The desperate plaintiffs had even argued that it was…
““The desperate plaintiffs had even argued that it was negligence for a man who hadn’t qualified on the training range with his off duty gun to carry it at all, let alone use it, in light of the injury to the wrist of his gun hand. I was able to dispose of that with one of the shortest answers ever in my career on the witness stand: “He fired seven shots, and hit him seven times. Marksmanship is not an issue.” Our””
About This Quote
This interpretation was drafted with AI assistance. It is one reading of the quote, not the author's own explanation.
The speaker dismisses negligence arguments by emphasizing that the shooter’s marksmanship was irrelevant; the outcome was certain regardless.
In simple terms: Marksmanship irrelevant when intent is clear.
Key Takeaway
Focus on intent over skill in accountability.
Themes
law
responsibility
intent
Mood
critical
analytical
Type
legal
ethical
When to use this quote
- courtroom deliberations
- policy making
- military training
- public safety
Key Concepts
legal reasoning
ethics
Questions to Reflect On
- When should skill matter in legal judgments?
- How does intent outweigh competence?
A Different Perspective
Legal standards may still consider skill.