409
‘Who builds a ballpark next to a gun range?’: Coach injured by gunfire that crossed into baseball diamond
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2025
409 points (97.2% liked)
Not The Onion
18203 readers
819 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What if you're at a paid indoor range and your bullet goes through the back stop wall because the range cheaped out?
That's not what happened here, though, is it.
Never implied it was.
If you’re moving the goalposts there, just move the lawsuit right over to the range.
The difference is whether the shooter paid sufficient care and those are clear opposites
Moving a goalpost? Triumph said 100% of the time the guy that shot the bullet is responsible for it. I was just pointing out how silly that could be.
Really? That's how you choose to debate? By inventing unrealistic scenarios that have likely never occured, or ever will occur? Wouldn't an indoor firing range have regulations and code requirements that would keep a bullet from going through a wall and hitting someone outside?
That's like wondering if the rule would apply if an alien spaceship fired a space laser, and deflected the bullet to hit someone, would the shooter still be responsible?
No, Skippy, in that case, probably not. You got me there, I guess you win the entire argument that ALL gun users are taught they they are 100% responsible for the path of their bullet.
Relax. Seems like a silly what if. Not a debate.
For real. I mean the universe rarely deals in absolutes. Ask a physicist if there's a chance if you can pass your hand straight through a table and technically, yes their is. Even though it's astronomically improbable.
I just mentioned a scenario I thought of from the top of my head where the shooter wouldn't be the one liable for what the bullet did. I could come up with more. It's just silly to claim "100% full stop" with just about anything.
I said 100% and I meant 100%.
It's literally the (tort) law. I don't think the armchair lawyers here understand anything
If you're defending\agreeing with Triumph, I don't think you understand tort law.
Literally just had a case in my Tort Law class about this very thing. I think you don't know anything at all.
I know in my scenario under tort, the gun range or someone further down in the construction of the range would be found liable, and not the shooter.
IANAL but isn't this issue of responsibility obviously determined based on the liability waiver that gun range attendees sign? I'd be pretty shocked if gun ranges don't include personal injury and wrongful death clauses in their liability waiver.
Tort law is all civil and liability stuff. Generally monetary compensation against a person or business at fault for things.
So if you were to pay money to use a business at a facility with a gun and ammunition they allow, and a bullet goes through the wall that the business has in place to stop your bullet, is that your fault, or the business' fault? Obviously it isn't your fault the bullet went through the thing you were supposed to be shooting at.
Also, no contracts or liability waivers can supercede negligence on the other parties fault. For instance, if you go to a rock climbing gym and sign a waiver of liability, but then their rope snaps and you break your leg, you'll still be able to sue and win easily if they weren't keeping rope safety inspection logs.
A question was asked. I answered it. Please indicate where I was "unwilling[] to reason".
..... The part where a shooter is always 100% responsible for the bullet.
That's because that's true.
In the case of a commercially operated gun range, a negligently designed back stop could put the liability on the owner/operator of the gun range or the contractor that installed the back stop rather than the shooter. Because, whose ass do we want raped here?
The crime there is saying "this is a safe place to shoot."
Lemmy is full of people with cult-like fanatical hatred of guns and/or cars. I feel like I could give this example: Imagine someone builds a parking garage out of substandard concrete above a Kindergarten. A law abiding driver, in an attempt to park their vehicle legally, parks his car in this garage. It then falls through the weak floor and crushes three children in the kindergarten below. Who's liable? On Lemmy, they'll blame the driver becaus--in their religion--buying a gallon of gasoline makes one guilty of all sins and crimes, and the actual negligence of the contractor that built the parking garage is absolved.
You anti-gun and anti-car people need to stop and ask yourselves, "Are we raping the right ass in this situation?"
I'm carrying right now. If you pull the trigger, you are responsible for the bullet.
In the vast majority of cases, yeah. Only a Sith deals in absolutes, very few rules have no exceptions. A commercial shooting range with a negligently designed back stop gets to bear some or all of that liability in the case the backstop was presented to shooters as safe when it wasn't."
"Know your target, what is in front of, behind, below above and do the side of your target." Okay, at what point have you satisfied this rule?
Does every shooter personally inspect every backstop at every range every time? Or do you trust that the back stop is safe because it's a shooting range? Do you need to do non-destructive testing such as eddy current analysis or X-rays between every shot to make sure the backstop is still capable of stopping each round or is "It's a ten foot thick wall of dirt" good enough?
I can see a case where a negligent range owner convinces shooters their range is safe when it isn't, in which case I'd have to ask "Would a reasonable person going to shoot at that range be able to tell the range wasn't safe?" If the answer to that question is no, that the operator of the range made it look safe when it isn't, I'm not convicting the shooter, I'm convicting the range operator.
IN ANY CASE it doesn't seem that's what happened here, because the range in question seems to point in pretty much the opposite direction from the ball park. I can't see a scenario where he who pulled the trigger isn't guilty of something.