Police: Hug Triggers Officer's Gun, Kills Woman

[HALO141]

205. OK.

I have responded to you with the same level of respect you showed me.

You continually asserted that carrying a handgun with a round chambered is, at the very least, ill-considered. You said, "Anyone who knows actual tactics knows the old "quick draw" scenario is a myth." That statement is just dripping with arm chair condescension and sounds very much like it was made by someone who's never held a firearm in their life. When I asked you how and when you obtained such information you completely side-stepped the question. You then maintain that, "The gun went off as a result of a hug." By your own admission this information is questionable at best but, still, you maintain that as supporting evidence for the "empty chamber" doctrine?

As to your "quick draw" reference - Drawing a handgun from concealment is NEVER a quick draw proposition. By way of example, I'll say that while I am not a Grand Master level shooter by any means, I am quite a bit better than the average bear. The best draw from concealment I can recall making in competition (or training for competition) is in the neighborhood of 1.5 seconds, maybe just a little under. In the brutal reality of deadly force encounters, 1.5 seconds is a loooooong time. The majority of violent encounters happen at close range, in low light and involve multiple assailants. The expectation that, even if one is able to access the handgun in time, one will always have one's other hand available to cycle the slide and chamber a round is unreasonable in the extreme. Someone else has already mentioned the Tueller Drill. That is all the demonstration this point needs.

Furthermore, the idea that the weapon's state of readiness should change from one minute to the next, depending on one's surroundings, is absurd, impractical and invites disaster. Guns do not "just go off." Guns go of when they're being handled and for whatever reason, SOMEONE was handling this one improperly. Changing a weapon's state of readiness requires unnecessary handling and raises to a very high order the probability that, should you need it, it will be (as I said) useless. Your retort, "EXACTLY!" would seem to indicate a callous disregard for that individual's safety.

You also contend that, since this incident took place at a party, that should have been considered a "safe" location and the individual in question was acting unreasonably in that he was armed at all. From now to the end of our days, none of us get to know if, when or to what degree we may be threatened. None of us are going to get a phone call or email telling us that we are going to be attacked by a mugger/murderer/rapist in the parking garage, on the way to our car tomorrow. While the level of acuity may vary, it's a risk we all live with. How we choose to acknowledge that risk is, largely, a personal decision. For many who carry a concealed weapon being armed is a lifestyle.

Working for a union doesn't impress me. For that matter, working for ANY organization doesn't necessarily impress me. I don't say that to be condescending, it's simply a fact. The most egregious, dangerous and overtly threatening losses of self control I've ever seen were committed by active duty law enforcement. Unions have their share of idiots just like every other organization. Management doesn't always make policies to benefit their members. For many years patrol officers all over the country were prohibited from carrying rifles in their vehicles because the various departments' leadership were afraid of being perceived as being too frightening by the general public. These policies were largely discontinued after the North Hollywood shootout. Likewise, military training and policies often leave much to be desired. The Pentagon, which seems to subscribe to some of the same theories you do, believes that it can determine which areas are hot and which are "safe." Ft. Hood comes to mind most immediately but there are also "green" zones in conflict areas where soldiers are not permitted to be armed. Regardless of the Pentagon's assertions to the contrary, these areas are not "safe." Consider, also, the security watch on board the U.S.S. Cole who were issued rifles but not allowed to load them. The obvious lesson to be learned, here, is that we just don't get to know when and where we are safe or not.

Finally, I'm not sure what "profession" you're referring to unless it's that of private security. I wasn't a party to that part of the conversation so you'll have to take it up with someone else.