Question: How are Glock 17's carried?

The scene is near an intersection just before the crosswalk. The car, according to new clip, was driving southbound and wound up in the northbound lane closest to the intersection's N E corner. I went there at night and that corner is fairly illuminated by a sodium vapor street lamp. It does throw off a yellow light and, although bright, causes colors to appear in a different hue.

In that same block is where the live round was found. But when the crime scene tech made her report she does not give a precise location like the address of the storefront in which is was found. She just says "found in the northbound lane..." But she does mention an evidence marker with its number. From that I assume she took photos before collecting it. I need those photos.

Anonymous is my description. The caller just reported their find and requested an officer. The cop responded and then requested crime scene and she came out within 20 minutes. But this call came about 8 hours after the scene cleared.

I also do agree with you in that he should let the I A play out. But this I A's outcome may drastically affect the civil rights case that's being filed naming Joe individually as a co-defendant with the police department. I don't remember, although I did do a stint in I A, whether or not the burden is on the officer to affirmatively prove his innocence or provide a defense by way of a counter-argument, or if the burden is on I A to prove guilt.
 
If that round was found 8 hours after the scene was cleared & opened up, and some distance away, with no complainant info, I can see all sorts of problems in trying to connect it up.
Along with a POSSIBLE (POSSIBLE ONLY!!!!!) deliberate attempt to confuse the situation.
In saying that, I DO NOT accuse any body or any entity.

It remains a waste of energy to be trying to answer charges in advance of what those charges may or may not be, at the end of the IA process.

A reasonable amount of effort in going over evidence & statements, yes.
Ranging far afield & looking for other smoking guns based on a found round removed some distance in time & possibly location and with a questionable origin, no.

Where's Joe's attorney?
He's reviewing everything you're reviewing, right?

If so, he should be prepared to address or refute allegations when the time comes, if any.
Denis
 
Yes. Joe's attorney is reviewing all evidence that is to be made part of the I A and, as per policy, the investigation must stick with whatever the evidence speaks to. But please remember that while the chief has the right to be the complainant in the I A - and he's chosen to claim that right and is, in fact, the complainant - there still has been no notification made advising Joe as to what he's being accused of. That's a violation of policy since part of being notified your the subject of an I A, you're also supposed to be advised of the allegation(s) leveled against you. This has not happened. I suppose that's sort of a good thing in that if there is some disciplinary action taken, when appealed it will be brought out to a judge that policy was violated and due process denied Joe.
 
Fully agree with your last two sentences.

Joe's attorney, seems to me, would be within his rights to request a list of the allegations under investigation.
Denis
 
Despite my "knowledge" of firearms, it is quite clear that the experience and training you (Denis) and John have far outstrips my own. (Thankfully!)

My own opinion aside (not that it would influence you guys anyway), I have a sort of related question: In a police shootout, would one not expect to recover more empty shell casings than projectiles?
 
Too wide a question, too many variables.

Depends on:

How many officers fired.

How many rounds fired.

Terrain (as far as recovering empty brass).

Terrain (as far as any containment or backstop features that would/could stop any or all bullets).

Terrain (as far as fixed or transient, either mobile scene or mobile scene features).

Thoroughness/scope of scene search.

There is no Yes or No answer possible to that question.

In the case you've described so far, IF two primary wounds of essentially equal size (indicating both were caused by an intact bullet, not a "split" bullet or secondary bullet fragments) were found, it would indicate two shots were fired.

Since there are two containment vessels, body & car, it SHOULD be possible to recover sufficient projectile fragments to weigh & compare against the weight of a single bullet exemplar vs two. You probably will not recover all fragments, but should be able to recover enough to at least add up to more than the weight of one bullet. If the two bullet wounds & the recovered fragment weights add up, or even if the ME's absolutely certain BOTH wounds were caused by essentially full-weight bullets, then two shots are corroborated.

Since Joe's pistol was two rounds "low" when recovered from him, there is an obvious question raised that can be considered a prima facie conclusion that Joe was the one who fired them.

Since no officers present were swabbed, and apparently no other pistols or mags were checked for round counts, the question of one shooter or two can't be answered definitively, at this point.

Since Joe's two backup mags were also low, that multiplies the uncertainty factor.

If two shots were fired, and only one brass recovered, obviously there SHOULD have been a second fired case somewhere, and that's regardless of who fired the second shot.

Terrain features may combine to hide it.
Bushes, storm drain grates, cracks in asphalt or sidewalk cement, other vehicles (inside bumpers, etc).

One extreme possibility might be that IF a second officer fired, he may have picked up his brass during the immediate aftermath.
I hesitate to suggest this, because it introduces an element of deliberate deception on the part of one officer & I frankly think that's a highly outlandish scenario.

What would be the need?
It would imply a conscious decision to remove his own participation as a shooter, in a justifiable shooting, and the assumption that nobody else present saw him fire or that all would go along with his assertions that he did not fire.

In the case at hand, it is quite possible that there's still a piece of 9mm brass sitting at that scene, in or under something.

It might be suggested that Joe's Glock be checked for any mechanical issues that could show an erratic ejection pattern.

Normally, a pair of shots fired from the same spot should deposit two empty brass cases roughly in the same area (or fairly close to each other).
If his does, a second brass should have been, depending on terrain features, fairly easy to recover.
If his does not, that, compared with terrain features, may indicate why it might not have been, and/or where it may possibly have ended up.

I wouldn't run too far with it, but late Third Gen & early Fourth Gen Glocks in certain models had a tendency to develop abnormal ejection patterns.

That might occur between 800-2000 rounds, and typically ejected straight up & back, as opposed to out to the side.

Kinda loosely called the BTF issue (Brass To Forehead).

If that pistol does eject erratically, scene searches may have paid more attention to where a second case SHOULD have been than where it COULD have been.
I emphasize here that with a competent technical crew, this is not probable.

It's rare for a Glock to exceed 30 feet in ejection, regardless of angle & direction.
In your scene photos, are there any ground features in a 30-foot radius that could hide a case?

Denis
 
Things are looking up; if not interesting or, as you say, "curious."

So, the lab signs in receiving Glock 17 with 16 rounds. This, of course, has me concerned. And Joe is offering no explanations and truth to tell, he's been of little help with very terse answers and he's very difficult to talk to as it is because he's so damned angry.

But, the crime scene tech's report notes that she received from a detective to whom Joe surrendered his Glock in the presence of the crime tech his pistol containing 16 live 9mm rounds in the magazine and one chambered live 9mm round. The detective ejected the live round from the chamber for safety in transporting it to the lab. But the gun was rec'd by the lab with 16 rounds as reflected in lab notes. And no mention of the 17th round. That was not sent to the lab. So, Joe did carry 17 + 1.
 
That does change things.
If you have documentation that 17 rounds were recovered from Joe's Glock, and he states he fired once, appears to corroborate his statement.

Which raises certain questions.

Why the IA focusing only on Joe?
Why the apparent issue over "lying"?

I can see a department wanting to clear up the two-shot issue, by why only focus on Joe if you have two confirmed bullet holes, his statement of one shot fired, and 17 rounds recovered from his pistol?
Denis
 
>My own opinion aside (not that it would influence you guys anyway), I have a sort of related question: In a police shootout, would one not expect to recover more empty shell casings than projectiles?<

Not if wind, footsteps, car treads etc. rolled, kicked, picked up or sent down a drain, one or more casings.
 
In a police shootout, would one not expect to recover more empty shell casings than projectiles?
Click to expand...
Depends on the circumstances. In general, I'd expect to lose both shell casings and projectiles once in awhile because of Murphy's law.

For example, if someone steps on a shell casing and it "squeezes" out from under the side of the shoe, it can shoot quite a distance. Even more so if a car drives over it and something similar happens. Even if it gets kicked around accidentally it could get far enough away that it's not found. There are drains, hidden holes, animals that collect shiny objects, etc. As a kid I remember dropping a .45ACP casing in the grass my back yard and losing it even though I knew where it fell to within a square yard or so.

And projectiles, of course, can go a very long distances and/or end up in places where they are very unlikely to be found.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top