Negligent Discharge at Aug 1500

[HandK]

Anyone know where Savage Eagle is?

His gun doesn't go bang

 

[DragonGunner]

The other thread that brought this up said that a dealer of 15 years discharged a plastic round..?..from his peacemaker, the plastic wad bounced off the floor an hit a lady in the leg an he got kicked out.

 

[Cru]

maybe it was one of those funny looking "shotgun" rounds for handguns... I'd never seen those before today, they have plastic caps on the end.

 

[E'villeGunner]

I'm sure it was just the plastic wad out of the shell that bounced up and hit her in the leg. At least thats what I got out of it.

 

[Bradsknives]

I was there...it was a single action colt style .45LC with a bird shot load...the wad and a couple of pellets hit Dan's ( Dan of Blind Horse Knives) wife in the leg and actually drew blood. It was a veteran (15 years) vendor that had the accidental discharge and he was kicked out of the show by the promoter.

 

[Que]

The promoter was PISSED and let everybody know it. It was an unfortunate incident, but at least no one was seriously injured.

 

[DaKruiser]

That's awfull! For all of us! I guess dans wife is ok? How and why would this happen, what happened to common sense?

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Well.... I was thinking of attending....

 

[POC]

Go ahead, looks like the coast is clear!

 

[Fenway]

I was there...it was a single action colt style .45LC with a bird shot load...the wad and a couple of pellets hit Dan's ( Dan of Blind Horse Knives) wife in the leg and actually drew blood. It was a veteran (15 years) vendor that had the accidental discharge and he was kicked out of the show by the promoter.

 

[MrsGungho]

This all happened before the show opened. The vendor has been permanently banned from the shows. It is safe to show up and see us all today.

 

[STEEL CORE]

Back in 1990 something the owner of a fine gunstore in Plainfield shot a hole in the roof of the Armory at Stout Field, should have seen his face and the lil flecks of ceiling comming down, He was not ejected and sets up at the 1500 to this day. Scared the crap out of a lot of us in that room, I had taken my teenage son with me that show and was freaking out till I saw him on the other side of the room.

 

[Eprobertson1]

I heard today that the vendor was removed from the show - but it was by the boys in blue and that he is their guest on neglegent firearms charge. Atleast that is the skuttlebutt.

 

[Deet]

Horrible, glad that it looks like no one was seriously hurt. Firearms are very dangerous tools and always need our utmost attention. One second of letting your guard down, could mean a lifetime of regret. Be very careful. On a side note, I went to the 1500 and saw literally thousands of guns, and hundreds of people carrying, and all was safe.

 

[PapaScout]

The vendor is banned from future 1500 shows? It's ironic since he will likely be the most safety conscience now.

 

[Boilers]

what is the law under which he is charged?

 

[beararms1776]

what is the law under which he is charged?

Probably firing a weapon within city limits or something like that.

 

[Boilers]

Wouldn't or shouldn't that entail intent, though? (IANAL)

 

[MWCMT]

Probably firing a weapon within city limits or something like that.

Someone else may know more details but as far as I know the only ordinance against 'safely' firing a weapon in Indianapolis only applies to Center township. The city tried to change it cover to the entire city a few years ago and failed.

Municode - Search

Sec. 451-2. - Firearms generally.
(a)
Within the police special service district, it shall be unlawful for any person to fire off, shoot at another person or otherwise use any dangerous weapon for any purpose other than in defense of his life or the life of another person, or the protection of his property or property entrusted to him by another person, or for practice at a range under the supervision and operation of a governmental entity, or without the prior written approval of the department of public safety.

Sec. 111-2. - Police special service district.

After reading through the code it may have been changed to include all of the county. Hopefully some else is more clear on this issue. Has it been covered on INGO?

 

[public servant]

what is the law under which he is charged?

Possibly...

IC 35-42-2-2
Criminal recklessness; element of hazing; liability barred for good faith report or judicial participation
Sec. 2. (a) As used in this section, "hazing" means forcing or requiring another person:
(1) with or without the consent of the other person; and
(2) as a condition of association with a group or organization;
to perform an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury.
(b) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally performs:
(1) an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person; or
(2) hazing;
commits criminal recklessness. Except as provided in subsection (c), criminal recklessness is a Class B misdemeanor.
(c) The offense of criminal recklessness as defined in subsection (b) is:
(1) a Class A misdemeanor if the conduct includes the use of a vehicle;
(2) a Class D felony if:
(A) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in serious bodily injury to another person; or
(3) a Class C felony if:
(A) it is committed by shooting a firearm into an inhabited dwelling or other building or place where people are likely to gather; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in IC 9-21-8-55) that results in the death of another person.
(d) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) inflicts serious bodily injury on another person; or
(2) performs hazing that results in serious bodily injury to a person;
commits criminal recklessness, a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class C felony if committed by means of a deadly weapon.
(e) A person, other than a person who has committed an offense under this section or a delinquent act that would be an offense under this section if the violator was an adult, who:
(1) makes a report of hazing in good faith;
(2) participates in good faith in a judicial proceeding resulting from a report of hazing;
(3) employs a reporting or participating person described in subdivision (1) or (2); or
(4) supervises a reporting or participating person described in subdivision (1) or (2);
is not liable for civil damages or criminal penalties that might otherwise be imposed because of the report or participation.
(f) A person described in subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2) is presumed to act in good faith.
(g) A person described in subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2) may not be treated as acting in bad faith solely because the person did not have probable cause to believe that a person committed:
(1) an offense under this section; or
(2) a delinquent act that would be an offense under this section if the offender was an adult.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.31; Acts 1981, P.L.300, SEC.1; P.L.323-1987, SEC.1; P.L.216-1996, SEC.17; P.L.1-2003, SEC.94; P.L.75-2006, SEC.3.