Gun-mounted flashlight blamed in fatal shooting

This discussion is interesting and it highlights a key point about human nature. Some people feel it necessary to have the "latest technology" always at their disposal. Before rails were common on handguns, people learned to use ambient light, handheld lights and even muzzle flash to provide aiming light. I think we should still focus on these light sources and regard the pistol mounted light as a novelty that could be useful if we actually have time to deploy it in a self defense situation.

I prefer the handheld light mainly because I own handheld lights that are many times brighter and longer lasting than anything that can be mounted on a pistol rail. The handheld light can be aimed right into an intruder's eyes as an effective nonlethal deterrent to further approach. A Maglite with LED conversion is heavy enough to use as a club while being bright enough to temporarily blind an intruder at a sufficiently long distance to keep the intruder at bay. The C or D batteries last much longer than CR123 batteries that are common in pistol lights. Also, I can aim the Maglite in one direction while pointing the pistol in another direction, allowing me the potential to disguise my position from an intruder.

Pistol lights add to the handgun maintenence issues. If you train with the pistol light, are you sure that you won't be thrown for a loop if you discover that the pistol light has malfunctioned in the moment of truth?

When it comes to defensive training, I think the simpler, the better. I don't want any extra switches, batteries or gadgets on my gun. To each his own.

Technology is not always what we need. Basically, you need a gun and ammo combination that is as reliable as you can find and you need access to a separate flashlight. Then you need good, solid no-frills pistol training. If you find that the batteries are weak or the Maglite is malfunctioning, then put it in your back pocket and use it as a club if necessary.
 
warrior poet "I prefer to hold my good ol' Maglite (which makes a good club if I need it, BTW) at arm's length in my off hand so I can scan the room with a flick of the wrist".

I keep hearing people say they use this technique and yet when I have my wife hold a flashlight as far away and as far out in front of her as she can she glows like a christmas tree. :eek:
She says the same when I try it.
 
Do it when she's shining the light directly into your eyes in a dark room - you won't be able to see anything except the light for a few seconds, and that is where most people would return fire to.
 
Double Naught Spy "Wh does everyone assume that if something isn't expensive, that it can't be quality?}"


I didn't say inexpensive! I said cheap RELOADS or WOLF!
I even mentioned shooting WWB, about as cheap as it gets. I shot indoors often and have never experienced this.
Click to expand...

Sorry I wasn't being direct enough. I was being kind. Why do so many people think that if something doesn't perform to some standard that they have, that it must be cheap, a reload, or wolf?

Happy now?

I never considered Federal Hydrashoks to be cheap, reloads, or Wolf ammo, but it happened with them. And why must the reloads be cheap do do this? You can have custom made high quality LRN ball ammo do this. Cheap isn't really a salient issue.
 
I was just asking a question to learn the answer!

Now I'm happy:rolleyes:



tet4 "Do it when she's shining the light directly into your eyes in a dark room - you won't be able to see anything except the light for a few seconds, and that is where most people would return fire to".

So in reality when I'm searching I won't know where their eyes are, that's why I'm searching.
 
If the illumination switch can be so easily confused with a pistol trigger, then it seems to me that the trigger poundage is too light. The Surefire switch requires low pressure to activate so if the trigger was noticeably heavier, this could provide the mental warning that an accidental discharge was about to occur and the shooter would have a chance to rethink firing the gun.
Click to expand...

Using another finger to press the switch is just asking for trouble.

Sympathetic movement is way to likely to occur on the other fingers, especially under stress.

While NOT under stress moving the fingers separately in a coordinated manner is not hard (think about touch typing) but under high stress levels sympathetic movement of any other or all the fingers can all to easily occur.

The presence of a finger operated button to turn on the light is just asking for trouble.

The design is fatally flawed (and appears to have just contributed to a fatality).
 
No lights going on any of my guns. I never liked the idea in the first place and this confirms for me that its a bad idea. I reckon God gave me two hands for a reason - one for the flashlight and the other for a pistol.
 
I keep hearing people say they use this technique and yet when I have my wife hold a flashlight as far away and as far out in front of her as she can she glows like a christmas tree.
She says the same when I try it.
Click to expand...

I was not aware of that. I haven't had a need to use a flashlight in low light at all for quite some time- NVGs the good ol' USMC lets me use and all take care of the dark. :D

Anyway, thanks for the info. I'll take a look at it next time I get home for leave, and maybe I'll have to revamp my tactics.
 
Doesn't matter how "well trained" someone is. **** happens. The best gun handler in the world could make mistakes. It doesn't matter where the switch is located, somebody will say something bad about it. Could be any number of fail-safes, if something bad happens... people are going to say there should have been one more. BP oil had 2 fail-safes installed. everybody said, "need one more." A friend of mine got hit by a train walking to school. Tried to beat it. His mom though the flashing lights, blowing fog horn and bar across the road weren't enough.

Wood
 
It's true that bad things sometimes happen in spite of training and that trained people can still make mistakes.

But the fact that training can't make the world perfectly safe and can't completely eliminate mistakes doesn't mean that training is useless. Nothing can make the world perfectly safe or completely prevent people from making mistakes.

If our criteria for espousing/endorsing a particular course of action is that it must be perfectly effective then we can't espouse or endorse anything because there is no course of action that is perfectly effective. It would be like saying that birth control is useless because there's no method that is totally effective at preventing pregnancy.

Training is a good idea, not because it prevents ALL mistakes but because it's remarkably effective at preventing/reducing the frequency of mistakes that are addressed by the training.

It's all about finding a balance.
 
I found this thread very interesting from several angles. The first being the pointing of a pistol and someone who is not holding a weapon in their hands. As a LEO, I have pointed my pistol directly at many dozens of people over the years with only three of them (that I can remember) with a deadly weapon in their hands (one pistol, two knives). I came close to shooting two of them before they thought better of it. In one instance, I pointed my pistol at a man who had just robbed a bank. He had no weapon in his hands but he had the thousand yard stare, before my .45 and my loud barking convinced him to get on the ground. A couple of months ago, I pointed my pistol at a man who had stabbed his wife three times while trying to murder her. He had no weapon in his hands when I found him. This thread has caused me to reflect on this issue. I can tell you that police officers all over this country routinely point pistols at bad guys, believed to be armed or dangerous, but with no visible weapon in their hands. The theory that I present here is that a violent felony suspect is more likely to give up when staring at the bore of the pistol than when the pistol is held at the low ready. Of course, this theory could be wrong and ther is no way to present empirical evidence to support it. However, I do like the idea of the low ready as an option as it is very easy to come up on target for the trained shooter. Definitely something to think about.

Secondly, I am not one to use a flashlight on a pistol although I use one on my AR and my shotgun, the operation of which is done with the non shooting hand. I know that may not be practical with a pistol. I am okay with the pistol mounted light as long as people don't use it as a searching flashlight. I don't think this is what happened here. I think the officer would have pointed his pistol at this guy, just like we all tend to do, even if it didn't have a light on it. No matter what, I think the incident should be critically looked at so that the mistake is not replicated.
 
One shouldn't base the decision to point a gun (or not point a gun) at a person purely on whether or not they are obviously displaying a deadly weapon. It should be based the reasonable belief that they pose an immediate and credible threat of death of serious injury.

If someone trustworthy told you that the person you were engaging had just committed an violent felony and was armed then I would say you were more than justified in pointing a weapon at them.

On the other hand, if you had no reason to believe he was armed and he wasn't acting as if he were a threat then pointing a gun at him would be overstepping.

In fact, even if he were armed that wouldn't, in and of itself, warrant pointing a gun at him. I've been stopped for traffic tickets more than once while armed. Although all of the officers knew I was armed (I informed them of the fact) none of them ever pointed a gun at me. Just as it should be.
 
One shouldn't base the decision to point a gun (or not point a gun) at a person purely on whether or not they are obviously displaying a deadly weapon. It should be based the reasonable belief that they pose an immediate and credible threat of death of serious injury.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind also that there is AT LEAST ONE gun at the scene.

The officers.

A significant number of officers are killed with their own guns, or gun taken from another officer.
 
Which, by the way, is an excellent argument for keeping the gun safe in its retention holster until it is actually needed.
 
Which, by the way, is an excellent argument for keeping the gun safe in its retention holster until it is actually needed.
Click to expand...

The ability to draw quickly and rapidly acquire a target and fire requires constant practice.

The other problem is this would put the officer (or other person) at a distinct disadvantage since reaction time becomes a more significant factor.

The advantage of having the gun out and ready should be used.

For the most part, action defeats reaction.
 
The key is the interpretation of "until it is actually needed."

Obviously an officer doesn't draw his gun every time he encounters a citizen just to get a leg up in terms of reaction time. Neither does he leave it holstered in the interest of avoiding a gun snatch when it's obvious that violence could be imminent.

Pulling out a gun before it's really needed raises the chances of unintentional discharges and also eliminates the security that a retention holster provides. But I'm CERTAINLY not advocating that police should try to handle obviously hazardous situations with fast-draw techniques to minimize the time the gun is out of the holster.
 
The officer squeezed sympathetically while violating Rule 3. This is a training issue, not an equipment issue.

It was NOT a Rule 2 violation. Effecting felony arrests under the circumstances describes involves the pointing of weapons at the suspects.

Per Col. Cooper at http://dvc.org.uk/jeff/jeff6_2.html :
"Rule 2: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
You may not wish to destroy it, but you must be clear in your mind that you are quite ready to if you let that muzzle cover the target. To allow a firearm to point at another human being is a deadly threat, and should always be treated as such."

--

It was NOT an inappropriate time to use a weapons mounted light. Effecting felony arrests in low light are precisely when weapon mounted lights should be used.

--

Hand held lights should be used performing administrative functions, and weapons mounted lights should be used performing tasks with deployed firearms. No weapon mounted light? Deploy your hand held with your pistol, but the used result should be the same; the light and muzzle should be aligned to the point of contact; i.e. pointed at the suspect.

Edited to insert link to Col. Cooper's Commentaries.
 
Last edited:
This is a training issue, not an equipment issue.
Click to expand...
I agree fully that it's a training issue, however I don't fully agree that it's not an equipment issue. There's room for it to be both.

I would say that it's an equipment issue that could be resolved with training. Using potentially dangerous equipment properly almost always requires some level of training. When the training is absent one can blame the lack of training for incidents, but the fact remains that if the equipment weren't potentially dangerous there would be no need for training.

Some may see that as splitting hairs, but my point is that it's a bad idea to discount the fact that putting a light on a gun creates an easily foreseeable tendency of the person using the light to use it improperly/unsafely. That tendency is precisely why people who use weapon-mounted lights need to train to use them safely.
It was NOT an inappropriate time to use a weapons mounted light.
Click to expand...
Correct. It was an appropriate time to have a weapon mounted light, it's just that the officer obviously did not use the light safely.
Deploy your hand held with your pistol, but the used result should be the same...
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Yes, ultimately the light will end up pointed at the suspect, but the gun may or may not end up pointed at the suspect depending on the officer's assessment of the suspect's threat to him and others.

Second difference is that when using a separate light, the light is not activated by the hand with the trigger finger on it.

I think it's reasonably safe to say that had the officer been using a separate light, this incident would not have occurred.
 
Maybe, maybe not. Sympathetic responses resulting in unintentional discharges have been documented with hand held light as well. When amped up, many folks squeeze. That's fine, so long as no Rule 3 violation is in play. And how do you condition to not violate Rule 3? One answer, and one answer only: training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top