Kentucky Officer Shoots Off Finger

[madmo44mag]

ALL GUNS ARE LOADED- PERIOD!

I don’t care if they are in pieces on a bench.
Too many times your see stories like this.
Simple rule of all guns are loaded at all times is the rule to LIVE by.

[tallball]

I am a public schoolteacher. I showed this video to all of my students today and explained the rules of safety. It is a very important educational video!

[Skans]

ALL GUNS ARE LOADED- PERIOD! I don’t care if they are in pieces on a bench.

While I agree that all guns should be treated as if they are loaded, I think I will be safe if I don't rack the slide on a gun that is in pieces on my bench before screwing the grips back on. Let's not get silly here.

All guns are not loaded. All guns should be treated as if they are loaded, because you really don't know, and even if you do know (chamber indicator) the guy next to you doesn't know. I don't need to lie to myself (or to others) for safety sake. Just develop a safe handling routine for handling guns. This has worked for me for many many years.

[madmo44mag]

skans - agree but my point is valid.
If your mindset is all guns are loaded regardless of state then you will always treat them as loaded.

[WVsig]

There is enough blame to go around in this case IHMO.

First the gun store has some liability. They handed a customer a gun with at least one round in the magazine. This will be their undoing. If they had practiced proper safety checks and storage this would never have happened period no matter how poorly the GPD Officer handled the firearm.

We unfortunately have all been in gun shops or gun shows were people improperly handled firearms. It happens more often then we the enthusiasts like to admit but if I had to put and estimate on it at least 1 in 10 times I am at a gun shop or show I see someone miss handle a firearm. Sometimes it is the dealer/seller sometimes it is the buyer.

The store made 3 crucial errors IMHO:

1. They did not check the mag to ensure that it was empty before putting it into the case.
2. They did not clear the weapon before they handed it to the customer and they did not check the mag before handing it to the customer.
3. They did not correct the customer when he swept the muzzle past at the person behind the counter, several customers and his own hand.

The store however will some of its negligence mitigated by the officer. He also has a lot of culpability in this event. He made 6 crucial errors IMHO:

1. He accepted the pistol and never checked it to see if it was loaded even though the chamber was closed when he accepted it.
2. He immediately put his finger into the trigger area.
3. He swept the muzzle and pointed it at the person at the counter, 2 other employees of the shop and several other customers.
4. He also covered the muzzle of the gun with his own hand.
5. He racked the slide and did not notice that the slide did not lock back as it should have if the chamber was empty. This IMHO should have been an indicator either something was wrong with the gun or that it had a round in the chamber. At that point he should have dropped the mag and checked the gun.
6. He pulled the trigger while the gun was pointed at his hand and other customers and 2 other employees of the shop.

This is what I noticed having watched the video twice. I am sure there are more problems but I think we all get the drift. I think both parties could have prevent this. I think both parties share the blame. If I had to put a percentage on it I think the shop gets 40% the GPD Officer gets 60%.

Don't bet the farm. I've been in court a few times as an expert* witness and I know that the average juror typically has an IQ that hovers around room temperature. Remember, most -- probably all -- won't be shooters, won't be cops (current or retired), and won't be veterans. They won't know which end of a gun the bullets come out of, and they will have been indoctrinated by the media to believe that cops are the only people in this country who have the necessary training to handle a firearm safely.

The lawyer for the gun shop (probably from its insurance company) may or may not be able to overcome that ignorance and bias by bringing in expert* witnesses to testify regarding the rules of firearms safety, but you can never predict what a jury will "get" from any testimony.

I am not sure where you live but I live in KY not too far from where this occurred. The part in your statement above which I have bolded will not IMHO be the case in rural KY. Many will not have vast experience with handguns but I would wager that most will have experience with rifles, shotguns and general hunting safety. If not in practice in theory.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

In a perfect world, yes, ..... In civil matters, though, he who wants an expert has to hire an expert, and they're not cheap.

Not only that, judges and juries may not wish to be educated, or may think they already know everything about everything. With the "victim" being a cop, a defense attorney has an uphill battle from the outset because of the media and the anti-gun proponents having brainwashed the mass populace to be believe that the police are the only people with sufficient training and experience to be trusted with firearms. That could be a difficult hurdle to overcome, because the case will (or "may") pit the defense expert against the cop, who has already gone on record as saying that he practiced safe firearms handling.

And good luck finding a police expert or trainer who would be willing to cross the thin blue line and testify honestly that the officer did NOT practice safe gun handling.

I don't for a moment excuse the store and the clerk. I think we can all agree that (a) the gun should not have been loaded; and (b) the clerk should have cleared it before handing it to the customer.

But, Murphy's Law is always in effect. Which is why we also [should] always verify for our selves that a firearm is unloaded before we allow ourselves to behave as if it is. Let's look at Cooper's four rules and see how many were violated here:

Rule I: All guns are always loaded Neither the clerk nor the officer behaved as it this gun was loaded. They both believed that it was not and acted accordingly. Violation No. 1a and 1b -- both parties

Rule II: Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy The cop violated this rule multiple times before he put his hand in front of the muzzle and pulled the trigger. He swept the clerk within seconds after being handed the gun. Violation No. 2

Rule III: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target The cop had his finger on the trigger pretty much the entire time he was handling the gun. Violation No. 3

Rule IV: Be sure of your target The cop didn't think he had a target, because he didn't think he had a loaded firearm. But ... he had his finger on the trigger in violation of Rule III, so he should have ensured that the gun was aimed at something he didn't wish to destroy, and that whatever was beyond his immediate vicinity was not in the line of fire.

In short, the cop violated at least three of the four rules, and arguably violated all four.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by WVsig

I am not sure where you live but I live in KY not too far from where this occurred. The part in your statement above which I have bolded will not IMHO be the case in rural KY. Many will not have vast experience with handguns but I would wager that most will have experience with rifles, shotguns and general hunting safety. If not in practice in theory.

But we're talking about courts and juries. Ever been through a jury selection process? The attorneys generally don't want people who have knowledge of the topics at issue in the trial. They want people they think are dumb enough to be persuaded to sell whatever story they're peddling. My guess is that, since it's clear that both sides share culpability, both attorneys will work hard to seat a jury that doesn't include anyone who knows anything about guns.

[Double Naught Spy]

So what you are saying, AB, is that for this case, it would be a jury of their peers!

[WVsig]

But we're talking about courts and juries. Ever been through a jury selection process? The attorneys generally don't want people who have knowledge of the topics at issue in the trial. They want people they think are dumb enough to be persuaded to sell whatever story they're peddling. My guess is that, since it's clear that both sides share culpability, both attorneys will work hard to seat a jury that doesn't include anyone who knows anything about guns.

Yes I have last time I was called I ended up being chosen and was the foreman. The jury was intelligent and thoughtful. I think that your characterizations of juries is not entirely accurate. It was a medical malpractice suit in VA.

[hartcreek]

THe video undoubtably will be introduced as evidence and it speeks for itself as it clearly shows that officer does not know what he is doing.

[Panfisher]

It also very clearly shows the employee handed a customer a loaded gun. Absolutely no way the store comes out of the lawsuit unscathed. I always feel good when I watch the guy behind the counter check and clear the weapon before handing it to me, the he watches me do it, and when I hand it back he clears it again. No comments exchanged just both of us understand that is how it's supposed to happen.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by panfisher

It also very clearly shows the employee handed a customer a loaded gun. Absolutely no way the store comes out of the lawsuit unscathed.

Nor should they. But the cop shouldn't get away with putting 100% of the blame/responsibility on the store. He violated at least three, and arguably all four, of the four rules of firearms safety. He shouldn't be allowed to get a fully-funded retirement program when he is equally responsible for his injury, and the injury is far from "career ending."

[Skans]

But we're talking about courts and juries.

And, I can assure you that NO JURY will ever hear this case. The guy shot his hand - nothing that will be outside of the limits of the store's general liability policy. He'll take what his lawyers can get for him and move on. No cop or ex-cop is going to want to be grilled in public over his ineptness in handling firearms. My guess is that the settlement value of the case is less than $100,000 - $30,000 for medical and $50,000 "fun money".

[Tom Servo]

But the cop shouldn't get away with putting 100% of the blame/responsibility on the store.

I doubt he will. That's where comparative negligence comes into the picture. Blame and responsibility will be spread between the two parties.

[2ndsojourn]

^^^ Yes, Tom. But that only gets consideration if they go all the way with a trial and decision. Not if the case settles before that.

[Kimio]

Fortunate that no one else was injured. The whole incident could have gone way worse in so may ways. I'm reminded of the tragic loss of a young girl would was on a hunting trip with her family. She was apparently shot and killed by a ND from a other family member as she was loading her rifle.

Pointless loss of life.

At any rate, both parties are at fault, but I have a strong feeling, despite the LEO'S ineptitude and foolishness, the courts may favor him since the main question would be why was the handgun loaded with live rounds in the first place.

[lefteye]

The applicable law will certainly be considered in settlement negotiations. Kentucky is a "pure comparative fault" state. Plaintiff’s share of fault will reduce defendant’s liability. K.R.S. § 411.182. The parties may well choose to minimize their costs such as attorneys and court costs by settling the matter.

[Frank Ettin]

These kinds of cases almost always settle, unless one party, or both, are being pigheaded.

It would most likely cost the gun store/its insurer upwards of $100,000 in legal fees to take this through a jury trial. It is a near certainty that the gun store will be found liable. The "wild cards" are the monetary value the jury puts on the plaintiff's injuries and the discount for the plaintiff's comparative fault. And it's real hard to predict either number.

The disposition of this lawsuit is as much an exercise in applied economics as anything else.

[WyMark]

I would think the liability would be 50-50 at best for the officer. Yes, he was handed a gun that had a round in the magazine.

1. He didn't see the clerk clear it.
2. He didn't clear it himself.
3. He racked the slide but didn't look to see if a round was being chambered.
4. He pulled the trigger.
5. His fingers were in front of the muzzle.

The gun store made a mistake. He took their mistake and expanded it exponentially. I don't feel sorry for him and would have a really hard time awarding him damages. Hopefully his lawyers will point this out to him and he'll accept what ever settlement he can get away with.

[Jim Watson]

Fly on the wall stuff.

The cop's lawyers will undoubtedly harp on a gun loaded in the showcase and not checked by the clerk.

The store's lawyers will undoubtedly show the department's safety policy on handling firearms.

Going to be an interesting settlement conference or/and trial.

[Model12Win]

Gross!

You could see the red blood spatter mist when he blew part of his finger off.

Well, play stupid games win stupid prizes. BOTH men in the video screwed up, bad.

[bamaranger]

I follow and understand the "all guns are loaded" rules and ensuing debate.

But, techically anyhow, isn't a firearm with a loaded mag in place, or a loaded magazine, but chamber empty correctly, termed " half loaded"? Not legally, but in shooters jargon?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by bamaranger

But, techically anyhow, isn't a firearm with a loaded mag in place, or a loaded magazine, but chamber empty correctly, termed " half loaded"? Not legally, but in shooters jargon?

"Loaded" or "unloaded" or "half loaded" (isn't the latter sort of like being "a little bit pregnant"?), once the cop racked the slide without first clearing the firearm, it was definitely loaded -- as demonstrated by the fact it fired and amputated his finger. [Disclaimer -- I know the gun didn't fire itself, he pulled the trigger. Not arguing that, only the point of being loaded or ... something else.]

This is not unlike DEA agent Lee Paige, who shot himself in the foot (literally, if you somehow missed all the Youtube videos of the incident) with a Glock that had supposedly been cleared -- but wasn't unloaded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6UvNgbqIA

My view, legalities and legal definitions aside, is that a firearm with a charged magazine in it is "loaded."

[Tom Servo]

Not legally, but in shooters jargon?

There's no need for such qualification. If it's got ammunition in it, it's loaded.

[Skans]

Any gun that has a magazine with even one cartridge in it (mag inserted into firearm) is in my opinion "loaded". Some people choose to carry with a round chambered, others choose to carry without a round in the chamber - either way, the gun is loaded. You wouldn't say that a guy is walking around with an unloaded weapon if he is carrying a Glock 17 with a magazine holding 18 rounds and no round in the chamber.