are really ND's.
Personally I could care less if they are called AD or ND. However, recently I learned of an interesting perspective on this AD/ND debate.
In civil court the entire case depends on proving negligence.
Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.
For example, if you shoot and kill someone in absolutely clear self defense, you will be cleared of any criminal charges. However, in civil court you will have to prove you were not negligent. That means you have to prove you did everything to kill the person legally. If you were carrying your gun illegally you would be found negligent because if you had not broken the law the person would not have been killed, and you are now civilly liable. Stupid but that's our court system.
Back to AD vs ND. Even if you are extremely passionate about there being no such thing as an AD, that all AD's are really ND's, I recommend you ALWAYS refer to ND's as AD's. If an injury ever resulted from an AD/ND and you openly call it an ND you have just admitted negligence in civil court. In court an 'accident' is forgivable while 'negligence' means you are forever ruined financially.
I am not a lawyer. Hopefully I am not too far off base.
Personally I could care less if they are called AD or ND. However, recently I learned of an interesting perspective on this AD/ND debate.
In civil court the entire case depends on proving negligence.
Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.
For example, if you shoot and kill someone in absolutely clear self defense, you will be cleared of any criminal charges. However, in civil court you will have to prove you were not negligent. That means you have to prove you did everything to kill the person legally. If you were carrying your gun illegally you would be found negligent because if you had not broken the law the person would not have been killed, and you are now civilly liable. Stupid but that's our court system.
Back to AD vs ND. Even if you are extremely passionate about there being no such thing as an AD, that all AD's are really ND's, I recommend you ALWAYS refer to ND's as AD's. If an injury ever resulted from an AD/ND and you openly call it an ND you have just admitted negligence in civil court. In court an 'accident' is forgivable while 'negligence' means you are forever ruined financially.
I am not a lawyer. Hopefully I am not too far off base.

God Did Not Create All Men Equal, Colonel Colt Did.

Comment