Question: How are Glock 17's carried?

The shot was made after the car was stopped.

Denis, here's what I got so far and some of your questions are things I've taken note of to look for. But there are things, too, that just were not done here. (For one: GSR tests not done on any of the officers!!)

Windows heavily tinted. Vehicle came to rest under a street light (wee hours of the morning). The driver's side window shows a large hole, larger than one would expect from a single 9mm bullet. The hole is about head high if one is seated behind the wheel. The hole shows itself as having spidering and is concave. The window is shattered throughout but has remained in place and did not crumble or fall apart.

Because the bullet(s) first penetrated a barrier (window) the M E opines that the bullet(s) would have mushroomed. Therefore, he will not commit to identifying any distinction between entrance or exit wounds. There are four GSWs believed to be entrance and exit based upon wound path. He surmises based upon the physical evidence (shattered window) that the wounds came from the left side of the body. But the wounds on their own he will not commit to since the holes in and out are about the same. One wound path is through the neck and is perforating and nicked the carotid. No projectiles found in body. The second wound path comes from the upper left side of the back (lat muscle) and takes an excursion around the rib cage exited just below the right nipple. Metal fragments are found along the wound path. My buddy was carrying 9mm hollow points. The make I will not say here but all rounds found (here we go again) of the 16 in the gun when taken into evidence were the same make. Two extra magazines were also taken from him and they contained the same make as found in his gun. However, in one magazine he had 12 rounds and the other 16. (Denis, maybe you can explain that to me.)

Only bullet fragments were found in the car and all were found on the right side front passenger area door, floorboard, and seat. At the M E's office a bullet fragment also fell from victim's shirt collar. But nothing found of any comparison value. The metal fragments were weighed but mean nothing in terms of identification according to firearms examiner.

I am now going thru crime scene and lab reports. Interestingly, the gun found in the victim's car, although fully loaded (18 + 1) and 9mm and not recently fired (GSR test on victim proved negative) was test fired. There's been a tentative match made in NIBIN to a bullet taken from a shooting victim's arm during a home invasion robbery. The home invasion robbery occurred months before victim met his demise. (So much for police planting the gun.)
 
Glass can be very hard on expanding bullets. It's possible (I'm not claiming it's likely) that the bullet could have fragmented on impact with the window and resulted in what looked like more than one GSW. That outcome would be more likely had the bullet penetrated the windshield, less likely, but still possible after hitting side or rear window.

BUT...
...Only bullet fragments were found in the car...
Click to expand...
This makes it more likely. It's not particularly likely that a premium self-defense hollow-point would fragment in flesh. If there are fragments, it is more likely that the fragmentation happened when the bullet penetrated the glass.

This could be tested if the car and ammunition are still in possession of the police. Shoot through the other window from similar range and at the same angle and catch the resulting bullet or bullet fragments.
...the M E opines that the bullet(s) would have mushroomed...
Click to expand...
It would not in the general case. Typical hollow-point bullets mushroom when fluid material fills the hollowpoint and forces the walls of the cavity outward. Rounds which use a polymer filler such as Federal's Guard Dog EFMJ and Hornady's ammo would behave slightly differently but the same general rule would apply. Expanding bullets are designed to expand in tissue, they will not typically expand properly when encountering other materials such as glass, metal or wood.
However, in one magazine he had 12 rounds and the other 16.
Click to expand...
That would have been good info up front. It sounds like he may have been short on ammo. It's possible that he was running low and just hadn't gotten more yet. The fact that neither of his spare mags were fully loaded should help it seem more reasonable that he wasn't carrying his gun fully loaded either.
The metal fragments were weighed but mean nothing in terms of identification according to firearms examiner.
Click to expand...
The weight would most certainly mean something if the total weight were more than the weight of a single bullet. That would demonstrate conclusively that more than one round was fired.

Conversely, if the total weight were equal to or less than the weight of a single bullet it would lend some credence to the claim that only one round was fired.
 
John has some good points.

Not to unduly dump on whatever PD is involved, but GSRs ideally should have been done on all officers involved, irrespective of whether any other than your buddy stated they fired or did not fire.

Re window glass hole size: Depending on bullet caliber, construction, velocity, and angle, the hole left by a single round CAN be much larger than you'd expect.

Modern safety glass is usually pretty consistent, but aftermarket tinting (if present) CAN affect what it does under a bullet impact.
The hole left could have been created by one impact.
Or two.

I don't recall you stating the distance from shooter to shootee, or the size of the hole in the glass, but at night it'd be pretty good shooting to put two rounds inside 6 or so inches at much over 15 yards, in a hurry, and with both rounds fired so closely together that other officers can't say with certainty whether they heard one or two shots.

Re mushrooming on glass penetration: the bullets may have, they may not have.
Lightweight 9mm HPs will tend to expand more readily than heavier HPs.
I would expect greater (and earlier) expansion from a fast 115-grain HP than a heavier & slower 147-grain HP.

Glass is a relatively poor expander barrier.
I have done some very limited auto glass shooting, but have never recovered bullets from it.

I have done a fair amount of wood barrier shooting against pine boards & have recovered expanded HPs in several calibers.
They generally won't expand in wood like they do in water, or gelatin, but they will frequently expand to at least some degree.

Auto sheet metal doesn't do much to expand an HP, can tend to do just the opposite in collapsing the nose in.

Re the entry/exit: I am no medical examiner, but I'm surprised that there'd be a reluctance to pronounce the difference between them.

With an FMJ, I could see it.
With an HP, I dunno. Especially if there were recovered fragments on the passenger side.
An expanding HP, and/or multiple bullet fragments, usually leave different types of skin trauma going in & coming out.
Underlying tissue, too.

Re the apparent state of carry between the pistol & the two backup mags: only your buddy can explain that.

Is he a new kid?
Does he not care about maxing out his carry supply?
Does he figure "A few in this, a few in that, it'll do"?
Does (did) he think "I'll never have to shoot my gun anyway, so it doesn't really matter"?
Does his department not give a big enough ammo stipend for him to buy sufficient ammo to fill everything up?
Is he too broke to fill to max?

Beyond the mag spring issue already discussed, I can see no good reason for carrying like that.

Aside from my own aberration in downloading my duty mags in violation of policy (which I had my own reasons for & knowingly assumed the risks of), I'll say this does tend to illustrate the reason for clear written department policy, and for sticking to it.

I was consulted by a private investigator for the defense about 5 years back in a shooting case where certain firearms-related issues were brought up.

One question was whether the shootee had actually fired his pistol at the shooter before the shooter shot the shootee. When recovered, the shootee's pistol had a round in the chamber, and two in the mag.
Mixed makes.
No clear determination of safety on or off when recovered.

Witness in the shootee's car was so traumatized by the incident that he could not state how many shots were fired, or by whom.

A fired case in that caliber (different from the defendant's caliber) was later found somewhere in the vicinity by a child in the subdivision.
The child could not point out exactly where, no effort was ever put into trying to connect or eliminate a connection to the shootee's pistol by the investigating agency.

There were other irregularities in both the defense and the prosecution, among which was an error on the judge's part in refusing to allow the defense to put an expert firearms witness on the stand, because "it might confuse the jury".

On appeal, the attempted homicide conviction was eventually tossed on the grounds of incompetent defense and improper procedure by the judge. Minor side convictions were considered fulfilled with time already served.
The defendant was released after some years spent in prison, and after losing his job, his home, and almost everything else he'd owned.

Point being, such things CAN come back to haunt you.
Denis
 
Last edited:
A further thought:
If the passenger window was closed, and examination of the car shows no indications of a through penetration, then ALL fragments of any bullet or bullets fired should have been recoverable.

Either from the shootee, or from elsewhere inside the car.

Weighing ALL of those fragments should give a good idea of how many bullets were fired, in addition to the tissue damage found during the autopsy.

If the total fragment weight is less than the weight of the bullets carried in the pistol, a strong probability only one shot fired.
If more, a strong probability more than one shot fired.

May not be possible to find every single bullet fragment, but in the enclosed environment of the vehicle, if nothing exited & everything was contained, it's a data point to be considered.
Denis
 
As I've indicated, I am still poring over close to 800 docs; and these are ones that have been thus far released.

That being said, between my "hypotheticals" and you gentlemen reading between the lines along with your knowledge and experience (as well as your questions I plan on using), I figure you guys are batting .1000.

So, please indulge me with what I have now found and am already becoming suspicious of.

"Hypothetically," if a live 9mm round is found can one identify with any reasonable certainty the gun from which it came? Are certain guns like, say a Glock 17 for instance, more inclined to leave markings on an unfired ejected round than say another sort of gun? If never having been ejected at all can we tell?

If, "hypothetically," this live 9mm round came from my buddy's gun, that's good news, no? But, also, if it did come from his gun, well, why?

I mention this because later that day a civilian reported finding a live 9mm round near the crime scene. This, to me, is remarkable since that crime scene was held for almost 8 hours with an entire city block cordoned off. It looks like extensive photos were taken but they will not release them until the day of the I A interrogation.
 
Jeeze, this is getting quite esoteric.

On the live round question, I'm not aware of any specific method of determining if a particular unfired round was ever chambered in a particular pistol, with certainty.
That's assuming there's nothing like a chipped extractor, rough chamber, or other stand-out abnormality in the pistol.

It MAY be possible to determine that such a round WAS chambered and ejected, by closely examining the bullet nose and the rear of the case.

When a round is chambered under the normal force and speed of a slide going forward during cycling caused by ignition of a previous round, the bullet nose slams into the feed ramp & slides up it.

That should leave some sort of a scuff or minute deformation of the bullet's ogive or outside edge of the hollowpoint's "rim", depending on bullet type & construction.

Again, depending on construction, such a mark may be visible to the bare eyeball, or may require a microscope.

If chambered manually from a magazine, slide forces are less, but if "slingshotted" the bullet nose may still show a contact mark.

If chambered manually from a magazine while the manipulator rides the slide forward slowly, obviously a great difference in forces shoving the bullet nose into the feed ramp, but still a possibility of a scuff somewhere on the bullet nose.

If chambered manually, but not from a magazine, inserted directly into the chamber, and the slide allowed to slam forward against the cartridge, you'd be looking for marks left by the extractor as it's forced around the case rim in a manner the pistol CAN do, but was NOT designed to normally do.
You would not expect to see marks up front in this instance, you'd expect any to be at the back end.

Such a mark may also be visible by eyeballing it, or may require a microscope.

Besides the above, there may or may not be marks left on the case rim during extraction, if the round had been chambered.
There may or may not be a very faint mark discernible under magnification on the rear of the case, left by the ejector.

Manual extraction would tend to leave less of an "imprint" on an unfired case than a fired case, since the extraction force is greatly reduced, and the interaction between extractor, ejector, and brass case is much gentler.

There may possibly be longitudinal scratches along the case walls.

IF any of these marks are present, it MAY be possible to compare their signatures to control samples loaded & ejected through one pistol, or through multiple different brands & types, to see if any similar markings are created in that pistol (or those pistols).

If there's, say, an extractor mark of a certain width on the unfired case that corresponds to the width of a Glock 17's extractor, that would be one data point.

If there's both an extractor mark that corresponds to the Glock's extractor width, and an ejector mark that corresponds to the Glock's ejector (location, size, etc.), it'd indicate the round PROBABLY was chambered in a pistol of that model.

Without some abnormal aspect in the pistol that'd leave a very distinctive mark, I'm not sure you'd be able to state with 100% certainty that round was chambered in that exact gun.

There are a lotta ifs involved.

DNA traces from the chamberer would be obscured or obliterated by the finder's handling.
Possible oil traces on the cartridge transferred from the pistol that could be compared, same.
Nitrate testing (similar to hand swabbing) may possibly have shown something useful, IF the round had been chambered in a "dirty" pistol, but if handled much, dunno.

There are various mechanical forces that are inherent to chambering a round.
Depending on how you do it, as mentioned above, there may be identifiable traces of those forces exerted by contact with different parts of the pistol, but certifying that THIS specific round was chambered in THAT specific pistol could be problematical.

Re late discovery: an obvious problem arises in tying anything found at a distance in time to the incident. On the other hand, even trained & highly competent crime scene specialists do occasionally miss things.

"Later that day" is not entirely unreasonable.
"Later that month" is more problematic.

One other question arises.
Was your buddy in the habit of carrying his Glock with an empty chamber?

I ask because people do odd things under stress.
If he habitually carried with an empty chamber, it is possible (I say POSSIBLE) that he racked the slide at some point to chamber a round in anticipation of an imminent need to fire.

Under the stress of the moment, it is conceivable that some moments later he forgot he had, and racked the slide again, to ready the pistol for firing.
That could account for a live round being ejected from his pistol.

Actions like these under extreme stress are not unheard of.

As a parallel example, single-shot percussion rifles were recovered from Civil War battlefields with up to 10 charges of powder & bullet in their barrels.
In the chaos of battle, an inexperienced (green) soldier might fire, forget the first powder charge in reloading, ram a bullet home, cap the piece, and continue on mechanically loading and reloading without ever being able to fire the rifle, or even realizing it wasn't firing, because there was no way for the cap's spark to get around the first bullet that blocked that spark from reaching the powder charge ahead of it.

How many years on does your buddy have?
Not saying he fell apart, just saying that stresses of a sudden gunfight can bring out behaviors that appear odd, but can usually be explained.

Denis
 
I ask because people do odd things under stress.
If he habitually carried with an empty chamber, it is possible (I say POSSIBLE) that he racked the slide at some point to chamber a round in anticipation of an imminent need to fire.

Under the stress of the moment, it is conceivable that some moments later he forgot he had, and racked the slide again, to ready the pistol for firing.
That could account for a live round being ejected from his pistol.
Click to expand...
Most definitely this--especially if there is any doubt if there was a proper cycle/battery or not--I often do this even under "non-stress" situations. I love a good striker-fire semi-auto as much as the next guy--but I've never been able to trust them mechanically quite as completely as a good revolver ; )
 
Last edited:
So, let's assume he carries with a chambered round. How would a live round recovered play into this? Also, does the fact that there's a live round found, again assuming its his, help clear him of shooting twice? Could that be why he's so adamant he fired only once? (Please let's assume here he's not lying. I ask arguendo. If he's lying it'll come out regardless as I've repeatedly warned. He keeps saying, "Go for it.")
 
You didn't say if the "found round" was the same brand & load as what your buddy carried.

If carried with round chambered, another possibility there is an adrenaline-charged press check.

I had a little automatic "procedure" I did everytime I drew my Glock (if there WAS time) in entering a situation that I felt justified drawing it. Building clearances, alarm drops, man with gun, etc.

On drawing it, I'd tap the mag base against my left palm, to make sure it was seated & locked in.
It only takes one occurrence of a stoppage due to an un-seated mag to make a lasting impression. :)

Some officers will do a last-minute press check on entering a hot scenario, just as added insurance.
It is conceivable here that your buddy MAY have done a quick press check, and adrenaline COULD have caused him to rack the slide just energetically enough to eject the chambered round.

This is conjecture.
If it did happen, he may not have noticed or recalled it.

Maybe somebody else can come up with a third plausibility to explain the round, if it did come from his pistol.
I can't, at the moment.

I really can't help "clear him of shooting twice".
None of us can.
We can offer possible explanations of various details, and a theory here & there.
Best we can do.

And again- why does he need to be "cleared of shooting twice"?
Is there some charge of impropriety relative to shooting once, or shooting twice?
Is the number of shots fired, for some reason, becoming a disciplinary matter?
Denis
 
1. Coulda been spare ammo of the perp if he had a 9
2. Coulda been ejected from officer's gun when:
a) rack slide before firing
b) rack slide after inserting new mag to ensure live round chambered
c) rack slide after replacing mag (you did mention an odd filled capacity mag) with round already in chamber.
d) weapon recycled due to FTF, FTE, shortstroking double-stacking etc.
3. extra ammo dropped or placed there.

Probably several other ways besides that I would think.
 
And again- why does he need to be "cleared of shooting twice"?
Is there some charge of impropriety relative to shooting once, or shooting twice?
Is the number of shots fired, for some reason, becoming a disciplinary matter?
Denis
Click to expand...
Logically I think the fixation on this aspect keeps pointing back to the implication of a questionable shooting involving someone else pulling the trigger on at least one of the shots and hanging it on armedleo's bud.
 
There are admittedly several ways that round could have come to be there, with diminishing degrees of plausibility.
I left out space alien intervention, too far down the list. :)

If the issue is your buddy's statement of one shot vs physical evidence suggesting he fired two shots, as discussed previously that's really in & of itself very defensible & should not be an issue as far as any investigation of HIS actions goes.

If there are suspicions that your buddy fired once & somebody else fired a second shot, but denied it, the IA investigation should then be extending its scope beyond the buddy.

If you can, please explain why the emphasis on "clearing" your buddy of two shots?
Why does that get such attention?
Denis
 
Denis, although you're right viz. found a justifiable use of deadly force, for a police officer as you well know, lying is an unforgiveable sin.

He will (if lying during his sworn IA statement) have committed perjury. Perjury is a crime for which he surely will be prosecuted and it is a termination offense at minimum. The physical evidence indicates at least two gunshots causing (for lack a better term) four holes. For some reason (the truth?) he is not prepared to say he shot this man twice. In fact, he insists upon it.

I am tracking down this found live 9mm round to see what ever became of it. Examined for tool marks? Comparison? DNA? Fingerprints? And yes, I am looking to see the manufacturers marks.

So far, regardless of caliber, and there was only one 9mm (buddy's) at the scene among fellow officers carrying .40 and .45 Springfield Armory and FN(?), all officers were carrying the same brand of ammo. But that does not mean to say he was the only officer on-duty that night carrying a 9mm.
 
If the concern over the One vs Two is becoming an issue regarding "lying", then that issue is a manufactured one.

Very easily defended, as noted.
What motivation would the buddy have to lie?

If one shot's justified, two shots are justified.
Period.

What would he have to lose by lying over it?
What would he have to gain?

If the dead man were found with 40 bullet wounds, your buddy was found standing next to a pile of brass with three empty mags, and he "claimed" to have only fired once, yeah- problem.

Otherwise, I'm just not seeing it.
If the prosecutor found in his favor, and had no problem with the One Or Two Thing, the department should take cognizance of tachyspychia and let it go as far as that specific "lying" question goes.

One of our officers was involved in a shooting that originated out of a gun-point kidnapping 50 miles north of our city.

Condensing, guy took his ex-girlfriend out of church in another town, carjacked a vehicle, pursuit ensued, he rolled the vehicle on a freeway off ramp just on our border.

At least three agencies involved at pursuit termination, several officers set up around the vehicle.

Both guy & gal were ambulatory & exited vehicle.
Guy had a .380 pistol, held gal hostage at the vehicle while officers attempted to contain and negotiate.

Gal became increasingly agitated, tried to break away.
Guy shot her once in chest.
She ran around the opposite side of the vehicle & sat down, leaving a clear angle of approach between officers & guy.

Guy was very dead immediately.

Our officer told me later he knew he had fired, did not know how many he fired, did not know what other officers had done, actually asked an officer from another agency who was right next to him if that officer had fired, too.
The other officer had, our guy did not even register it.

Tachyspychia.
Tunnel vision.
Auditory exclusion.

All known, all explainable, all recognized by courts.
None involve deception.

If lying over those two shots continues to be an issue, attorney time.
Denis
 
Yes, it should have.

By that I meant it's time to hand that over to an attorney to actively deal with.
If terminated, legal recourse, etc.
Denis
 
By "going public" with the story he's authorized me to sit with him throughout the internal investigative process and, if necessary, trial. But only with the stipulation that my story not be published till all remedies are exhausted. Editor agrees.

Now the personal side of this. This is a man with a wife and three children. He'd really, really, like to avoid being fired (losing insurance benefits, etc.) while he fights for his job back in court which as we know could take up to a year or more to get heard. Devastating financially. Plus he's made comments of not fully trusting his fate to the officers' union and their attorney who from I'm told hasn't won a personnel appeal board hearing since they can remember. He's inclined to beg borrow and steal to hire his own lawyer.

But please do not misunderstand. I have a job to do and I have given my buddy ample warning of the dangers of turning this over to me now that my paper (editors, management, and legal) has said Yes to the story. He insists we move forward with his story and, not to be redundant, he swears on the lives of his children he only shot once. Based upon where I see this was going from the help you've guys given (and Denis your insistence of the relevance of number(s) of shots fired) I actually spoke to him and offered: is feasible, in fact, expected that you may not recall firing or how many you fired; admit to firing twice and be done with it. Nope. Now I'm asking you: is there something else I should be looking at here? Is there anything else I should be asking about or looking for???? Is this a case of ego and stubborness????
 
armedleo By "going public" with the story he's authorized me to sit with him throughout the internal investigative process and, if necessary, trial. But only with the stipulation that my story not be published till all remedies are exhausted. Editor agrees.
Click to expand...
Your friend is a fool.
He should only be discussing his case with an attorney.
 
I hate to put this out there, but feel I must. This is a racially charged case. I think I need not say anymore. The chief, if I mentioned his name, is one I am certain you all would recognize. And he's a press (glory) hound eager to make a name for himself. (He sort of already has but has delusions of grandeur, IMHO.) Its possible, I'm just putting it out there because I know you guys have more experience and brains than most lawyers do, that someone's trying to play hero at the expense of a very decent young man. (Combat veteran with two deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, he's been in firefights before and although he's only a 6 year veteran of the police dept. I know he's a pretty cool cat. Hon. discharge as Marine Sgt.)
 
Tom, I have warned him. His wife has implored him to stay low key. He will not listen and wants to protest his case publicly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top