[supercat]

HERE is a link to another story about this case. The plaintiffs, the Dix family, parents of the boy shot by Michael Soe, plan to try again with yet a third trial. I guess their lawyers think they can win after two tries, and get a payday.

What specifically is the plaintiff claiming the defendant should have done that (1) the defendant didn't do, and (2) would have changed the outcome?

The Beretta has a loaded-chamber indicator. I don't think it has a magazine-disconnect safety, but such a device won't prevent a firearm from firing if someone puts in an empty magazine. And a gun which couldn't fire with an empty magazine in place would be rather silly since it would make it impossible to shoot the last round.

[.38sw]

As far as I can tell, the plaintiff is claiming that the loaded chamber indicator is inadequate, since the owner of the gun had fire about 12,000 rounds through it, and didn't know it was there. Attorneys for Lynn and Griffin Dix argued during the two-week trial that their son would not have been shot if the semi-automatic handgun had an effective device to alert whoever was holding it that a bullet was in the chamber. I don't know what that would be. Perhaps a large red flag that pops up when there is a round in the chamber? A loud beeping noise to alert the user that there is a round in the chamber? Perhaps a large red LED screen with a warning? Who knows what they would consider to be an effective loaded chamber indicator? As far as I'm concerned, following the basic safety rules are all you need. The rules were broken, and someone died.