Tuesday, November 8, 2011

I'm the only one professional enough

Sometimes you have to wonder what kind of "firearms training" the police are actually getting.

A Newark cops shoots another cop.  Let's see.

1. Handing a loaded firearm while not on the range
2. Two officers are handling the "abnormal" firearm and neither think to clear the weapon.
3. Not keeping said gun pointed in a safe direction while engaging in all of this handling.
4. More than likely one of em' put their finger on the bang switch.

According to the article these two officers had just finished firearms training.  Apparently they either can't listen or the Newark Police Dept. doesn't teach The Four Rules.  They might want to start teaching those as well as something Tam is fond of saying.  Stop touching it!


Tango Juliet said...

While participating in some training with a local PD, one of the officers handed the K-frame I was carrying to his training officer and told him he didn't know how to unload it.

I'm not kidding.

Glenn B said...

Let's see, how much do you like to bash law enforcement while saying really stupid things.

Number 1:

1. Handing a loaded firearm while not on the range

You include this in what seems to be a list of criticisms of the officers. So tell me, when is it that you learned that an armed person should only handle a loaded firearm while at the range. That is about the most absurd statement I have ever read concerning firearms safety, if I understand your implication, especially when applied to anyone who may need to handle a firearm at least as much as an LEO. Hmm, when might an LEO handle a loaded firearm while not on the range and yet do so for a verifiably valid reason: In the locker room while changing to street clothes to go home. In the locker room while changing from range attire to duty or street attire. While changing from one holster to another, such as from tactical raid gear to normal uniform or plain clothes wear. When securing the weapon in the office prior to going home for the night; yes - can you imagine - some officers are required to do so. While in the course of their official duties and drawing the weapon in protection of self or an innocent third party. While on a raid. While about to clean the weapon in the designated weapons cleaning area. The list goes on

2. Two officers are handling the "abnormal" firearm and neither think to clear the weapon.

Where did you read that neither officer had thought to clear the weapon? Did you read the article with an objective eye toward what was there, as opposed to a subjective eye making something appear there that you wanted to see so as to facilitate your side of the story? It seems not. Granted it may well turn out that neither attempted to clear the weapon, but maybe one did try and could not and maybe that is when he noticed the abnormality, or maybe he noticed the abnormality first, tried to clear it, could not and then asked the other officer to try. Do you see the difference between how you and I approach the matter. You state as fact what was not written there, I state the possibilities or at least some of them and leave it open to further fact finding without condemning before enough of the evidence is in. I would hate for you to be a cop, a prosecutor or a juror because I think you would be a lousy one in how you stack the deck on what you claim was there when in fact it was not there.

3. Not keeping said gun pointed in a safe direction while engaging in all of this handling.

The officer who was handling the gun when it went off may well have been pointing the firearm in a relatively safe direction and was possibly not pointing it at the other officer, yet shot him. Can you for even a moment fathom that this was possible. Is it possible that while the gun was pointed in a safe direction, the other officer placed himself in the way just as the pistol fired? There may not have been time enough for the other officer to have reacted or maybe he did react and in trying to get it not pointing at the guy who just placed himself in the way, somehow fired the weapon in his haste. I must also asks, could the shot have been a ricochet?

4. More than likely one of em' put their finger on the bang switch.

Well, at least here you say “more than likely” when also saying one of them put their finger on the trigger (I am imagining the trigger is to what you refer when you call it the “bang switch”; otherwise this is firearms nomenclature of which I am unaware.

Yes, I would tend to agree but again one cannot jump to a conclusion on this. It is possible the firearm was not properly inspected by range personnel before it left the range and that it was partially holstered with a double feed, which when cleared, no finger even near the trigger can fire the round that came up second and could also, within the realm of possibility, fire the round already in the chamber. Either fired could possibly cause a gunshot wound to the other officer.

(end part 1)

Glenn B said...

(part 2 of 2)

Chances are this was an accidental discharge (as in unintentional) that was also negligent (as in someone was at fault) but there are also other possibilities. The thing is though, as usually or all too often seems to be the case, you are all too ready to condemn someone before all the facts are known. For that, I really have to say shame on you. I am pretty sure, if you had your day with ay type of accident that someone else tried to say was due to your negligence, you would want a complete review of the facts - wouldn’t you. So why not afford the same to all. Try to remember - it was one asshole - from the DEA -who made the statement about being the only one in the room qualified enough to handle the weapon who then shot himself.

Just a hunch on my part but me the current issue sounds like maybe, since these guys just got training and passed, maybe they felt a bit over confident, or maybe they did not want to bother the range officer making themselves appear like jerks because one left the range with an unsafe firearm, so the other guy tried to help. I think they should have secured the weapon and sought help but for some reason, unknown to us at this point, they did not. I will say, this almost certainly does not sound like a case of someone being a pompous braggart who is claiming his firearm’s knowledge is better than a bunch of 5th graders.

However, your response to it does look very much like someone jumping to conclusions. Whether your conclusions are upheld by fact later is not the point, the fact that you seemingly are willing to jump to such conclusions against a certain group of people shows what I believe to be an overly zealous amount of willingness to bash that group for the sake of your personal prejudices and personal self-satisfaction.

I apologize if my critique is not the case but it sure appears that way. I know it is your blog and you can write what you want but I can also comment as you allow. The thing is that you seem to portray yourself as objective on most gun issues, or at least willing enough to collect more fact instead of shooting fro the hip. Well, I thought you did when questions would arise on other issues, then I repeatedly see posts like this about cops or other LEOs. It is disheartening, not so much because up until last Thursday I was also an LEO (retired last week after 32 years) but because if LEOs were allowed to treat cases like this there would be an awful lot more innocent people wrong convicted of everything from parking tickets to murder. Heck, if we jumped to conclusions like this, about most things in life, there would be an awful lot more hate and fear mongering going on out there.

I have stood up for LEO's before and I have bashed LEOs before (probably with equal force) but what I like to do best is to see at least a lot more fact than was presented in such an article before I jump in one way or the other guns blazing. I would hope you would do the same.

All the best,

breda said...

Dang, Glenn. Try posting on your own blog next time.

Laura said...

Breda, if this were facebook i would "like" that comment.

Marty said...

Well I guess it doesn't matter how many gun safety courses you've taken or where you took them...bottom line...accidents DO happen.

Glad his injury was not serious and hope this can serve as a reminder to always be safe.

Tam said...

Glenn B,

Coincidentally, where do most cops hear unexpected loud noises?

Bathrooms, locker rooms, sally ports, and all the other places that require them to administratively coon-finger their firearms.

Ergo, the less administrative coon-fingering, the quieter it will be.

(And don't give me the "you don't understand" song and dance, because I've carried a service-size auto from the time I put my trousers on 'til the time I take them off, seven days a week, for well over a decade now. I know what is involved in carrying a pistol, and it has yet to go off.)

Mike W. said...

"Ergo, the less administrative coon-fingering, the quieter it will be."

Bingo Tam! I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. Stop touching it!