"This obviously is nothing more than a tragic accident." No, FUCK YOU it's not.

[Igel]

10. I think the problem was the little girl.

Let's look at what the article says.

The boy was aiming at a target. The backboard looks to have been there a while. New target. Probably not the first time he's fired the .22. He may have had some safety training. In any event, there's nothing to say that he wasn't being reasonably responsible.

Parents were at a bonfire nearby. Probably getting towards dark. If the boy had fired a shot already, the parents would know what he was doing. IIf not, they still probably knew what he was doing.

The 4-year-old ... It's harder to train a 4-year-old who's running to respect boundaries. Perhaps they assumed she'd know it was dangerous to run in front of somebody who's firing a gun. Dunno. But they took their eyes off of her and she ran in front of the boy.

Don't know much more. Was she entrusted in the 8-year-old's care? Had she been sitting at the bonfire and wandered off? Was she supposed to be playing in one area and decided she was lonely there, or it was too small an area? Ultimately, it's still the parents' responsibility. But I might cut the boy some slack.

Should the boy have seen her coming? Ideally. But if you're aiming, you are looking through a scope or focusing intently on what's ahead of you, lining up the shot. You're likely going to have one eye closed, reducing vision on one side even more.

He should have looked around to see if all was clear. But if he saw the girl playing 30 feet away, off to one side, I'm not sure he'd have told her to get away ("You're not my boss!&quot or stopped until she was clearly not going to get nearer. I've shot with people off to either side at closer distances than 30 ft. But they were adults and I knew they weren't going to run into my line of fire.