Reply #58: what?

[iverglas]

"may be relevant"???
Did you mean to say "irrelevant"?

You had said:

But all you have to do is change the added emphasis to make it appear that the DA was at least leaning toward not saying the gun was stored in a negligent manner: ...

I responded:

and you're pretending
... that "negligent" as it may be relevant in Pennsylvania criminal law has anything to do with what I'm saying.

You're the one who seemed to be saying that "negligence" was relevant in Pennsylvania criminal law, not moi.

I'm talking about what people SHOULD DO, and what people SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO DO, and what people SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO. Not about what Pennsylvania law at present may or may not require them to do.

It is irrelevant in criminal law because PA does not have a self-storage law, but it's certainly not completely irrelevant.

Well if it's irrelevant in Pennsylvania criminal law, then I would think that Pennsylvania prosecutors should keep their traps shut about it. If negligence is only relevant in civil actions in that state, prosecutors have nothing to say about it and anything they did say about it would really look like an improper attempt to influence a civil court.

Oh, yes -- exactly:

As a trial lawyer defending the gun owner against a hypothetical civil suit, I'd certainly try to quote the DA's statement ...

And as the plaintiff's lawyer, I'd succeed in having that statement ruled inadmissible because it is of the utmost irrelevance. But that doesn't mean that the jury pool would not have read it in the papers.

... and get some perceived experts to testify that the gun was stored in a reasonable manner.

Good luck. The experts in child psychology and adolescent behaviour would all be lined up on the plaintiff's side, I'm quite sure. For more on what's "reasonable", google negligence "attractive nuisance".

I have never been talking about civil actions, because they don't especially interest me in this context. We don't generally regard the possibility of a civil claim as being a sufficient deterrent -- or a civil award of damages as being sufficient retribution -- for wilful actions that place other people at grave risk. I cite the Criminal Code of Canada provision against leaving holes in the ice unguarded. ;)