Kentucky Officer Shoots Off Finger

[Frank Ettin]

The gun is loaded in any case. They're all loaded. All of 'em. I've lived by that rule, and things like this don't happen to me.

Yes they are. All the time. Every time. Knowing that is where safety starts.

The Cooper/Gunsite Four Rules:

Remember that the Four Rules describe an appropriate mindset for safe gun handling. Those of us who have trained with the Four Rules, and teach with them, understand them as safe handling rules. We know and teach their proper application and context. So --

• If you hand me a gun, don't bother telling me it's not loaded. Because Rule One applies, I won't believe you and will personally verify/clear the gun.
  
  
• If I criticize you for pointing a gun at me, my spouse, my cat, or anyone/anything else I value, don't bother trying to excuse yourself by telling me that it's not loaded.
  
  
• If your gun fires when you didn't intend it to, don't bother trying to explain yourself by saying anything like, "I didn't think it was loaded." You should have understood that under Rule One since it is a gun it is loaded, and you should have conducted yourself accordingly.

People complain about Rule One. They say that they know there are unloaded guns. But the The Four Rules are rules of gun handling and intended to avoid injury. So as far as I'm concerned, when I pick up a gun, there is no such thing as an unloaded gun, and I conduct myself accordingly.

So what do you do if you have a gun in your hand and you don't want it to be loaded? Well you clear it, of course. So that's what you would do if, for example, you wanted to dissemble if for cleaning or enclose/lock it in a case for legal transportation if the law requires that the gun be unloaded. But while the gun is in your hand you still follow Rules Two, Three and Four. And if the gun is out of your control, Rule One again applies -- so you conduct yourself accordingly and personally verify/clear it if you don't want it to be loaded. (And of course anyone one who uses a gun for practical applications, such as hunting or self defense, in any case needs to be able to handle a loaded gun properly.)

Let's see what Jeff Cooper had to say.

• Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, Vol. 6 (1998), No. 2, pg. 8.
  

  ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
  The only exception to this occurs when one has a weapon in his hands and he has personally unloaded it for checking. As soon as he puts it down, Rule 1 applies again.

• Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, vol.9 (2001), No. 6, pg. 29:
  

  ...We think that "treat all guns as if they were loaded" implies with the "as if" qualification a dangerous choice of assumptions...

• Jeff Cooper's Commentaries, vol.11 (2003), No. 13, pg. 64:
  

  ...A major point of issue is Rule 1, "All guns are always loaded." There are people who insist that we cannot use this because it is not precisely true. Some guns are sometimes unloaded. These folks maintain that the rule should read that one should always treat all guns as if they were loaded. The trouble here is the "as if," which leads to the notion that the instrument at hand may actually not be loaded....

Then as As John Schaefer, another student of Col. Cooper, puts it:

All firearms are loaded. - There are no exceptions. Don't pretend that this is true. Know that it is and handle all firearms accordingly. Do not believe it when someone says: "It isn't loaded."

And at that same link, Mr Schaefer quotes John Farnam in part as follows:

...The correct philosophical approach to serious firearms training is the "the condition doesn't matter" method. This was first articulated by Uncle Jeff in his four rules, but all four can all be rolled together in the universal admonition "DON'T DO STUPID THINGS WITH GUNS!" The "hot range" concept logically flows from this philosophical conclusion. Now, we handle all guns correctly, all the time. We don't have to "pretend" they're loaded. They ARE loaded, continuously, and all students need to become accustomed to it....

A short time ago I received the following (quoted in part) in an email from another Gunsite alumnus:

Negligent discharges that result in injury are the result of 1. IGNORANCE, and/or 2. COMPLACENCY and/or 3. HABIT that is inappropriate to changed conditions.

Proper training with the universal rules can only address #1 and #3.

...The great deficiency of much NRA civilian training ... is that muzzle and trigger discipline are not rigorously enforced except when on the range when the line is hot and sometimes not even then. Change the conditions to carrying a loaded gun at all times and adverse results are predictable.

EXAMPLE #1: Trap and skeet shooters often rest muzzles on their toes and point them at each other. They have almost no accidents on the range because guns are unloaded until just before they shoot. ...CHANGE CONDITIONS to a duck blind with loaded guns and the results are predictable....

One thing that Jeff Cooper said ... made a big impression on me. It is seldom repeated. To address complacency he said that every morning when he picks up his gun he says to himself "somewhere today someone is going to have an accident with a gun - not me, not today".

The current Four Rules grew up on a hot range where it is customary to indeed go about with one's gun(s) loaded and where people are trained who will indeed be going around with loaded guns out in the world and about their normal business.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

But do you really believe that there is that much negligence in a gun shop to allow ammo to meet gun in the sales case?

Obviously, since it happened. The gun didn't load itself after being put in the display cabinet. Remember Hanlon's Razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."​

Amongst other things, it [the lawsuit] apparently claims...

The lawsuit claims Smith was “exercising reasonable care and due diligence for his own physical well-being” during the time described in the document.

If the jury sees the video, then they will know that the above claim is not correct.

Don't bet the farm. I've been in court a few times as an expert* witness and I know that the average juror typically has an IQ that hovers around room temperature. Remember, most -- probably all -- won't be shooters, won't be cops (current or retired), and won't be veterans. They won't know which end of a gun the bullets come out of, and they will have been indoctrinated by the media to believe that cops are the only people in this country who have the necessary training to handle a firearm safely.

The lawyer for the gun shop (probably from its insurance company) may or may not be able to overcome that ignorance and bias by bringing in expert* witnesses to testify regarding the rules of firearms safety, but you can never predict what a jury will "get" from any testimony.










* Expert: a former drip under pressure

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Don't bet the farm. I've been in court a few times as an expert* witness and I know that the average juror typically has an IQ that hovers around room temperature. Remember, most -- probably all -- won't be shooters, won't be cops (current or retired), and won't be veterans.

Point well taken, but the lawyer should do his job in bringing the correct people to educate the jury accordingly, not that he will, but in a perfect world...

 

[Skans]

The poor handling of the gun by a customer in a gun store is an non-issue to me - happens all the time. The fact that it was a cop is a non-issue to me. The fact that the store is in Kentucky is a non-issue to me.

The fact that the gun store employee handed someone a firearm with a loaded magazine in it without checking the gun out first, not to mention HAVING a loaded gun for sale in the store is the only issue to me. Pure negligence on the store's part on multiple levels.

 

[Spats McGee]

Point well taken, but the lawyer should do his job in bringing the correct people to educate the jury accordingly, not that he will, but in a perfect world...

In a perfect world, yes, ..... In civil matters, though, he who wants an expert has to hire an expert, and they're not cheap.

 

[madmo44mag]

ALL GUNS ARE LOADED- PERIOD!

I don’t care if they are in pieces on a bench.
Too many times your see stories like this.
Simple rule of all guns are loaded at all times is the rule to LIVE by.

 

[tallball]

I am a public schoolteacher. I showed this video to all of my students today and explained the rules of safety. It is a very important educational video!

 

[Skans]

ALL GUNS ARE LOADED- PERIOD! I don’t care if they are in pieces on a bench.

While I agree that all guns should be treated as if they are loaded, I think I will be safe if I don't rack the slide on a gun that is in pieces on my bench before screwing the grips back on. Let's not get silly here.

All guns are not loaded. All guns should be treated as if they are loaded, because you really don't know, and even if you do know (chamber indicator) the guy next to you doesn't know. I don't need to lie to myself (or to others) for safety sake. Just develop a safe handling routine for handling guns. This has worked for me for many many years.

 

[madmo44mag]

skans - agree but my point is valid.
If your mindset is all guns are loaded regardless of state then you will always treat them as loaded.

 

[WVsig]

There is enough blame to go around in this case IHMO.

First the gun store has some liability. They handed a customer a gun with at least one round in the magazine. This will be their undoing. If they had practiced proper safety checks and storage this would never have happened period no matter how poorly the GPD Officer handled the firearm.

We unfortunately have all been in gun shops or gun shows were people improperly handled firearms. It happens more often then we the enthusiasts like to admit but if I had to put and estimate on it at least 1 in 10 times I am at a gun shop or show I see someone miss handle a firearm. Sometimes it is the dealer/seller sometimes it is the buyer.

The store made 3 crucial errors IMHO:

1. They did not check the mag to ensure that it was empty before putting it into the case.
2. They did not clear the weapon before they handed it to the customer and they did not check the mag before handing it to the customer.
3. They did not correct the customer when he swept the muzzle past at the person behind the counter, several customers and his own hand.

The store however will some of its negligence mitigated by the officer. He also has a lot of culpability in this event. He made 6 crucial errors IMHO:

1. He accepted the pistol and never checked it to see if it was loaded even though the chamber was closed when he accepted it.
2. He immediately put his finger into the trigger area.
3. He swept the muzzle and pointed it at the person at the counter, 2 other employees of the shop and several other customers.
4. He also covered the muzzle of the gun with his own hand.
5. He racked the slide and did not notice that the slide did not lock back as it should have if the chamber was empty. This IMHO should have been an indicator either something was wrong with the gun or that it had a round in the chamber. At that point he should have dropped the mag and checked the gun.
6. He pulled the trigger while the gun was pointed at his hand and other customers and 2 other employees of the shop.

This is what I noticed having watched the video twice. I am sure there are more problems but I think we all get the drift. I think both parties could have prevent this. I think both parties share the blame. If I had to put a percentage on it I think the shop gets 40% the GPD Officer gets 60%.

Don't bet the farm. I've been in court a few times as an expert* witness and I know that the average juror typically has an IQ that hovers around room temperature. Remember, most -- probably all -- won't be shooters, won't be cops (current or retired), and won't be veterans. They won't know which end of a gun the bullets come out of, and they will have been indoctrinated by the media to believe that cops are the only people in this country who have the necessary training to handle a firearm safely.

The lawyer for the gun shop (probably from its insurance company) may or may not be able to overcome that ignorance and bias by bringing in expert* witnesses to testify regarding the rules of firearms safety, but you can never predict what a jury will "get" from any testimony.

I am not sure where you live but I live in KY not too far from where this occurred. The part in your statement above which I have bolded will not IMHO be the case in rural KY. Many will not have vast experience with handguns but I would wager that most will have experience with rifles, shotguns and general hunting safety. If not in practice in theory.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Point well taken, but the lawyer should do his job in bringing the correct people to educate the jury accordingly, not that he will, but in a perfect world...

In a perfect world, yes, ..... In civil matters, though, he who wants an expert has to hire an expert, and they're not cheap.

Not only that, judges and juries may not wish to be educated, or may think they already know everything about everything. With the "victim" being a cop, a defense attorney has an uphill battle from the outset because of the media and the anti-gun proponents having brainwashed the mass populace to be believe that the police are the only people with sufficient training and experience to be trusted with firearms. That could be a difficult hurdle to overcome, because the case will (or "may") pit the defense expert against the cop, who has already gone on record as saying that he practiced safe firearms handling.

And good luck finding a police expert or trainer who would be willing to cross the thin blue line and testify honestly that the officer did NOT practice safe gun handling.

I don't for a moment excuse the store and the clerk. I think we can all agree that (a) the gun should not have been loaded; and (b) the clerk should have cleared it before handing it to the customer.

But, Murphy's Law is always in effect. Which is why we also [should] always verify for our selves that a firearm is unloaded before we allow ourselves to behave as if it is. Let's look at Cooper's four rules and see how many were violated here:

Rule I: All guns are always loaded Neither the clerk nor the officer behaved as it this gun was loaded. They both believed that it was not and acted accordingly. Violation No. 1a and 1b -- both parties

Rule II: Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy The cop violated this rule multiple times before he put his hand in front of the muzzle and pulled the trigger. He swept the clerk within seconds after being handed the gun. Violation No. 2

Rule III: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target The cop had his finger on the trigger pretty much the entire time he was handling the gun. Violation No. 3

Rule IV: Be sure of your target The cop didn't think he had a target, because he didn't think he had a loaded firearm. But ... he had his finger on the trigger in violation of Rule III, so he should have ensured that the gun was aimed at something he didn't wish to destroy, and that whatever was beyond his immediate vicinity was not in the line of fire.

In short, the cop violated at least three of the four rules, and arguably violated all four.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I am not sure where you live but I live in KY not too far from where this occurred. The part in your statement above which I have bolded will not IMHO be the case in rural KY. Many will not have vast experience with handguns but I would wager that most will have experience with rifles, shotguns and general hunting safety. If not in practice in theory.

But we're talking about courts and juries. Ever been through a jury selection process? The attorneys generally don't want people who have knowledge of the topics at issue in the trial. They want people they think are dumb enough to be persuaded to sell whatever story they're peddling. My guess is that, since it's clear that both sides share culpability, both attorneys will work hard to seat a jury that doesn't include anyone who knows anything about guns.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So what you are saying, AB, is that for this case, it would be a jury of their peers!

 

[WVsig]

But we're talking about courts and juries. Ever been through a jury selection process? The attorneys generally don't want people who have knowledge of the topics at issue in the trial. They want people they think are dumb enough to be persuaded to sell whatever story they're peddling. My guess is that, since it's clear that both sides share culpability, both attorneys will work hard to seat a jury that doesn't include anyone who knows anything about guns.

Yes I have last time I was called I ended up being chosen and was the foreman. The jury was intelligent and thoughtful. I think that your characterizations of juries is not entirely accurate. It was a medical malpractice suit in VA.

 

[hartcreek]

THe video undoubtably will be introduced as evidence and it speeks for itself as it clearly shows that officer does not know what he is doing.

 

[Panfisher]

It also very clearly shows the employee handed a customer a loaded gun. Absolutely no way the store comes out of the lawsuit unscathed. I always feel good when I watch the guy behind the counter check and clear the weapon before handing it to me, the he watches me do it, and when I hand it back he clears it again. No comments exchanged just both of us understand that is how it's supposed to happen.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It also very clearly shows the employee handed a customer a loaded gun. Absolutely no way the store comes out of the lawsuit unscathed.

Nor should they. But the cop shouldn't get away with putting 100% of the blame/responsibility on the store. He violated at least three, and arguably all four, of the four rules of firearms safety. He shouldn't be allowed to get a fully-funded retirement program when he is equally responsible for his injury, and the injury is far from "career ending."

 

[Skans]

But we're talking about courts and juries.

And, I can assure you that NO JURY will ever hear this case. The guy shot his hand - nothing that will be outside of the limits of the store's general liability policy. He'll take what his lawyers can get for him and move on. No cop or ex-cop is going to want to be grilled in public over his ineptness in handling firearms. My guess is that the settlement value of the case is less than $100,000 - $30,000 for medical and $50,000 "fun money".

 

[Tom Servo]

But the cop shouldn't get away with putting 100% of the blame/responsibility on the store.

I doubt he will. That's where comparative negligence comes into the picture. Blame and responsibility will be spread between the two parties.

 

[2ndsojourn]

^^^ Yes, Tom. But that only gets consideration if they go all the way with a trial and decision. Not if the case settles before that.