Man shot at Lt. Allen's funeral

[phylodog]

Looking at the pics on the Surefire website with the zoom function it appears that holster covers substantially less of the trigger/guard than the Safariland currently issued to IMPD. The concept isn't necessarily a bad idea but as it sits it is not an improvement as far as safety is concerned.

 

[indiucky]

It's time....

 

[rhino]

Looking at the pics on the Surefire website with the zoom function it appears that holster covers substantially less of the trigger/guard than the Safariland currently issued to IMPD. The concept isn't necessarily a bad idea but as it sits it is not an improvement as far as safety is concerned.

Agreed, but the concept of taking a race holster and adding Level III retention is what is of interest. We can get the trigger guard covered completely if someone puts that in the design specs and still be able to draw the gun. In fact, with training, that kind of holster is likely to be faster for most people.

 

[phylodog]

Agreed, but the concept of taking a race holster and adding Level III retention is what is of interest. We can get the trigger guard covered completely if someone puts that in the design specs and still be able to draw the gun. In fact, with training, that kind of holster is likely to be faster for most people.

I don't have any issue with the concept, if it can be made safe and is faster I'm all for it.

 

[rhino]

I don't have any issue with the concept, if it can be made safe and is faster I'm all for it.

I would be surprised if Safariland doesn't have a few things on the drawing board, especially since Surefire is making holsters now. Safariland is the logical choice since they do both Level III cop holsters that dominate the market and they've been doing race/competition holsters for about as long.

 

[Denny347]

In reality, some increased vigilance is all that really needed to keep this from happening again. Minimize/eliminate items handing off your duty belt or hanging near your handgun.

 

[oldpink]

In reality, some increased vigilance is all that really needed to keep this from happening again. Minimize/eliminate items handing off your duty belt or hanging near your handgun.

What, no Batarang?

 

[hpclayto]

I'm still gonna stick to my 6360 and TRL-1 / X300U. Been serving me well for years.

 

[JAL]

No one said it is acceptable. But it wasn't negligent.

[emphasis mine]

I beg to differ, quite vigorously. In a previous life I personally conducted numerous investigations involving injury or death to determine if there was negligence, and if so, whose negligence, and then the level of negligence. No if's, and's or but's with this incident. It was negligence. The combination of pistol and holster design when used together may be a contributing factor as might the cramped seating. The proximate cause is still negligence. Unless someone else pulled the trigger (becomes their neglignece), or unless there was defective ammunition with primers so unstable they spontaneously ignited (ammo mfr. negligence), or unless there was a latent defect in the pistol undetectable by its user during routine cleaning and maintenance, including a full functional check (Glock's negligence), it was the negligence of the officer whose weapon discharged.

Why?
It's failure to take reasonable care to ensure, under the circumstances, that nothing in the uniform, equipment or chair, or any of the rest of the environment, was going to engage an exposed trigger. He cannot claim that he doesn't know about the combination of holster and pistol and how it exposes the trigger. He cannot claim ignorance that engaging the trigger on a Glock will cause it to discharge as it disengages all its safety mechanisms. He cannot claim the seating circumstances as he should have been more vigilant in preventing unintentional engagement of the trigger, and not BAU (Business As Usual). It's negligence, just like the driver who claims the reason they T-boned another vehicle that had the right-of-way was not seeing the stop sign . . . or the reason they sideswiped a bicyclist in plain view off a paved roadway into a corn field was not seeing him . . . until after the impact with the right side mirror suddenly shattering the passenger window and landing on the passenger seat. All negligence. Every.One.Of.Them.

What the investigation should determine is who was negligent, the level of their negligence -- whether it's (simple) negligence or gross negligence, or if it rises to willful or wanton misconduct, and identifying all the contributing factors leading up to the pistol discharging. It's not an "accident" which requires force majeure, which is commonly known as an Act of God, or sometimes Divine Intervention, or on rare occasion, a Miracle.

Most people, unless they've officially investigated incidents involving injury or death, do not fully understand the concept of negligence. Negligence occurs when an individual does not exercise due care, diligence, or reasonable care or standard care under the circumstances (terminology used varies but they're basically the same) when they have a duty to exercise that care. If the lack of care exercised rises to recklessness, or callous disregard for reasonably foreseeable serious consequences hazarding the safety of others and their property, it becomes gross negligence. Willful and wanton misconduct knowing the consequences will very likely occur, or negligence occurring during the commission of a crime, can rise to being criminal.

Basic Principles of Negligence:

• Duty: pistol user owes a duty of care, by merely possessing it, to ensure it does not discharge (there is no threat)
• Breach of Duty: that duty of care was breached prima facie when the pistol discharged
• Cause in Fact: but for this failure, the pistol wouldn't have discharged and the deputy wounded by the bullet
• Proximate Cause: this failure caused the deputy to be wounded, put a hole in a chair and probably damaged the floor
• Damages: deputy is wounded, along with hole in chair and presumably damage to the floor

One might argue that the combination of pistol and holster are contributing factors, along with being packed in like sardines in narrow chairs. However, under those unusual circumstances the duty of care continues with increased vigilance as the hazard of an unintentional discharge has increased. The holster and pistol combination is nothing new in how it exposes the trigger. The combination of the two together is well-known and as a result, should be well-understood along with its potential hazards. This could result in some shared liability, but given a statement elsewhere in this thread that this is the first such occurrence in eight years of using that combination of pistol and holster, that's extremely weak. The pistol user (owner) cannot claim ignorance about how the combination of the pistol and its holster may present a potential hazard that he has a duty to prevent, and he cannot conceivably claim with any credulity he was not aware of the environment and the increased hazard it presents by encroaching into the space surrounding the pistol, holster and exposed trigger.

The only "outs" that shift the negligence:
(these are the ones I could imagine)

• A latent, hidden defect the pistol user could not have known about or possibly found in caring properly for the pistol that could result in it discharging with simple movement or minor jarring.
• Defective ammunition with primers so unstable they spontaneously ignite in benign environments.
• If it can be shown someone else pulled the trigger (user has a duty to take reasonable care to prevent that too).
• If it can be shown to have resulted from a force majeure.

John

 

[freekforge]

"Indiana state code says an officer must carry his weapon with the safety on and with no round in the barrel. why did this officer have a round in the barrel AND his safety off #hypocrite#policethepolice"

found that piece of awesomeness on the interwebs. I love face book judge judys

 

[phylodog]

[emphasis mine]

I beg to differ, quite vigorously.

Why?
It's failure to take reasonable care to ensure, under the circumstances, that nothing in the uniform, equipment or chair, or any of the rest of the environment, was going to engage an exposed trigger.

I think the definition of the word reasonable must mean different things to different people. Here's what I found and how I interpret the word:

rea·son·a·ble
ˈrēz(ə)nəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: reasonable

• 1.
  (of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.
  "no reasonable person could have objected"
  

  synonyms:

  sensible, rational, logical, fair, fair-minded, just, equitable; Moreintelligent, wise, levelheaded, practical, realistic; sound, reasoned, well reasoned, valid, commonsensical; tenable, plausible, credible, believable "a reasonable man"

  • based on good sense.
    "it seems a reasonable enough request"
  • archaic
    (of a person or animal) able to think, understand, or form judgments by a logical process.
    "man is by nature reasonable"
  
  
  
  
• 2.
  as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.
  "a police officer may use reasonable force to gain entry"
  

  synonyms:

  within reason, practicable, sensible; More

Thank God this country allows for a jury of one's peers. I wouldn't want anyone who had not spent time wearing a police uniform on the jury for the six month discussion on what is or is not reasonable. I can understand how anyone who hasn't would not understand why a police officer would not spend every waking moment of their day concerned that some foreign object might find its way not only into the holster, but inside of the trigger guard of their weapon. Especially when considering the frequency with which this very specific set of circumstances occurs. It's mind boggling that this officer had not checked that nothing had found its way inside of his holster at least three dozen times between the time he sat down and the time he stood up, I mean, how very negligent.

 

[thunderchicken]

"Indiana state code says an officer must carry his weapon with the safety on and with no round in the barrel. why did this officer have a round in the barrel AND his safety off #hypocrite#policethepolice"

found that piece of awesomeness on the interwebs. I love face book judge judys

Can you site the IC. Would kinda like to see that

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Can you site the IC. Would kinda like to see that

It's not there... I think that was his point (referencing the Facebook Judge Judys).

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

[emphasis mine]

I beg to differ, quite vigorously. In a previous life I personally conducted numerous investigations involving injury or death to determine if there was negligence, and if so, whose negligence, and then the level of negligence. No if's, and's or but's with this incident. It was negligence. The combination of pistol and holster design when used together may be a contributing factor as might the cramped seating. The proximate cause is still negligence. Unless someone else pulled the trigger (becomes their neglignece), or unless there was defective ammunition with primers so unstable they spontaneously ignited (ammo mfr. negligence), or unless there was a latent defect in the pistol undetectable by its user during routine cleaning and maintenance, including a full functional check (Glock's negligence), it was the negligence of the officer whose weapon discharged.

Why?
It's failure to take reasonable care to ensure, under the circumstances, that nothing in the uniform, equipment or chair, or any of the rest of the environment, was going to engage an exposed trigger. He cannot claim that he doesn't know about the combination of holster and pistol and how it exposes the trigger. He cannot claim ignorance that engaging the trigger on a Glock will cause it to discharge as it disengages all its safety mechanisms. He cannot claim the seating circumstances as he should have been more vigilant in preventing unintentional engagement of the trigger, and not BAU (Business As Usual). It's negligence, just like the driver who claims the reason they T-boned another vehicle that had the right-of-way was not seeing the stop sign . . . or the reason they sideswiped a bicyclist in plain view off a paved roadway into a corn field was not seeing him . . . until after the impact with the right side mirror suddenly shattering the passenger window and landing on the passenger seat. All negligence. Every.One.Of.Them.

What the investigation should determine is who was negligent, the level of their negligence -- whether it's (simple) negligence or gross negligence, or if it rises to willful or wanton misconduct, and identifying all the contributing factors leading up to the pistol discharging. It's not an "accident" which requires force majeure, which is commonly known as an Act of God, or sometimes Divine Intervention, or on rare occasion, a Miracle.

Most people, unless they've officially investigated incidents involving injury or death, do not fully understand the concept of negligence. Negligence occurs when an individual does not exercise due care, diligence, or reasonable care or standard care under the circumstances (terminology used varies but they're basically the same) when they have a duty to exercise that care. If the lack of care exercised rises to recklessness, or callous disregard for reasonably foreseeable serious consequences hazarding the safety of others and their property, it becomes gross negligence. Willful and wanton misconduct knowing the consequences will very likely occur, or negligence occurring during the commission of a crime, can rise to being criminal.

Basic Principles of Negligence:

• Duty: pistol user owes a duty of care, by merely possessing it, to ensure it does not discharge (there is no threat)
• Breach of Duty: that duty of care was breached prima facie when the pistol discharged
• Cause in Fact: but for this failure, the pistol wouldn't have discharged and the deputy wounded by the bullet
• Proximate Cause: this failure caused the deputy to be wounded, put a hole in a chair and probably damaged the floor
• Damages: deputy is wounded, along with hole in chair and presumably damage to the floor

One might argue that the combination of pistol and holster are contributing factors, along with being packed in like sardines in narrow chairs. However, under those unusual circumstances the duty of care continues with increased vigilance as the hazard of an unintentional discharge has increased. The holster and pistol combination is nothing new in how it exposes the trigger. The combination of the two together is well-known and as a result, should be well-understood along with its potential hazards. This could result in some shared liability, but given a statement elsewhere in this thread that this is the first such occurrence in eight years of using that combination of pistol and holster, that's extremely weak. The pistol user (owner) cannot claim ignorance about how the combination of the pistol and its holster may present a potential hazard that he has a duty to prevent, and he cannot conceivably claim with any credulity he was not aware of the environment and the increased hazard it presents by encroaching into the space surrounding the pistol, holster and exposed trigger.

The only "outs" that shift the negligence:
(these are the ones I could imagine)

• A latent, hidden defect the pistol user could not have known about or possibly found in caring properly for the pistol that could result in it discharging with simple movement or minor jarring.
• Defective ammunition with primers so unstable they spontaneously ignite in benign environments.
• If it can be shown someone else pulled the trigger (user has a duty to take reasonable care to prevent that too).
• If it can be shown to have resulted from a force majeure.

John

You can object vigorously all you want, doesn't affect me none.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

And you obviously know zero about the holster because the trigger isn't exposed.

 

[oldpink]

"Indiana state code says an officer must carry his weapon with the safety on and with no round in the barrel. why did this officer have a round in the barrel AND his safety off #hypocrite#policethepolice"

found that piece of awesomeness on the interwebs. I love face book judge judys

It is so true...I swear to God!
State law!
Shut up, Randy.

[video=youtube;xY86MbxzFzs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY86MbxzFzs[/video]

 

[BehindBlueI's]

[emphasis mine]

I beg to differ, quite vigorously. In a previous life I personally conducted numerous investigations involving injury or death to determine if there was negligence, and if so, whose negligence, and then the level of negligence. No if's, and's or but's with this incident. It was negligence.

Reading your post made me laugh so hard I fell off my chair and hurt my elbow. You are obviously negligent, as you should have known there was a greater than 1 in 1.5 million chance of someone reading your post to laugh to the point of balance loss and hurt themselves. Please supply your full name and address for subpoena service.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It is so true...I swear to God!
State law!
Shut up, Randy.

[video=youtube;xY86MbxzFzs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY86MbxzFzs[/video]

How do you obtain this actual evidence from a typical Lafayette OWS trial in Tippecanoe Superior Court 6?

 

[HoughMade]

Hmmmm...a discussion regarding accident and negligence and the fact that the two may or may not coexist...that I'm not involved in.

Carry on, gents.

 

[rhino]

"Indiana state code says an officer must carry his weapon with the safety on and with no round in the barrel. why did this officer have a round in the barrel AND his safety off #hypocrite#policethepolice"

found that piece of awesomeness on the interwebs. I love face book judge judys

That's hilarious when someone invokes "Indiana state code" and clearly is either fabricating or repeating something they "think they remember hearing or reading somewhere" with no awareness of how stupid they sound or how easy it is to verify.

Did anyone call them out on it?