TexasCHLforum.com

skeathley wrote:and he is supposed to be a professional.

. . . and there's the rub.

Most LEOs don't use a firearm the way a carpenter uses a hammer. Carrying it around all day doesn't automatically make them experts, yet society seems to automatically ascribe this credential to them. I noticed this when advising somebody on a gun purchase - the recommendation of a LEO holds more weight for many people.

I now use cars as an analogy. LEOs drive cars all day. So do taxi drivers and chauffeurs, but we don't seek any of their advice before buying a used car. . . because using a vehicle as a tool to do your job doesn't make them an expert in the field. Some might be - as in all professions, a percentage of them may have training in a former career or be gear-head hobbyist / shade-tree mechanic, but that's coincidental.

The same goes for LEOs and firearms. Some are hobbyists and experts, many simply carry a gun on their belt and shoot it once per year.

The other factor is that familiarity with something dangerous can lead to complacency.

Either might be in play here.

I can see both sides of this suing issue, but complacency is the leader...

Good thing he didn't shoot anyone else. He swept other customers and employees throughout much of the video.

fickman wrote:

skeathley wrote:and he is supposed to be a professional.

. . . and there's the rub.

Most LEOs don't use a firearm the way a carpenter uses a hammer. Carrying it around all day doesn't automatically make them experts, yet society seems to automatically ascribe this credential to them. I noticed this when advising somebody on a gun purchase - the recommendation of a LEO holds more weight for many people.

When I took my CHL class, I had never shot a handgun. Plenty of rifles and shotguns (and even one 50cal machine gun), and had held a few handguns, but never actually shot one in my life.

Came time to take our shooting test, I was discouraged because my "lane partner" was a deputy sheriff (bailiff), and I knew he was going to make me look bad.

As it turned out, if you drew a circle around my hits, all of his at the same distance would have been outside my circle. And it's not because I'm a great shot (my wife outshoots on accuracy every time we go to the range).

Texsquatch wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:officer is suing gun store.
http://controversialtimes.com/news/2-id ... ger-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Discuss

Sure the guy skipped the safety check, but he's a clear winner in this one. The shop will be found strictly liable since they will deemed to have the highest duty to ensure safety here. Not saying I agree he's not responsible, but just being realistic with how things tend to get settled in this world.

He'll get a handsome settlement for the little pinky. I almost lost a pinky the day after Christmas, but that ended up costing me money. Wish I could collect on it, but I guess you can't sue yourself.

Yep, I would be very very surprised if he doesn't win the lawsuit. He is at least as guilty, though and it is a minor miracle he didn't shoot one of the other customers.

I think he should win his case because the clerk should have safety checked the firearm. I don't think he should receive compensation because he did not safety check the firearm and due to the handling as seen in the vidio. He actually jacked the cartridge into the firing position.

AndyC wrote:

fickman wrote:

skeathley wrote:and he is supposed to be a professional.

. . . and there's the rub.

Most LEOs don't use a firearm the way a carpenter uses a hammer. Carrying it around all day doesn't automatically make them experts, yet society seems to automatically ascribe this credential to them. I noticed this when advising somebody on a gun purchase - the recommendation of a LEO holds more weight for many people.

I now use cars as an analogy. LEOs drive cars all day. So do taxi drivers and chauffeurs, but we don't seek any of their advice before buying a used car. . . because using a vehicle as a tool to do your job doesn't make them an expert in the field. Some might be - as in all professions, a percentage of them may have training in a former career or be gear-head hobbyist / shade-tree mechanic, but that's coincidental.

The same goes for LEOs and firearms. Some are hobbyists and experts, many simply carry a gun on their belt and shoot it once per year.

The other factor is that familiarity with something dangerous can lead to complacency.

Either might be in play here.

That's the (deliberate) subtlety in my sig-line. One feller here said he laughed every time he reads my sig-line; that tickled the heck out of me because that little saying in NO way implies that someone is automatically a professional gun-handler simply because of their profession, be it soldier, cop or whatever.

Nope - it's referring to one's professionalism in gun-handling, pure and simple. I've seen stay-at-home moms handle firearms safer and hence more professionally than many soldiers. You go through your safety-checks religiously, you're a pro in my eyes (and if you're careless, you're an amateur), regardless of your profession - but I guess some folks just don't get it

I'll have you know I still giggle when I read your sig line,, though after you explained what you meant by it, I agreed with the thought.

Dave2 wrote:

AndyC wrote:

fickman wrote:Keep a healthy fear and never grow complacent. If you're sure you just checked it, you might as well check it again. Then one more time.

If somebody else checked it, it hasn't been checked.

If you ever see me check a firearm, you'll see me rack it 2 or 3 times AND peer into the chamber - a broken extractor helped cause an ND for a buddy of mine overseas who just racked it without visually checking. Thanks to the busted extractor, the shell that was in the chamber wasn't extracted/ejected, so... BOOM.

On every centerfire pistol I own, when the slide's back you can also manage to sight through the gaps between the slide and frame and through barrel to see if there are any obstructions.

I don't think that trick works on my .22, though. Come to think of it, I think it relies on the barrel camming down to get the angle right, so it probably wouldn't work on any straight blow-back designs, regardless of caliber or cartridge type.

What we need is for someone to invent a transparent stainless steel (or something else tough enough for barrel use), so that we can just look and see if it's loaded without manipulating anything at all (and without having any "LCI" mechanisms to fail).

I am not arguing against press-checking or tactile confirmation, but your last sentence elicits a reply......

My M&P45 and Springfield 1911 both a hole at the top rear edge of the barrel hood, which makes the cartridge case visible without pulling back the slide. Granted, you need enough light to see by, but if you can't see, should you be shooting? Pic of M&P and 1911 below:


(Yes, that is my brand new SCAR in the background )

The thing is though....and I can provide pics if someone wants to see them...the Kahr and Glock pistols with a tactile loaded chamber indicator would, by definition, be inoperable if the LCI had failed, because the indicator is integral with the extractor. If there is cartridge chambered, the extractor position would dictate that the indicator would be standing proud of the slide......even if the extractor claw was broken.....as long as the slide is all the way into battery. The extractor would have to actually be missing or destroyed for the indicator to not be usable, and if that is the case, you've got bigger issues.

And both the XDm and XDs have an LCI built into the slide top which is VERY effective, in no small part because A) it can't fail to stand proud if the round is chambered, and B) because it juts up quite tall, making it easy to feel, even in the dark and with gloves on. The only way that indicator is not working is if it has been blown clean out of the slide somehow. And if that happened, there would be an obvious rectangular hole in the top rear of the barrel hood, through which you could easily visualize the cartridge rim.....possibly a large enough hole to be dangerous.

I'm not saying that a visual isn't a good idea, but I am saying that, for the most part, LCI's are not a bad idea, and they are a good adjunct to safety.

My SA XD-M has a 'bullet in chamber' indicator - I forget the technical term. It's a piece of metal that rises out of the slide when a round is chambered.

I still check it every time I touch it, even when I know it's loaded from being in the bedside safe and it's going into my IWB holster for the day.


Both parties are pretty silly here, but to me, the LEO is the one who pulled the trigger without checking (and racking the slide, and pointing the damn thing all over the place). IMO he's at fault, and the store is needing some reviews of safety procedures.

In a later report on this it was stated that
the pistol involved here was a Sig Sauer Copperhead.

Is that accurate? That model of a Sig was unknown to me.

SIA

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:In a later report on this it was stated that
the pistol involved here was a Sig Sauer Copperhead.

Is that accurate? That model of a Sig was unknown to me.

SIA

http://www.cabelas.com/product/Sig-Saue ... 866691.uts

That copperhead struck and bit him on the finger.

It only takes microseconds of inattention to cause tragedy.

I notice the officer opens the slide, but probably can't see into the chamber. Most interestingly, the slide doesn't lock back. It looks like the slide is moved sufficiently rearward to at least start to eject a loaded round into the officer's hand, but he doesn't seem to come up with any ammo in his hand.

Maybe a round wasn't chambered initially. Maybe the gun had a loaded magazine inserted under an empty chamber. If so, I think the magazine must have had more than one round loaded. Viewing in grainy full-screen mode, the gun is hard to see on the counter after the officer sets it down - but it doesn't appear to have the slide locked back.

Some versions of the p238 apparently have loaded chamber indicators, but my guess is the chamber was empty and the officer chambered a round himself.

Also interestingly, my wife has a p238. It allows the thumb safety to remain on all the time. He could have racked the slide with the safety on, but he would still have had to release the safety to shoot the gun.

It's hard to blame a wounded person for gun safety infractions, but I also notice the gun was placed on the counter in an abrupt fashion with its muzzle in the general direction of the careless clerk.

So, lessons for me - follow the four big rules, always, in all circumstances. When manipulating the slide on an auto, be cognizant as to whether or not a round spills out of the chamber. If so, all I know is I removed a round that was already there. If the slide doesn't lock back, I might have just replaced the round I ejected with a fresh one.

Or, simpler, have fun being aware of what the gun is doing. The sound, the feel, rounds tumbling out - but do not substitute secondary observations for primary ones, and follow the four big rules, always, in all circumstances. They demand precision.