Glock's safety questioned in trial

[Drizzt]

Saint Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota)

May 22, 2003 Thursday

SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. 2B

LENGTH: 487 words

HEADLINE: GRAND RAPIDS, MINN.: Glock's safety questioned in trial

BYLINE: BY JOHN MYERS; Duluth News Tribune

BODY:
One by one, the 11 women and three men of the jury in the Brett Lessard trial stepped forward Wednesday afternoon, grasped the .40-caliber Glock pistol and pulled the trigger. With each metallic click of the firing pin falling on an empty chamber, Lessard shuddered in his courtroom seat.

The gun was unloaded, and the jurors were firing into a safety device. The theatrics by prosecutors in the Itasca County courtroom were intended to prove a point: This gun required a hefty pull on the trigger to fire. An accidental bump wouldn't do it.

Lessard is charged with second degree murder, first-degree manslaughter and second-degree manslaughter in the shooting death of 20-year-old Angie Aho.

He faces between four and 12 years in prison if convicted.

The gun was held in the courtroom by Nat Pearlson, a forensic scientist, ballistics expert and death scene investigator for the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

Pearlson testified that the Glock Model 27 that the jury handled -- and which Lessard held on the night of April 17, 2002, when it fired, killing Aho -- incorporates three separate safety devices to prevent accidental discharge. Only when considerable pressure is put on the center of the trigger will the safety devices drop.

But in his cross-examination of Pearlson, defense attorney Joe Friedberg was able to introduce information from a 1994 Washington Post newspaper article that highlighted extensive reports of Glock handguns unintentionally discharging. Friedberg contended that the article, along with some police department memos on the Glock, exposed a pattern of problems with Glock's firing at the wrong time -- including cases of a Washington D.C., policeman shooting his partner; a police officer's 2-year-old daughter shooting herself in the head; and a case of a federal officer in training shooting himself.

Unlike many firearms, the Glock has no exterior safety device that must be moved to fire the gun, Pearlson conceded. All three safety devices can be deactivated simply by pulling the trigger.

"You mean to tell me that a 2-year-old child could depress this trigger?'' Friedberg asked Pearlson.

"It appears that happened,'' Pearlson answered.

Lessard, 25, the son of former state Sen. Bob Lessard, contends that he was simply complying with Aho's request that night to pose for a dramatic photograph that Aho could use for her college photography class.

On an audiotape of Lessard's interview with officers hours after the shooting, a distraught Lessard said he was half asleep when Aho and a friend, Heidi Eckholm, came to his house. He said the gun somehow went off as he raised it so Aho could take a photograph looking directly down the barrel.

The prosecution rested Wednesday afternoon after spending two days trying to show jurors that Lessard was a well-trained gun expert who knew better than to point a loaded gun at anyone, but did it anyhow.

 

[Preacherman]

How many, many times must we repeat the four rules???

:banghead:

 

[Feanaro]

So a two year old can pull the trigger but it's impossible that they could fumble an external safety off?

It's not the gun's fault the twerp didn't practice the Big Four.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Nothing like discrediting a "a forensic scientist, ballistics expert and death scene investigator for the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension" with a "1994 Washington Post newspaper article."

 

[LawDog]

One by one, the 11 women and three men of the jury in the Brett Lessard trial stepped forward Wednesday afternoon, grasped the .40-caliber Glock pistol and pulled the trigger. With each metallic click of the firing pin falling on an empty chamber, Lessard shuddered in his courtroom seat.

I wonder who racked the slide in between each juror's turn?

LawDog

 

[Shaggy]

A 2 yr old can't pull the trigger on a Glock. That's BS. No way do they have the hand strenght required. How do I know? Because I have let my youngest boy try it when he was 3 because I had heard this nonsense before. He could not even come close.

Yes the big 4. Real simple.

And I'd add one to that if you are going to be taking dramatic photo's for class. The rule of 3's. You check that weapon, and then you have at least two other people inspect the firearm before doing any pointing of a gun for pictures or training.

 

[Cal4D4]

Accidental discharge is laughable. Negligent discharge possible but he had to have chambered a round, take fair aim and apply significant force to move that trigger half an inch. Wonder what was really going on?

 

[Pendragon]

my 17 month old can pick up a gallon of milk.

I think he could make a Glock go off...

 

[Graystar]

my 17 month old can pick up a gallon of milk.

With one finger?

 

[buzz_knox]

Nothing like discrediting a "a forensic scientist, ballistics expert and death scene investigator for the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension" with a "1994 Washington Post newspaper article."

It's called impeachment, and it's fairly routine. You ask the expert if he's familiar with the study/results/case/etc. described in the article and go from there. The source of the information isn't as important as whether it actually occurred. In this case, the guy admitted that the report is consistent with what he would expect, namely that a 2 year old could pull the trigger. Doesn't surprise me in the least.

You've got to remember that someone's title or credentials mean nothing compared to their actual experience. There are many cases of coroners, investigators, experts, etc who were incompetent, hacks, liars and shills. I had a guy on the stand swear up and down there was only one way to do something, except he'd written an article a while earlier stating the exact opposite.

 

[buzz_knox]

A 2 yr old can't pull the trigger on a Glock. That's BS. No way do they have the hand strenght required. How do I know? Because I have let my youngest boy try it when he was 3 because I had heard this nonsense before. He could not even come close

Did you have your son put his whole hand in the trigger guard and press the trigger that way? Is your son statistically average, below average, etc? Have you compared your son to the 2 year old in question?

Just some nitpicking points but one can never say that someone else cannot do something not physically impossible based on our own comparatively meager existence.

 

[spacemanspiff]

No way do they have the hand strenght required. How do I know? Because I have let my youngest boy try it when he was 3 because I had heard this nonsense before. He could not even come close.

how many of us have let a small child, even infants grasp our fingers with their hands and marveled at how tightly they can squeeze? as they get older, they can even sometimes suspend their body weight with their own hand strength. thats more than enough strength to depress a trigger on most guns. they dont have to hold the gun in a certain way or only use one finger on the trigger.
if the child is small enough, theoretically it is possible to use the butt of the gun as a shoulder stock and reach into the trigger guard with their hand, like a mini bazooka.

 

[earl_simmons]

What else can a two-year old do?

The Glock is not unique in that it can be fired by a young child. A child might be able to pull a Glock trigger, but the same child might also be able to flip a 1911's safety lever and pull its trigger. It might take a little longer, but it is still very possible.

 

[Phyphor]

"I wonder who racked the slide in between each juror's turn?

LawDog"


Good question.

Of course, they're not gonna mention little details like that.......

 

[Standing Wolf]

...attorney Joe Friedberg was able to introduce information from a 1994 Washington Post newspaper article that highlighted extensive reports of Glock handguns unintentionally discharging...

I'd certainly consider the Washington Post an authority on firearms!

 

[Lone_Gunman]

This looks like a fine bit of lawyering to me!

They have decided to use "the gun accidentally went off" explanation, and put the gun on trial, not the shooter.

They are just trying to raise doubt that this guy committed murder.

Its not a bad move by the defense attorney; there is a good chance the jury will buy it.

It doesnt matter if it was a Glock, 1911, S&W revolver, or whatever. It doesnt matter how many safety devices were involved. The defense defense would still have claimed "the gun accidentally went off."

 

[HankB]

When a semiautomatic pistol with a chambered round is pointed at another person and the trigger is pulled, it's not merely an "accident" when the person is shot. In my opinion.

This is another lesson we should all learn - live by the Four Rules.

All four of them.

Almost invariably, it takes violation of more than one of the Four Rules to cause harm to another.

 

[12.7x99mm]

"the gun accidentally went off"

Does anyone know the link to the webcam viewing a gun waiting for it to get up and shoot someone all by its self.

Its a just a cam showing a gun on a table or something.

 

[OF]

Smith & Wesson Cam



- Gabe

 

[geekWithA.45]

Notice the invocation of the magical "external safety"?

OOOH! If only it had a magical external safety, THEN it couldn't possibly go off accidentally.


Bottom line: If it can be made to fire at all, it can be made to fire at someone you wish it wouldn't.