Deputy accidentally shot while changing in jail locker room

[Grapeshot]

Should the circumstances of this deputy shooting herself prove to be other than I've stated, I'll eat my virtual hat. And, why are we likely to hear more about the specifics of this event? I certainly would not expect any more information from the press.

Yet you base all of your statements/suppositions from the same source = the press. Generally such information does filter to us from a variety of sources. We shall see.

We do not dance of the misfortunes of others here. I've found that there are lessons to be shared w/o placing anyone on a stool in the corner. Public ridicule ill becomes us.

 

[BillB]

Yet you base all of your statements/suppositions from the same source = the press. Generally such information does filter to us from a variety of sources. We shall see.

We do not dance of the misfortunes of others here. I've found that there are lessons to be shared w/o placing anyone on a stool in the corner. Public ridicule ill becomes us.

We gun owners can not afford to stand idly by as members of our ranks act irresponsibly and continue to have negligent discharges resulting in people being shot. The negative press that results from these events does irreparable harm to our collective public perception as responsible people. We need to police our own ranks if we are to continue maintain our right to carry and this means we cannot continue to tolerate incidents such as this one. Shooting yourself or someone else unintentionally is simply an unacceptable and nearly always a preventable, negligent act. We should not and can not continue to tolerate these acts in the numbers that they are occurring today if we are to convince the public and our legislators that carrying handguns in public places is not an unacceptable danger to the public. When a negligent discharge involves a trained LEO or a firearms instructor, as it far too often does, the act is especially intolerable.

 

[Grapeshot]

We gun owners can not afford to stand idly by as members of our ranks act irresponsibly and continue to have negligent discharges resulting in people being shot. The negative press that results from these events does irreparable harm to our collective public perception as responsible people. We need to police our own ranks if we are to continue maintain our right to carry and this means we cannot continue to tolerate incidents such as this one. Shooting yourself or someone else unintentionally is simply an unacceptable and nearly always a preventable, negligent act. We should not and can not continue to tolerate these acts in the numbers that they are occurring today if we are to convince the public and our legislators that carrying handguns in public places is not an unacceptable danger to the public. When a negligent discharge involves a trained LEO or a firearms instructor, as it far too often does, the act is especially intolerable.

We are not "idle." We do however deal in facts not supposition. As to "irreparable harm", I think not - it is far too easy to show the ridiculously low percentage of responsible people that make such mistakes. People not being perfect or infallible, some will make mistakes, it will happen. We will respond to each situation individually - the is no avalanche or tidal wave as you suggest. Your post is going to the extreme and not particularly appropriate here IMO. You have gone from one incident to painting this as an epidemic - that is a method usually reserved for those that oppose us.

We expose the intentional misconduct and look to prevent repeats. We discuss and analyze the errors of others and apply the lessons learned. We educate to prevent occurrence of these. We neither persecute nor prosecute any group - in fact that is a direct violation of OCDO rules.

Better to take a deep breath and point such energy where it can have positive benefit - get involved in an organization like VCDL, participate in talking to your legislators, make a difference, rather than tell us what we should or must do. Others have been there before you and learned a lot along the way. We lobby for changes in the laws to remove special classes of people and afford equal treatment of all. We work within the system.

 

[mk4]

^^^
well said, Sir.

 

[Sheriff]

The Albemarle County Police has had two cops shoot themselves at the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Range. One was a few years ago, an instructor shot himself in the leg. And more recently another cop shot himself in the hand. These are very scary guys to be around while handling guns. It seems like the range is trying to force them out now. The third accidental shooting, when it happens, might be a range member next time.

 

[BillB]

I don't buy the argument that negligent discharges are merely a cost of doing business (business in this case being the owning, carrying and using of handguns). Negligent discharges are unacceptable events and they are preventable. They are not caused by faulty guns, ammunition or equipment except in the very rarest of cases. Negligent discharges are caused by people improperly handling firearms in an unsafe manner and they are further defined as occurring when a person knew how to properly and safely handle a firearm, but failed to do so. When a negligent discharge results in someone being shot, it is frequently a media event that taints all of us gun owners. We can put our heads in the sand say; well, accidents happen. Or, we can collectively get tough on people who handle guns unsafely and not tolerate unsafe gun handling in our presence. It also means that trained people who have negligent discharges get publicly called out and appropriately censured for their careless and irresponsible gun handling. I maintain that if we gun owners at large fail to do this, we put our collective right to bear arms in jeopardy.

 

[Red Dawg]

My .02

Let's be honest, when you do something day in day out you become complacent with proper safety. The firwst few times you do an act that is potentially dangerous, you are very cautious, and are overly safe. When it happens day in day out, the safety becomes secondary, and almost muscle memory takes over. Even in the woods unloading your rifle. Come on, we all have done it, if you have been using the same rifle for 25 years, you can "run it" in yur sleep. Nothing surprises you with it, right? With the amount of time this deputy has on the job, and handling the firearm at a minimum of twice a day. Putting it on, taking it off, she got too comfortable. Her mind was on the interview, not with safety. The point I'm making is, you have to have your head in the game at all times. Complacency is what i would be sure caused this "oops". No matter there were things that all lined up to cause this, and if only one thing changed the chain, this may not have happened. Whether it was poor hand placement, faulty holster, whatever, if they were paying proper attention, it wouldn't have happened.
Just my take.

 

[Old Virginia Joe]

Yes, no and sometimes.

. . . . . I carry one when I don't want to cause a scene with a revolver.

Peter Nap---please clarify what you mean by this---thanks.

OVJ

 

[TFred]

Peter Nap---please clarify what you mean by this---thanks.

OVJ

It's an "inside joke", or in this case, more accurately described as a "regular readers joke". You've obviously never seen a picture of Peter Nap's revolver. Perhaps he will post one, it would probably take quite a while to stumble across one reading old threads.

TFred

 

[builtjeep]

Peter Nap---please clarify what you mean by this---thanks.

OVJ

Have you seen some of the revolvers peter tends to carry? hehe

Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk

 

[ProShooter]

It's an "inside joke", or in this case, more accurately described as a "regular readers joke". You've obviously never seen a picture of Peter Nap's revolver. Perhaps he will post one, it would probably take quite a while to stumble across one reading old threads.

TFred

 

[45acpForMe]

My heartburn with this ND is that because she is an LEO she may not face any legal issues. (in the line of duty???)

If I had a ND and shot myself, I am sure that the local LEO would add insult to injury by charging me with as many charges that they could muster. Shooting within x distance of a road, discharging a firearm withing x distance of an occupied dwelling etc etc etc. I haven't researched all the different possibilities but if any of them were a felony one could lose their rights to own a gun period.

While I pity the woman for suffering a gunshot wound, and a longterm stain on her record professionally I don't like being treated like a second class citizen compared to LEO.

 

[BillB]

[video=youtube;0uytPO0UaDM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uytPO0UaDM[/video]

 

[Red Dawg]

Excellent vid Bill. Funny thing, dude's right as rain, and I've heard that same speach since I was a baby, and still learning what a gun is. Why can't anyone understand that though...

 

[peter nap]

The specific details in this situation, if weapon malfunction is eliminated, do not matter. ND are 100% preventable. We are not discussing a car wreck, snowboard accident, or any other number of 'dangerous' acts, we are discussing a ND, by a LEO. No excuses, no compromise.

I've got darn near 40 years (20 in the military) of handling firearms and not once did I have a ND. If you 'handle' as part of your job, then the consequences must be immediate and severe within the confines of the law/regulations. If it happens on your own time the consequences should be just as immediate and severe.

As to all of you that pull the 'Mr. Perfect' line of thinking crap. Where firearms are concerned I am Mr. Perfect. Maybe something less than being Mr. Perfect is acceptable to some, but not to me.

Mr Perfect
Damn, I had to read that again

 

[va_tazdad]

It's an "inside joke", or in this case, more accurately described as a "regular readers joke". You've obviously never seen a picture of Peter Nap's revolver. Perhaps he will post one, it would probably take quite a while to stumble across one reading old threads.

TFred

LOL I've seen artillery pieces issued by the army smaller than Peter's guns.

He is a firm believer in stopping power! Goes along with his horse Zeus. ;>)

 

[TFred]

Apparently Clint Smith thinks I'm an idiot.

I can't stand rules that are not 100% consistent. Even though it is widely used, his Rule #1, "All guns are always loaded," is a non-starter for me.

How does Mr. Smith ever clean his guns? How does he ever pack his guns for interstate travel? How does he go to a range that ever calls "all clear?" What happens when Mr. Smith shoots 6 rounds out of his revolver, or empties his magazine? Does he have a magic gun that has had its ammo supply blessed to fill the 12 baskets - it never runs out?

Obviously - OBVIOUSLY: "All guns are always loaded" can never be always true.

RULES WITH EXCEPTIONS get people KILLED. Because you have to REMEMBER the exceptions.

Why not make a rule that is ALWAYS TRUE? No exceptions to remember.

"EVERY TIME you touch a gun, assume it is loaded until you KNOW it is not."

A few words longer. But TRUE EVERY TIME. Nothing that is not part of the rule to remember.

My pet peeve and soap box.

TFred <== "Clint Smith Idiot", and in this case, very proud of it.

 

[45acpForMe]

I think you miss the point.

You treat every gun with respect as if it is loaded.

Obviously you will need to clean and reload it but you still don't point it at a person since you know it is unloaded.

When I dry fire my guns (not often) I am still pointing it in a safe direction as if it were loaded.

Too many people have died (or committed suicide) thinking their gun wasn't loaded. If they followed the always loaded rule they wouldn't have committed the stupidity they did! Stupid is as stupid does but stupid can still hurt.

 

[TFred]

I think you miss the point.

You treat every gun with respect as if it is loaded.

Obviously you will need to clean and reload it but you still don't point it at a person since you know it is unloaded.

When I dry fire my guns (not often) I am still pointing it in a safe direction as if it were loaded.

Too many people have died (or committed suicide) thinking their gun wasn't loaded. If they followed the always loaded rule they wouldn't have committed the stupidity they did! Stupid is as stupid does but stupid can still hurt.

No, my point is that a rule that elicits a first response of "that simply cannot be true" is bad.

I have no problem with handling a gun as if it were loaded, but I would prefer we classify that under a muzzle control rule, rather than a loaded-unloaded rule.

There is enough illogical thinking in this world: listen to any anti-gun poster child. We don't need our own safety rules contributing to it.

I understand your point, but I will simply never support a rule that is logically fallacious or inconsistent. Bad rules, bad laws, you just can't "assume" people will do what you mean, and not what you say. You have to say it right.

TFred

 

[Grapeshot]

The cardinal rule that I originally learned and still teach is "Treat every gun as if it were loaded...ALWAYS."

Never had a problem with that wording or the application thereof.