Lodi police said a young boy caused a SWAT team member’s firearm to discharge during a reading event hosted for children last Saturday. The SWAT member suffered a minor flesh wound and police are continuing to investigate the incident, Lodi Police Capt. Chris Piombo said.
During the Little Buckaroos Reading Round-up event, Officer Robert Rench was helping a boy try on pieces of SWAT team gear, when another young boy approached unnoticed. The boy, who witnesses told police was about 6 years old, reached his finger toward the gun and pulled the trigger, Piombo said.
The Glock handguns that SWAT members carry aren’t equipped with a safety, Piombo said.
“There is nothing we could have done differently,” he said. “It was just an accident. It boggles the mind why a child would do that.”
Lodi police detectives are conducting an investigation and reviewing security footage. Piombo said that because of the child’s age, he wouldn’t face any charges.
“It’s an unfortunate incident,” he said. “We’re thankful none of the community members were hurt and that Robert was alright. I think we all learned something from it.”
What a bunch of double-talking bullshit artists. First they say there was "nothing we could have been done differently," then they say "we all learned something for it."
These are the same Glocks many people carry into Starbucks, right? Pistols with no safety that many gun-rights folks don't like.
What do you think about the statement that it was unavoidable? Wouldn't not having a round in the chamber eliminate this as a possibility? How about the famous situational awareness that all gun owners are so good at?
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Some like them, some don't. Yes, they don't have safeties--hence the importance of holsters that securely cover the entire trigger guard--something you might remember us talking about when we've discussed holsters.
ReplyDeleteWhat truly boggles the mind is that they would do a demonstration with SWAT gear that included loaded weapons--this is a disgrace to the Keystone Cops!
And yet these are the clowns you want to make decisions about which of us get to exercise our rights and which don't? Yeah, I'm sure their decisions will lead to a DRAMATIC improvement in safety!
No, T., these are the guys I want disarmed for life. Decisions about who qualifies for gun ownership and carry privileges would be done by responsible law enforcement people.
DeleteLike the higher ups covering for these screw ups?
DeleteThe others who put those guys in power?
The entire system which you claim covers for all gun owners?
TN, your comment made me think some more with the extra possibilities. When I first read the story I was thinking that Officer Tommie Tactical had some high speed quick draw rig with an exposed trigger and some kid stuck his finger where he shouldn't. That was because a flesh wound was mentioned.
DeleteBut your comment brings up the possibility of them basically letting the kids carry a loaded firearm. I've known many soldiers who would strap their holster on to the front of their body armor. I know my kids have asked to try on mine.
Letting kids wear body armor is one thing, but was the pistol attached? Very bad juju.
Not enough information to know which scenario it was. You may be right about the holster. I didn't think of that possibility, though, because I didn't know some of the tacticool were using holsters that didn't cover the trigger.
DeleteMy hunter safety course told us enough horror stories of triggers getting pulled by branches as shotguns were picked up after taking a dump that I've always been paranoid about branches. As a side effect, I've never given a second look at a rig that didn't cover the trigger, and I guess I was assuming that SWAT guys would be of a similar opinion since they may be going through bushes, over obstacles, getting jumped on by dogs, etc.
Most good holsters are designed to cover the trigger to lessen the chance that the trigger will snag on something. So the gun has to be pulled at least partially out of the holster before the trigger is exposed.
ReplyDeleteRegular police duty holsters will often be designed with features to make it difficult for it to be snatched by a bad guy. I wonder if the officer had some sort of rig with an exposed trigger.
As for having no safety, neither do revolvers, though I've heard Glock triggers are lighter than a double action revolver. In fact some departments have customized their guns to make the trigger pull heavier for liability reasons.
Mikeb, these are the same people you want to execute no-knock warrants to come get our guns.
ReplyDeleteNo, as I explained to T., when he made the same stupid remark, these are the guys I want disarmed for life. You're the one who protects and defends them.
DeleteYes. We're defending them when we say that they're buffoons who should be fired for being a disgrace to the force.
DeleteWhat we see here is that the police screw up at rates similar to the general public. But according to your side, the police have a justification in having and carrying weapons.
DeleteWait a minute, T. I hadn't noticed where you said they're buffoons who should be fired. And I would have noticed because that would have been a rare example of your agreeing with me.
DeleteIn my initial post I said:
Delete"What truly boggles the mind is that they would do a demonstration with SWAT gear that included loaded weapons--this is a disgrace to the Keystone Cops!"
Sorry I didn't make the explicit statement that I believe in firing people for gross incompetence--I forget that I'm dealing with progressives for whom that's not taken for granted as common sense in every arena.
No, what's taken for granted is that you tend to support gun owners, especially the formerly law-abiding ones and those I call hidden criminals.
DeleteSo, to be clear, he should be fired? Should he continue to own and misuse guns, too?
If he'd done what I initially thought--having a loaded gun as part of a display, then he ought to be fired. As is, it looks like the problem was situational awareness and a poor choice of equipment by the department--I'd say his wound is punishment enough for that and a good reminder to remedy all of the layers of fail here.
DeleteAs I suspected, you support bumbling and dangerous gun owners who prove themselves incapable of safely handling guns. I presume the reason for that is because you want to enjoy the same tolerance when you do something stupid.
DeleteDisarming those who demonstrate this inability would prevent them from ever becoming repeat offenders. You don't think all these cases we argue about are their first offense, do you?
I assume that not everyone is as thick skulled as Laci and most people learn after scaring the shit out of themselves.
DeleteAs for the failure here, it's less a failure in safe gun handling than a failure of complete situational awareness in a crowd, and a poor choice of tactical gear, possibly by the department rather than the individual. The former is something that has to be learned and practiced, and the latter is something that can be remedied.
DeleteYour concept of any slight mistake equaling a complete inability to handle guns safely sets an impossible standard of perfection. Even when it comes to especially dangerous activities where we assign strict liability, we still don't count every accident as something that shows a complete inability to do something safely or to learn to be more safe.
As for my motivation, it's pretty straightforward: I don't like to see people punished, through the removal of rights or privileges for life, based on a single accident. Period. I'm not worrying about myself as you like to imply. I'm just worrying about having a just and fair system that recognizes that people are fallible, doesn't punish them for mistakes, but does require them to pay full restitution for any damage they cause.
You may be right about my punishment being too severe. How about this: first offense results in arrest and a warning, this way it's documented? Second offense loss of rights for life?
DeleteJust tell me you'd go for that and I'll rewrite my "One strike you're out" policy.
That solution still has a couple of problems--you still treat any and every form of accident the same, whether it's reckless action that shoots someone in the leg or a slam-fire into the dirt by someone chambering a round that has been chambered a time or three before or chambering one with a soft primer.
DeleteAlso, even though you're allowing one strike, you're still holding people to the same type of standard of perfection.
Finally, however you nuance it and however many strikes you add to the system, my big problem is with the mere idea of the removal of rights for life--any rights.
This isn't a gun rights issue for me--it's an issue with the whole concept of rendering a person infamous. I think criminals should be punished a finite amount and have to pay restitution to their victims. Once these debts are paid and they are released, I think that they should receive all of their rights rather than becoming a permanent underclass with limited rights.
According to the two NRA gun loons, this is something that can't happen and when I pointed out (in the Starbucks issue) it could easily happen, they called me a sock puppet of Mike and later a liar.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about loons, is sooner, or later reality proves they have no clue, or lie to perpetuate their false beliefs and false facts.
I don't recall anyone saying that it can't happen. What we've said all along is that exceedingly rare events to not justify infringing on the rights of millions of Americans.
DeleteJimmy,
DeleteThis doesn't say if the gun was in a holster or not. During that discussion, I believe we talked about the importance of having a properly made holster that covered the trigger to prevent this kind of thing.
But then, you were too busy trying to misrepresent what we said and rile us up to notice that.
Of course it was in a holster. I doesn't have to specifically say it. The little boy approached unnoticed and reached out to touch the gun. Where do you suspect the gun was if not in a holster?
DeleteIt could have been laid out on a table with other equipment on display. The article doesn't say. As I discussed above, I don't see many holsters that don't protect the trigger guard, and I'd hope the SWAT guys wouldn't use something so sub-standard, but maybe they did, it which case they deserved getting shot in the foot.
DeleteMikeb, whenever you say, of course, that means that you have no evidence.
DeleteMaybe you're right. I guess it could have been on display.
DeleteWouldn't not having a round in the chamber be a protection against this? What's the reason for keeping a round in the chamber, the time it takes to rack the slide can't be so great as to warrant this kind of mishap.
Some people make the decision to not put a round in the chamber. It's a valid way to minimize the chances of a mishap like this. Others take other steps--ensuring the holster covers and protects the trigger guard, choosing a gun with an external safety, making the trigger heavier, keeping a gun de-cocked, selecting a holster with a retention mechanism (thumb break strap, SERPA holster, etc.).
DeleteFor my normal carry piece, it has an external safety, the double action mechanism is de-cocked, and I carry it in an inside the waistband holster that covers the trigger guard fully. For it to go off, a kid would have to know where it was, somehow extract it from my pants, figure out how to turn off the safety, and pull a trigger about twice as heavy as a standard Glock's, all before I managed to feel what they're doing and stop them. At this point, having the chamber empty is a bit like guilding the lily.
For another gun, until I had a gunsmith do some modifications to the safety mechanism, I didn't trust it at all. The gun is over 60 years old and works just fine, except for its safety mechanism--the Warsaw Pact countries weren't all that concerned with safety. Until it was fixed, the safest way to carry that gun was with a full magazine and nothing in the chamber. One could also carry it with a round in the chamber and the hammer let down (withOUT using the de-cocker), but it took more time to cock the single action than to just rack the slide.
All of this and these examples are to say that there are multiple ways to prevent accidents like this (contrary to the statements of this department), and while we may not get all agree with the empty chamber method being made a rule, we do care about safety and evaluate this along with many other methods to find the way that best suits each of us and our choice of weapon.
I just came across an article with video with a bit more information. The SWAT officer was carrying in a thigh holster, unlike regular officers who use a retention holster. And it confirms the officer was wearing the holster when the pistol went off.
ReplyDeleteThey apparently still don't know who the little boy is. This might be a good thing because it being California, they would likely enter his name on the prohibited persons database they have.
http://www.news10.net/news/article/256139/2/Officers-gun-unintentionally-discharged-after-child-pulls-trigger
Thanks. So, it was in a holster, but what about the round in the chamber?
DeleteCarrying a gun with a round in the chamber is standard practice--so say all the experts that I've read or talked to. The only exception is to be found in Israeli practice, and they have to train to make it work.
DeleteHollywood, by contrast, thinks that it's typical to need a sound effects person hanging around, waiting to add in that nifty click-click sound. But it's a safe bet that when Hollywood does something with guns, it'll be wrong.
I have said it before, I will say it again. I don't like Glocks and similar guns for the very reason of no real safety.
DeleteI have shot them, very smooth and easy trigger pull. They are very accurate and light weight. But they are dangerous because of the safety issue. I am willing to bet that the Glocks and those similar to them have the highest rate of being involved in NDs than any other weapon out there. I would be shocked to be wrong on this.
And I agree that standard practice for carry is loaded and chambered. However if you KNOW that you (a police officer) is going to interact with young'uns in a school and involving them in a touch and feel the equipment type of demonstration, completely unload that firearm BEFORE you walk into that school!
I don't care how much of a pro you are, or you think you are, things can and will go wrong. More than anyone else, I would expect the law enforcement agencies to practice this. I certainly practice this, as well as my family. I was drilled this growing up, I drill it to mine. Think of ALL the possibilities and act to ELIMINATE them before you go about your business.
Maybe its just me. But I can make a list of things that should have been done differently that would have avoided this incident.
“There is nothing we could have done differently,” he said. “It was just an accident. It boggles the mind why a child would do that.”
That statement just pisses me off, sorry, but it does on the first part. The second part really does boggle MY mind. Really? Why a child would do that?? Its called CURIOUSITY, IDIOT! Kids are curious about the world. If they are taught about guns then their curious nature become an educated child.
I guess I could rant on that for a long time, But I think I made a point.
Wonder what type of holster it was. Sounding like either the trigger wasn't covered, it was so loose that the kid could pass his hand between the gun and holster, it was so thin that he could poke it into the trigger guard, or something else went wrong.
DeleteMike, regarding a SWAT officer carrying with a round in the chamber--when they're doing a raid, they need a round chambered because yes, in that situation, racking the slide takes FAR too much time. If they're carrying normally with nothing in the chamber, then before each raid you have them drawing their guns, racking the slides, and reholstering before each mission. Remember our mantra: the more you hold and manipulate the gun, the more likely you are to have an accident.
This also brings up another issue that can cause accidents: most guns have a free floating firing pin which can lightly tap the primer when the round is loaded into the chamber. This shouldn't set off the round, but if you repeatedly chamber the same round, it can and does happen.
E-mail from a friend:
Deletehttp://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/09/02/lodi-police-officer-shot-when-child-pulled-trigger-on-his-gun-at-reading-event/
Sounds like the holster was either very loose or cut away in some way to accommodate the weapon light. Sounds like they ought to look into better holsters that can accommodate the lights and better secure the triggers.
At least it wasn't a situation where the gun was on display while still loaded.
So, is keeping one in the chamber of a pistol with no safety all about the speed with which you can dispatch your opponent?
DeleteSWAT guys should chamber a round right before going in. Everybody else should stop pretending to be Clint Eastwood and keep the chamber empty. The one second it takes to rack the slide will probably never make the difference between life and death and will bring the chances of an ND down to nearly zero.
I would agree with you Mike, on the SWAT team. They know the situation before they get there, or should. Everyday officers and private individuals is another subject however because things can unfold unexpectedly in less than a second.
DeleteStill, either way, I don't like Glocks. I am also seeing more and more 1911s being carried by law enforcement. The multi-point safeties incorporated in the 1911 make it safe to carry chambered and one action to disable the safety as the gun is being drawn. That is a LOT quicker than pulling and racking before shooting. The 1911 is hands down far safer than a Glock and can be brought into action just as fast as a chambered Glock and similar guns.
The holster I use covers the safety as well as the trigger, it is a IWB holster and the 1911s I carry only use a single side safety lever. I can draw and fire it just as fast as a no safety Glock. I am no fast draw expert with either I should note.
The 1911 safety locks the slide, trigger and hammer. They are drop safe with safety on. Even with the safety off, the trigger still cannot be pulled, like the kid did in this story, without the grip safety being pressed in. They are safe even with a holster that exposes the trigger with safety off from sticks or other pointy things that can engage the trigger frame when going thru brush for example because the grip safety still has to be depressed for the trigger to be pulled.
That's why I only allowed the 1911s to be carried by my guys while working. Its the ONLY type of gun that I carry and my wife carries everyday. There are others that work similar to the 1911 and can be acceptable in my book to carry, but a true 1911 is a tried and tested design to be the safest and most reliable in my best honest opinion.
Yes, they are heavy and large and not so comfortable to carry, but because of that I know exactly where it is at all times. Carrying a firearm should not equate to carrying a wallet or keys for example as those can get lost without your being aware that you no longer have them on you. I have been carrying a 1911 for decades and every day it still lets me know its there.
"So, is keeping one in the chamber of a pistol with no safety all about the speed with which you can dispatch your opponent?"
DeleteIt's partially due to speed. Another factor is reducing the number of things you have to remember to do under stress. This is one reason some like Glocks' lack of a safety--one of the instructors at my carry permit class had switched from a 1911 to a Glock after his wife was attacked by a dog and it took him a couple seconds to realize he had forgotten to switch off the safety.
Another factor is that racking the slide takes two hands. Some people have one good arm. Of more general importance is the fact that you may not always have use of your other arm. It may be injured in whatever situation you are defending against, or it may be holding off your attacker--especially if you are defending against an animal attack--the one type of attack I've almost had to use my gun in.
As I said before, regarding that incident, the owner got control of her pitbull at the last second. I didn't draw, but I had my hand on my gun. Since I didn't draw and didn't shoot, she didn't lose her dog and nobody was traumatized. Since there was a round in the chamber, I could leave it holstered and keep my left arm at the ready to block the dog if it finally lunged, only drawing if I had to.
If I had been carrying with an empty chamber, I would have had to draw my gun earlier to make sure I could chamber a round while I had use of my left hand. I could still have refrained from shooting fido, but the owner may well have freaked out at the sight of the gun and the situation gone to Hell pretty quick.
"SWAT guys should chamber a round right before going in . . . and will bring the chances of an ND down to nearly zero."
Did you read what I said about excessive chambering of rounds potentially causing ND's?
A better solution would be for them to get better holsters or for them to use a standard holster that doesn't hold the weapon light for their every day carry, and then snap on the lights and put on these leg holsters when they're putting on their other gear.