• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How many members are now going to remove lights from their guns ?

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla

XD40sc

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
402
Location
NC
The switch for the light on my HD handgun is forward of the trigger guard, and my trigger finger has to be straight to turn the light on. I can identify the target, and the aim point is at the center of the beam, confirmed at the range.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
The switch for the light on my HD handgun is forward of the trigger guard, and my trigger finger has to be straight to turn the light on. I can identify the target, and the aim point is at the center of the beam, confirmed at the range.

So was the cop in question's switch. Mrs. Murphy's offspring is a nasty fellow.

But do you use that light to find your car keys after you have dropped them? Didn't think so.

stay safe.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Denver officials last month suspended Officer Brian Mudloff for 18 days without pay for careless handling of his firearm in connection with the March 16 discharge.
Shoot a citizen without provocation and get 18 days off with pay. And then, in the end, get a commendation.

I know, low blow.....
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
"If you put a flashlight on a gun, the gun becomes something other than a gun," Maloney said. "A firearm should be a firearm. We were concerned in New York that if you put a flashlight on a gun, the police would start using the gun as a flashlight. When you do that, you point a loaded firearm in an area not intended for shooting."

So... Basically... "We're hiring people with little to no self control and that can't follow orders or safety training, so we can't give them flashlights on their weapons because no matter how much training we give them or orders to follow basic firearm safety guidelines, they'd inevitably break safety rules, orders, and training to use their weapon mounted lights improperly..."

Seriously... If their officers don't have enough self control to not use a weapon mounted light improperly, the FIREARM is what should be taken off the light and taken away, not the light.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Manufacturers of the [strike]flashlights[/strike] taser defend their use, saying accidental discharges are extremely rare and the [strike]lights[/strike] tasers benefit officers who use them properly.
Hmm...I suspect that the device is not the issue chief.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Your point?

The quote you posted from the article says he was suspended WITHOUT pay. Your comment indicated that he was suspended WITH pay. I figured you misread the article or mistyped your post. Just wanted to point it out so you could have a chance at correcting it.

I do however agree that the punishment was probably light and the officer probably should have been fired. Personally, I feel that (in general) any officer who is caught with their finger on the trigger before acquiring a target should be in danger of losing their job.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
... Personally, I feel that (in general) any officer who is caught with their finger on the trigger before [strike]acquiring[/strike] identifying a [strike]target[/strike] lethal threat should be in danger of losing their job.
Shooting and killing a innocent citizen confirms that he "acquired his target" even if he claims he unintentionally acquired his target. Will this cop avoid felony criminal penalties because he claims it was a accident?
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Shooting and killing a innocent citizen confirms that he "acquired his target" even if he claims he unintentionally acquired his target. Will this cop avoid felony criminal penalties because he claims it was a accident?

When I used the phrase "acquiring a target" it was meant as intentionally acquiring a target.

The negligent discharge mentioned in the main part of the story did not result in any injuries.

If a negligent discharge by an officer does cause an injury then (in my opinion) qualified immunity should not apply and the officer should be civilly liable in both his professional and personal capacities. The officer (in my opinion) should also be held to the same criminal standard as any other individual.

However, that is my opinion. The short (and rather unfortunate) answer to your question is, yes he will most likely avoid the charges. In fact, there was a case a few years ago in my state where an "officer" shot an innocent man on purpose (on purpose meaning it wasn't a negligent discharge) and avoided charges despite the fact that the department's review board found the shooting to be unjustified. The victims name was John T. Williams.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
When I used the phrase "acquiring a target" it was meant as intentionally acquiring a target.

The negligent discharge mentioned in the main part of the story did not result in any injuries.

If a negligent discharge by an officer does cause an injury then (in my opinion) qualified immunity should not apply and the officer should be civilly liable in both his professional and personal capacities. The officer (in my opinion) should also be held to the same criminal standard as any other individual.

However, that is my opinion. The short (and rather unfortunate) answer to your question is, yes he will most likely avoid the charges. In fact, there was a case a few years ago in my state where an "officer" shot an innocent man on purpose (on purpose meaning it wasn't a negligent discharge) and avoided charges despite the fact that the department's review board found the shooting to be unjustified. The victims name was John T. Williams.
I get your point...how does a cop shoot a citizen unintentionally in the situation described...well, it is the NYPD. No, that cop shot that dude cuz he wanted to shoot that guy. now, it is up to lawyers to work out the details.

There was nothing negligent about this incident...nothing. Did that cop plan to shoot that citizen, no. Yet he did shoot that citizen. Felony charges are warranted.
 
Top