Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Auto accident versus collision; I was wrong
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 19:41:23 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <vrf6l3$1hdi1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vreoqg$15s73$1@dont-email.me> <vrf5t1$1ggmv$4@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 20:41:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bc2f40cf14da54641a22a18568b2c669";
	logging-data="1619521"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/g+b2kKrXbeXkmSU3AGuqlWneOm+xQiPQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yNfhbXLF6vuKljzbq8hSl3MNZag=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 1835

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>. . . 

>The year I joined the USSS, they announced a policy change with regard to
>firearms. All mentions of 'accidental discharge' of a firearm were replaced
>with 'negligent discharge'. Because there's no way a gun can just go off
>accidentally. It's physically impossible. The only way a gun goes off
>unintended is through negligence. It puts the responsibility for the discharge
>squarely on the person holding the gun.

I can think of an obvious example in which an accidental discharge wouldn't
be negligent: You're already in a firefight. You've aimed and your finger
is on the trigger. Before you are able to shoot, the enemy shoots and
strikes you, causing you to discharge your now mis-aimed weapon. That's
an accident. Hopefully you haven't caused collateral damage to an
innocent human being but there's no negligence.

>>. . .