I love how a teenager shooting himself requires a look at "identifying your taget" as the coroner asks. I am pretty sure everyone in the Mai Mai knew he was not a duck. Aksing in this case for a look at what is considered "supervision" or safety procedures with Teens and shotguns etc fair enough but how the F__K does this situation have anything to do with identifying a target???????? Did the coroner study muppetry at college? Was that even a course?
My understanding of supervision is the person supervising must be "in control" in in a position to take control of the firearm if the person using it is not licensed. To me this means that if you are supervising someone you are in close enough proximity to be able to stop the firearm from being pointed or discharged in any manner other than what is intended. I do not see how one adult can be responsible for supervising three teenagers with shotguns and maintain this level of control over those guns. In that respect I think the cops may need the charges relating to lack of proper supervision and the consequences of those actions to be looked at as in the other part of the coroners request.
Finally I only saw what was reported on the news so I apologise if the facts I got are wrong. I work with statistics and unfortunately I know the chances of the media being "mistaken" are very possible.....
Bookmarks