ID - 2 year boy accidentally shoots and kills mother in walmart in ths US

[Archangel7]

It is not necessarily a right to keep a loaded pistol within easy reach of a young child. I don't know about Idaho, but many states have child access prevention laws.

Probably the same with poison, but....people make mistakes. It matters not with what either. It can be_______(fill in the blank).

So what's the solution? Ban everything and ask the Government permission to do anything?

 

[Archangel7]

Somebody else could have easily been shot. Did this woman's right trumps other people rights to shop safely and not be shot while they are shopping?

Strawman

 

[Donjeta]

BBM

With freedom goes responsibility. People make mistakes. Some mistakes are unrecoverable. All of the preceding are facts regardless of the tangible property.

When "people" start getting their knickers in a knot WRT talking down a RIGHT, it sets people on edge.
No different than if some were to talk down/ridicule/second guess/a Right to not be illegally searched and/or seized.
Just because someone doesn't "like" the circumstances surrounding a RIGHT, it doesn't give one the right to take that right away from others. The constant wailing about guns is "ridiculous" in the context that an inanimate object possesses some inherent evil.

The woman in this case made a mistake and it cost her her life. Same tragic circumstance as it is for me to write an accident report because a woman killed herself and others while driving and putting on makeup. "Ridiculous" comes into play when I begin to drum on about the dangers of makeup, or women, or cars, or rearview mirrors, etc.

Comparing apples and badgers tend to lead to ridiculous analogies. JMO. Try to compare like with like.

Make up is not inherently dangerous. Many drivers are pretty safe. Many gun owners are responsible. Are women dangerous? I suppose it depends on the woman. Rearview mirrors? My children have touched a rearview mirror and everyone still lives.

Reckless driving is not safe. Drunk driving is not safe. Leaving unsupervised babies near bodies of water is not safe. Allowing toddlers to have access to lethal items is not safe.

A mistake like that could have cost her child's life just as easily.

Endangering children's welfare is not a right that I'd be proud to defend.

People may have the right to own guns and cars but that doesn't mean that they should have the right to handle them carelessly and put children in danger.

 

[Archangel7]

OK here is the thing, why in the helicopter can't there be more regulations (YES OMG LAWS) in regards to the ownership / carrying of guns etc.

Say someone has the right to carry a concealed weapon as this lady appears to have had, why is it OK for her to let the gun float around in her handbag? Wouldn't it be better to make it illegal for her to carry a concealed weapon unless it was secured to her person in a holster?

See look, it makes me sick to think of random people wandering about in public with guns on them, I admit it, but if people MUST why can't they do it in the safest way possible, I mean you don't see the police reaching into a backpack for a weapon because they have them strapped to their person at all times, well it should be the same for these people who have a licence to carry a gun.

I think when it comes to gun ownership it's the LOOSENESS of the laws that bothers people the most and the lack of regulation.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So you would have laws passed to legislate common sense for a parent? Would you have the Government monitor parents and have punitive actions against a parent being mistaken? Or would you just have Gov. ban all mistakes? Or just have the Gov/ seize and raise all kids after birth?

I am, or was a Police firearm instructor, not current now. Why should my RIGHTS be restricted because someone else has an accident or makes a mistake? Once that precedent is set..........where do we look next to right a perceived wrong?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Simple realistic regulation:

Want to carry a concealed weapon? Strap it to you in a holster. If you have a gun with you and it's not in a holster, you get a fine. Same as if spotted driving without a seatbelt on.

What is wrong with this picture?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

So you would have laws passed to legislate common sense for a parent? Would you have the Government monitor parents and have punitive actions against a parent being mistaken? Or would you just have Gov. ban all mistakes? Or just have the Gov/ seize and raise all kids after birth?

I am, or was a Police firearm instructor, not current now. Why should my RIGHTS be restricted because someone else has an accident or makes a mistake? Once that precedent is set..........where do we look next to right a perceived wrong?

What I said was, carry a gun in public, you should wear it in a holster, just like law enforcement, because it's safer than in a handbag, see main story of this thread for example.

 

[Archangel7]

Comparing apples and badgers tend to lead to ridiculous analogies. JMO. Try to compare like with like.

Make up is not inherently dangerous. Many drivers are pretty safe. Many gun owners are responsible. Are women dangerous? I suppose it depends on the woman. Rearview mirrors? My children have touched a rearview mirror and everyone still lives.

Reckless driving is not safe. Drunk driving is not safe. Leaving unsupervised babies near bodies of water is not safe. Allowing toddlers to have access to lethal items is not safe.

A mistake like that could have cost her child's life just as easily.

Endangering children's welfare is not a right that I'd be proud to defend.

People may have the right to own guns and cars but that doesn't mean that they should have the right to handle them carelessly and put children in danger.

Now we're getting to the problem. It's not the gun, the water, etc, it's the people and their responsibilities. However, even responsible people make mistakes, children drown, people slip on icy surfaces.

Personally I don't want the Gov. in my business of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[gitana1]

Terrible preventable tragedy.
Some handguns have no safety. Revolvers come to mind.
Apparently mom had no `real`control of her handgun.

Whether one is a hunter, a Cop or a CCW citizen, one is morally responsible for "controlling" their firearm.

I don't think a toddler would have enough strength to pull the trigger on a revolver.

Who'd have thought that Hayden, Idaho was such a crime infested place that a loaded handgun was needed for an outting to Wal-Mart?

My sympathies to the children.

IMO, carrying a loaded gun into the Walmart there, with her child in the cart, was a combination of rhetoric-fueled paranoia and a political statement. Crimes rates in Hayden, ID:

• The estimated Hayden crime index is 9% lower than the Idaho average and and the Idaho crime index is 32% lower than the National average.
• The estimated Hayden violent crime rate is 14% lower than the Idaho average and and the Idaho violent crime rate is 41% lower than the National average.
• The estimated Hayden property crime rate is 9% lower than the Idaho average and and the Idaho property crime rate is 31% lower than the National average. http://www.areavibes.com/hayden-id/crime/

Crimes rates in Blackfoot, where she is from:

• The Blackfoot crime index is 91% higher than the Idaho average and and the Idaho crime index is 32% lower than the National average.
• The Blackfoot violent crime rate is 10% lower than the Idaho average and and the Idaho violent crime rate is 41% lower than the National average.
• The Blackfoot property crime rate is 103% higher than the Idaho average and and the Idaho property crime rate is 31% lower than the National average. http://www.areavibes.com/blackfoot-id/crime/

Having guns for the personal protection of you and your family is all nice and good in theory but in practice it defeats its purpose to leave the weapons accessible to toddlers. You can die. You can be seriously injured for life. Your toddler could shoot himself. Your toddler could shoot his or her siblings. Your dog could get shot. Innocent bystanders could get shot. Innocent bystanders' innocent children could be shot.

It's very sad that a family lost their mother but she put everybody in that Wal-Mart at risk by her apparently irresponsible practices of handling lethal weapons.

I pray that this is the last time this happens but of course it won't be. People love their guns more than they love their children's safety.

If you can't keep guns away from children still in diapers you shouldn't have them. (Kids, or guns, preferably neither.) Playing russian roulette with your children's lives at stake is totally unacceptable.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...entally-kills-mom-Wal-Mart.html#ixzz3NTsDRR00

In my world, people who are not the least bit irresponsible make sure their kids don't shoot anybody.

It's a tragedy but totally preventable.

She had the gun with her, ironically, for "protection".

Please do not generalize, she was a young, bright scientist and nuclear researcher.
This is all very unfortunate.

People should pay more attention to gun safety, also should tell their kids they are not allowed to touch guns, kids are naturally curious.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Do you honestly believe "telling" a two year old not to touch a gun is gun safety? He's two. He doesn't know what the heck is going on. He's pure impulse, energy and curiosity. There is zero frontal lobe development in his brain that would enable him to process and understand such instruction.

I'm outraged, but I'm not emotional about it.
She is a free law abiding citizen and chose to own and use a firearm. She made an unrecoverable mistake. It cost her her life and potential emotional scarring for the child.

Really no different from the women who are free citizens and choose to own a car and put on their makeup while driving and using the rearview mirror. I was outraged that they killed themselves and sometimes killed others by making a mistake such as that but I was not emotional about it. Nor do I think owning cars are crazy or that owning makeup should be regulated.

In a free and democratic society people make mistakes that cause harm. It's called freedom.

Whether a car, lawnmower, chainsaw, makeup, atv, gun, Tide pods, or whatever, if conditions exists where a mistake with any of those are unrecoverable extra care should be maintained that prevents it.

However I still see women driving down the road, lipstick in hand, eyes glued to the rearview mirror, but I've never seen a thread or outcry over it. hmmmm

Cars are actually not built for killing though. Guns are.

I own guns. I'm not into banning them. But regulation is simply logical and necessary. Also, we really need to do something about our culture's emphasis on guns. It's ridiculous. This bright nuclear researcher was so intent on bringing a loaded gun into a department store full of people, within easy reach of her baby, in an area relatively devoid of crime (compared with my town, a town in which I never have felt the need to carry a loaded gun while shopping: The chance of being a victim of a violent crime in Anaheim is 1 in 306. http://www.areavibes.com/anaheim-ca/crime/. The chance of being a victim of a violent crime in Hayden is 1 in 541. http://www.areavibes.com/hayden-id/crime/), that she threw all logic, all concern for others, all common sense, right out the damn door.

I'm horrified by this and very sorry she is dead and that her baby is now motherless. I'm also livid at her, that she would put herself, her small child and innocent shoppers at risk in this manner. It's insanity.

 

[Archangel7]

What I said was, carry a gun in public, you should wear it in a holster, just like law enforcement, because it's safer than in a handbag, see main story of this thread for example.

I pretty much agree. I believe one must have care and control of that firearm 100% of the time. That tends to work better when it's attached to oneself.

I carry a pocket knife but if kids start frisking me for gum and candy I prevent them from getting near that pocket.
However if I was to have it in a pouch and had th pouch in a shopping cart, I hardly have 100% care and control of that pocket knife.

I have harped to my family and my direct reports over the years to not walk around this planet in MENTAL NEUTRAL.
Keep your wits about you and what is going on around you.

I recommend that type purse for women to CC but it's not much good to you if you need it and it's in a cart next aisle over. Those type purses are made for shoulder carry.

Tragically she ended up in a situation where the purse(gun) was close to the child. Not really different than leaving a box of matches or a butane lighter next to a child.

Similar....Try consoling a dad that just backed over his toddler with the car. Yes, all the same cliches apply, shoulda, coulda, woulda......

People make mistakes, sometimes tragic ones. They are almost always preventable.

 

[nrdsb4]

Probably the same with poison, but....people make mistakes. It matters not with what either. It can be_______(fill in the blank).

So what's the solution? Ban everything and ask the Government permission to do anything?

I think we could start by banning idiot parents who leave LOADED guns within arms reach of young children.

Lacking that, I think the poster who mentioned requiring a concealed weapon to be literally on your person at all times might have the right idea.

In this instance, the person who was negligent paid the price. It could have been her child, or someone else's. I'm not willing to give up my kid or someone else's as unfortunate but necessary collateral damage in order to protect someone's "right" to carry in any manner they feel like carrying. There should be strict requirements regarding how loaded guns are managed.

 

[gitana1]

So you would have laws passed to legislate common sense for a parent? Would you have the Government monitor parents and have punitive actions against a parent being mistaken? Or would you just have Gov. ban all mistakes? Or just have the Gov/ seize and raise all kids after birth?

I am, or was a Police firearm instructor, not current now. Why should my RIGHTS be restricted because someone else has an accident or makes a mistake? Once that precedent is set..........where do we look next to right a perceived wrong?

It depends on the regulation. I feel many would be a reasonable infringement on people's rights when balanced with the public's need for safety. For example, mandating that there be a universal system into which people with serious mental health issues are put, which must be checked prior to the sale of any firearm, I don't have a problem with that.

Or regulations that impose criminal liability on adults who negligently store firearms such that a child gains access as a result? Many states have such laws. Idaho doesn't.

Or regulations mandating trigger locks when children are in the home or in proximity to the gun? What's wrong with that?

 

[Archangel7]

I don't think a toddler would have enough strength to pull the trigger on a revolver.



IMO, carrying a loaded gun into the Walmart there, with her child in the cart, was a combination of rhetoric-fueled paranoia and a political statement. Crimes rates in Hayden, ID:

• The estimated Hayden crime index is 9% lower than the Idaho average and and the Idaho crime index is 32% lower than the National average.
• The estimated Hayden violent crime rate is 14% lower than the Idaho average and and the Idaho violent crime rate is 41% lower than the National average.
• The estimated Hayden property crime rate is 9% lower than the Idaho average and and the Idaho property crime rate is 31% lower than the National average. http://www.areavibes.com/hayden-id/crime/

Crimes rates in Blackfoot, where she is from:

• The Blackfoot crime index is 91% higher than the Idaho average and and the Idaho crime index is 32% lower than the National average.
• The Blackfoot violent crime rate is 10% lower than the Idaho average and and the Idaho violent crime rate is 41% lower than the National average.
• The Blackfoot property crime rate is 103% higher than the Idaho average and and the Idaho property crime rate is 31% lower than the National average. http://www.areavibes.com/blackfoot-id/crime/

She had the gun with her, ironically, for "protection".



Do you honestly believe "telling" a two year old not to touch a gun is gun safety? He's two. He doesn't know what the heck is going on. He's pure impulse, energy and curiosity. There is zero frontal lobe development in his brain that would enable him to process and understand such instruction.



Cars are actually not built for killing though. Guns are.

I own guns. I'm not into banning them. But regulation is simply logical and necessary. Also, we really need to do something about our culture's emphasis on guns. It's ridiculous. This bright nuclear researcher was so intent on bringing a loaded gun into a department store full of people, within easy reach of her baby, in an area relatively devoid of crime (compared with my town, a town in which I never have felt the need to carry a loaded gun while shopping: The chance of being a victim of a violent crime in Anaheim is 1 in 306. http://www.areavibes.com/anaheim-ca/crime/. The chance of being a victim of a violent crime in Hayden is 1 in 541. http://www.areavibes.com/hayden-id/crime/), that she threw all logic, all concern for others, all common sense, right out the damn door.

I'm horrified by this and very sorry she is dead and that her baby is now motherless. I'm also livid at her, that she would put herself, her small child and innocent shoppers at risk in this manner. It's insanity.

Guns aren't made for killing and you know that's a very broad statement. Guns are made for, designed for, target shooting. See?

What if I said motorcycles are made to jump ramps? Evil Knievel used them exclusively for that but that didn't make my broad statement true, only biased right?

The gun possesses no evil intent.
I also am a pilot. I fly over populated towns, and residential areas as I'm on short final. I am tremendously regulated and guided by the Gov and Air Traffic Control. Doesn't matter. If I make a terrible mistake, tragic things will happen. You can regulate me more but I am human and can make mistakes. See?

 

[gitana1]

I pretty much agree. I believe one must have care and control of that firearm 100% of the time. That tends to work better when it's attached to oneself.

I carry a pocket knife but if kids start frisking me for gum and candy I prevent them from getting near that pocket.
However if I was to have it in a pouch and had th pouch in a shopping cart, I hardly have 100% care and control of that pocket knife.

I have harped to my family and my direct reports over the years to not walk around this planet in MENTAL NEUTRAL.
Keep your wits about you and what is going on around you.

I recommend that type purse for women to CC but it's not much good to you if you need it and it's in a cart next aisle over. Those type purses are made for shoulder carry.

Tragically she ended up in a situation where the purse(gun) was close to the child. Not really different than leaving a box of matches or a butane lighter next to a child.

Similar....Try consoling a dad that just backed over his toddler with the car. Yes, all the same cliches apply, shoulda, coulda, woulda......

People make mistakes, sometimes tragic ones. They are almost always preventable.

I think this is totally different from the father who accidentally backed over his kid. We KNOW guns are specifically designed to kill and must be kept out of the reach of babies. People who back over their kids usually have no reason to assume they are there. people carrying around loaded weapons have every damn reason to know who has access.

Further, she didn't somehow miraculously "end up in a situation where the purse(gun) was close to the child". She put herself and her kid (and nieces) directly into that situation. She knew she had a loaded gun with her. She knew it was in the cart. She knew her baby was right there within reach of the bag.

There are mistakes and then there's negligence. This was negligence.

 

[Archangel7]

I think we could start by banning idiot parents who leave LOADED guns within arms reach of young children.

Lacking that, I think the poster who mentioned requiring a concealed weapon to be literally on your person at all times might have the right idea.

In this instance, the person who was negligent paid the price. It could have been her child, or someone else's. I'm not willing to give up my kid or someone else's as unfortunate but necessary collateral damage in order to protect someone's "right" to carry in any manner they feel like carrying. There should be strict requirements regarding how loaded guns are managed.

As I said, one should have care and control. I don't think the Gov. has any business telling a woman how to carry her purse, gun inside or not. If we are going to ban stuff let's ban crime, stupidity, etc.

 

[Archangel7]

I think this is totally different from the father who accidentally backed over his kid. We KNOW guns are specifically designed to kill and must be kept out of the reach of babies. People who back over their kids usually have no reason to assume they are there. people carrying around loaded weapons have every damn reason to know who has access.

Further, she didn't somehow miraculously "end up in a situation where the purse(gun) was close to the child". She put herself and her kid (and nieces) directly into that situation. She knew she had a loaded gun with her. She knew it was in the cart. She knew her baby was right there within reach of the bag.

There are mistakes and then there's negligence. This was negligence.

Guns are designed to shoot targets but we know that too.

Civil or criminal negligence? And by what EXACT standard or duty? I don't have the facts so please share, TIA.

ETA....I am sure the mom assumed the child wasn't able to gain access to the gun just as the dad assumed the toddler had no access to the rear of the car before he backed over him.

 

[gitana1]

Guns aren't made for killing and you know that's a very broad statement. Guns are made for, designed for, target shooting. See?

What if I said motorcycles are made to jump ramps? Evil Knievel used them exclusively for that but that didn't make my broad statement true, only biased right?

The gun possesses no evil intent.
I also am a pilot. I fly over populated towns, and residential areas as I'm on short final. I am tremendously regulated and guided by the Gov and Air Traffic Control. Doesn't matter. If I make a terrible mistake, tragic things will happen. You can regulate me more but I am human and can make mistakes. See?

I really think that's nonsense. Guns are specifically designed to kill. They are weapons. That's why I own them. So I can kill an intruder or assaulter. So I can protect myself. I could own a BB gun if all I was interested in was target practice. Yeah, I've enjoyed target practice but that is certainly not the purpose of the weapon. Not the reason they were created and not the reason arms are named in our constitution.

Guns are weapons. Lethal, lethal weapons, specifically designed to kill an animal or person. That is their purpose. Thus, an extraordinarily high level of caution must be taken when handling, cleaning, using or storing them. And they need to be strictly regulated.

People like to compare guns to cars a lot. The make-up in the car argument, for example. Well guess what? The use of cars is, indeed, heavily regulated. The use of guns is arguably not (not as much).

There are age limits for ALL vehicles, speed limits, universal limits on combining cars with alcohol, drugs, etc. We must have a license to drive that involves actually studying and passing a test showing we know the laws and how to use the vehicle. We have to register the vehicle every year. We must have insurance in order to operate the vehicle. If we use the vehicle negligently or recklessly, or allow a child to use it, such is not brushed off as a "mistake". We are punished by law.

What about the little five year old Kentucky kid who shot his two year old sister dead with a loaded child's weapon (My First Rifle), that had been just leaning against the wall? There were zero charges in that case. The yokel coroner handling the death simply stated in awe: "It's a little rifle for a kid ... The little boy's used to shooting the little gun."

Wait, what? It's as if he doesn't get how a "little" rifle is just a capable of killing as a big one. He acted as if it was a toy and as if it was totally shocking that it could actually be used to end a life.

That death should've been labeled negligent homicide.

 

[nrdsb4]

As I said, one should have care and control. I don't think the Gov. has any business telling a woman how to carry her purse, gun inside or not. If we are going to ban stuff let's ban crime, stupidity, etc.

Well, that's an opinion, of course. I think the Gov. DOES have business telling a woman (or man) how to carry their purse if there happens to be a lethal weapon in it. Right to bear arms isn't absolute-it's not unconstitutional to impose certain restrictions.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

As I said, one should have care and control. I don't think the Gov. has any business telling a woman how to carry her purse, gun inside or not. If we are going to ban stuff let's ban crime, stupidity, etc.

Nobody is talking about banning guns, but that's where these debates tend to go. Someone says regulation, and people start jumping up and down about banning, because getting hysterical about the idea of banning guns wipes out any rational discussion about regulation, which is the goal of the gun advocates: No regulation, no matter what happens or how rational those suggestions are.

 

[gitana1]

Guns are designed to shoot targets but we know that too.

Civil or criminal negligence? And by what EXACT standard or duty? I don't have the facts so please share, TIA.

ETA....I am sure the mom assumed the child wasn't able to gain access to the gun just as the dad assumed the toddler had no access to the rear of the car before he backed over him.

Criminal negligence. I do not believe you are using much logic. I have already explained the difference between a parent backing over a child and a parent allowing a child to have access to a loaded weapon. One is not typically a negligent assumption to make.

Here is an example of a law regarding allowing access by children that I feel is clear:

California makes someone criminally liable for keeping a loaded firearm where he or she knows or reasonably should know that a child (a person under age 18)[SUP]1[/SUP] is likely to gain access, where the child actually gains access to the firearm and carries it to a public place or brandishes it, or if someone is injured as a result of the child gaining access to the firearm.[SUP]2[/SUP] The penalty is significantly greater if someone dies or suffers great bodily injury as a result of the child gaining access to the firearm.[SUP]3[/SUP]

An adult is also criminally liable for keeping a loaded or unloaded handgun on his or her premises where he or she knows or reasonably should know a child is likely to gain access to it if the child does gain access and carries the handgun off the premises.[SUP]4[/SUP]
Criminal liability is also imposed if an adult negligently stores or leaves, on premises within the person’s custody or control, a loaded firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that the child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian. No liability is imposed in this situation if reasonable action is taken by the person to secure the firearm against access by the child.[SUP]5[/SUP]
Lastly, an adult is criminally liable for keeping any firearm, loaded or unloaded, on his or her premises where he or she knows or reasonably should know a child is likely to gain access to it if the child does gain access to it and carries the firearm to any preschool or school grades K-12 or to any school-sponsored event, activity, or performance http://smartgunlaws.org/child-access-prevention-in-california/

Next, we examine the term "reasonable". What does reasonably should know mean? Well, from a website selling a concealed carry purse like the one the mother used:

Why do so many fiercely counsel against this popular mode of carry? Likely for two reasons. One, there is serious risk anytime our guns are not on our bodies and two, it limits our ability to respond as quickly as possible and those seconds could count!

Having your gun holstered somewhere ON your middle is BEST. It is close, it is safe and it easy to get to. You really can't argue with that. On The Body is the safest and best way to carry your gun, Period!
Making The Decision To Use A Concealed Carry Purse

When choosing to carry in a concealed carry purse, here are some questions you might ask yourself in making this decision:

1. Am I forgetful?
2. Have I left my purse behind in the last 6 months, in the restroom, a restaurant or store?
3. Am I around small children regularly who might have access to my purse?
4. Am I willing to carry my purse cross-body to minimize risk of someone taking my purse?
5. Can I keep it on me and store it properly when it must be off my body?
6. Will I vow to always have my gun in a holster in a designated compartment of the purse?
7. Am I disciplined enough to practice the awkward draw and use of my gun from the concealed carry purse? (yes, you may very likely need to shoot through the purse to not loose the precious seconds) http://thewellarmedwoman.com/index.php?_route_=the-concealed-carry-purse

She had a baby. She had a gun. Both necessitate a high level of care. Combined? Please. This is simply not the same as random accidents that may otherwise befall a parent and child, IMO.

 

[Confusion]

I really hate gun control debates, but wanted to throw in my two cents anyway. First, I can't see a woman leaving a purse holding a gun (or without one for that matter) in a shopping cart without being able to see what's happening with it 100% of the time. It takes a matter of seconds for a thief to walk by and grab it. Once that happens, she's not only the victim of a crime, but (if a gun is left in an unattended purse) she has just given that "purse snatcher" the means to become an armed robber. It doesn't take much longer than that for a small child to start snooping.

The other comment is to Archangel7. If we made stupidity illegal, we'd never have the means to try/incarcerate all of the perpetrators!

That being said. The woman is dead, I think she's been punished enough for her mistake (or negligence, whichever way you look at it.) MOO