Model520Fan
Member
Furthermore, do not rely on a visual check. Count the cartridges and notice which revolver you are carrying. I speak from experience. I was very stupid and very lucky.
Don't forget to count cartridges.
Police Trainee Accidentally Killed By Instructor
- Thread starter erik the bold
- Start date
- Status
Furthermore, do not rely on a visual check. Count the cartridges and notice which revolver you are carrying. I speak from experience. I was very stupid and very lucky.
Don't forget to count cartridges.
Jenrick
Member
Someone mentioned the low cost of fire arms simualtors. A non-functioning red/blue gun is quiet a bit cheaper then a real firearm. However these are normally provided by the training agency, not the individual. 30 or so of these tacks on about $1500 in cost for the agency (that's at $50 a piece).
For function weapon systems simulators (to replace dry fire drills) such as airmunition or simunition your looking about between $250-$400 per simulator. Ammuntion for these systems are between $.5 and $1 a per round. Of course one could use blank firing weapons, but high quality ones are still $150-$300 a piece.
Additionally the training agency/location would have to have a variety of models on hand, futher increasing the cost for carrying non-fuctioning devices or simulators. Allowing everyone to bring there own weapon and practice with it is the most practical method. However as noted safety is an issued and must be addressed.
-Jenrick
For function weapon systems simulators (to replace dry fire drills) such as airmunition or simunition your looking about between $250-$400 per simulator. Ammuntion for these systems are between $.5 and $1 a per round. Of course one could use blank firing weapons, but high quality ones are still $150-$300 a piece.
Additionally the training agency/location would have to have a variety of models on hand, futher increasing the cost for carrying non-fuctioning devices or simulators. Allowing everyone to bring there own weapon and practice with it is the most practical method. However as noted safety is an issued and must be addressed.
-Jenrick
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
ABSOLUTELY.
There is a lot of bogus information floating around about this tragedy. On another board, I saw the information that Jackson had recently switched from a S&W to a Glock. Some, if not all S&W pistols have magazine cutoffs, so the weapon can't be fired when the mag is dropped.
I don't see that brand of pistol and whether that pistol had a mag cutoff is an issue in this case, though. The guy didn't check the chamber. Doesn't matter what the brand is, I won't point a real weapon at another and dryfire, regardless of who's "giving the orders." I really don't think that my aversion to pointing weapons at people would preclude me from using a weapon successfully in self-defense.
One supposed eyewitness account says that Jackson dropped to one knee, aimed AT THE VICTIM, and squeezed the trigger. Anybody finding anything reasonable in that behavior just has a different opinion from mine.
I guess the bottom line is that "the proof is in the pudding." Guy fired his loaded handgun at another person, causing predictable results.
When I predicted that Jackson would be prosecuted, that wasn't something that I encourage, just an observation that he'll likely be prosecuted. There's always prosecutorial discretion, so we'll just have to see how this plays out.
I don't see that brand of pistol and whether that pistol had a mag cutoff is an issue in this case, though. The guy didn't check the chamber. Doesn't matter what the brand is, I won't point a real weapon at another and dryfire, regardless of who's "giving the orders." I really don't think that my aversion to pointing weapons at people would preclude me from using a weapon successfully in self-defense.
One supposed eyewitness account says that Jackson dropped to one knee, aimed AT THE VICTIM, and squeezed the trigger. Anybody finding anything reasonable in that behavior just has a different opinion from mine.
I guess the bottom line is that "the proof is in the pudding." Guy fired his loaded handgun at another person, causing predictable results.
When I predicted that Jackson would be prosecuted, that wasn't something that I encourage, just an observation that he'll likely be prosecuted. There's always prosecutorial discretion, so we'll just have to see how this plays out.
Andrew Rothman
Member
Whenever a thread like this comes up, the usual apologists tell us that "accidents" like this are "inevitable."
BULLHOCKEY!
Consider these NRA training safety rules:
* NO LIVE AMMO IN THE CLASSROOM
* NEVER POINT A GUN AT ANYTHING YOU AREN'T WILLING TO DESTROY
* PRE-DESIGNATE A "DOWNRANGE" DIRECTION THAT IS SAFE, AND KEEP ALL GUNS POINTED IN THAT DIRECTION
* KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER...
* WHEN USING A REAL GUN FOR A DEMONSTRATION, CLEAR THE GUN AND SHOW IT TO A STUDENT, ASKING HER TO CONFIRM IT IS UNLOADED
This instructor broke ALL of those rules. Any ONE of them would have saved that cadet's life.
This was not a one-second brain fart. This was callous disregard for numerous safety rules, with disastrous consequences.
Condemn the instructor? You bet I do! I have NO patience for anyone who thinks that the rules apply to everyone but him.
Remember Special Agent "I'm the only person in this room professional enough...."? We ridicule him, and he only shot himself.
But we're supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to Action Jackson?
Forget it. He has my scorn -- and his own self-recrimination, which I suspect is considerably more biting than anything I could write.
"Been there, done that"? No way. I have NOT been there, and I'm not going.
I have. It has redoubled my resolve that this never WILL happen to me.
We all take care when we pull a hot dish out of the oven. Should we take any less care, ever, when handling a gun?
Hell, no.
Accidents do happen. But negligence is preventable, and gross negligence is utterly preventable.
BULLHOCKEY!
Consider these NRA training safety rules:
* NO LIVE AMMO IN THE CLASSROOM
* NEVER POINT A GUN AT ANYTHING YOU AREN'T WILLING TO DESTROY
* PRE-DESIGNATE A "DOWNRANGE" DIRECTION THAT IS SAFE, AND KEEP ALL GUNS POINTED IN THAT DIRECTION
* KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER...
* WHEN USING A REAL GUN FOR A DEMONSTRATION, CLEAR THE GUN AND SHOW IT TO A STUDENT, ASKING HER TO CONFIRM IT IS UNLOADED
This instructor broke ALL of those rules. Any ONE of them would have saved that cadet's life.
This was not a one-second brain fart. This was callous disregard for numerous safety rules, with disastrous consequences.
Condemn the instructor? You bet I do! I have NO patience for anyone who thinks that the rules apply to everyone but him.
Remember Special Agent "I'm the only person in this room professional enough...."? We ridicule him, and he only shot himself.
But we're supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to Action Jackson?
Forget it. He has my scorn -- and his own self-recrimination, which I suspect is considerably more biting than anything I could write.
"Been there, done that"? No way. I have NOT been there, and I'm not going.
I have. It has redoubled my resolve that this never WILL happen to me.
We all take care when we pull a hot dish out of the oven. Should we take any less care, ever, when handling a gun?
Hell, no.
Accidents do happen. But negligence is preventable, and gross negligence is utterly preventable.
Aguila Blanca
Member
How do you teach someone by using a red gun? By de-activating real guns and painting them red so you know which ones are safe. Like these little guys from Sarco:
What are they?
Firing pin hole welded closed. Pin through the chamber. It would be difficult to accidently shoot someone by accident with one of these.
Andrew Rothman
Member
Read on:
Sigh.
There are errors and there is negligence. Breaking five rules is not an error -- it is egregious, deliberate disregard for the rules.
He brought ammo into an ammo-free zone. He didn't clear the firearm. He didn't let someone else confirm it was unloaded. He pointed it at a student.
He did screw up...which is everyone's point. Even the "best" can and do screw up. No one is saying he was right in any way. Nor are they saying that crap like this is inivitable. They are simply reminding everyone to practice safety religiously. Check and double check.
I don't think anyone knows the deatils of what happened in this case...but obviously he did not clear the chamber. Everything else you mention is a result of that not happening. In that one instant, the man "who could never do something like that" saw an empty chamber that wasn't.
I don't think anyone knows the deatils of what happened in this case...but obviously he did not clear the chamber. Everything else you mention is a result of that not happening. In that one instant, the man "who could never do something like that" saw an empty chamber that wasn't.
If you make a habit of pointing guns at things that you don't intend to shoot, sooner or later you will shoot something that you don't intend to shoot.
I see NO training purpose served by dry firing at another person that can't be achieved in a safer fashion.
I see NO training purpose served by dry firing at another person that can't be achieved in a safer fashion.
It doesn't matter how long he has been teaching, how good a guy he is, or whether he has small children. He, of all people should have taught and practiced to handling guns correctly and safely. I can't imagine any circumstances where this is not a death caused directly by his negligence. It is sad, but true. The guy is evidently mentally challenged.
Aguila Blanca
Member
I agree with all you wrote, except the last sentence. There's no indication whatsoever that he was "mentally challenged." What happened is that he had one moment of absent-minded complacency. We have all had them. Unfortunately, his had more drastic consequences than the last time I laid down my car keys and then couldn't remember where I had laid them down.Gunpacker said:
I see no reason or need to attack the guy's mental capacity. According to all accounts, he was a stellar instructor. But ... do anything too long and it becomes automatic, and that's when it becomes possible to skip a step without realizing it. The man clearly violated several fundamental rules, with catastrophic results, but I don't think he did it it because he was stupid. I think it's because he had become complacent.
A Grand Jury is currently taking a look at Sgt. Jackson's actions. Guess we'll know more soon. There are conflicting stories on various boards about whether dryfiring real weapons while pointing them at your fellow cadets or instructors is a legitimate part of the Austell center's regimen. I just can't imagine that anybody'd teach that way!
Andrew Rothman
Member
No, it was a result of FIVE DIFFERENT WAYS that he failed to follow basic safety rules.
no!
no!
no!
no!
no!
no!
It was not one moment. It was FIVE SEPARATE NEGLIGENT ACTIONS.
What is so damn hard to understand about that?
Shootcraps
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,007
+1.
Buck Snort
Member
Fer crissake was my last post on this subject SO OFFENSIVE that it had to be deleted??
If the reported facts are true
Am I wrong, or correct that this doesn't seem like rocket surgery: IF you're not using the red or blue plastic guns for your training, then you MUST follow the four rules, which include, among others, never pointing the gun at anything you are not willing to kill or destroy. This is true regardless of whether there is a rule that no live ammo is allowed in the building, because after all, rule number 1 says always treat all guns as if they are loaded. And a no-ammo rule does not suspend rule 1. Like your mom & dad told you:
FOLLOW THE RULES!
Just terribly tragic. For both the dead woman and this good man. But the fact remains that if the 4 rules were followed, she would be alive. If the reported facts are true, then BOTH the agency who set up the (clearly) wrong rules in this training scenario AND this instructor were negligent. *Particularly* the agency which OK'ed pointing & dry-firing at HUMAN BEINGS as part of the training; much more so than the instructor himself. What in THE hell were they thinking?
:banghead:
If the reported facts are true.
Rule #s 1 and 2 of gun safety render moot in this particular discussion any chamber-checking procedures for being unloaded.
Am I wrong, or correct that this doesn't seem like rocket surgery: IF you're not using the red or blue plastic guns for your training, then you MUST follow the four rules, which include, among others, never pointing the gun at anything you are not willing to kill or destroy. This is true regardless of whether there is a rule that no live ammo is allowed in the building, because after all, rule number 1 says always treat all guns as if they are loaded. And a no-ammo rule does not suspend rule 1. Like your mom & dad told you:
FOLLOW THE RULES!
Just terribly tragic. For both the dead woman and this good man. But the fact remains that if the 4 rules were followed, she would be alive. If the reported facts are true, then BOTH the agency who set up the (clearly) wrong rules in this training scenario AND this instructor were negligent. *Particularly* the agency which OK'ed pointing & dry-firing at HUMAN BEINGS as part of the training; much more so than the instructor himself. What in THE hell were they thinking?
:banghead: If the reported facts are true.
Rule #s 1 and 2 of gun safety render moot in this particular discussion any chamber-checking procedures for being unloaded.
i am sure we have all had moments when we unintentionally broke one of the big 4 rules, when you weren't as careful as you should have been with the muzzle, or suprise, that gun still had a bullet in it! That is familiarity leading to sloppyness.
However, when you set forth to PURPOSELY break one of the 4 cardinal rules, a situation which DOES occur in training (be it in class or, more likely, at the range) you MUST double and triple and quadruple check that the OTHER 3 are in compliance.
That's where this guy went wrong. He assumed the gun was empty when it was not. That happens, however, he KNOWINGLY broke two more when he pointed his gun at the trainee and when he pulled the trigger. If you are in class or at the range and oyu need to demonstrate trigger pull, you check and recheck the chamber, then find a suitable place to point the gun. If you need to demonstrate loading, you keep your finger clear and find a suitable place to point the gun, etc etc etc
That's the difference between those of us who have accidentally broken one of the cardinal rules and someone who knowling breaks one of the cardinal rules...and then accidentally breaks a 2nd and 3rd resulting in death.
However, when you set forth to PURPOSELY break one of the 4 cardinal rules, a situation which DOES occur in training (be it in class or, more likely, at the range) you MUST double and triple and quadruple check that the OTHER 3 are in compliance.
That's where this guy went wrong. He assumed the gun was empty when it was not. That happens, however, he KNOWINGLY broke two more when he pointed his gun at the trainee and when he pulled the trigger. If you are in class or at the range and oyu need to demonstrate trigger pull, you check and recheck the chamber, then find a suitable place to point the gun. If you need to demonstrate loading, you keep your finger clear and find a suitable place to point the gun, etc etc etc
That's the difference between those of us who have accidentally broken one of the cardinal rules and someone who knowling breaks one of the cardinal rules...and then accidentally breaks a 2nd and 3rd resulting in death.
p.s.
regarding the rule of 'no weapons or ammo allowed in the building'
there are a thousand times when some guy up at the higher levels of paperworkshuffling will make an official rule like this that will never trickle down to the guys who actually make stuff happen.
OR
there are thousands of times when a rule is in place, you point out how this is breaking the rules, and your superior says 'that rule wasn't made with this in mind, go ahead anyways'
I am sure the same thing is goign on here. Either the rule was made and it never was told to the police officers in charge of the training, or the rule was made, but there was an unwritten verbal clause 'except for when we do training' etc etc.
this type of situation of course always helps the rules writers and never those who actually get the work done.
regarding the rule of 'no weapons or ammo allowed in the building'
there are a thousand times when some guy up at the higher levels of paperworkshuffling will make an official rule like this that will never trickle down to the guys who actually make stuff happen.
OR
there are thousands of times when a rule is in place, you point out how this is breaking the rules, and your superior says 'that rule wasn't made with this in mind, go ahead anyways'
I am sure the same thing is goign on here. Either the rule was made and it never was told to the police officers in charge of the training, or the rule was made, but there was an unwritten verbal clause 'except for when we do training' etc etc.
this type of situation of course always helps the rules writers and never those who actually get the work done.
thorn726
Member
that only makes me more angry.
this is a horrible bad incident for all gun owners.
stupid stuff like this is why
"regular people shouldn't have guns"
we give the antis too much ammo.
there's NO excuse for this shooting
ctdonath
Member
The primary rule broken in this case was #1: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED.
The facility has a paranoid degree of "no guns here". As a result, nobody expects a live/loaded gun to be present - result is anyone picking up a gun in the building assumes it is unloaded and "safe", instead of treating every gun as loaded, chambered, cocked & off-safe.
By the entire facility violating Rule #1, it became very easy to violate Rules #2 (don't point it at anything you're not willing to destroy), #3 (finger off trigger until sights on target), and #4 (know the target & beyond).
The facility has a paranoid degree of "no guns here". As a result, nobody expects a live/loaded gun to be present - result is anyone picking up a gun in the building assumes it is unloaded and "safe", instead of treating every gun as loaded, chambered, cocked & off-safe.
By the entire facility violating Rule #1, it became very easy to violate Rules #2 (don't point it at anything you're not willing to destroy), #3 (finger off trigger until sights on target), and #4 (know the target & beyond).
Andrew Rothman
Member
Yeah, and the last one was a Jew-boy too!
Seriously...
Speak for yourself. I follow the rules. Call me paranoid if you like, but I do.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
