Different take on the Canadian shot dead in the Kruger

If this new account of what happened at the Kruger bush-braai is true it means both SAPS and SANParks have put out an untrue version of how the private safari guide came to kill a tourist. The private safari guide has been released on bail pending further investigations.

BushPig1963 said:

If this new account of what happened at the Kruger bush-braai is true it means both SAPS and SANParks have put out an untrue version of how the private safari guide came to kill a tourist. The private safari guide has been released on bail pending further investigations.

Grieving friend says Canadian shot dead in South Africa wasn't asking guide about gun

A Canadian man killed Wednesday in an apparent accident at a wildlife park in South Africa was not the one who asked a hunting guide about his gun, his close friend tells The Canadian Press.

www.ctvnews.ca

Click to expand...

Well, somewhat untrue. It still was an accidental discharge. This account makes more sense. Now we know it happened at night with a leopard in the area and the tourist wasn't standing in front of the guide talking to him when the gun went off. The visitor was out of sight and away from the group headed to the latrine. By sheer bad luck the bullet hit him in one shoulder exiting the other shoulder. A few inches either way and it would have missed him. Clearly it's a case of negligence but not gross negligence as the official report indicated. I have to wonder why the official report released to the public would incorrectly paint the Park in such a bad light. That really doesn't make sense.

This is the right sequince of events....

There is no such thing as an accidental discharge.

As a trails guide you are not permitted to show or demonstrate your rifle to guests.
You are not allowed to have the rifle loaded.
Rifles are always carried unloaded while walking or while resting eating.
Only when there is imminant danger from a dangerous animal can you load your rifle.
You may only use solid bulets.

A leopard in the area is normal and not imminant danger.

IvW said:

This is the right sequince of events....

There is no such thing as an accidental discharge.

As a trails guide you are not permitted to show or demonstrate your rifle to guests.
You are not allowed to have the rifle loaded.
Rifles are always carried unloaded while walking or while resting eating.
Only when there is imminant danger from a dangerous animal can you load your rifle.
You may only use solid bulets.

A leopard in the area is normal and not imminant danger.

Click to expand...

You say there is no such thing as an accidental discharge. Are you insinuating that the man fired the rifle on purpose.

Sounds like this was a negligent discharge not an accidental discharge.

Accidental discharges are rare and usually a result of mechanical failure.

Negligent discharges are far more common and the result of careless handling.

Mark458 said:

You say there is no such thing as an accidental discharge. Are you insinuating that the man fired the rifle on purpose.

Click to expand...

Why would you make such a dumb statement? No person working with clients will intentialy fire a rifle to harm someone. And I did not insinuate that he fired it on purpose....

Rifles dont just fire themselves.....if handled incorrectly and pointed not in a safe direction and standard protocols are not followed yes negligent discharges can occur....

I suppose one possible explanation for the nonsense official version of events was an attempt to shift some of the blame onto the victim for being "careless" standing in front of a muzzle pointed at him. Like I said in the other thread, it really seemed unlikely that a grownup Canadian would be that stupid. I can certainly understand why his traveling partner would be upset about any insinuation the victim was in any way careless.

Ontario Hunter said:

Like I said in the other thread, it really seemed unlikely that a grownup Canadian would be that stupid

Click to expand...

Too easy, must resist.

IvW said:

Why would you make such a dumb statement? No person working with clients will intentialy fire a rifle to harm someone. And I did not insinuate that he fired it on purpose....

Rifles dont just fire themselves.....if handled incorrectly and pointed not in a safe direction and standard protocols are not followed yes negligent discharges can occur....

Click to expand...

I never said anyone fired the rifle with intent to harm someone nor did I accuse you of saying that.

I believe the dumb statement is saying "there is no such thing as an accidental discharge"

You either intend to discharge the weapon or you accidentally discharge the weapon. It's one or the other. There are many levels of negligence that may be involved and in this case I believe gross negligence is definitely the best way to describe what happened regardless of which version of the story you want to believe.

It is possible to have an accidental discharge with consequences that are deemed negligence. A "Remington moment" may result in an accidental discharge through no fault of the shooter. If the round is discharged into the ground, there's no negligence. If the gun is pointed at someone when the accidental discharge occurs and injury is the result, then it's negligence.

In this case we don't know that the guide didn't think the muzzle was pointed in a safe direction... at least somewhat safe. It was dark, the deceased had left the group and was walking to the latrine. It would seem the gun was pointed well away from the group when it discharged. No one had any idea for a half hour that he had been hit which means he must have fallen well out of sight. Does it mean there was no negligence? No, of course not. But certainly makes more sense than the official version of guide shooting someone he's talking to. The muzzle direction was not grossly negligent but neither was the incident totally accidental.

Mark458 said:

I never said anyone fired the rifle with intent to harm someone nor did I accuse you of saying that.

I believe the dumb statement is saying "there is no such thing as an accidental discharge"

You either intend to discharge the weapon or you accidentally discharge the weapon. It's one or the other. There are many levels of negligence that may be involved and in this case I believe gross negligence is definitely the best way to describe what happened regardless of which version of the story you want to believe.

Click to expand...

This is agree with. Negligence causes the accidental discharge. But if the gun goes off when you don’t intend it to that is an accident. The cause of the accident is negligence.

If only rule 1 which is the most basic of firearm handling rules was followed.....defective rifle or not an innocent person would not have died.....simple

1. Always Keep the Muzzle Pointed in a Safe Direction​

This is the most basic safety rule. If everyone handled a firearm so carefully that the muzzle never pointed at something they didn't intend to shoot, there would be virtually no firearms accidents. It's as simple as that, and it's up to you. Never point your gun at anything you do not intend to shoot. This is particularly important when loading or unloading a firearm. In the event of an accidental discharge, no injury can occur as long as the muzzle is pointing in a safe direction. A safe direction means a direction in which a bullet cannot possibly strike anyone, taking into account possible ricochets and the fact that bullets can penetrate walls and ceilings. The safe direction may be "up" on some occasions or "down" on others, but never at anyone or anything not intended as a target. Even when "dry firing" with an unloaded gun, you should never point the gun at an unsafe target. Make it a habit to know exactly where the muzzle of your gun is pointing at all times, and be sure that you are in control of the direction in which the muzzle is pointing, even if you fall or stumble. This is your responsibility, and only you can control it.

Tanks said:

Too easy, must resist.

Click to expand...

I would say the average Canadian is 10x more gun savvy than your average Californian. Standing in front of a gun muzzle is something that would not surprise me from a California visitor. Working the visitor center one day at Olympic Park I remember one lady from Los Angeles complaining because the Park Service didn't do something about the rainy weather that was ruining her vacation. No joke!

Tanks said:

Too easy, must resist.

Click to expand...

What like “Please don’t take pot shots across a canyon to unseen flush game”?

Folks; Unless someone has the complete story, conditions and circumstances under which the discharge killed the person, why make careless, opinioned and snide comments about the event and then at each other?? (it's ok if you want to slam dunk me for my statement; I really don't care).

I think it’s a topic best left alone.
Well as far as what might have happened.

It’s a story related to Africa and current news but I don’t think we draw conclusions.

I have no doubt what @IvW said about the game rangers rules about the rifle are true.
When we visited Kruger the guides and rangers never uncased their rifles even when we came upon a lion at about 10yds that was none too happy we were there.
The rifles seem to only be present to make the clients feel secure. They can only be loaded if danger is imminent in my opinion is plain stupid. Most animals don’t advertise their intentions.

The only hunt I ever went on where I didn't take my own rifle was in Scotland several years ago. The guide handed me his personal rifle (which he was very proud of) and it proceeded to slam fire the first time I closed the bolt. Scared the crap out of me. Thankfully it was pointed in a safe direction downrange. Turned out he had just done is own trigger job to install a new Jewell. Vowed never to use a guide gun again.

Hunt anything said:

I have no doubt what @IvW said about the game rangers rules about the rifle are true.
When we visited Kruger the guides and rangers never uncased their rifles even when we came upon a lion at about 10yds that was none too happy we were there.
The rifles seem to only be present to make the clients feel secure. They can only be loaded if danger is imminent in my opinion is plain stupid. Most animals don’t advertise their intentions.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure of anywhere other than the US, but “imminent threat” seems to be giving way to “immediate threat”. It’s extremely difficult to articulate when something is imminent vs immediate. This is why US self-defense laws are changing to “immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury”.

But, if a threat is imminent, my gun, which is always loaded, is in my hands. That’s a lot quicker to bear when threats become immediate.