The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 13, 2011, 02:06 PM   #51
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I have dropped a gun once, and barely overcame the urge to catch it.

When I was younger, while quartering an orange with a Chicago Cutlery knife, I dropped the orange. On pure reflex, I caught it. Knife was still in the orange. Slashed up my left thumb pretty nicely.

Point being, reflex often kicks in and has us do things we would not do, if given a moment to reflect. Thinking about the problem ahead of time can help pre-condition against reflex.

That said, I have been shooting for thirty years or so, including military training; yet I don't think an instructor ever mentioned not catching a dropped gun until fairly recently.

I still think too many people want to make crimes of what more reasonable people would use as teachable moments.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 02:24 PM   #52
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 470
Quote:
I still think too many people want to make crimes of what more reasonable people would use as teachable moments.
The sinking of the Titanic provided a teachable moment for the entire industry. That does not justify the recklessness of many of the decisions leading to the disaster, or the loss of life and property.

I think reasonable men can disagree. It does not necessarily mean I'm less reasonable than you because we disagree on this issue.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 02:35 PM   #53
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
So, K_Mac, is it reasonable to assume you think all hunting accidents that result in injury should be criminally charged? All traffic accidents? All boating accidents? If not, what is your cutoff for criminal vs civil liability?
MLeake is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 03:40 PM   #54
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,295
Its a chance you take carrying a pistol with a round in the chamber. If he didn't we would not be having this discussion.

The problem is there was a complaint made the police have to follow it up i would think end expect an experienced police officer to know better than to carry a loaded firearm and not have it in a holster. Before having to much sympathy for the officer if you did the same thing he or one of his colleagues could be round arresting you and telling you how stupid you where.
manta49 is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 04:04 PM   #55
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 470
Quote:
So, K_Mac, is it reasonable to assume you think all hunting accidents that result in injury should be criminally charged? All traffic accidents? All boating accidents? If not, what is your cutoff for criminal vs civil liability?
No, that conclusion is not supported by my posts.

I think the question of where the line is drawn is a fair one though. At the end of the day the line is not always clear. You simply cannot use a one size fits all answer to this question. All hunting, or boating, or lawn darts accidents are not criminal, but if someone is killed or injured and you have been reckless in your actions, maybe it is. To use your argument, mens rea is either intent or recklessness. The administration of justice is is not simple or easy. Our system of justice that you find oppressive takes this into consideration.

Back on topic, if this negligent discharge of a weapon in a shopping mall is not 'endangering safety by use of a deadly weapon' what is? Is it right for the government to have laws on the books that protect citizens? Seems like I've read that somewhere...
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 08:49 PM   #56
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Intent or recklessness, great.

Since his intent was not to shoot, now you are left with recklessness. Since there have been many gun owners, over the years, for whom holster-less carry was normal, IMO you can't establish recklessness simply because you (and I) think holster-less is a bad idea. You would need either statute or case law that said such carry met the level required for recklessness, as opposed to simple carelessness. These are not the same.

Some folks have thrown "Plaxico" around. Please bear in mind that Mr. Burress was not licensed to carry in NY. I am not sure if his gun was legally owned in NY. His charges did not directly result from the discharge of the weapon, but from the fact he was carrying it in the first place.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 10:10 PM   #57
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,420
Proper holsters and proper cases** provide the only reasonable way to avoid violating Rule 1 while carrying a loaded gun.

If you're carrying a loaded gun without one then it's virtually impossible not to violate Rule 1.

As far as I'm concerned, the person involved intentionally violated the first rule of gun safety with a loaded gun in a crowded area by carrying it without a proper holster.
**A proper holster/case covers the trigger/triggerguard and makes it totally impossible to fire the gun until it is removed from the holster/case.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 10:11 PM   #58
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 470
Holsterless carry is a bad idea, and when it endangers others it goes beyond that to reckless. You claim carelessness rather than recklessness. We do not need a statute to establish the difference. We need only to look at the cause of the action that put lives at risk. You say that carrying a 'safe action' pistol stuck in your pants is normal because some do it, and it is not specifically prohibited. I say that when you carry a weapon in a reckless manner you assume the risks that go with it.

I once went rabbit hunting with a guy who carried a semi auto shotgun through fields and woods all day without using his safety. At the end of the day, I noticed that long before he shot he had his finger on the trigger and he did not disengage the safety before shooting. When I asked about it, he told me he wanted to be ready to shoot and he never used the safety. What he learned from this opportunity was hunting or shooting with me was no longer an option. It was careless on my part to hunt with someone who did not follow the rules. It was reckless on his part not to. We don't need a law or lawyer to know the difference.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 10:21 PM   #59
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Well, K_Mac, I guess the sergeant will have to hope he draws a jury with at least one person who doesn't see things as you do. I would say his odds are not too bad.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 10:30 PM   #60
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 470
MLeake, it is hard for me to imagine this will come to trial and I think you know that. It is also hard for me to imagine that anyone on a jury could find our Sergeant's actions anything but negligent.

I have beat this horse long enough, any more might be considered recklessness. Peace.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86

Last edited by K_Mac; December 14, 2011 at 06:14 PM.
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 13, 2011, 10:34 PM   #61
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
K_Mac, I could not keep my current job with a misdemeanor firearms conviction. This is why I do not see it as "just a misdemeanor," and why I do not think the sergeant will accept any plea that comes with a conviction.

People seem to think a misdemeanor is only a slap on the wrist. This is not true.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 14, 2011, 02:02 AM   #62
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
Since there have been many gun owners, over the years, for whom holster-less carry was normal, IMO you can't establish recklessness simply because you (and I) think holster-less is a bad idea.
To me, it appears you are trying to take a more general practice that can be done safely or with significantly less risk (carrying a handgun without a holster) and conflate it with a practice that is almost impossible to do safely (carrying a cocked and loaded constant action handgun with no holster or device to block access to the trigger). I don't know if you are doing it intentionally, unintentionally or just don't understand why that is an important difference in this case.

I don't think you'll find that most gun owners regard the holsterless carry of cocked and loaded safe-action pistols as normal. And even if they did, it is still an unsafe practice, regardless of how many people do it. I think JohnKSA outlined why very well.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old December 14, 2011, 03:05 AM   #63
TX_QtPi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2011
Location: TX
Posts: 101
k, been following this one since it started.
I highly doubt the officer went out with the intent of this happening.
Did it happen? Yes. Speculation aside it was negligence on his part.

Having worked in a few DOJ & DOD offices I have met some gun handling cocky LEOs. One got EXTREMELY offended when I asked him not to throw around the bag he had his service weapon in.

He said it was IMPOSSIBLE for it to miss fire. A few weeks later he had a misfire at the range when he "forgot" about the chambered round pulled the clip and dropped the safety on what he thought was an empty weapon.

It's not the exact scenario but JMO, if it's exposed to other things around it (such as in his bag) or out of a holster where it can snag or an accidental trigger pull can occur it's a bad idea.

Not sure who posted earlier but they mentioned a pocket carry which I would say is not as bad, because your pocket "becomes the holster" but like it was also said on here it's too easy to forget about the house key you had in your pocket or to drop that pen in your hand in there along with it...

My basic premise is, carrying with out a holster (especially if it's a trigger action safety or no safety set up) is a lot like screwing without a condom, sure it feels good, but it is careless and you better be able to deal with the consequences....
__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
TX_QtPi is offline  
Old December 14, 2011, 09:30 AM   #64
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Again, there is basic negligence and there is criminal negligence. You want to talk conflation...

Meanwhile, bearing in mind that many cops are not gun guys, how many of us grew up watching Magnum PI rack his 1911, then tuck it in the back of his waistband?

I stopped carrying a 1911 in one shoulder holster I had, because I found that the thumb safety would get clicked off sometimes during carry. Yet some posters to this thread seem to think a 1911 is ok for Mexican carry.

Pocket carry, meanwhile, could be pants or coat. It can allow for dropping of the weapon, and foreign object intrusion.

Meanwhile, JohnKSA says a holster must guard the trigger. Yet a lot of revolver guys use Threepersons type holsters, that wholly expose the trigger. And DeSantis just introduced a pocket holster that leaves a hole over the trigger guard, and another over the grip, so the gun can be shot from the pocket...

Make the guy pay for the floor. Make the guy pay for the woman's doctor visit. Slap him with a fine, pull his gun privileges pending remedial training, and put a note in his file at the department. That is all fine. Why, exactly, do we need to give the guy a criminal record?

Edit: this would be a great opportunity for the department to put out an order that all handguns shall be carried in some kind of holster, if they already haven't; for Wisconsin to stipulate holsters for CCW, if it hasn't; and for the sergeant to be assigned to give lectures about not being a bonehead. Those are all more appropriate than criminal action.

Last edited by MLeake; December 14, 2011 at 09:39 AM.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 14, 2011, 10:21 AM   #65
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,903
Quote:
Why, exactly, do we need to give the guy a criminal record?
Go back and look at the local prosecution records: if Joe Sixpack gets charged for a public ND, then Officer Sixpack should be charged also.

If, OTH, Joe Sixpack get scolded to not do it again, then the same goes for Officer Sixpack.

What is Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 14, 2011, 10:29 AM   #66
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Wisconsin just passed concealed carry this year. From what I understand, people generally did not make much use of open carry. IE there probably isn't much precedent. I do agree there should not be a double standard, but I would have the same opinion if the bonehead had been a civilian CCW.
MLeake is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10143 seconds with 7 queries