"Accident" ? I don't think so !

One St. Louis police officer (male) empties his pistol and put one bullet back in it.
He spins the chamber, aims at the wall and pulls the trigger.
The gun does not go off.
A second police officer (female) aims at the first police officer and pulls the trigger and the gun does not fire.
The first officer then picks up the pistol, aims at the chest of the second officer and the gun shoots
killing the second officer.

How the heck is that called an "accident" ? dunno

Here's the news article;




(Continued in my first comment below the blog)
Post Comment

Comments (11)

(Continued from blog above)

sad flower
As that saying goes"Stupid does stupid is.
Bad luck..
What Bear said. thumbs up

One earned a Darwin Award.
To the runner-up - better luck next time comfort

cowboy
Hi JimN, when I read something like this I wonder what are they thinking, or not thinking. confused dunno doh
Its pretty hard to believe that trained officers would behave so recklessly....it seems odd that two were on duty at the time and she wasn't yet she was at that apartment for some reason so what was it?....something tells me there was way more going on here than stupid officers...maybe they were crooked and she was going to turn them in or knew something about it....wave
Married woman goes to the home of a male officer who is supposedly working, at 1am. The man who was supposed to be working shows up with his partner and lets her in? Or did she have a key and let herself in? The articles are not saying.

They drink. Allegedly they play with guns.

My scenario. They had an affair. They argued. It escalated. He shot his lover. His male partner and friend is covering for him because otherwise the partner would be in even more trouble.
Russian roulette ...
That's much(!) more difficult to prosecute.
For reasons so obvious they needn't be mentioned roll eyes

cowboy:
If she had shot him, you could perhaps argue that she didn't see him put the one bullet back in, or saw him making the action, but didn't believe he actually put the bullet back in.

Given that he put the bullet back in and knew he had, he must also have known that with each shot fired there was a chance the gun would discharge, even if he was too stupid to work out that with each trigger action the odds were increasing.

It could be argued that he acted in a reckless, or negligent manner, it could be argued that he killed her whilst committing a crime, but given he knew there was a bullet in the gun, he pointed it at her and fired, I fail to see how there wasn't an element of intent.

He knew there was a possibility that he would kill her, but did it anyway.

If you try to argue that he didn't realise there was a possibility that he might kill her, then you need some extenuating factor which affects usual, rational conceptualisation of possible consequences.

Even claiming to be under the influence of psychoactive substances doesn't really work as a defence if the substance was imbibed knowingly and voluntarily.

That leaves involuntary intoxication, or insanity.
While many things are possible and all sorts of fantasies can be imagined,
there is currently no indication that things were not as reported, except for the
attorney's statement about if being "accidental".

Jac - I agree with you, that there has to be recognition of some intent,
as there was some chance that the gun would fire.
Indeed, a significant chance, that the gun would fire, when the trigger was pulled.
Post Comment - Let others know what you think about this Blog.

About this Blog

by JimNastics
created Jan 2019
590 Views
Last Viewed: Apr 20
Last Commented: Feb 2019
JimNastics has 1,965 other Blogs

Like this Blog?

Do you like this Blog? Why not let the Author know. Click the button to like the Blog. And your like will be added. Likes are anonymous.

Feeling Creative?