Arrested and charged with attempted murder for ricochet.

**drie57** · 01-10-2017, 09:14

Compare this incident with the recent shooting of a female biker by an army corporal. Deliberate shooting according to the press. No arrest.

**Kayback** · 01-10-2017, 11:01

Originally Posted by drie57

Compare this incident with the recent shooting of a female biker by an army corporal. Deliberate shooting according to the press. No arrest.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. Hanlon'z razor.

**Peter Wells** · 01-10-2017, 11:12

A rock on a private shooting range? There's some incompetency there on the part of the range.

**Josephine** · 01-10-2017, 14:32

He is being charged with negligence and must appear in court Monday morning 9 am

**Minerva10210** · 01-10-2017, 15:37

Yoh, thats quite hectic.

Presume it has to do with the "you are liable for where the bullet ultimately stops" bit in the FCA? (working from memory here from the competency tests?)

**zguy** · 02-10-2017, 06:37

You would think shooting down range at a shooting range would be the safest place to shoot. I mean, it's made for just that!
Hope the guy doesn't face a lengthy legal issue and hope his mate has a full recovery.

I wonder what happens to the range owner for this inncident. It sounds like a fluke thing, so I wonder how this will play out

**shooty** · 02-10-2017, 08:00

This is a Question:
If the rule of the range is not to shoot at anything but a target. Paper or gong.
And you decide to break the safety rule and shoot at a rock or other object, which is not allowed.
Which leads to an injury. Wont they see this as negligent discharge of a firearm.

At the range I shoot. If you shoot at anything but a paper target or gong on the gong range.
Or even setup up either of these targets not in front of a backstop. The RO will chase you off the range.

Attempted murder is a bit much though.

**Springer** · 02-10-2017, 08:02

Yep. Still can't understand the attempted murder charge.

**Katlagter** · 02-10-2017, 08:20

This is ridiculous. Being hit by bullets that bounce back from tyres used to stabilise backstops or sidestops on ranges, from plates or from poppers, from pins or pin tables, are daily occurrences on any range. That is one of the reasons for wearing eye protection. When you step onto a range where there is going to be close range shooting, you know and should accept that bounce-backs are going to be one of the risks. The injuries caused are mostly confined to bruises, but very occasionally blood is drawn and even stitches needed. To charge someone hit by a bounce-back (it's rarely a classic ricochet) of negligence or anything for that matter, is stupid and devoid of any common sense. In any sport shit happens; if people are going to charged for random mishaps, where are we headed?

**Quicksilver_WP** · 02-10-2017, 08:32

Originally Posted by shooty

This is a Question:If the rule of the range is not to shoot at anything but a target. Paper or gong.And you decide to break the safety rule and shoot at a rock or other object, which is not allowed.Which leads to an injury. Wont they see this as negligent discharge of a firearm.At the range I shoot. If you shoot at anything but a paper target or gong on the gong range.Or even setup up either of these targets not in front of a backstop. The RO will chase you off the range.Attempted murder is a bit much though.

To give a different hypothetical scenario. Lets say that you shoot steelcore at a target positioned no more than 1.5m from a backstop and the round strikes are largish stone inside the backstop (say 20-25cm into the backstop so invisible externally) with sufficient force to shed the jacket and shear part of said stone off, and then proceeds to travel a substantial distance ... who is responsible? The shooter who takes the backstop at face value? Or the range who created said backstop with stones in?