Police Shoot Into Home -- Accidental Discharge?

K

KyJim

New member
Actually this is a story of a police dog which fired a gun which sent a round into a nearby home in Lawrence, Massachusetts. It seems police thought a suspect had buried a gun in some snow and brought in a police dog to search for it. They were right. Police Dog Ivan pawed around in the snow and apparently pawed the trigger, too. Nobody was hurt from the resulting discharge. http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/21447747/2013/03/03/police-dog-accidentally-fires-gun-during-search.

Some members of the forum say there's no such thing as an accidental discharge. It seems to me that this is a case of a truly accidental discharge -- unless you think the dog could have been trained at handling firearms safely. So, what do you think?
 
S

ScottRiqui

New member
That's an interesting question - along the same lines, is it a "negligent discharge" when a toddler picks up a loaded gun and, not knowing what he's doing, fires it?

Personally, I don't believe that you can be "negligent" in performing some act unless you first have a "duty" not to commit that act. In the case of a dog or a toddler, there's no "duty" present - they may not even know what a gun is or what it does. So in those cases, there's no negligence regarding the actual discharge. Now, for the person who left a loaded gun unattended where dogs or kids could get to it, that could be a negligent act in and of itself, but as far as the actual discharge goes, I think that's about as "accidental" as they come.
 
K

KyJim

New member
On the toddler, scenario, I guess I think of those as negligent discharges. Not on the toddler's part but on the gun owner's part for leaving it available. But with the dog here, I can't see any negligence by either dog or his handlers. Just one of those freak things.
 
S

ScottRiqui

New member
I guess it depends on what you consider a negligent *discharge*. In the dog/toddler examples, there's no negligence at all associated with the actual discharge of the firearm. The negligence occurred earlier, and was on the part of someone else entirely.

I'd call the dog/toddler scenario "an accidental discharge, resulting from the negligence on the part of whoever left the gun unattended for the dog or toddler to find".
 
Q

Quadpod88

New member
Still have to say there is no such thing as an accidental discharge. That being said, the negligence just so happens to not fall on the "shooter". But, the gun was still fired due to negligence.
 
S

ScottRiqui

New member
Still have to say there is no such thing as an accidental discharge. That being said, the negligence just so happens to not fall on the "shooter". But, the gun was still fired due to negligence.
Click to expand...

Right - there's definitely negligence here, but was it a "negligent discharge"? And if not, what's the correct term to use?
 
Q

Quadpod88

New member
Yes, it was a negligent discharge. The negligence, in this case, happens to not be the fault of the "shooter".
 
S

ScottRiqui

New member
I disagree. In the dog/toddler scenarios, there's nothing negligent about the discharge itself - the negligence had already occurred before the shot was even fired.

Compare this to the more-typical examples of "negligent discharge", where the negligence happens as the shot is fired because the shooter violated one or more of the firearm handling rules.

In this case, I think it would be correct to refer to the discharge itself as "accidental" - although it would be "an accidental discharge due to the negligence of the owner".
 
Q

Quadpod88

New member
Solid point, but proper handling of a firearm would include not burying it in the snow nor having it in reach of small children.
 
A

AZAK

New member
The leading line from the article:
A specially trained police dog accidentally fired a gun
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/21...entally-fires-gun-during-search#ixzz2MYcPAoYm

Apparently not specially enough trained; dog trainer didn't teach the dog the basic safety rules, NO Paws inside the trigger guard until ready to fire.

Dog trainer negligence; maybe a bit too stingy with the doggie treats/praise during training. Did Ivan get dogatory desk duty until after an investigation? Perhaps some cowseling?

Saying that the dog "accidentally fired a gun" leads one to believe that he is capable of firing a gun on purpose.

Now, the question that I ponder is... was there a cat in the window of the house? (Ivan chuckles... only eight left kitty kitty...)
 
G

GM2

New member
Apparently not specially enough trained; dog trainer didn't teach the dog the basic safety rules, NO Paws inside the trigger guard until ready to fire.

Dog trainer negligence; maybe a bit too stingy with the doggie treats/praise during training. Did Ivan get dogatory desk duty until after an investigation? Perhaps some cowseling?

Saying that the dog "accidentally fired a gun" leads one to believe that he is capable of firing a gun on purpose.

Now, the question that I ponder is... was there a cat in the window of the house? (Ivan chuckles... only eight left kitty kitty...)
Click to expand...

Now that's Funny! :D
 
L

ltc444

New member
The debate "accidental discharge" vs negligent discharge has all ways seemed moronic to me.

If one goes to the accepted definition of an accident, "an unplanned event" then any time a firearm is discharged unintentionally it is an accident.

Negligence is a separate issue to be determined by a competent investigation not by a purist Monday morning quarterback.
 
B

Ben Towe

New member
The debate "accidental discharge" vs negligent discharge has all ways seemed moronic to me.

If one goes to the accepted definition of an accident, "an unplanned event" then any time a firearm is discharged unintentionally it is an accident.

Negligence is a separate issue to be determined by a competent investigation not by a purist Monday morning quarterback.
Click to expand...

Amen. I've seen pages upon pages of back and forth discussion about AD vs. ND on these forums. It's a complete waste of time and effort. Negligence doesn't require an accident, and all accidents aren't a result of negligence.
 
S

Southern Rebel

New member
I can't believe it - we are tearing into the definition of everyday words and trying to beat them into submission so that they will "say" what we want them to say. We are getting as bad as the gun control people in chopping up the meaning of a particular word.

REBEL'S RULES OF ORDER:

1. ALL discharges from a gun that are not done on purpose are accidental.

2. Some accidental discharges are negligence on the the part of the holder.

3. Some accidental discharges are not negligence on the part of the holder.

4. Some on-purpose discharges are negligence on the part of the holder.

5. Some on-purpose discharges are not negligence on the part of the holder.

If you cannot fit the situation into one of the above categories, refer to Mr. Clinton's expert advice as to "meaning of is".

The historical disagreements as to the meaning of various gutteral utterings from our species are what has led us to the many colorful languages and colorful religions we now share. (Wow! Now I know how Goober felt when he grew a beard - the power of superior knowledge is pure bliss!)
 
Last edited:
D

Dashunde

New member
I dont know... letting the dog dig vigorously enough and long enough to claw the trigger of a gun in an unknown condition is as the very least "un-wise".

As soon as the dog pointed and made any attempt to dig the officer should have pulled the dog off and finshed the digging gently by hand.
But who knows, maybe it only took one or two paw passes to hit the trigger...

Imagine the dogs surprise!
It might have even ruined a expensive, well-trained dog too... its probably not too eager to dig anymore after that deafening find.
 
G

Gaerek

New member
Clearly, the suspect was negligent in not safing or clearing the firearm before tossing it into the snow drift.
Click to expand...

That's where the negligence occurred. If someone had been injured by a round from this negligently discarded firearm, the responsibility should be on the one who left it, not the dog or handler.

ALL discharges from a gun that are not done on purpose are accidental.
Click to expand...

An accident infers that there is no blame to be placed. Saying all unintended discharges from a firearm that weren't on purpose were accidental relieves the blamed from responsibility. There are so few cases of actual accidental discharge (as in there can really be no blame placed) that it can be considered nearly 0. I would be willing to say that what the dog/handler did was an accident, but there was negligence in leaving a loaded firearm in firing condition where anyone could get to it. Imagine if the firearm weren't found until the spring melt...then it was found by some child.

I agree that Intentional discharges can be negligent, as in, when one of the 4 rules of firearms handling are broken (warning shots fall into this category), but I would need to see proof a discharge was an accident before calling it so. I suppose this is a battle of semantics. But where I'm from, a true accident is something that could not have been anticipated, and there can be no blame assigned. Almost 100% of the time, when a firearm is discharged (either intentionally or unintentionally) it could have been anticipated (which is why we have rules for safe firearm handling, and blame for that round can be assigned.
 
Last edited:
D

Dashunde

New member
^Thats really funny.

The whole story makes a good case for using simple inexpensive metal detector for this kind of search...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top