Thursday, February 25, 2010

Police Trainee Shoots Himself

Ohh Shoot has the story of an interesting accidental shooting.

A Washington state reserve police officer candidate unintentionally shot himself during weapons training at the shooting range. The trainees were practicing pulling their guns from secure holsters.

According to officials, Reserve candidate Hebdon "accidentally lost control of his weapon as he pulled it from his holster. He lost his grip and tried to grab his gun instead of letting it fall and somehow one of his fingers got into the trigger and trigger housing." The weapon, a .45-caliber pistol, fired, and the bullet hit Hebdon in the abdomen before lodging in his right buttock.

Officials said it was an accidental discharge and does not necessarily mean Hebdon will fail the academy. "He's not losing his position but he will definitely be in remedial firearm instruction."
Ohh shoot.

I suppose the fact that this incident will "not necessarily mean Hebdon will fail the academy" will be pleasing to many of our commenters. In the past I've suggested that one accident with a gun disqualifies the person for life. I realize that sounds extreme, but we're not talking about a little mistake here. We're talking about a .45 to the stomach.

What's your opinion? "Zero tolerance" has become so popular in other areas. Why don't we apply it to gun handling? Don't you think that would improve the quality of gun owners in general?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

13 comments:

  1. "What's your opinion? "Zero tolerance" has become so popular in other areas. Why don't we apply it to gun handling?"

    Because just like in all those other areas, zero tolerance = zero sense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And tell me again why police are supposed to be trusted to take loaded guns into Starbucks, while people with unloaded guns can't?

    I'd much rather have one of the California open carry folks sitting next to me than future officer Hebdon. I'd definitely be safer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. MikeB, zero tolerance is only "popular" with government functionaries that cannot think for themselves. It is a absolute failure when common sense is applied.

    AztecRed, don't be silly. Hebron will have a magic talisman that makes him omnipotent in all things gun related. And just think, Hebron will have ammunition which those lowly California open carriers will not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Zero tolerance is just an excuse for people not to think and not to have to make judgment calls. No wonder it's so popular among liberals.

    Also, they characterized this as an "accident." It is a negligent discharge.

    Never try to catch a falling gun. I say that as someone who has dropped a gun before.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "He's not losing his position but he will definitely be in remedial firearm instruction."

    And that is the proper response.

    In my mind, this is probably the most forgivable kind of accidental shooting. It wasn't like he tried to screw up by playing around, or disregarded one of the Four Rules. His gun slipped from his hand as he tried to draw it (or he didn't grip it properly to begin with) and he attempted to grab it as it fell. A big no-no, and this is why. But I really have a hard time faulting the guy for trying to prevent a gun that probably cost $400-500 from hitting the floor.

    As to the Zero Tolerance idiocy, well, FWM and AR summed it up nicely.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mikeb says:

    In the past I've suggested that one accident with a gun disqualifies the person for life. I realize that sounds extreme . . .

    "Sounds extreme" almost describes it--you just forgot to add on the "ly stupid" at the end.

    So, Mikeb, I take it that your position is that the only people who should be "allowed" to possess lifesaving firepower are those who never make mistakes.

    Since everyone makes mistakes, guns should be banned for everyone, right?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Actually, FWM, zero tolerance is an accepted policy in many lines of work, including military service.

    When risk is high--zero tolerance is really what you want. After all, you probably want your heart surgeon not to drink a bottle of gin before your surgery. The military has a zero tolerance policy WRT drugs because we understand our servicemen risk their lives and those of their comrades daily.

    This really highlights the gunloon way of thinking. The gunloon sees zero tolerance as bad because it requires the two things gunloons loathe: accountability and discipline.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  8. "...zero tolerance is an accepted policy in many lines of work, including military service. When risk is high--zero tolerance is really what you want."

    People in the military have to make judgment calls all the time, even in high risk situations.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Zorro, Let's look at it this way. You've got a huge pool of gun owners, tens of millions. If we were to remove every one who'd ever had an unintentional or accidental or negligent discharge, what would happen to the quality of the pool? What about the total numbers?

    That's what I'm talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Zorro, Let's look at it this way. You've got a huge pool of gun owners, tens of millions. If we were to remove every one who'd ever had an unintentional or accidental or negligent discharge, what would happen to the quality of the pool? What about the total numbers?

    That's what I'm talking about."


    You are talking about a very few out of so many. As a percentage of gun owners, those that have experienced negligent discharges are thankfully a very small minority.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The military has a zero tolerance policy WRT drugs..."

    hahahahahahah

    I guess that's why the tunnel rats in Vietnam had daily rations of heroin dispensed by their commanding officer.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mikeb says:

    If we were to remove every one who'd ever had an unintentional or accidental or negligent discharge, what would happen to the quality of the pool? What about the total numbers?

    By that "logic," if everyone who has ever said anything stupid, or mean, or that "Sarah Brady is actually kinda cute from some angles," had their vocal cords removed, the quality of dialogue would probably be increased.

    We don't do that, though, because it would be blatantly immoral and unconstitutional--just like your "plan."

    ReplyDelete
  13. JadeGold,

    I understand your point about ZT as a policy. I remember hearing a news story one night after a plane crash due to pilot error. The spokesman for the company made a comment about trying to reduce accidents by twenty percent (or some figure thereabouts). I turned to my wife and asked, 'Shouldn't the goal be to reduce accidents to zero? I mean, I realize that it may not be possible, but shouldn't that be the goal?'

    That said, the enforced ZT policy may be in place in lots of places, but if often fails to take into consideration that human beings sometimes blunder. Can you honestly say that you have never made a mistake (at anything)? Obviously, some mistakes are worse than others, but the point remains that with "zero tolerance" that any mistake, no matter how small, is a foul.

    As far as a ZT policy with respect to drugs, that's a lot more reasonable, as taking drugs is a choice. You can't accidentally light a bong and inhale. That's a choice. You can't accidentally drink four bottles of beer when you are not supposed to touch it at all. That's a choice.

    Zero tolerance applied to choices is a lot different than zero tolerance applied to mistakes or accidents.

    Zero Tolerance should be a personally applied philosophy, not an enforced policy. It's okay for me to hold myself to that kind of standard with respect to some aspect of my life. It is not okay for the government or some bureaucratic functionary to hold me to that standard. That isn't their responsibility. It's mine, and the responsibility for failure is mine, and no one else's.

    Really, just how many gun owners do you personally know? The reason I ask is, you throw the insults at gun owners like a monkey at the zoo throwing his feces: at everyone with equal disregard for all.

    I know hundreds of gun owners (no exaggeration, HUNDREDS, as in more than 200, a lot more). They all practice safe gun handling, and all are what I would describe as both accountable for their actions, and disciplined. I personally know NO ONE that has had a negligent discharge. If your assertion was even halfway reasonable, I should know some.

    Do you have some sort of cite or evidence to back up your claim that gun owners abhor accoutability and discipline, or is it merely thrown feces? Also, how exactly do define accountability and discipline? Can you provide examples of what you consider "accountability and discipline" to be?

    ReplyDelete