Cop’s AR-15 Dust Cover Inscription Used Against Him in Court

[Kutnupe14]

Guy was on his hands and knees and unarmed? I think the dust cover is the least of his worries. Prosecutor is just attempting to paint a picture of mindset.

 

[ajeandy]

Guy was on his hands and knees and unarmed? I think the dust cover is the least of his worries. Prosecutor is just attempting to paint a picture of mindset.

Yeah...if everything in the article is true then, this officer got a little jumpy and ended someone's life without seeing a weapon. If the call said a rifle was in the window then maybe he assumed the guy had a handgun too? I mean did he even know if he was in the right room or not if he didn't see any weapons

 

[ScouT6a]

The inside of the dust cover on my 5.56 upper is inscribed, "Don't run, you'll only die tired"
I find it amusing, myself. It's not going anywhere, but then again, I don't plan on shooting any unarmed people who are on their hands and knees, either. So.....

 

[Joniki]

Who needs a dust cover?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It's a bond hearing. All kinds of crap gets thrown up (I had a prosecutor bring up a late parking ticket in Chicago once, I nearly went though the ceiling). The rules of evidence are more open than a trial.

 

[HoughMade]

...(I had a prosecutor bring up a late parking ticket in Chicago once, I nearly went though the ceiling)...

Pffft. I use it to argue my guy isn't a flight risk. He not going anywhere, in fact he sticks around too long.

 

[Snipercop]

The officer should have thought better of the decision reference the dust cover - period. Secondly, the media has a way of twisting things around to make a story more appealing to the readers and their ratings. Probably shouldn't rush to believe everything you read in/on the media. Often the media's "facts" are gathered from friends or bystanders near the scene that don't especially care for the police or the residents in the areas in which they live. They may or may have not witnessed the incident but it's put into print. Either way, it's an unfortunate situation for both parties.

 

[PaulF]

Customizing duty gear leaves me feeling a little...uneasy.

I want my police to properly armed, and I want their department to arm them properly. It is my belief that the department should issue the officer a high-quality, fully-functioning patrol weapon that does not require any immediate service or repair to function flawlessly on patrol...as issued.

I am somewhat uncomfortable with an officer modifying that weapon...it is, after all, perfectly serviceable (or should be, ideally). I am especially uncomfortable with an officer modifying his patrol weapon for purely aesthetic reasons...I do not feel the purpose of a patrol weapon is to make a personal statement.

I am also somewhat uncomfortable with an officer providing his own patrol weapon. A qualified and properly funded department armorer should handle that.

 

[cbhausen]

OK, who can come up with the best dust cover inscription? Within maybe 3 more posts someone will post "BACON!" Come on guys, we're rolling here.

I was going to use "Open for Business". Humorous without being malicious.

 

[amboy49]

Did not see that a grand jury was convened (?). With that being said, I'm not thinking shooting someone 5 times while they are on their hands and knees and without a visible weapon.

 

[Tombs]

It's one thing for a civilian to have that, it's another matter entirely for a person making their paycheck off the tax payers who is expected to uphold some degree of professionalism.

They want to throw a light or a sight on their gun? Sure.

Any personalizations, on the other hand, are absolutely ridiculous for a duty firearm. We don't need gecko45 type mallninjaery with our police's firearms.

 

[hopper68]

I hate to think what they would do to you if you shot someone with a rifle made with your new INGO lower receiver. Can they still draw and quarter you?

Depends on your definition of INGO. Indiscriminately Needlessly Gunningdown Others.

 

[Denny347]

I am also somewhat uncomfortable with an officer providing his own patrol weapon. A qualified and properly funded department armorer should handle that.

Ha...it's either an M16a1 or my own 16 flat top. Nothing wrong with an M16a1 but 16" rifles are so much easier to maneuver and the flat top much better to mount optics.

 

[in625shooter]

Customizing duty gear leaves me feeling a little...uneasy.

I want my police to properly armed, and I want their department to arm them properly. It is my belief that the department should issue the officer a high-quality, fully-functioning patrol weapon that does not require any immediate service or repair to function flawlessly on patrol...as issued.

I am somewhat uncomfortable with an officer modifying that weapon...it is, after all, perfectly serviceable (or should be, ideally). I am especially uncomfortable with an officer modifying his patrol weapon for purely aesthetic reasons...I do not feel the purpose of a patrol weapon is to make a personal statement.

I am also somewhat uncomfortable with an officer providing his own patrol weapon. A qualified and properly funded department armorer should handle that.

MOST "most" departments have strict rules for personally owned but department approved weapons. They must be factory settings on triggers etc and are inspected by department armorors. Departments that don't have those rules buy allow personally purchased firearms often require thes rules after something like the Arizonia case makes them look bad in the press.

I don't have an issue with it but I do have an issue when they are altered outside factory specs with lightened triggers, springs etc. Maybe its the instructor in me.

 

[Jludo]

It's one thing for a civilian to have that, it's another matter entirely for a person making their paycheck off the tax payers who is expected to uphold some degree of professionalism.

They want to throw a light or a sight on their gun? Sure.

Any personalizations, on the other hand, are absolutely ridiculous for a duty firearm. We don't need gecko45 type mallninjaery with our police's firearms.

I agree with Tombs on something, feels wrong to have that on a police service weapon. I also agree with others posting the 4 rounds into an unarmed man is the bigger headline.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I agree with Tombs on something, feels wrong to have that on a police service weapon. I also agree with others posting the 4 rounds into an unarmed man is the bigger headline.

To over-simply a bit, if it's a good shoot then this will not be an issue. If it's a marginal or bad shoot, this stuff starts to enter into the discussion, could be in the realm of public opinion, could be in a civil suit, etc. Even if it's eventually irrelevant, it's time and money spent to show it's irrelevant and in a civil suit could affect the end pay out or settlement.

I'd leave the pithy saying and fun engravings off my carry guns, if'n it was me, and wouldn't even freaking consider it on a duty gun. The only engravings I can see are department logos, "property of officer xxxx", rack numbers, that sort of thing.

 

[croy]

To over-simply a bit, if it's a good shoot then this will not be an issue. If it's a marginal or bad shoot, this stuff starts to enter into the discussion, could be in the realm of public opinion, could be in a civil suit, etc. Even if it's eventually irrelevant, it's time and money spent to show it's irrelevant and in a civil suit could affect the end pay out or settlement.

I'd leave the pithy saying and fun engravings off my carry guns, if'n it was me, and wouldn't even freaking consider it on a duty gun. The only engravings I can see are department logos, "property of officer xxxx", rack numbers, that sort of thing.

I agree with this. It was a bad shoot. If it was a good shoot this wouldn't even be in the discussion. I only have 1 custom dust cover and it has no sayings. Just a punisher logo and an American flag.

 

[oldpink]

Regardless of the details of whether this was a justified shoot, inscribing a statement that could be construed as representative of the mindset of the person who made the shoot is so stupid that it's almost not worth commenting on it.
It reminds me of all the fancy gedunk that Yankee Marshall insists on putting on his carry sidearms, including "zombie" grips, biohazard logos, or the Punisher skull.
It would be interesting seeing how some hired gun wielding his law school degree would behave if YM ever were involved in a shooting that was in the least questionable.
In short, if you want to dress up your guns, keep it in the category of some nice rosewood stocks or a Cerakote finish.
Leave the "Game Over!" type inscriptions off.
Don't give the bad guy's mouthpiece any ammo, as it were.

 

[Hookeye]

IIRC it was a personal gun, not dept issue.
Wasn't this in AZ?
If so they're just p*ssed it wasn't in spanish.

NO dark humor allowed on defensive guns.

OK

What can we put on offensive weaponry?

The whole thing is stupid. Criminals get shot. Most times because they should.

 

[Destro]

I am also somewhat uncomfortable with an officer providing his own patrol weapon. A qualified and properly funded department armorer should handle that.

I would say a majority of departments dont issue rifles. But then again...most arent properly funded.