Transit police execute rider

[Kanastrous]

I think there is no doubt that the BART officer in question was poorly trained and I really have no opinion as to whether the outcome would have been different if he had been issued a different weapon with an external safety.

Given you have to make a conscious decision to flick the safety off, it's pretty much guaranteed the outcome would be completely different, the guy might even still be alive. Either that or at least the doubt of a murder charge would be virtually non-existent.

It's a real deliberate squeeze, to discharge a stock Glock pistol. You'd have to be *really* adrenalined up, to mash it so hard accidentally, as to fire the weapon.

[Agent Fisher]

Question for Sith or anyone else with personal experience. Do tasers carried by police officers have the same trigger design as sidearms?

Ok did a little checking and assuming the images I pulled are prety standard who in their right mind decided to design tasers to look like handguns? They have the same shape, they have the trigger guard, they have the trigger. I can easily see lots of poeple mistaking the two in a heated situation. A smart design should have been for the taser to have a button on top with a shape that allows that button to be hit with the thumb. Basically something that makes the two different.

They designed them like that for ease of use. If you're used to aiming with a sidearm, and then you have to relearn how to fire a weapon that, from your design suggestion, is shaped like a phaser, you're going to have alot of headaches. And yes, they do have those, but those are civilian legal tasers, which have less range and power as the duty tasers carried by law enforcement.

[General Zod]

I think there is no doubt that the BART officer in question was poorly trained and I really have no opinion as to whether the outcome would have been different if he had been issued a different weapon with an external safety.

Given you have to make a conscious decision to flick the safety off, it's pretty much guaranteed the outcome would be completely different, the guy might even still be alive. Either that or at least the doubt of a murder charge would be virtually non-existent.

It's a real deliberate squeeze, to discharge a stock Glock pistol. You'd have to be *really* adrenalined up, to mash it so hard accidentally, as to fire the weapon.

Not nearly as solid to argue, especially if the force required to squeeze a glock is similar to that of the taser.

[Kanastrous]

I don't have experience with that department's police-issue tasers, so I can't draw the comparison with any certainty.

But I do have a great deal of handgunning experience, and in terms of accidental discharge via trigger pull only DAO self-loaders impress me as being as unlikely to fire without deliberate pressure.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Question for Sith or anyone else with personal experience. Do tasers carried by police officers have the same trigger design as sidearms?

Ok did a little checking and assuming the images I pulled are prety standard who in their right mind decided to design tasers to look like handguns? They have the same shape, they have the trigger guard, they have the trigger. I can easily see lots of poeple mistaking the two in a heated situation. A smart design should have been for the taser to have a button on top with a shape that allows that button to be hit with the thumb. Basically something that makes the two different.

It was designed by someone who understands weapons, and how to use them. It's designed like a gun for several reasons. The most important is the ability to aim. Furthermore, if you recall early on I said that I didn't buy this officers excuse that he mistook his taser for his firearm because while the two are shaped the same they feel significantly different in squeeze, and in operation. The taser has a on/off switch, for example, which must be flipped to the on postion before it can be deployed.

[Stuart]

I'm not aware of a single accidental discharge (AD) that wasn't caused by something other than the the user failing to follow the four rules of firearm safety. I'd say $500.00 is about average, but I'm not a gun enthusiast. The reason Glocks are so prone to AD is because they don't have a safety and when the trigger is pulled whether intentional or not it will fire.

An old friend of mine would whack you across the back of the head the moment you said accidental discharge; then she'd give you a really severe lecture (I know, I got it as well). There's no such thing as an accidental discharge. If a gun fires, it is because somebody did something they shouldn't (with Glocks, drawing or holstering it with one's finger on or near the trigger). That's why the term is Negligent Discharge. Her Army side arm training has no equivalent of the term "accidental discharge", if a gun goes off when it shouldn't, its negligence and dereliction of duty charges at a court martial.

Glocks are pretty cheap by handgun standards; that's why Agencies are drawn to them (standard definition of a Cop Gun, carried a lot, fired almost never so cost is a big factor). I think they're thoroughly nasty pieces of kit and I don't trust them. I do trust my M1911A1.

However, my point is that Glocks do have a bad reputation for NDs. So, a claim this was one could be supported by "expert testimony"

[Alyeska]

The Glock is a fine pistol. Its cheap, but its also reliable and very accurate. It can eat through amunition that other pistols balk at. It is also as accurate as many match pistols. The particular design of the upper slide and the sights give it equal accuracy to that of most M1911s. It is a good pistol. Like any weapon, you need proper training and handling to use.

[CmdrWilkens]

Taking a bit of Stuart's point (Negligent Discharge versus "Accidental") the critical point I was trying to make on the last page was that with virtually all modern handguns and certainly with the Glock line someone using proper safety procedures will NOT be able to have the weapon discharge unintentionally.

[Count Chocula]

What Alyeska said. Glocks are fine weapons; I don't have one because the grip angle just doesn't work for me. Same reason I sold my Luger (although I regret that decision now!).

However, a stock Glock trigger's pull is only around 7 pounds IIRC and the safety is built into the trigger!!!! Colts, S&W, Taurus et al have safeties that are separate from the trigger and require an extra step to release. With adrenaline going, and in an unfamiliar situation (the BART cop's "oh shit" reaction shows, to me, that this was NOT a situation he could handle), it's reaaallllyyy easy to pull a 7 pound trigger.

[Alyeska]

There are a variety of weapons that have passive safety features. The Springfield Armory XD series has several interesting safeties. None of which would have stopped this shooting. The best way to be safe is through proper training.

[CmdrWilkens]

What Alyeska said. Glocks are fine weapons; I don't have one because the grip angle just doesn't work for me. Same reason I sold my Luger (although I regret that decision now!).

However, a stock Glock trigger's pull is only around 7 pounds IIRC and the safety is built into the trigger!!!! Colts, S&W, Taurus et al have safeties that are separate from the trigger and require an extra step to release. With adrenaline going, and in an unfamiliar situation (the BART cop's "oh shit" reaction shows, to me, that this was NOT a situation he could handle), it's reaaallllyyy easy to pull a 7 pound trigger.

Dude I hate to say it but that's hardly a good defense of different equipment in my mind. I've been in situations with guns out and armed with folks ready to riot around me while being seriously outnumbered...the reason my finger was never on the trigger is that somebody bothered to train me how to shoot safely. I've seen safeties disengage being pulled out of holsters when they are seperate devices on the weapon so I'll repeat that it comes back to proper training. If you keep your finger off the trigger then shit won't happen. Drilling that in to someone's head to the point where it is automatic is what good training should do and its why it should be repeated regularly and strenuously.

[Knife]

What Alyeska said. Glocks are fine weapons; I don't have one because the grip angle just doesn't work for me. Same reason I sold my Luger (although I regret that decision now!).

However, a stock Glock trigger's pull is only around 7 pounds IIRC and the safety is built into the trigger!!!! Colts, S&W, Taurus et al have safeties that are separate from the trigger and require an extra step to release. With adrenaline going, and in an unfamiliar situation (the BART cop's "oh shit" reaction shows, to me, that this was NOT a situation he could handle), it's reaaallllyyy easy to pull a 7 pound trigger.

Dude I hate to say it but that's hardly a good defense of different equipment in my mind. I've been in situations with guns out and armed with folks ready to riot around me while being seriously outnumbered...the reason my finger was never on the trigger is that somebody bothered to train me how to shoot safely. I've seen safeties disengage being pulled out of holsters when they are seperate devices on the weapon so I'll repeat that it comes back to proper training. If you keep your finger off the trigger then shit won't happen. Drilling that in to someone's head to the point where it is automatic is what good training should do and its why it should be repeated regularly and strenuously.

Indeed. If your ergonomics is off is secondary to your training. If your finger is not on the trigger unless you desire to kill the target, then accidents like this won't happen.

[Count Chocula]

Wilkens and Knife got it in one. Not my words, they're Jeff Cooper's IIRC, but "a gun is a tool. The brain is the weapon."

When I train, #1 on the check list is trigger finger (where is it? outside the trigger guard unless I'm ready to shoot) as it should be. All else, including the gun you're firing, is secondary. It's obvious that this particular BART cop forgot Cooper's Rule #1.

[Stark]

So is this boiling down to issuing firearms to those who haven't been adequately trained in basic firearm safety (which even I'm aware of and I've never come close to a loaded firearm in my life)? EDIT - well, aside from bolt-action rifles lol.

It seems, however, that the story with 'mistaking' it for the taser is because nobody would buy negligence, so I assume BART guards get trained properly in this regard (or are not supposed to use their firearms in a situation like this). Is this true?

[Count Chocula]

No S the potential "oops I thought it was a Taser" defense is a total "cop"-out. That cop knew enough to graduate academy (not law enforcement but transit, rather widely perceived as a notch above mall security) but not enough to know WTF he was doing when it came to actually handling a loaded firearm.

EDIT From my uncle and cousin, cops go for the Taser if the suspect is not armed with a knife or gun. If there's a lethal weapon involved, all bets are off and copper jackets fly. The suspect this BART guy shot was not obviously armed and therefore NOT a lethal threat, which makes the cop's drawing and discharge of his gun the more damning.

[Knife]

No S the potential "oops I thought it was a Taser" defense is a total "cop"-out. That cop knew enough to graduate academy (not law enforcement but transit, rather widely perceived as a notch above mall security) but not enough to know WTF he was doing when it came to actually handling a loaded firearm.

Indeed. The argument that he mistook his gun for a taser is more a legalistic defense than a realistic defense.

[Kamakazie Sith]

An old friend of mine would whack you across the back of the head the moment you said accidental discharge; then she'd give you a really severe lecture (I know, I got it as well). There's no such thing as an accidental discharge. If a gun fires, it is because somebody did something they shouldn't (with Glocks, drawing or holstering it with one's finger on or near the trigger). That's why the term is Negligent Discharge. Her Army side arm training has no equivalent of the term "accidental discharge", if a gun goes off when it shouldn't, its negligence and dereliction of duty charges at a court martial.

Each to their own, sir. It's just terminology meant to describe an event, but I admit that I like negligent discharge better than accidental discharge.

Glocks are pretty cheap by handgun standards; that's why Agencies are drawn to them (standard definition of a Cop Gun, carried a lot, fired almost never so cost is a big factor). I think they're thoroughly nasty pieces of kit and I don't trust them. I do trust my M1911A1.

No argument there. Might department has a built in range, but they don't provide training ammunition due to budget issues. Thus, if you want to improve your skills then it has to come out of your pocket which isn't very deep on a police officers sallary.

However, my point is that Glocks do have a bad reputation for NDs. So, a claim this was one could be supported by "expert testimony"

[/quote]

Even if you didn't have expert testimony it would still make sense as to why Glocks have more NDs than other weapons with real safety features.

[dragon]

I'm not aware of a single accidental discharge (AD) that wasn't caused by something other than the the user failing to follow the four rules of firearm safety. I'd say $500.00 is about average, but I'm not a gun enthusiast. The reason Glocks are so prone to AD is because they don't have a safety and when the trigger is pulled whether intentional or not it will fire.

An old friend of mine would whack you across the back of the head the moment you said accidental discharge; then she'd give you a really severe lecture (I know, I got it as well). There's no such thing as an accidental discharge. If a gun fires, it is because somebody did something they shouldn't (with Glocks, drawing or holstering it with one's finger on or near the trigger). That's why the term is Negligent Discharge. Her Army side arm training has no equivalent of the term "accidental discharge", if a gun goes off when it shouldn't, its negligence and dereliction of duty charges at a court martial.

Glocks are pretty cheap by handgun standards; that's why Agencies are drawn to them (standard definition of a Cop Gun, carried a lot, fired almost never so cost is a big factor). I think they're thoroughly nasty pieces of kit and I don't trust them. I do trust my M1911A1.

However, my point is that Glocks do have a bad reputation for NDs. So, a claim this was one could be supported by "expert testimony"

Well in the Army we had a few accidental discharges for M16, we were at the firing range shooting on a very hot day. The heat caused rounds to cook off in the firing chamber safety was still on. at that point the range was shut down. They did tell us if it was manufacture defects in the ammo or what though. But your right the correct term is almost always Negligent Discharge but people always interchange the two.

But for the sidearms never if it goes off its becuase you wanted it to or you did something stupid.

[Stuart]

The Glock is a fine pistol. Its cheap, but its also reliable and very accurate. It can eat through amunition that other pistols balk at. It is also as accurate as many match pistols. The particular design of the upper slide and the sights give it equal accuracy to that of most M1911s. It is a good pistol. Like any weapon, you need proper training and handling to use.

To each his own I guess. But, I've never found a Glock I liked, and they've always given me trouble. My SIGs and M1911 consistently outshoot them and simply "fit" me better. On the other hands, handguns are intensely personal things so what one person finds acceptable another regards as anathema. I will admit to prejudice though, the person who taught me to handle hand guns treats Glocks with what can only be described as scalding contempt.

[Stuart]

No S the potential "oops I thought it was a Taser" defense is a total "cop"-out. That cop knew enough to graduate academy (not law enforcement but transit, rather widely perceived as a notch above mall security) but not enough to know WTF he was doing when it came to actually handling a loaded firearm.

I don't think anybody here seriously believes the "I mistook it for my Taser" line. The problem is, belief doesn't matter, to make a murder charge stick, the prosecution has to prove that he drew his handgun deliberately and with malice aforethought. I would put it to you that the prosecution cannot prove that assertion. They can suspect it, they can believe it, they can even swear to it, but they can't prove it. That automatically drops the charge to manslaughter. Depending on the law in question in the state in question he might be subject to Murder Two charges on grounds that his actions showed depraved indifference to the risk his actions posed to the life of the person now deceased. That's for the lawyers.

My *****personal opinion***** on what happened is this. My experience of Transit Cops is that they have inferiority complexes due to the perception that their status is a lot lower than mainstream police. He saw the incident going down, saw a chance to make like what he perceived as being "a real cop" and drew his gun to stick it in the back of the victim's head. That's when he had his ND.

Well in the Army we had a few accidental discharges for M16, we were at the firing range shooting on a very hot day. The heat caused rounds to cook off in the firing chamber safety was still on. at that point the range was shut down.

I guess my friend would tell you that's negligence on the part of the range authorities or the rifleman in question for having a live round up the spout under those conditions. I'll ask her if your interested. Since her homeland is down on the equator, hot ranges (in both senses of the word) are something she's familiar with.

[Stuart]

No argument there. Might department has a built in range, but they don't provide training ammunition due to budget issues. Thus, if you want to improve your skills then it has to come out of your pocket which isn't very deep on a police officers salary.

My friend advised me that its necessary to shoot 100 rounds a week, every week to maintain an acceptable level of proficiency (be it noted that her 'acceptable standard' is a very high one). If mainstream police don't get that level of support, we can only imagine what level of practice Transit cops get in.

Even if you didn't have expert testimony it would still make sense as to why Glocks have more NDs than other weapons with real safety features.

Sure, but remember the definition of an expert "somebody from out of town with a briefcase". There's enough experts-for-hire out there to testify to anything and this case will be meat and drink for them. The defense will (if they are competent) be throwing up every cloud of dust they can and obscuring the details as much as they can. The problem I think is going to be that between their efforts on one side and the irrelevent posturing about "morality" and demands for a murder conviction on the other, the real issues are going to be lost.

I'd suggest those real issues are

**** Poor training of the officer in question, both in terms of general actions and in safe operations of handguns
**** Poor personnel selection for Transit police workforce
**** Poor choice of equipment in general and handguns in particular
**** Inadequate training in post-incident conduct.

And

**** Nothing is going to bring the victim here back. Therefore, the objective should be to make sure this never, ever happens again. That includes correcting the above deficiencies and making a horrible example of the Transit cop in question. That, in turn, means getting him on a charge that will stick. Charging him with one that won't (because it's "moral") will just be counterproductive. Anyway, I suspect it won't matter what charge he goes down on, he won't survive long in General Population anyway.

[Bilbo]

My *****personal opinion***** on what happened is this. My experience of Transit Cops is that they have inferiority complexes due to the perception that their status is a lot lower than mainstream police. He saw the incident going down, saw a chance to make like what he perceived as being "a real cop" and drew his gun to stick it in the back of the victim's head. That's when he had his ND.

Now assuming that there was no ND, but the whole event was still caught on cellphone video like it was. Odds are this cop get suspended and potentially fired from his position. While I am not a cop and have no desire to be one I cannot imagine a single situation where it would be proper for a member of law enforcement to draw their weapon and place it execution style on the back of the head of an unarmed civilian/suspect.

[Bilbo]

Sure, but remember the definition of an expert "somebody from out of town with a briefcase". There's enough experts-for-hire out there to testify to anything and this case will be meat and drink for them. The defense will (if they are competent) be throwing up every cloud of dust they can and obscuring the details as much as they can. The problem I think is going to be that between their efforts on one side and the irrelevent posturing about "morality" and demands for a murder conviction on the other, the real issues are going to be lost.

I'd suggest those real issues are

**** Poor training of the officer in question, both in terms of general actions and in safe operations of handguns
**** Poor personnel selection for Transit police workforce
**** Poor choice of equipment in general and handguns in particular
**** Inadequate training in post-incident conduct.

And

**** Nothing is going to bring the victim here back. Therefore, the objective should be to make sure this never, ever happens again. That includes correcting the above deficiencies and making a horrible example of the Transit cop in question. That, in turn, means getting him on a charge that will stick. Charging him with one that won't (because it's "moral") will just be counterproductive. Anyway, I suspect it won't matter what charge he goes down on, he won't survive long in General Population anyway.

Unless this guy has a very well off family or generous friends I do not see it going quite this far. The defense you are suggesting sounds like it would be very expensive. How is a transit officer going to afford this? I doubt the police union is going to eat the cost for this level of defense. I just don't see this guy affording Johnny Cochrane.

[Beowulf]

An old friend of mine would whack you across the back of the head the moment you said accidental discharge; then she'd give you a really severe lecture (I know, I got it as well). There's no such thing as an accidental discharge. If a gun fires, it is because somebody did something they shouldn't (with Glocks, drawing or holstering it with one's finger on or near the trigger). That's why the term is Negligent Discharge. Her Army side arm training has no equivalent of the term "accidental discharge", if a gun goes off when it shouldn't, its negligence and dereliction of duty charges at a court martial.

Wasn't there a Japanese pistol that would go off if you squeezed the frame wrong? But aside from grossly incompetently designed firearms, I would agree with you.

[Stuart]

Wasn't there a Japanese pistol that would go off if you squeezed the frame wrong? But aside from grossly incompetently designed firearms, I would agree with you.

The Type 94; if there's a round up the spout and one squeezed the left hand side of the receiver, the pistol will discharge. That's still negligence although the guilty parties are the moron who designed it and the prats who allowed it to pass service trials. It's still another case of a pistol discharging because somebody did something they shouldn't (in this case, the designer getting born).

This really feeds into my comment about poor choice of equipment though; if a police department issued its officers with Type 94s, then they should be held criminally liable for the resulting carnage amongst civilians. Glocks aren't as bad as the Type 94 but the lack of a safety is still a major problem. Look at it this way, if Chummie had put his gun to the head of the perp, released the safety catch and then pulled the trigger, we wouldn't be having the murder/manslaughter disagreement. It would be clearly a case of premeditated murder. Without that safety catch step, there's reasonable doubt.

Unless this guy has a very well off family or generous friends I do not see it going quite this far. The defense you are suggesting sounds like it would be very expensive. How is a transit officer going to afford this? I doubt the police union is going to eat the cost for this level of defense. I just don't see this guy affording Johnny Cochrane.

He doesn't have to. We're not talking the legal equivalent of rocket science here. Any common or garden lawyer should be able to throw up enough dust to thoroughly confuse the issue. Hiring an expert witness for a day on the stand will be around US$500 - 600 per hour - less than a couple of grand in total. Compared with his total legal fees, that's chickenfeed. Chummie is going to be hurting financially anyway, a little more won't make much of a difference.