Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/19/2002 10:26:05 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 10:30:19 AM EST
News reports today said that the gun show vendors were NOT allowed to carry guns. I cannot remember a gun show where vendors were allowed to carry any kind of locaded weapon. If the vendor had a loaded gun, he was violating the gun show's rules.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 10:50:49 AM EST
The father has enough to deal with the death of his son and if the vendor was the shooter the guy should fess up. For the life of me I still don't understand why the vendor had his gun out of the holster anyway.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 10:54:51 AM EST
So do you think it was the vendor or father? are they both saying they didnt do it? I dont understand why this is not clear.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 11:00:30 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 11:04:34 AM EST
If we are passing along scuttlebutt, I heard from another FFL attending the show that after the shot went off and the kid began screaming, a male voice was heard saying "Oh my God, I shot that kid." Apparently, everyone that was close by heard it, but was trying to help and/or diverting more attention to the kid and couldn't verify who said it, and everyone farther away who heard wasn't close enough to actually see who said it, hence the back-and-forth testimony the police were collecting. Take from that what you will. the_reject
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 11:28:48 AM EST
Today's fish wrapper reports the cops are saying they may never know who shot the kid. The dealer and the father are telling conflicting stories, there were no other eye-witnesses, bystander testimony is conflicting, and evidence was destroyed (the holster). The father had powder burns on his shoulder where a holster might be located. I think the father shot the kid with the dealer's gun negligently, not checking the dealer's gun first. That's my theory, FWIW. What a crock of shit. [pissed]
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 11:31:18 AM EST
According to today’s Atlanta Constitution article it was the vendors gun that killed the boy. Either it hasn't been determined who was in control of the .38 when it discharged or the PD hasn't released that info yet.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 11:34:18 AM EST
Originally Posted By RamblinWreck: What a crock of shit. [pissed]
View Quote
That's for sure.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 11:36:15 AM EST
Well, I guess it's time to break out the rubber hoses. One of these guys is gonna break, so they need to [i]sweat[/i].
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 11:36:24 AM EST
I posted this in the other thread, but IMO the dealer is guilty of negligent manslaughter for handing a loaded weapon to a customer. Dad may have negligently discharged the weapon, and if he did he shares some responsibilty for not clearing the weapon himself, but the numbnuts who was handling the loaded weapon in the first place is absolutely at fault for not clearing it before it left his hands. He would not want me on his jury.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 11:47:12 AM EST
Originally Posted By the_reject: "Oh my God, I shot that kid." the_reject
View Quote
I wouldn't think that the father would refer to his son as "that kid" so if this is what ACTUALLY was said I would have to think that the vender or someone else all together fired the shot.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 12:24:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 12:50:20 PM EST
Originally Posted By KBaker: . . but the numbnuts who was handling the loaded weapon in the first place is absolutely at fault for not clearing it before it left his hands.
View Quote
The vendor should have checked to be sure the gun wasn't loaded, this blatant oversight caused someone to die and he will have to live with it for the rest of his life. I teach my children, if anyone hands you a gun with the action closed, and myself included; YOU must open the action and check for yourself, and unload if necesary before handling it. For myself the rule is, I always open the action and unload if necessary and hand a gun to someone else with the action open.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 12:56:45 PM EST
"Compounding the contradicting stories, Kissel said, is the fact that some evidence was lost or destroyed at the crime scene, including the holster Grant was preparing to buy." Did the father get rid of the holster because he fired the shot and it would implicate him or did the vendor get rid of the holster because it would implicate him? I might be wrong but I think it was the vendor if what has been disclosed so far is accurate.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 1:06:53 PM EST
Warlord: That's the way I was taught when I was a kid and I taught my kids and others the same way. Open the action, clear the chamber(s) and or magazine and visually inspect depending on the type of firearm. In low light you can use your pinky to feel for a round in the chamber and magazine. This crap makes us all look bad.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 5:45:31 PM EST
I find it hard to believe a father would shoot his kid and then try claim someone else did it. I also find it hard to believe the father would take the time, or have the presence of mind, to hide or destroy the holster as his son lies dying on the floor. Plus, obviously, the father can’t sue himself - so he wouldn’t be trying to protect himself from that. It all points to the vendor.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 6:24:39 PM EST
Originally Posted By 199: I find it hard to believe a father would shoot his kid and then try claim someone else did it. I also find it hard to believe the father would take the time, or have the presence of mind, to hide or destroy the holster as his son lies dying on the floor. Plus, obviously, the father can’t sue himself - so he wouldn’t be trying to protect himself from that. It all points to the vendor.
View Quote
pretty much my thoughts too, if you just shot your son you wouldn't be thinking about any of that except maybe offing yourself for being such an ass, the vender on the other hand has an interest to destroy evidence and lie like hell.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 6:37:29 PM EST
Originally Posted By rkbar15: Warlord: That's the way I was taught when I was a kid and I taught my kids and others the same way. Open the action, clear the chamber(s) and or magazine and visually inspect depending on the type of firearm. In low light you can use your pinky to feel for a round in the chamber and magazine. This crap makes us all look bad.
View Quote
I totally agree. I was taught to first clear and check the weapon yourself before handing it to someone else with the action open, and then INSIST that they check the weapon themselves before handling it further. I will likewise ask a person showing me a gun to clear and check the weapon and I will again verify upon taking possession. It is always a good idea to ask the owner to clear the weapon in case you are not familiar with it's design, and showing someone how to check that the weapon is not loaded will allow them to verify. Safety will not be compromised.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 6:38:30 PM EST
Originally Posted By 199: I find it hard to believe a father would shoot his kid and then try claim someone else did it. I also find it hard to believe the father would take the time, or have the presence of mind, to hide or destroy the holster as his son lies dying on the floor. Plus, obviously, the father can’t sue himself - so he wouldn’t be trying to protect himself from that. It all points to the vendor.
View Quote
I was thinking the same thing, except my lawyerly sick mind came up with that there was a POTENTIAL for him abusing the crime scene so he could eventually sue the dealer. Now in my normal thinking mind, I can't imagine a father shooting his son and having the presence of mind to do anything but hold his son while help came. My bet is on the dealer, especially after all of the hear say you guys posted here! Now they have to get the witnesses to ID the voice that said "I shot that kid." I'm betting all I've got that it wasn't dad, atleast I'm hoping it wasn't.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 6:48:33 PM EST
i dont think there would have been time for anyone to screw with the evidence. i went to that show(i wasnt there when it happened) 3 cops at the front door and i saw a couple more walking around. one was a GA state trooper who had gotten off shift at 8am, still in uniform looking at AR parts. police response to the scene HAD to be less than one minute.
Link Posted: 7/19/2002 10:01:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By LE6920: … if you just shot your son you wouldn't be thinking about any of that except maybe offing yourself for being such an ass…
View Quote
Sadly, that reminds me of an incident quite a few years ago where a guy took his son hunting. The guy took a shot at what he thought was a deer (probably movement in the bushes) and killed his son – the next round he fired was into his own head. (Always felt real sorry for the mother in that one!)
Originally Posted By Balzac72: ... I was thinking the same thing, except my lawyerly sick mind came up with that there was a POTENTIAL for him abusing the crime scene so he could eventually sue the dealer. ...
View Quote
Anything’s possible, I guess. In theory, he might have even taken his kid to the show with the intent of rigging a shooting and suing the vendor (however, that scenario would be a little more credible if the victim was his wife, mother-in-law, etc.). About the best we can do here is look at likely explanations – though granted any good LEO will always consider the more remote explanations, too.
Originally Posted By DvlDog: i dont think there would have been time for anyone to screw with the evidence. …
View Quote
But by the above accounts, it appears the holster was lost or destroyed in this brief time. Someone worked very quickly and coolly. Again, it points to the vendor.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 10:43:52 AM EST
Any update on this? I couldn't find anything online about it.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 4:51:07 PM EST
^
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 5:09:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/24/2002 5:10:53 PM EST by Aimless]
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 5:20:18 PM EST
What a screwed up situation. This is just a guess but if the father had shot his kid he'd have felt so bad and admitted it up front. What worse thing could happen to a father? The dealer is the one who stands to gain by lying! The father wouldn't say "I just shot THAT kid". I agree with Balzac and 199, to think otherwise just doesn't add up.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 4:41:43 AM EST
You would think that if the vendor killed the kid then the father would be screaming bloody murder. Why would he protect the vendor even though the shooting appears unintentional? I think they both somehow had their hands in this act.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 5:00:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By KBaker: I posted this in the other thread, but IMO the dealer is guilty of negligent manslaughter for handing a loaded weapon to a customer. He would not want me on his jury.
View Quote
Neither would I....
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 5:16:34 AM EST
Hey Sweep, any update to this incident?
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 5:18:01 AM EST
Some stupid bitch wrote the Atlanta Urinal Constipation that this proves that guns kill. She said that since they don't know who pulled the trigger, it MUST have gone off by itself. Are the anti-gunners this ignorant? Never mind, that answer is obvious.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 5:33:40 AM EST
Yes every time I open my safe my guns are so happy to see me they start firing in every direction. I'm lucky to be alive! I thought NY had the market cornered on stupid bitches. One must have escaped! [:D]
Top Top