Nope. close but no cigar.
A primary requirement for a Darwin candidate is that the candidate must be dead.
That is an unfortunate requirement, because it is not accurate.
Effectively, any dumb act that prevents a person from reproducing should qualify.
And here's another twist - even if dead, the person must have died before reproducing.
No, the candidate must be unable to reproduce. This usually means dead, but this case may be a rare exception. (I say may be because we don't know if it was restored to full functionality.)
1) Not have already reproduced
AND
2) Render him (her) self unable to reproduce, by committing some act of stupidity.
Death is convenient, but not necessary.
If he had, for example, blown his bollocks off (both of them) he would have satisfied the requirements,
Technically it is just "removed from the gene pool" which is usually by death. In this case, the punk is probably still capable of reproducing - so he is still not really a Darwin award candidate. But if he were a more effective accidental shooter, then he would be the unique legitimate SURVIVING Darwin Award candidate.
Nope .............
Actual winners must meet the following criteria:
Reproduction - Out of the gene pool: dead or sterile.
Excellence - Astounding misapplication of judgment.
Self-Selection - Cause one’s own demise.
Maturity - Capable of sound judgment.
Veracity -The event must be true.
http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/
That’s just a matter of time. The ‘before reproducing’ requirement may have been satisfied.... That’s why he’s a candidate, rather than a winner at this stage.
close but no weiner.
He might as well be dead.