Case report A case of shotgun injury which occurred while an unconventional home security alarm system was being checked Mahmut Asirdizer *, Mehmet Sunay Yavuz Celal Bayar University, Medical School, Department of Forensic Medicine, 45030 Manisa, Turkey 1. Introduction Death and non-fatal injury with gunshots remain a major public health problem in Turkey as well as in many countries [1]. It is estimated that 70,000 become victims of gunshot injuries, with 30,000 deaths in the United States per year [2]. The majority of gunshot wounds are related to homicides and suicides and the rate of unintentional firearm deaths in most industrialized countries has been declining steadily over the last few decades [3]. The rates of accidental gunshot deaths were 4.7% between 1984 and 1997 in Edirne, Turkey [4] and 1% between 1999 and 2003 in Bursa and Kocaeli, Turkey [5], 1.6% between 1988 and 2004 in Bexar County, USA [6], and 0.13% between 1988 and 2003 in Bari, Italy [7]. The number of accidental shotgun injuries is fewer than that of accidental hand-gun injuries and they generally occur during hunting and cleaning of gun barrels and when children play with guns left unlocked. In fact, people are hit by wandering bullets during untargeted shooting or touching the trigger of a gun believed to be unloaded [8]. Installation of devices involving shotguns is rarely seen in forensic medicine practice and the installation is generally for suicidal purposes. When evaluating suicidal acts, the shooting cannot be suicide if the distance of the discharge is beyond the length of an arm unless some obvious mechanisms are used, in very rare instances [9]. This is usually achieved by attaching a gun to a chair and running a string through a pulley to the trigger or using elaborate devices employing electronic motors and timers [10]. However, injuries during checking of an alarm system connected to a shotgun have not been reported to date in the literature. In this case report, authors aimed to present an unconventional and rare case of shotgun injury caused by a home security alarm system and its legal assessment. 2. Case A 25-year-old electricity technician was invited to a summer house to check the home security alarm system installed before. The house owner was a 65-year-old retired electronics engineer. The technician was confused when he saw a plenty of electronic systems in the house. The host told him that he had installed a different alarm system involving a shotgun on the second floor because his house had been broken into a few months ago and burglars got away with invaluable belongings and that he was planning to go abroad at the end of the month. When the technician asked the host to empty the shotgun or turn off the alarm system connected to the shotgun, the host assured him that he need not be worried because the alarm system installed by the firm the technician worked for was not connected to the alarm system equipped with the shotgun, which was installed by another firm. After checking all wireless motion detectors of one unit of the alarm system and changing the batteries of inactive detectors in Forensic Science International 192 (2009) e1–e5 ARTICLE INFO Article history: Received 20 May 2009 Received in revised form 7 August 2009 Accepted 25 August 2009 Available online 17 September 2009 Keywords: Home security alarm system Shotgun Legal assessment Unintentional firearm injuries and possible intentional crimes ABSTRACT Installation of devices involving shotguns is rarely encountered in forensic medicine practice. In this case report, authors aimed to present an unusual and rare case of shotgun injury due to a home security alarm system and its legal assessment. An electrical technician was invited to a summer house to check a home security alarm system installed by another firm which he worked for previously. It was an unconventional home security alarm system attached to a shotgun. The technician was injured with 18 buckshot pellets (no: 4) while checking the system. The host was convicted of a possible intent to cause a life-threatening injury to the technician. We think that this verdict will set a precedent for similar cases. ß 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 236 233 07 18x422; fax: +90 236 233 14 66. E-mail address: masirdizer@yahoo.com (M. Asirdizer). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forensic Science International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint 0379-0738/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.08.015