TexasCHLforum.com

IMO any officer who has an incident like this should be taken off duty and sent to the range for a week of safety training. Drill it into them until they get it right. FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNLESS YOU INTEND TO SHOOT! Until he could prove he can handle a firearm safely, he should not be reinstated to duty. This should be standard practice in every police department in the nation. If you say you can't afford the loss of manpower, you can't afford not to have fully trained, safety aware, competent officers in the field. They're a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Lots of speculation e.g. level of sobriety, showing off, story-telling after the fact, etc, but just watching what is in the video, I think it could be something more mundane -- he perhaps just got complacent, and didn't devote enough attention to what he was doing. He comes in with stuff balanced in one hand, you can see him talking to his wife, then fumbling, and just as he starts to actually pay attention to his gun - boom.

I suspect he has made this transfer from holster to pocket more than a few times in the past (having handgun in your hand in your pocket is advantageous if you are traveling thru known bandit country), it became something akin to a habit, and he stopped paying genuine, conscious attention to his gun handling. It is my observation that inadvertent discharges (and many other accidents) happen because one is not paying direct attention to what one is doing, whether driving or gun-handling. It is easy to run on autopilot and become lax in execution when you have done the same thing so many times. The four rules don't address the cause of unintended discharges, they just try to interrupt the chain from the root cause to an unintended and unhappy consequence.

When commenting on such events, I try to keep in mind an excellent observation on the law from a certain retired attorney:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=70930&p=884034&hili ... ce#p884017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder if he knows "Tex Grebner"?

Jumping Frog wrote:Keeping in mind that Ohio is an open carry state and holding a handgun down by your side while walking to your car is perfectly legal, ...

Whaaat? Really?

Beiruty wrote:I think he was drunk as he seemed having trouble putting the pistol in his pocket. I just wonder by he had to unholster his pistol

Why take it out in the first place. Finger on the trigger. Muzzling himself. It's a wonder it took this long for this to happen, at least he didn't shoot his wife.

C-dub wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Keeping in mind that Ohio is an open carry state and holding a handgun down by your side while walking to your car is perfectly legal, ...

Whaaat? Really?

Yeah, is there a question here?

I should also mention that it does not require a license to open carry.

Jumping Frog wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Keeping in mind that Ohio is an open carry state and holding a handgun down by your side while walking to your car is perfectly legal, ...

Whaaat? Really?

Yeah, is there a question here?

I should also mention that it does not require a license to open carry.

I'm shocked about being able to just carry it around in your hand.

Point it at a person (or even threaten with it) and it is aggravated menacing (unless use of deadly force is justified).

Walking across a parking lot at night with a gun in hand down by your side would be perfectly legal. Now, walking through a crowd of people in a mall with gun in hand would definitely provoke a MWAG call. The police would try to turn that into a charge like inducing panic or disturbing the peace. That would be a poor behavior choice that results in a "ride vs rap" scenario.

Jumping Frog wrote:Point it at a person (or even threaten with it) and it is aggravated menacing (unless use of deadly force is justified).

Walking across a parking lot at night with a gun in hand down by your side would be perfectly legal. Now, walking through a crowd of people in a mall with gun in hand would definitely provoke a MWAG call. The police would try to turn that into a charge like inducing panic or disturbing the peace. That would be a poor behavior choice that results in a "ride vs rap" scenario.

Well, I wouldn't call that "perfectly legal". More like pushing the limits. You are fine in the right circumstances.

MechAg94 wrote:Well, I wouldn't call that "perfectly legal". More like pushing the limits. You are fine in the right circumstances.

Well, it is perfectly legal: an inducing panic or disturbing the peace charge would not hold up at trial because the elements of the (Ohio statute) crime are not there. I am simply pointing out that if done in a crowded shopping mall, it would be poor judgment. There are lots of things that are perfectly legal but not a good idea.

Jumping Frog wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:Well, I wouldn't call that "perfectly legal". More like pushing the limits. You are fine in the right circumstances.

There are lots of things that are perfectly legal but not a good idea.

Marriage?