Quote:
The dept. is going to be held accountable legally and in a civil trial if an officer is involved in a shooting, on duty or off duty. If a cop shoots, you can bet a lawyer is going to try to find a way to prove he acted irresponsibly. The department he works for will have to prove that he was using an approved weapon that he was properly trained to use.
Using an unapproved gun that there is no documentation that you have been properly trained on opens your employer up to lawsuits. Using a gun off duty not approved by your dept is already a huge point proving you are a rogue cop and capable of irresponsible decisions.
Requiring all officers to use the same gun simplifies the training and documentation process tremendously. It is a CYA thing for LE departments.
|
this is completely irrelevent in a court. most civilians, including lawyers, do not realize that there is a difference between one gun and another. training with one gun= training with all guns. I read a story about a kid that got into a shooting just outside of his navy base and in court the lawyer tried saying that because of his military training he was automatically a lethal killing machine regardless of what weapon he used.
navy does not teach hand to hand, or rifle skills as basic training and qualification with the M9 is not a requirement to pass basic. by comparison there is no lawyer alive that is going to say that you killing a man with a fn browning hi power is any different than gunning him down with a dept approved glock.