Kentucky Officer Shoots Off Finger

Fortunate that no one else was injured. The whole incident could have gone way worse in so may ways. I'm reminded of the tragic loss of a young girl would was on a hunting trip with her family. She was apparently shot and killed by a ND from a other family member as she was loading her rifle.

Pointless loss of life.

At any rate, both parties are at fault, but I have a strong feeling, despite the LEO'S ineptitude and foolishness, the courts may favor him since the main question would be why was the handgun loaded with live rounds in the first place.
 
Last edited:
The applicable law will certainly be considered in settlement negotiations. Kentucky is a "pure comparative fault" state. Plaintiff’s share of fault will reduce defendant’s liability. K.R.S. § 411.182. The parties may well choose to minimize their costs such as attorneys and court costs by settling the matter.
 
These kinds of cases almost always settle, unless one party, or both, are being pigheaded.

It would most likely cost the gun store/its insurer upwards of $100,000 in legal fees to take this through a jury trial. It is a near certainty that the gun store will be found liable. The "wild cards" are the monetary value the jury puts on the plaintiff's injuries and the discount for the plaintiff's comparative fault. And it's real hard to predict either number.

The disposition of this lawsuit is as much an exercise in applied economics as anything else.
 
I would think the liability would be 50-50 at best for the officer. Yes, he was handed a gun that had a round in the magazine.

1. He didn't see the clerk clear it.
2. He didn't clear it himself.
3. He racked the slide but didn't look to see if a round was being chambered.
4. He pulled the trigger.
5. His fingers were in front of the muzzle.

The gun store made a mistake. He took their mistake and expanded it exponentially. I don't feel sorry for him and would have a really hard time awarding him damages. Hopefully his lawyers will point this out to him and he'll accept what ever settlement he can get away with.
 
Fly on the wall stuff.

The cop's lawyers will undoubtedly harp on a gun loaded in the showcase and not checked by the clerk.

The store's lawyers will undoubtedly show the department's safety policy on handling firearms.

Going to be an interesting settlement conference or/and trial.
 
Gross!

You could see the red blood spatter mist when he blew part of his finger off. :eek:

Well, play stupid games win stupid prizes. BOTH men in the video screwed up, bad.
 
terms

I follow and understand the "all guns are loaded" rules and ensuing debate.

But, techically anyhow, isn't a firearm with a loaded mag in place, or a loaded magazine, but chamber empty correctly, termed " half loaded"? Not legally, but in shooters jargon?
 
bamaranger said:
But, techically anyhow, isn't a firearm with a loaded mag in place, or a loaded magazine, but chamber empty correctly, termed " half loaded"? Not legally, but in shooters jargon?
Click to expand...
"Loaded" or "unloaded" or "half loaded" (isn't the latter sort of like being "a little bit pregnant"?), once the cop racked the slide without first clearing the firearm, it was definitely loaded -- as demonstrated by the fact it fired and amputated his finger. [Disclaimer -- I know the gun didn't fire itself, he pulled the trigger. Not arguing that, only the point of being loaded or ... something else.]

This is not unlike DEA agent Lee Paige, who shot himself in the foot (literally, if you somehow missed all the Youtube videos of the incident) with a Glock that had supposedly been cleared -- but wasn't unloaded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6UvNgbqIA

My view, legalities and legal definitions aside, is that a firearm with a charged magazine in it is "loaded."
 
Last edited:
Any gun that has a magazine with even one cartridge in it (mag inserted into firearm) is in my opinion "loaded". Some people choose to carry with a round chambered, others choose to carry without a round in the chamber - either way, the gun is loaded. You wouldn't say that a guy is walking around with an unloaded weapon if he is carrying a Glock 17 with a magazine holding 18 rounds and no round in the chamber.
 
Frank Ettin said:
These kinds of cases almost always settle, unless one party, or both, are being pigheaded.

It would most likely cost the gun store/its insurer upwards of $100,000 in legal fees to take this through a jury trial. It is a near certainty that the gun store will be found liable. The "wild cards" are the monetary value the jury puts on the plaintiff's injuries and the discount for the plaintiff's comparative fault. And it's real hard to predict either number.

The disposition of this lawsuit is as much an exercise in applied economics as anything else.
Click to expand...
I'm going to take this that one extra step that Frank didn't. If the gun store or its insurer figures that it will take $100K+ to defend the case, it makes simple economic sense to settle if: (1) the cop will take something less than $100K to settle; and (2) there's no admission of liability or wrongdoing in the settlement agreement.

Lots of folks like to say that they'll "take it to the Supreme Court," because "it's the principle of the thing." In litigation, principles are expensive.
 
This hard to believe. Long time ago (about 60 yrs) I was in a gunstore/gunsmith shop when a police officer came in with a cocked revolver, and asked the gunsmith to uncock it for him. He (the officer) didn't know how.
 
Last edited:
This hard to believe. Long time ago (about 60 yrs) I was in a gunstore/gunsmith shop when a police officer came in with a cocked revolver, and asked the gunsmith to uncock it for him. He (the officer) didn't know how.
Click to expand...
I would have thought that more likely today than 60 years ago. :)
 
I am from Glasgow, well, 7 miles out side of it between Glasgow and Edmonton. My cousins are the Kentucky Headhunters and Blackstone Cherry. :D

The idea that in Glasgow they have a lower exposure to handguns seems a reach.

There is an old saying, "Accidents happen when two idiots meet."
 
loaded

Yeah, believe me, I get it. Certainly, ALL guns are loaded. Understood.

Simply thought I had read somewhere that there was in fact jargon concerning "half" loaded v. fully loaded. Seems like I'm just confusing the post.

Sorry
 
"Half loaded" was Jeff Cooper's term for an auto with magazine loaded and chamber empty.

Not a widely used phrase. "Condition 3", also a Cooperism, is better known.

Both are shottist (Cooper spelling) jargon with no legal significance. A loaded magazine equals a loaded gun, chamber status notwithstanding.

(Maybe if the chamber is also loaded it becomes "Fully Loaded" as we see in news reports. Or that is just what they teach in journalism school.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top