I mean, IANAL but I think it's pretty easy to argue that anyone with the bare minimum knowledge of firearms and intent to teach safety would know that:
-
You presume the gun is always loaded.
-
You check the chamber, even after pulling the mag. And then still treat the gun as loaded.
-
You don't start the lesson by putting the barrel of the gun to anyone's chest and pulling the trigger. Because you don't do that when treating a gun as if its loaded.
With those three points, which again, I would argue constitutes the bare minimum to anyone attempting to teach firearm safety, a skilled prosecutor could argue there was some sort of intent. She would have known those things, yet didn't do those things, and so behaved in a way that indicates other intent. Easier to argue manslaughter, of course, but it's just so egregious I can see why they'd push for 1st degree.
Yeah, like what do they expect? Another foreign military intervention?
That will not happen again for decades at best. Longer if all the developed nations really learn from America's mistake this time.
Sure, we can sanction them, but any aid just gets intercepted, so that's out. It sucks so many Afghans are suffering under the system, but it's the system they let happen. Did they want to be an occupied country forever? Was this a fight America was expected to wage indefinitely? Twenty years was already too long.