Firearms, knives, police and fellons

[Thorne]

That's fair comment. Is it your contention that if a gun is fired without being aimed at a specific target, and someone is killed or injured by the bullet, it is involuntary manslaughter/assault, but if it is aimed at a target and misses, it is accidental?

No, I'm saying that if the gun owner is using his weapon properly, obeying all the safety requirements, and something unexpected causes a bullet to injure someone it is an accident. Firing your weapon into the air is not following safety requirements, and is therefore reckless by nature.

As another example, several years ago a young girl was tragically killed by a hockey puck when the shot was deflected into the crowd. Is the player who shot the puck responsible? What about the player who deflected the puck? Legally, as determined in the case, neither was held legally responsible. They were participating in the sport and doing what they were supposed to be doing. If, however, a player for some reason should deliberately shoot the puck into the stands and kills someone, even if he claimed to be aiming at empty seats, he would be held responsible because he was not conforming to the rules of safety or of the game.

Is your postion different where the victim is within normal range, or where, due to the weather and/or other physical conditions the bullet is carried far beyond its normal range.

Again, the question is whether or not the firearm was discharged in a reasonably safe manner following legal guidelines. Under any conditions, firing one's weapon into the air is unsafe.

Likewise, is your postion different if the victim was known by the shooter to be in the line of fire, or was not known to be there, or where the shooter couldn't have cared less whether the victim was there or not?

This is more to the point. If, for example, the shooter was on a legal firing range and knew that the victim was in the line of fire then yes, he would be responsible for discharging his weapon in an unsafe manner. The fact that someone is in the line of fire makes it an unsafe condition. If he did not, and could not, know that the victim were there, say the victim was hiding behind some targets, then he could not be held liable, though the range owner might be for allowing such a situation to occur.

Another thought: where police or soldiers fire into the air to deter a crowd or to prevent a riot, are they behaving recklessly? Someone could easily be killed who was taking no part in the public disorder.

Yes, I would consider this to be reckless and unsafe. I am not aware of any police departments which would condone such an action, though, certainly not in the US. I would presume that most police officers would not discharge their weapons in such a manner. Those that would should probably not be police officers.

Soldiers, on the other hand, might not be trained to avoid this kind of behavior, especially when they are being used as an auxiliary to the police, such as in a riot. It's still unsafe, however, and the soldiers should be held accountable.

[MMI]

... Under any conditions, firing one's weapon into the air is unsafe.

I would suggest that under any conditions, firing one's weapon at all is unsafe. But it happens. Doing unsafe things is neither illegal nor punishable in itself.

Does anyone know how and why the bullet in the case we are discussing managed to travel 3 km before landing?