It was because he ran in front of the javelin that the boy was struck. The lad is therefore accused without just cause, as he did not strike anyone standing clear of the target. At the same time, since it is plain to you that the boy was not struck while standing still, but was struck only after deliberately moving into the path of the javelin, you have still clearer proof that his death was due to an error on his own part. Had he stood still and not run across, he would not have been struck.

Both sides are agreed, as you see, that the boy’s death was accidental; so by discovering which of the two was guilty of error, we should prove still more conclusively who killed him. For it is those guilty of error in carrying out an intended act who are responsible for accidentsThe argument is: (1) It is agreed that death was accidental. (2) But accidents are always due to ἁμαρτία on the part of someone. (3) Therefore if the person guilty of ἁμαρτία is discovered, we have eo ipso discovered the person responsible for the boy’s death.: just as it is those who voluntarily do a thing or allow it to be done to them who are responsible for the effects suffered.