Top police gun prone to accidental firing

[happyguy]

Except those aren't the facts giving rise to the lawsuits. In Knoxville, one of the first lawsuits arose from a cop chasing a suspect. He had his finger on the trigger of his Glock while running and ended up putting a round through the woman, killing her. Wouldn't have happened if he hadn't violated the rules.

It also wouldn't have happened if either of them were carying a weapon with the safety engaged and it might not have happended if the officers were carrying revolvers.

Instead of calling these officers names, i.e. ignorant, stupid, moron, e.t.c., as one poster did, we have a responsibility to train these guys right and arm them appropriately. And in my opinion, for police work, a Glock doesn't cut it.

Regards,
Happyguy

 

[Sleuth]

Coult D, what national standerd of training? Who put this out? I've only been in law enforcement training since 1971, and I know of no rules for police training nationwide. There are some suggestions by various groups, but no one I know of advocates 1 day of firearms training a year. Who are you refering to?

State rules are the lowest common denominator. They are minimums to keep state acredidation. They have no relationship to the real needs of the officers, they are set to accomidate the bean counters.

None of my comments are intended as any slight to the training officers of the NYPD. They are delt a bad hand by the administrators, and I am sure they do the best they can with the time and money aloted. But there is only so much training that can be accomplished within 1 day a year. Some officers will 'get it', but many more will not have gained a thing.

1 work day = 8 hours, less admin time (1 hr), less lunch (1 hr), less breaks, less time to clean guns, set up and tear down range/targets, draw ammo, recover brass = about 4 hours of real training time, to cover what? Oh yes, less time for the manditory qualification course (for the bean counters). These poor trainers have a lot to cover in about 2 hours, no matter how skilled they are.

 

[355sigfan]

Have you ever been a patrol officer?
END

Yep for a touch more than half my total time as a cop. Now I am a narc and one of the departments firearms instructors. And if he is getting beat till a point of losing consiousness, he should have put his finger on the trigger and shot the perp several times. Its easy to keep your finger off the trigger. Keep it touching the slide. If your in a situation as desparate as your saying then just shoot the sob. If you go out your dead.

SNIP
The whole analogy to rape is pointless. Its the action of the 2ND party that causes the N/D. The 2ND party does not cause you to rape someone.
END

A third party does not force you finger to be where its not supposed to be.
99.99% of all unintentional discharges are negligence. If the gun breaks and fires then its not negligence.

Any more fantastic stories for me about demons that cause cops to put their fingers on the trigger and shoot themselves in the ???.
Pat

 

[355sigfan]

He had his finger on the trigger of his Glock while running and ended up putting a round through the woman, killing her.
END

Actually the term moronic and idiotic covers this action pretty well. Same thing would have happened with a da revolver of a 1911 that an officer forgot to put on safe.

Ever heard of Dr Enoka. He did a study on what causes ND's. There are 3 main causes. 1 Postural instability. Your running trip lose balance your hands reflexivly constrict. This pressure can be up to 100 pounds. If your finger is on the trigger of a da revolver its going to fire.

2nd. Overflow effect. While one hand is grasping the other hand will also grasp with up to 20% of the strength of the grasping hand. Fo your grabbing onto something with you weak hand your weapon hand will also constrict and fire the weapon. Again da revolvers will fire as well.

3rd. Startle responce. Quit simple your startled and reflexively constrict most of the muscles in your body. If your finger is on the trigger the gun is going to fire even a 20 pound da pull.

As for the manual safety aspect. An offcier who can't be trusted to keep his finger off the trigger can't be trusted to engage and disengage a manual safety consistently. There is no technology fix. Its a training fix.
Pat

 

[happyguy]

Yep for a touch more than half my total time as a cop. Now I am a narc and one of the departments firearms instructors. And if he is getting beat till a point of losing consiousness, he should have put his finger on the trigger and shot the perp several times. Its easy to keep your finger off the trigger. Keep it touching the slide. If your in a situation as desparate as your saying then just shoot the sob. If you go out your dead.

You still don't get it, do you? It could be a fall, your partner can be slammed into you for whatever reason, it could be a single blow. I've personally been on both ends of a one punch KO. Do you shoot someone for punching you one time in Alaska? We don't as a rule do so in the lower 48.

Regards,
Happyguy

 

[355sigfan]

You still don't get it, do you? It could be a fall, your partner can be slammed into you for whatever reason, it could be a single blow.
END

I get it just fine. Do you get it. THE GUN WILL NOT FIRE WITH HIS FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER. REPEAT THE GUN WILL NOT FIRE WITH HIS FINGER OFF THE TRIGGETHE GUN WILL NOT FIRE WITH HIS FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER.R.THE GUN WILL NOT FIRE WITH HIS FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER.

Is that clear. If you get ko'd in a single punch the gun will not fire if your finger is not on the trigger. If you fall (postural instability) your gun will not fire if your finger is not on the trigger. A revolver will fire if you fall with your finger on the trigger. I get the fact your trying to excuse an inexcusable behavior.
Pat

 

[happyguy]

I'll make this one short.

Two gentleman entered a residence. The suspect charged the officers and caught them flatfooted, he was unarmed so they decided not to shoot him. The lead officer was picked up by the impact and thrown physically against the second officer and the three of them ened up in a pile with the suspect NFL lineman wannabe on top.

The officer on the bottom had about 450lbs on top of him with his pistol as a cushion for all that weight. Guess where his trigger finger ended up. Yep, on the trigger. Did he put it there? Nope, sometimes bad thing happen. Said officer needed six stitches to his index finger and had to have it taped to a tongue depressor for 4 weeks.

Had this officer been carrying a Glock or a revolver both officers wouldhave been injured.

Actually the GUN WILL FIRE WHEN TRIGGER IS DEPRESSED, GUN WILL FIRE WHEN TRIGGER IS DEPRESSED. It doesn't matter what the object is that depresses it.


Regards,
Happyguy

 

[happyguy]

If you get ko'd in a single punch the gun will not fire if your finger is not on the trigger.

If you get KO'd you won't know, nor will you have any control over where your trigger finger is until you regain consciousness. You are Ko'd, not dead.

Edited to add: And don't forget that nether world that lies somewhere between consioulness and unconsiousness, where an individual is capable of movement but is not fully aware of what is going on in his surroundings.

I get the fact your trying to excuse an inexcusable behavior.

That's not my intention at all. I think I'm looking at things objectively and with an eye towards practicality. Yes, you are right. Most ND/UD's are operator error. But your blanket condemnation of every officer who has one is unwarranted.

Regards,
Happyguy

 

[355sigfan]

If you get KO'd you won't know, nor will you have any control over where your trigger finger is until you regain consciousness. You are Ko'd, not dead.
END

If you get Ko's while your alone with a bad guy he can easlily kill you. I assume the worst about street vermin. Also why was his gun out if he did not plan on using it. If he had a reason to have his gun out why did he not shoot this person before they Ko'd him. I realize there are times when your gun is out and you have to descalate. However this still does not excuse the placement of the finger. I would bet my pay check on the fact the officer in your story probably had his finger on the trigger prior to falling.

And back to the point I don't care if I have a 500 pound guy on me. If I don't want my finger on the trigger it will not magically get there.

I am not condeming the officers but rather their actions and lack of training. Having your finger on the trigger at the wrong time is wrong and 100% avoidable.
Pat

 

[happyguy]

And back to the point I don't care if I have a 500 pound guy on me. If I don't want my finger on the trigger it will not magically get there.

Magic has nothing to do with it. If you can benchpress a 500 pound guy with the back of your index finger, then I sure won't be messin' with you.

I would bet my pay check on the fact the officer in your story probably had his finger on the trigger prior to falling.

The officer in question is not a liar.

Edited to add: And even if he was (he isn't) the safety prevented the weapon from discharging.

Regards,
Happyguy

 

[Coult D]

I am glad me and 355sigfan can finally agree 100% on something LOL

355sigfan

Having your finger on the trigger at the wrong time is wrong and 100% avoidable.

Coult D

Is it 100% officer error with the Glock absolutely. This does not prevent lawsuits against the PD for wrongful death/injury.

 

[Sulaco]

Wow, lots of Glock haters on this forum. What did Glock ever do to you?

I know how the problem can be solved. Since organizations who require employees to carry guns would rather spend money on things other than proper training, use something other than a Glock.

Glocks were not designed for untrained or novice shooters. I don't care how well they have been marketed.

I am sick of this society blaming inanimate objects for human stupidity.

One other thing, laughing at this type of article and saying., "oh well, I don't like Glocks anyway" is just as good as writing the article yourself. There is no middle ground when it comes to gun control, which is where it all comes back to eventually.

 

[355sigfan]

Glocks were not designed for untrained or novice shooters. I don't care how well they have been marketed.
END

Actually they were originally designed for military and police shooters who by defination are novice shooters. At least the rank and file are.

Glocks are good for new shooters because they are easy to train on. There is no safety to engage, no decocker to use. The trigger pull is the same for every shot. They are a very good simple gun for all new and old shooters.
Pat

 

[jc2]

Sulaco -

Wow, lots of Glock haters on this forum. What did Glock ever do to you?

What an incredibly inane, asinine statement--it is entirely possible for most mature adults (don't know where this leaves you) to discuss a product's actual (or perceived) shortcomings without becoming emotionally involved (or injecting totally unnecessarily and foolish emotional content). There is certainly room for intelligent disagreement and discussion as to whether the Glock is more prone to operator error than other designs. If you are incapable of intelligent disagreement and discussion, could you at least refrain inflamatory and simple-minded characterizations like "lots of Glock haters."

Glocks were not designed for untrained or novice shooters. I don't care how well they have been marketed.

Actually, that pretty well described average soldier/airman/sailor (at least when it comes to handguns). Do you even know for what organization the Glock was origninally designed? The real question should be, "Was the Glock designed to be carried with an empty chamber?"

I am sick of this society blaming inanimate objects for human stupidity.

Certain "inanimate objects" (e.g., motorcycles, fast cars, etc.) lend themselves to human stupidy far better than others. Some "inanimate objects" are easier to misuse and hurt yourself (or others) with than others.

There is no middle ground when it comes to gun control, which is where it all comes back to eventually.

To question the whether Glocks are more prone or more readily lend themselves to operator error has absolutely nothing to do with gun control, and to characterize the discussion of handling issues with the Glock as "gun control" is absurd and irrational--sounds like buttressing a fallacious argument.

Pat -

Glocks are good for new shooters because they are easy to train on. There is no safety to engage, no decocker to use. The trigger pull is the same for every shot. They are a very good simple gun for all new and old shooters.

Being "easy to train on" [to shoot] and "good for new shooters" are not necessarily the same. The relatively short, light trigger stroke than makes the Glock so easy to shoot ("to train on") also makes a weapon that lends itself to accidental discharges during administrative handling in less than very well-trained and dedicated personnel. That "easy to shoot" which is the Glock's strength on the firing line is not necessary a good point when it comes to administrative handling--like anything else, there is a trade-off involved.

 

[Sulaco]

jc2, I am sorry if I somehow offended you. Apprently you include yourself in my characterization. If that is the case, so be it. However, I am free to voice my opinion in any way I choose. It is for you to take offense or not. Either way, it is your perogative and I respect that.

The Glock pistol was originally designed by Gaston because he had an idea and wanted to develop it. It was not intended for use by any one company or agency. The Austrian Army did indeed decide on the Glock 17 for use in 1982. Then, the Norwegian Army adopted the pistol for use in 1984. The rest is history.

The gun was never intended to be used by undertrained law enforcement officer's. I am sure that is true of most guns. However, the Glock design demands the utmost in proficeincy due to it's simplistic design.

Questioning the design of a gun that is under constant scrutiny by the left wing radical media and uninformed population, is fueling the anti fire. For you to say differently shows how much you care about your rights as a gunowner.

 

[happyguy]

The Glock pistol was originally designed by Gaston because he had an idea and wanted to develop it. It was not intended for use by any one company or agency. The Austrian Army did indeed decide on the Glock 17 for use in 1982. Then, the Norwegian Army adopted the pistol for use in 1984. The rest is history.

My understanding was that Glock specifically designed his pistol to win the government contract for the Austrian Army. In fact, he got into the act late and was barely able to get the prototypes done in time for testing.

This is from my sometimes foggy memory and is based on an article I read in one of those magazines that Glock puts out periodically.

Regards,
Happyguy

 

[jc2]

You have it right happyguy!

Sulaco -

I am sorry if I somehow offended you. Apprently you include yourself in my characterization. However, I am free to voice my opinion in any way I choose.

Actually, as I stated earlier in the thread, I carry a G26 more than any other handgun. It is a incredibly ignorant assumption on your part that anyone who questions whether the Glock design is more susceptible to operator error than certain other designs is a "Glock hater." Sure, your are free to voice your "opinion in any way you choose," but that doesn't mean it isn't incredibly simplistic.

The gun was never intended to be used by undertrained law enforcement officer's.

Glock sure has deliberately marketed for LE, hasn't he? So, is Glock guilty of deliberately targeting a market for which (according to you) his product was unintended and unsuited? I think you just increased Glock's liability astronomically!

Questioning the design of a gun that is under constant scrutiny by the left wing radical media and uninformed population, is fueling the anti fire. For you to say differently shows how much you care about your rights as a gunowner.

Totally asinine!

 

[1911Tuner]

AD's and other Myths

Crownvicman said:

All of these ADs seem to be the result of poor gun handling and plain negligence on the part of the user. Guns are not idiot proof.
-------------------------------

I have to agree. The New Age mindset seems to be to place the blame on
anybody except the one at fault. Many people mistakenly feel that police
officers are expert gun handlers. While it's true that many are, some of the
scariest gun handling I have ever seen has been in the presence of police
and military personnel.

How many ER docs and nurses can relate to this all-too-common scene:

Man rolls in on a gurney, badly shot...maybe dying. In tow is a distraught
friend or relative, tearfully wringing is hands, crying:

"I don't understand it! The gun just went off!"

Wrong. If the gun fired, somebody had to load it, pick it up, and pull the trigger...and all three operations aren't necessarily performed by the same person. Whether the trigger is pulled by a finger or by a hard object within the trigger guard is of no consequence...it got pulled. When the trigger is
pulled, the gun obeys its design parameters, and fires. It is up to US...
each one of us...to insure that the bullet doesn't hit that which we cannot bear to see killed, crippled or destroyed.

Rule 1: All guns are loaded...Always. Never assume that one isn't unless
we have just cleared it and haven't laid it down. If it leaves our hands, even for a second, we must check it again when we get it back.

Rule 2: Don't point it at anything that we aren't willing to see destroyed.

Rule 3: Keep your finger (and other objects) away from the trigger until we
want it to fire. When we pull the trigger, we must be prepared for the gun to fire. That's what it's designed to do...and we must be prepared to accept the moral and legal consequences.

Rule 4: We must be sure of our target and what lies behind it. Shooting
at sounds or movements is not acceptable.

A pet peeve of mine is to hear someone refer to their gun as their "Toy" or their"New Best Friend"...Sorry. It's NOT a toy, and it's NOT your friend. It's a Rattlesnake that is poised to strike 24/7/365.

As for the lawsuit claiming that the guns are "Unnecessarily Dangerous"...
remember the sage words of our Russian friend at the FBI academy:
(Accent deleted for clarity)

It is a GUN! It is NOT safe!

Cheers all!

Tuner

 

[buzz_knox]

happyguy, after reading your posts you've convinced me. Most cops can't be trusted with firearms (present company mostly excepted of course]. Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

[buzz_knox]

The reflexive grip which happens when one hand closes is less forgivening with the Glock. Your gunhand curls tighter around the grip to protect gun from whatever is happening .(examples cited in above posts) The trigger finger of course should stay out of the trigger guard. But when it does not it has no where to go in the Glocks trigger guard except on the trigger. DAO,DA/SA designs (sometimes allow) the trigger finger can slip behind the trigger to stabilize the gun better during the struggle. Even SA with saftey provide a slim margin that an N/D will not occur.

The chances of the trigger finger not striking the trigger on any of those weapons would seem to be incredibly low. I've never heard of any instructor or course remarking on it as even a remote possibility or advantage. As for the reflexive grip, there have been many NDs involving revolvers with heavy trigger pulls during these circumstances. The reason is that the reflexive grip of one hand is as strong as the grip being used on the other. You use a bit of pressure to cuff a person, more than sufficient to discharge any weapon.

Simply put, you never cuff someone while holding a weapon. It's stupid from a retention point as well as from the chance of shooting them wrongfully.

 

[Sarge111]

DANG, that smarts...

"rookie mistake" or not!

http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=1591458&nav=1PuZK3JA

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the holster...

 

[BluesBear]

Jan. 7, 2004
Recruit Officer Shoots Himself in Thigh

OVERLAND PARK, Kan. -- An officer in training was shot in Johnson County, but he was also the person who pulled the trigger.

KCTV5's Liana Joyce reported on "KCTV5 News at 5 p.m." on the rookie mistake that sent that officer to the hospital.

Police weren't identifying the recruit officer who accidentally shot himself in the thigh while training at The Bullet Hole shooting range in Overland Park, she reported.

Six recruits were training with a supervisor when one of them made a dangerous rookie mistake.

"This is a person who has been on the department approximately three weeks. They have had two days of training prior to this that didn't involve live fire," said Officer Jim Weaver, of the Overland Park Police Department.

The officer was holstering his weapon when it went off. It was a .40 caliber glock, just like the one all officers here carry.

Weaver showed Liana just how it happened.

"At some point when the officer was placing the weapon back into his holster, the gun discharged, and he was shot through the upper right thigh," Weaver said.

The investigation into the shooting continued, but officers said when this type of thing happened, it was usually human error, not mechanical malfunction.

The officers injuries were not life threatening.

Nobody else was hurt. All of the officers were wearing bulletproof vests.

 

[STW]

Nothing can ever be fool proof because fools are too ingenious.

If you start with that basic premise, the necessity of training, practise, etc., etc., etc. becomes most apparent.

 

[La Pistoletta]

SigLaw: about the loaded Glock being cleaned, exactly what I was going to say. I can guarantee you that I (who have shot a Swedish AK5 assault rifle once, other than that, nothing stronger than an air rifle) would definately check the magazine and chamber before cleaning a rifle/pistol. It is, to me, inexplicable how any police officer would not do so as well.
And since it is mentioned how good the Glock is in preventing discharging from being dropped, the only way it's going to fire is if it's loaded and the trigger is pulled. And fingers don't belong anyway near it until it's aimed at an intended target, and you're ready to fire. If that means one has to duct-tape the trigger to the triggerguard in case one fails to remember, then be it so...

 

[Cellar Dweller]

AD/ND while cleaning:
sure is hard to clean with a round in the chamber, and you won't get it very clean with the slide in battery, but that is Gaston Glock's fault for designing a gun that needs to be empty before cleaning :banghead:

AD/ND while "waistbanding:"
I am sure that policemen are taught to carry IWB without a holster whenever possible to save money on leather, but is this taught at the academy or is it part of the one-day mandatory training session? And how is that Gaston Glock's fault? :banghead:

AD/ND while cuffing:
Attended a Citizen Police Academy, and learned that my village's officers are taught to cuff when their weapon is holstered while a backup officer keeps the suspect covered at "low-ready"... for your local LEO's YMMV but how is that Gaston Glock's fault? :banghead:

AD/ND while using a DAO without a safety, or a revolver:
Someone should sue Samuel Colt's relatives, as HE didn't design a safety into HIS weapons! :banghead:

Glock manual, page 1, verbatim:
If you don't want the firearm to fire, keep your finger off the trigger