StopTheGrays
Member
Bump...in case someone missed it.
Purse goes bang?
- Thread starter Mongo the Mutterer
- Start date
- Status
svtruth
Member
This is very similar
to a case last summer in which a LEO was out drinking, shot at a homeless guy and then initially lied about it.
Details may be foggy in my memory.
to a case last summer in which a LEO was out drinking, shot at a homeless guy and then initially lied about it.
Details may be foggy in my memory.
JJpdxpinkpistols
Member
pax said:
+1000
not every female, or african american, or asian, or handicapped feller that is hired is hired to "meet quota". Some are *actually* good at what they do.
I lost out on a job at my current company to an asian guy. friend of mine told me it was because of Affirmative Action. I later got hired on in a related department, and have worked extensively with Asian Guy. He got the job cuz he is dang good at what he does, and genuinely likes it. No quota involved.
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
Just because the guy is good at and likes what he does, and you like him, does not mean he was not hired because of Affirmative Action.JJpdxpinkpistols said:
carebear
Member
Yeah, no "us vs. them" there. 
Equal treatment for equivalent crimes.
Equal treatment for equivalent crimes.
Ryder
Member
If this had happened to a permit holder who stayed at the scene and accepted responsibility for the situation I don't expect anything serious to come of it. What would they charge her with? Negligent operation of a purse? Owning a piece of crap gun? Where's the criminal intent?
If this cop lady had done the right thing by identifying herself and accepting responsibility for damages she'd still be working the same job today more than likely and I for one wouldn't have a problem with that.
If this cop lady had done the right thing by identifying herself and accepting responsibility for damages she'd still be working the same job today more than likely and I for one wouldn't have a problem with that.
carebear
Member
You're right. But if a permit holder did the same actions after they'd definitely be up on charges.
I'd have to look up the wording in the statutes but I can easily see an avid prosecutor going for some kind of reckless endangerment BS based on the improper manner of carry or something if they thought they could get away with it. It isn't so much they would be able to make it stick but that they'd try in the first place. But that is total supposition on my part.
I'd have to look up the wording in the statutes but I can easily see an avid prosecutor going for some kind of reckless endangerment BS based on the improper manner of carry or something if they thought they could get away with it. It isn't so much they would be able to make it stick but that they'd try in the first place. But that is total supposition on my part.
Old Dog
Member
I refrained from commenting earlier as I suspected this could turn into another us-against-them cop-bash thread ... but now ... if her department is truly not gonna take ANY action against her ... that's not good, not good at all. Shameful in fact.
Ryder, Carebear, I agree with you guys.
Ryder, Carebear, I agree with you guys.
Mongo the Mutterer
Member
Old Dog,
The "officer" resigned the same day as the event.
The "officer" resigned the same day as the event.
U.S.SFC_RET
Member
Pray tell me what makes anyone out there think that there will always be stellar HR personnel hiring stellar Cops.
jerkface11
Member
So she resigned and that's it? It isn't illegal to shoot a gun in a dairy queen? How about a charge for tampering with a crime scene? Or at least a littering charge for throwing the gun out of her car?
DRZinn
Member
I would. <Assuming that the gun was not holstered, and something in the purse pulled the trigger.> The "higher standard" we keep hearing about should mean keeping your weapon safe, functional, and clean, none of which is accomplished by just throwing it in a purse.
If my assumption is wrong, then I take back my judgement.
I don't see this as cop bashing so much as bashing the concept that cops are somehow special people with such special training that only they should be allowed access to firearms.
Frequently when a CCW or homedefense accident happens, the police are quoted saying something along the lines of 'we have extensive training, he did not' they never ONCE say 'freak accidents happen' or 'this guy may be a moron, but you cannot paint the whole CCW group because of this incident'
what's good for the goose is good for the gander
Frequently when a CCW or homedefense accident happens, the police are quoted saying something along the lines of 'we have extensive training, he did not' they never ONCE say 'freak accidents happen' or 'this guy may be a moron, but you cannot paint the whole CCW group because of this incident'
what's good for the goose is good for the gander
PlayboyPenguin
member
I guess this is what you get when you offer low pay and drop educational requirements for being a LEO.
Archie
Member
This does not enhance the image of the St. Louis Police Department.
Just so everyone knows, I’ve been in law enforcement for some twenty-four years now. I’ve been carrying a gun and handcuffs and such. I’m still a line trooper, not in management. Allow me a few related but separate comments.
I’ve never dropped a gun, which fired when dropped. I’ve dropped a couple along the way and it always embarrassed me. I’ve had single action revolvers and single action autopistols that might fire if dropped in a specific condition, but so far, those conditions have not been meet.
Every agency I ever worked for has required the timely reporting of shots being fired under any conditions other than intentional practice. Proper self-defense shootings – on duty or off; accidental or negligent discharges, or getting liquored up and shooting out the streetlights, they all have to be reported. In all agencies I’ve worked for, failure to report such an incident is grounds for termination.
I am responsible for all rounds I fire, intentional or negligent. I am subject to both civil and criminal penalties, as well as agency discipline, for any ‘damage’ I might do. ‘Damage’ may include embarrassment to the agency.
I am responsible for the safeguarding and protection from misuse of all my duty weapons. At some times, I have been allowed to carry a personally owned sidearm. Those personally owned sidearms are reviewed by the agency as if they were agency issue. I must account for a personally owned duty gun as if it were an agency duty gun. In other words, I cannot throw one out the car window and no one be the wiser.
Calling a foul on the St. Louis PD may not be technically correct. One is arrested only after the police has ‘grounds to believe’ a crime has been committed and the arrestee has something to do with the crime. In this case, the police knew who the woman was and where to find her. She would normally be arrested when sufficient evidence was developed and the District Attorney reviews the matter and decides to prosecute. No point in arresting someone the DA isn’t going to prosecute. Nor is there any reason to believe this is an ongoing criminal enterprise. Ongoing incompetent enterprise, perhaps.
I feel more anger at the St. Louis District Attorney. He (she) is the one who decides to file or not file criminal charges.
She resigned, so they can’t give her time off or fire her. Okay. I cannot see how this woman has not been charged with some form of ‘negligent endangerment’ or the appropriate Missouri statute; I’m sure they have something covering allowing a firearm to go off in a public place.
When a citizen sees something like this, it is perfectly acceptable to ask, “What is going on here?” From the information we have so far, the response to the incident seems a little casual, if not lackadaisical. But to be fair, we don’t know all the facts here. It’s possible the decision is based on facts not available to us which make any prosecution inadvisable. Then again, if we knew all about it, we might be madder than we are.
To ask such questions is not ‘cop bashing’. However, to paint every lawman and every department as crooked and evil and incompetent based on this story is illogical. A demand for equal protection under the law is not cop bashing. Pretending all lawmen are involved in this incident is cop bashing.
Speaking of training; Agencies train ‘masses’ of employees. All agencies train to a ‘minimal’ standard. Some are more minimal than others; some lawmen are less interested in learning than others. Agencies routinely conduct training in order to be able to say, “Look, we trained them.” All agencies have training records which will, in court of law, provide a defense against improper or inadequate training. I have a suspicion that is the primary motive in many agencies.
Which is not to say the training officers are not dedicated. Most are dedicated and desirous of giving the troops the best instruction and methodology possible. However, agencies only allow so much training time and budget. Any trainer will tell you not everyone in the agency or department ‘gets it’, either in shooting or report writing. The management, which in this sense includes non-agency politicians, is not so much interested in properly trained employees as with liability defense.
I can tell you all this; If I did what this officer did in my agency, the very best I could hope for would be two weeks off without pay. I’d probably get fired. If I let go a negligent shot and confessed it all properly, I’d probably get two weeks off without pay. Maybe more.
Frankly, ditching the gun has me more worked up than the negligent shot. That act shows a disregard for others, a disregard for the truth, and a knowledge of guilt. My agency has a policy outlining what guns can be carried off duty. I wonder if St. Louis PD has such a policy? I wonder if she was in compliance?
And the real capper is her comment at the Dairy Queen, “I ain’t got no gun.” Quotas, Affirmative Action and protected groups aside, she doesn’t sound like she was hired under the ‘gifted scholar’ program.
Just so everyone knows, I’ve been in law enforcement for some twenty-four years now. I’ve been carrying a gun and handcuffs and such. I’m still a line trooper, not in management. Allow me a few related but separate comments.
I’ve never dropped a gun, which fired when dropped. I’ve dropped a couple along the way and it always embarrassed me. I’ve had single action revolvers and single action autopistols that might fire if dropped in a specific condition, but so far, those conditions have not been meet.
Every agency I ever worked for has required the timely reporting of shots being fired under any conditions other than intentional practice. Proper self-defense shootings – on duty or off; accidental or negligent discharges, or getting liquored up and shooting out the streetlights, they all have to be reported. In all agencies I’ve worked for, failure to report such an incident is grounds for termination.
I am responsible for all rounds I fire, intentional or negligent. I am subject to both civil and criminal penalties, as well as agency discipline, for any ‘damage’ I might do. ‘Damage’ may include embarrassment to the agency.
I am responsible for the safeguarding and protection from misuse of all my duty weapons. At some times, I have been allowed to carry a personally owned sidearm. Those personally owned sidearms are reviewed by the agency as if they were agency issue. I must account for a personally owned duty gun as if it were an agency duty gun. In other words, I cannot throw one out the car window and no one be the wiser.
Calling a foul on the St. Louis PD may not be technically correct. One is arrested only after the police has ‘grounds to believe’ a crime has been committed and the arrestee has something to do with the crime. In this case, the police knew who the woman was and where to find her. She would normally be arrested when sufficient evidence was developed and the District Attorney reviews the matter and decides to prosecute. No point in arresting someone the DA isn’t going to prosecute. Nor is there any reason to believe this is an ongoing criminal enterprise. Ongoing incompetent enterprise, perhaps.
I feel more anger at the St. Louis District Attorney. He (she) is the one who decides to file or not file criminal charges.
She resigned, so they can’t give her time off or fire her. Okay. I cannot see how this woman has not been charged with some form of ‘negligent endangerment’ or the appropriate Missouri statute; I’m sure they have something covering allowing a firearm to go off in a public place.
When a citizen sees something like this, it is perfectly acceptable to ask, “What is going on here?” From the information we have so far, the response to the incident seems a little casual, if not lackadaisical. But to be fair, we don’t know all the facts here. It’s possible the decision is based on facts not available to us which make any prosecution inadvisable. Then again, if we knew all about it, we might be madder than we are.
To ask such questions is not ‘cop bashing’. However, to paint every lawman and every department as crooked and evil and incompetent based on this story is illogical. A demand for equal protection under the law is not cop bashing. Pretending all lawmen are involved in this incident is cop bashing.
Speaking of training; Agencies train ‘masses’ of employees. All agencies train to a ‘minimal’ standard. Some are more minimal than others; some lawmen are less interested in learning than others. Agencies routinely conduct training in order to be able to say, “Look, we trained them.” All agencies have training records which will, in court of law, provide a defense against improper or inadequate training. I have a suspicion that is the primary motive in many agencies.
Which is not to say the training officers are not dedicated. Most are dedicated and desirous of giving the troops the best instruction and methodology possible. However, agencies only allow so much training time and budget. Any trainer will tell you not everyone in the agency or department ‘gets it’, either in shooting or report writing. The management, which in this sense includes non-agency politicians, is not so much interested in properly trained employees as with liability defense.
I can tell you all this; If I did what this officer did in my agency, the very best I could hope for would be two weeks off without pay. I’d probably get fired. If I let go a negligent shot and confessed it all properly, I’d probably get two weeks off without pay. Maybe more.
Frankly, ditching the gun has me more worked up than the negligent shot. That act shows a disregard for others, a disregard for the truth, and a knowledge of guilt. My agency has a policy outlining what guns can be carried off duty. I wonder if St. Louis PD has such a policy? I wonder if she was in compliance?
And the real capper is her comment at the Dairy Queen, “I ain’t got no gun.” Quotas, Affirmative Action and protected groups aside, she doesn’t sound like she was hired under the ‘gifted scholar’ program.
Car Knocker
Member
Archie, excellent post! Thanks.
Fantastic Post Archie.
"One bad po po bites the dust. St.L Police have an affirmative action program. So do I. Mine has five magazines..."
BTW The term "po po" is a derogatory term that inner city gangbanging criminal scum use and white wannabees have latched onto. Apparantly that is acceptable behavior in some places.
"One bad po po bites the dust. St.L Police have an affirmative action program. So do I. Mine has five magazines..."
BTW The term "po po" is a derogatory term that inner city gangbanging criminal scum use and white wannabees have latched onto. Apparantly that is acceptable behavior in some places.
Bart Noir
Member
IV Troop, thanks for explaining that "po po" term. I've wondered about that. And now I will think less of any THR poster who uses it. Sure, they can use it. And sure, I can think less of them.
Bart Noir
Bart Noir
- Status
