Question: How are Glock 17's carried?

I never understood the statement "no projectile was recovered" to mean anything other than exactly that (should be a fairly simple matter to add up grains recovered and doing comparative scenarios account for "overage" of bullet weight). Somebody--someplace--may have had some kind of recording device going I would think. I don't see how this is going to resolved lacking evidence from an "impartial" recording device of some sort. I don't pretend to have any idea of the "fraternal loyalty" within an LE unit may be--but the idea that some kind of conspiracy involving 4 officers simply for the purpose of "discrediting" a fellow officer who was viewed as a nuisance seems very far-fetched to me, especially in a serious shooting scenario.
 
Last edited:
A bit off-topic but I think it bears mentioning. I've always been somewhat jealous of those that serve in the military and LE--not because I think it's neat to get to use high tech weaponry--but because in large part they are communities where it seems honor and integrity, as well as serving something greater than one's personal wants/needs-- seems to be the norm; things that are sadly lacking in "free society" in general.
 
Unfortunate, and surprising, that a 100-man department in this day & age is so indifferent to legal liabilities & so far behind the times in requiring officers to buy their own guns & ammunition, with such a lack of policy & procedures in place.

Also that all involved were not swabbed.

Allowing a variety of different privately-owned weapons with no standardization is not a problem; many departments will both issue "company-owned" guns and allow individual officers to buy their own (from an approved list) if they choose.
I chose to buy my own, but they had to be approved.
And, regardless of my deliberate choice to risk clouding up a shooting if & when by violating them, there were clear written policies at my PD requiring us to carry with full load-up, and to use nothing but issued ammunition (that part I did comply with :) ).

In my case, I fully understood that my policy violation put me subject to certain liabilities, which put the responsibility on me.
In that one very limited-scope area, I assumed that risk.
(In no way am I advocating anybody else should do this, incidentally.)

In the case of a department with no written policy, when certain issues about an officer deviating from an "un-official" norm may arise, it CAN put the whammy back on that department's shoulders.

Case law has ruled that "Well, we all knew we weren't supposed to do what this officer did" is not enough without it being something more than mere common practice, and officers have been reinstated entirely because that "everybody just knew" wasn't a written policy.

The problems illustrated here so far are a lack of written policy regarding exactly what ammunition must be carried, and how the handgun (and other duty weapons) must be carried.

Many questions & side issues can be avoided up front with such policies in place.

A department that size should be more on the ball.
And they dropped that ball severely in not swabbing EVERYBODY.

As far as your buddy swearing he only fired once goes-
If the suspect was struck more than once (by full-weight intact bullets & not secondary projectiles such as fragments of bullet or glass caused by one or more bullets perforating window or car door sheet metal), then obviously SOMEBODY fired more than one bullet.

Swabbing could have eliminated everybody else there with a gun, right out the gate.

If no other officers fired, and it is confirmed that MORE THAN ONE BULLET STRUCK THE SUSPECT, Occam's Razor would suggest strongly that it was your friend who fired those shots.

His memory CAN'T be counted on as absolute, and doesn't mean he's being deceptive, or that his intelligence level is sub-par.

Statements from other witnesses present, police or civilian, MAY be more reliable.

If it can be determined by witnesses that no one else fired (the fact of WHO fired is just as important here as HOW MANY ROUNDS WERE FIRED), analysis of all weapons on scene shows ONLY YOUR BUDDY'S GLOCK WAS RECENTLY FIRED, the dead man was struck by more than one intact bullet, your buddy's pistol can be forensically shown to have fired the single recovered case (showing he DID FIRE), and there are indications that the pistol when taken from the buddy was found two rounds short of full capacity, a conclusion is not hard to reach.

I'm not saying it's an absolute 100% slam dunk that he fired twice, but....
Denis
 
Just be careful about assuming that two shots were fired based on counting entry & exit wounds. Sometimes bodies can get into very odd positions in the course of normal actions and a bullet essentially freezes motion. Two entry wounds could simply be the result of a pass through that re-entered the body due to an odd body positioning at the instant of the shot.

Given that no projectiles were recovered, it might also be possible that one of the entry wounds was a part of a projectile that ricocheted.

If it was expanding ammo, the second entry wound should show evidence of the bullet entering pre-expanded.

I know that this is pretty basic forensics, but a lot of things that seem to have been omitted in this case are also pretty basic forensics.
 
One would hope the jurisdiction involved has a competent enough medical examiner to determine which was what, during the autopsy.
Denis
 
I concur. The blood alcohol level of the victim/bad guy was .08, not indicative of severe intox; just at the minimum for a DUI charge. What has me thinking there may be a third gunman here (non-police and non-victim/bad guy) is the slow chase. My buddy observed victim driving slowly, riding the brake but swerving as if unable to gain control of his vehicle and driving this way for about 1/2 a mile - all with lights and siren activated. Could he have already been shot and then climbed in behind the wheel of his car?
 
Anything's possible, I guess. Do either of the wounds appear to be so minor as to not be incapacitating or lethal in a relatively short time?

If both wounds would have been incapacitating or rapidly lethal then it probably wouldn't make sense for one of them to have been inflicted some time before the final encounter.

If the person entered the car already wounded, one might also expect to find blood in places that wouldn't otherwise make sense. Specifically on the outside door handle or on the outside of the car.

Is there anything that suggests or makes it reasonable to assume that he was shot elsewhere prior to the final encounter?

This is pretty interesting, but we're wandering away from the original thread topic somewhat...
 
Only in trying to reason out any logical explanation (and one consistent with the evidence or trace evidence as you've pointed out) for more than one GSW and an insistence by my buddy he only fired once. Of course, we don't have all the facts yet and not everything has been made available. All GSWs are through and through and the ME has identified two with some metal fragments but no projectiles lodged anywhere in the body. I am just trying to look at the big picture: why would he not stop? He wasn't wanted. The stop was for a suspected DUI with no accidents or speeding. Did I mention its being alleged the gun found was planted?
 
Did I mention its being alleged the gun found was planted?
Click to expand...
Nope--but I had a bad feeling that was coming given the notion that your friend was somehow being railroaded--or being offered up as a sacrifice for the shoot. And it sounds darn close to what you're talking about is really homocide. This is beginning to sound like a plot to a movie or book! For 4 other officers to complicitly concoct stories that hold together for this kind of scenario--uhhh?
 
Last edited:
As within their rights, all have invoked their fifth amendment right of non-self incrimination. Moreover, only one is the subject of the I A (my buddy), and he will soon be compelled to give testimony under oath.

But get this: They are not calling the other officers in as witness officers to compel their testimony. Now, I ask you, is that a credible I A investigation? BTW, from scuttlebutt, rumor has it that the command staff, including the head of I A, has tried to talk the chief out of doing an I A at all since the criminal investigation has resolved the matter as a justifiable homicide with the justifiable use of deadly force and no allegations of wrongdoing.
 
Sure sounds like someone(s)'s butt is going to end up in the frier to me. The effort to seal it shut is understandable since I assume the net of discoveries can be cast wide and far if it goes that far. This is fascinating but very disturbing in it's implications, it still sounds extremely improbable to me that there is some kind of conspiracy--but I've also heard fact can be stranger than fiction.
 
Let me say straightaway I am not a conspiracy theorist. Actually a skeptic when taking on any assignment. And many "conspiracies" are mostly ones of the most simple kind: a conspiracy of silence. The thin blue line. The code of silence. And really while the police code of silence is most notorious, I have found it exists in most workplaces where I've investigated internal theft, union disruptions, or just simply work slowdowns. Most "conspiracies" are comprised in large measure of collusion through silence. One case involved two or three toughs working in a cigarette distribution center who brazenly would grab a box of cigarettes that were not yet tax stamped and in front of other warehouse personnel just picked it up and walked right out with it. And everyone just kept their heads down and minded their own business. The fear of reprisal kept their tongues silent.
 
And Stag, just to be clear, you and I both know you are no knucklehead. Likely you are a professional and earn well above the national poverty level. Whatever your training, as a professional or skilled in your field, brings with it the ability to reason. Logic. It applies to many fields outside your particular field of endeavor. Many of today's captains of industry have education and training in fields of study having little to do with what they find themselves doing today. Meant as a compliment.
 
LOL--the truth is I really am just an amateur knucklehead in something like this since I have no experience whatsoever in LE or legal matters. You've simply provided me (us) a very unusual opportunity to speculate on a "who dunnit." The only thing I bring to the table--if anything--is a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to human behavior. I don't like the implications of your situation because it's likely a "lose-lose" outcome for all involved from the way it seems to be developing. On the other hand, I do appreciate the notion of upholding the law and justice regardless of wherever that might lead you.

PS: Part of me is waiting for your next installment--the prequel of what happened prior to the stop of the perp since I suspect that too will yet again change the complexion of the case.
 
Last edited:
Ah. You are getting ahead of the story. I am right now in contact with a detective from another jurisdiction who is providing information about the driver. The planting of the gun theory is one of those things I dismissed out of hand, btw. But, its nice to have evidence to shut it down completely making it highly unlikely to have been a plant. Besides, no one ever accused the driver of pointing a gun, much less having one. Although his behavior seemed to say so, no one ever said they saw a gun. Had they done so from the outset and there wasn't a gun, well, then you need to plant something that wasn't there in the first place. IMHO. The discovery of the gun, not made by police but crime tech after the car was towed from the scene. Magazine and gun tested for DNA and prints. None come back to police. Some mixtures of DNA found and some (25% likelihood) match driver.
 
What exactly are the issues?

What exactly are the allegations & against whom?

The core situation as you describe it should be fairly cut & dried.

Totality of circumstances (including furtive movements) as described add up to a set of incident facets that have passed case law standards for use of deadly force.

The incident as described has been reviewed by local prosecution authorities & declined.

What difference, as far as the actions of your buddy go, does it make TO THE IA INVESTIGATION & POTENTIAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION whether he fired once, or fired twice?

If the shooting was upheld by the local legal system (whichever appropriate county or district attorney's office), what facts are the department seeking or attempting to use against your buddy?

I realize you can't divulge everything, but....

The two-hole/one brass issue has no bearing on whether or not it was a justifiable shoot.
If one shot was justified, two shots were justified.

The discrepancy between one brass recovered and two bullet holes found in the body is not entirely unexplainable, nor is the discrepancy between your buddy's recollection of one shot fired vs two bullet holes found any indication of guilt, inappropriate action, deception, obfuscation, or outright lying.

A second empty case could quite easily have lost itself in, behind, or under some terrain feature, and not discovered during crime scene search & analysis.
I shoot regularly for work, and I almost never recover all of my brass, even though I KNOW where it should be, and I make several sweeps of the immediate area where I KNOW it HAS to be.
Explainable.
Defensible.

The memory thing, we've gone over.
Tachypsychia causes all sorts of memory distortions. Long established, well-recognized, admissible in court, extremely easy to bring it in via an expert witness, and a perfectly valid principle to apply to such a case.
Explainable.
Defensible.

As to the CORE ISSUE ("Good" Shoot/"Bad" Shoot), the presence of the gun is actually irrelevant.
Case law has upheld (as in refused to prosecute) shootings where officers THOUGHT they saw a weapon (and did), THOUGHT what they saw was a weapon (and wasn't), THOUGHT the suspect was reaching for an out-of-sight weapon (and was), and THOUGHT the suspect was reaching for an out-of-sight weapon (and wasn't).

The key here is the officer's perceptions, which (based on training, experience, and HIS OR HER INTERPRETATIONS OF EVENTS HE OR SHE SEES AS THEY UNFOLD) are the basis for the officer's subsequent actions.

Courts have held the officer's perceptions (threat, danger) are valid as elements in justifying a shooting, and they need not (repeat- NEED NOT) be correct or accurate in terms of whether a weapon actually was involved.

We've all heard of instances where cellphones & other objects were mistaken for handguns, officers fired, later investigation found no weapon.
Tragic, but it does happen in chaos & bad lighting, and courts will typically recognize that the officer acted out of a "defensive mode", rather than a "I just wanna kill mode".

If a gun IS later found, that can be corroboration of POSSIBLE intent on the suspect's part to offer a threat to the officer, particularly if he was seen reaching down toward that general area.
Floorboards & under the seat are areas where handguns are frequently hidden in a hurry.

I found several there over the years in the aftermath of various arrests deriving from vehicle involvement.
My training & experience told me quite clearly that if somebody was reaching down low there under questionable circumstances, the "Danger, Will Robinson!" alarm went off immediately.
Again- explainable.
Defensible.

Other issues as described are peripheral.
I say- as described.

How the Glock was loaded may or may not be grounds for disciplinary action.
If no written policy, a caution may be POSSIBLY entered in the buddy's file, and after that such written policy SHOULD IMMEDIATELY BE ESTABLISHED.
Same deal with any mixed ammo, if established.

If termination or demotion derives from either of those two specific issues, I would suggest an attorney.
He should already have one in place.

Re the suggestion or accusation of planting the gun: if any DNA matching the suspect is found on it (and DNA is not the instant "Hang Or Acquit" proposition that Hollywood makes it out to be), that should weigh heavily against such an accusation.

Re the second shooter theory: should not be too difficult to determine if the suspect was shot first elsewhere, based on the location & angle of the bullet wounds, and any blood locations inside the vehicle. May not be entirely conclusive, but it's a start & can at worst provide a likelihood, one way or another.

Re the long, but short chase: can't tell you how many of those I did over the years. They're not all 120-MPH freeway pursuits & not all those fun Dukes Of Hazard jobs.
Impaired driver, new driver, young driver, scared driver, indecisive driver, hide-the-dope-first driver, dump-the-gun-first driver, and so on.
Impaired drivers may not even notice the lights & sirens.
Honest- been there, seen it myself.

Re any background on the suspect: if the officer did not personally know him or his background (known threat, known to be hostile to cops, known to resist arrest, known to be violent, etc.), makes no difference whatever whether he was the pope or Al Capone, AS FAR AS WHAT THE OFFICER KNEW AT THE MOMENT OF FIRING.

Inadmissible in court, irrelevant in an IA investigation.
If the suspect was a complete stranger, the traffic stop originated as an independent incident (not as the result of a BOLO, not a fleeing suspect from a violent incident with description of car or known identity, or something similar), and the buddy knew nothing more than what he saw that led him to shoot, those observations are relevant.

The fact that later investigation reveals the suspect had been a serial murderer for 20 years previous to that night may have a bearing on the SUSPECT'S ACTIONS, but none whatever on the officer's actions in terms of legality or internal departmental policy applications.

So- what allegations (in general terms, not specifics) are the buddy dealing with from his PD?
Denis
 
You have hit upon the very crux of the matter. Regardless of those things that go bump in the night, as you have reasoned, the shoot was good. That's the reason there have been attempts made to convince the chief that the SAO not only found no evidence of wrongdoing or insufficient evidence to prosecute (as is their wont), they affirmatively declared the officer(s) in question were justified in the use of deadly force. The gun found, albeit much later and out of reach, naturally helped in their decision making.

Although notified he's the subject of an I A investigation, he has not been advised of what he's alleged to have done wrong. So, without a specific allegation(s) of wrongdoing, how is one supposed to defend oneself. Yet, according to policy, my buddy is supposed to be informed of the allegation(s) being leveled against him. That is not happening here. Again, I am not a conspiracy theorist by a long shot, but as Stag mentioned this does not look good (lose-lose) for my buddy. The I A investigation looks like a fishing expedition.

I myself have tried to find where the weaknesses are in my buddy's actions. The only thing I can figure, and the firearms examiner noted, was this discrepant bullet count, unaccounted for projectiles, spent case indicating one shot fired, and multiple GSWs.

To reiterate, I know nothing of Glock firearms, much less the Glock 17 9mm - that is until now thanks to you gentlemen. But I know enough about firearms to know that each make has its own features and peculiarities as does the operation of each gun itself when put in the hands of its operator - one who learns the best ways to use his side arm most effectively. Hence, my questions about any conventional wisdom about carrying the Glock 17 and any shortcomings or features that might explain (which you've done here better than any article I've found on the subject, btw) the potential "missing bullet" and how he carried that Glock on that night.
 
Last edited:
Without knowing how long this has dragged on, appears to me to be a matter, at this point, and MAKING NO CONCRETE RECOMMENDATIONS IN EITHER DIRECTION, of your buddy deciding how long he wants to be left hanging.

There's always the "How damaging to my career would pushing back be?"
Balanced by "How long am I willing to be kept on indefinite hold, with concurrent effects on my life & family?"

Can be a hard decision.
Life with that hanging over your head can be very draining emotionally.

Attorney can demand a "Spit or Git".
Union can get involved.
Buddy can start looking for a new job.
And so on.
Denis
 
Suspect struck by buddy's bullet while still in car, presumably?
If so, did the bullet (or bullets) penetrate any barrier before striking suspect?

By "multiple GSWs" are you saying SEVERAL bullet wounds?
Or just the two?

Is it positively established that ALL are bullet wounds?

Penetrate window glass first? How many holes?
Penetrate door sheet metal first? How many holes?

If penetrated door sheet metal, could impact wounds be caused by either two separated bullet fragments, or secondary projectiles from steel parts of the door?

Wound paths consistent with angle of fire from your buddy's position?

Blood in car consistent with angle of fire and witnesses' description of suspect position at time of firing?

Stranger-than-fiction stuff does occur.
Had a shooting death case once where a lady was found dead, reclining lengthwise on a couch, .38 Special revolver in hand.

Two bullet holes in wall behind her head, one entrance & one exit path, two empty cases in gun.
GSR positive.
Strained relations with husband, argument earlier in the evening.
Suicide, or murder?
Explain?

Sometimes the best you can do (although we did figure that one out) is determine possibilities.


Unaccounted projectiles?
What bullet type, JHP or FMJ, involved?
Car windows up or down?
Perforation would, if you're looking to recover a bullet outside the body, indicate that by determining the angle of fire compared to the point of bullet impact & wound path, you should have a fair chance of either finding the bullet (s) somewhere inside the car, or of establishing a likelihood of those bullets traveling on through an open passenger door & exiting the immediate scene.

I still don't see the "One Shot Or Two" as a huge issue, in what you've described so far.
Denis
 
I may of missed it--I don't recall that armed leo specifically indicated when his buddy actually took the shot(s)--before or after the final stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top