Three Year Old Shoots Father with Glock

You know, my prayers go out to the family also. GRD; We're all stupid at one time or another. The trick is to "minimize" the stupidity. What are we saying here? The pistol envolved is no factor and we're going to just blow it off?
You put a Beretta M92 in front of that kid and he couldn't even reach the trigger!
Well, if ya'll visit beautiful Washington State carry that damn Glock "chamber empty" would you please?
 
He'd be here today if it wasn't for a damn Glock!
He'd be here today if he hadn't put his weapon down in front of his child and turned his back. That's life.

I certainly see your point, J.Parker. All other circumstances identical, if there had been a gun with a manual safety and the kid picked it up and pulled the trigger and the safety didn't fail, yes this guy would most likely still be here.

The only point I really have to make about this is that the thought process that lets you blame this accident on the tool has no end to it. If the kid had seen the movie guys flick off the safety and then pull the trigger, would we want to "round up and shipped back " all the 1911's? Or perhaps legislation to mandate 10-lb trigger pulls on all handguns?

You don't put your weapon in the hands of unauthorized persons, this child qualifies. It matters not what the specifics of the weapon are. Your behavior should be dictated by what it is you want to accomplish. Not getting shot is what this guy should have wanted to accomplish. Therefore, his behavior should have been to keep his weapon away from his child.

To say that it is the weapons fault for being designed the way it is, implies that it would be OK to put a loaded, chambered weapon with a safety engaged in the hands of a child.

It is not the Polar Bears' fault that he tore the arm off the guy who stuck his hand in the cage at the zoo. He is, after all, a Polar Bear, and it is the nature of Polar Bears to tear the arms off of guys who stick their hands in their cages. It is the nature of a Glock to discharge when you pull the trigger. It is the not the fault of the Glock that it is discharges when you pull the trigger.

- Gabe
 
The trick is to "minimize" the stupidity.
This, J., is IMHO the real disagreement between us. Stupidity is a characteristic, not of the item, but of the person.

I don't believe in helmet laws, but I would guess that you do?

- Gabe
 
I had a brief conversation yesterday with a friend who is a Nashville Metro officer. Their issue G22 is stock with a stock 5 lb. connector. I can imagine a 3 yr. old boy holding the pistol, perhaps with both hands, and managing to pull the trigger, although it would seem that the reach would be somewhat problematic.

To me, it's not only the weight of the pull but also the length that would determine how easily a child could fire a handgun. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with Glocks can educate us non-Glock owners/users [I don't like that crunchenticker trigger or the grip angle].

At any rate, it's fair to say that this incident has raised a few eyebrows among those on the force.

How ineffably sad that a moment's inattention cost a young officer his life, but he broke a rule and paid for it...or so it would seem.
 
Actually Gabe, I don't believe in helmet laws either but the injuries that we're happening were driving up our insurance primiums. I'd love to get on a Harley and ride without a helmet but it ain't happenin'.
Let's see. Let's try to draw a comparison here. I know...trigger lock's on Glock's MANDATORY. He'd be alive today.....
 
To reiterate. I live every day with a three year old little boy. I have no doubt that he could fire a Glock with a 3.5 or 5.5 (and probably a NY1) before I could react (and no, trigger reach is not an issue--he would not have to pick it up in one hand and hold like a pistol to pull the trigger). Given eiven enough unsupervised time he could probably manage to make a revolver or a DAO go bang. He might even eventually manage to fire a traditional DA/SA with the safety engaged, but it would take him a significant amount of unsupervised time and a lot of things going right (or actually going wrong). I do not think he could get a 1911 in Condition One to fire (due to the grip safety, trigger reach would be a factor).

The point someone made about a five year old is really not pertinent in that there is a world of difference developmentally (cognitively) between a five year old--not that a five year old would not play with a gun, but there would be more cognition involved.

The DA/DAO, traditional DA/SA or even 1911-style would have bought the officer and his wife one thing they needed--time to react. This is almost a gun-grab type situation--remember all the arguments for a safety/proprietary operating system IF somebody does manage to get hold of your weapon (and yes, we all know it's not supposed to happen, but it does).
 
A three year old (even in my day) is too young to be trusted not to play with a firearm. There is no doubt that the officer was careless in letting the child get his hands on the firearm.

This incident has to be attributed to Human error....The officer and his wife who were apparently not watching the child close enough.

Never the less, he couldn't have done it with many other firearms and probably wouldn't have with several others if their provided safeties had been applied.

Pigpen
 
I you believe...

...that it was the guns fault
...you believe that no one leaves a gun un-attended
...that you should not have loaded guns at home
...that you need safeties on all guns

then you do deserve to loose them.

After all, that's the excuses that anti-gunners use to take your gun rights away.
 
From the washington post:
(although this is not my info and it was posted some time in the past, for those of you who missed it the first time it is well worth contemplating.)
Post.

In the 10 years since D.C. police adopted the Glock 9mm to combat the growing firepower of drug dealers, there have been more than 120 accidental discharges of the handgun. Police officers have killed at least one citizen they didn't intend to kill and have wounded at least nine citizens they didn't intend to wound. Nineteen officers have shot themselves or other officers accidentally. At least eight victims or surviving relatives have sued the District alleging injuries from accidental discharges.

In an extraordinary sequence over the last six months, the District has settled three lawsuits for more than $1.4 million. The District admitted no wrongdoing in the suits, but the cases highlight the chronic neglect of Glock training by the D.C. police.

Last month, the District paid $250,000 to settle a case brought by the family of an unarmed teenager shot and killed at a traffic roadblock in 1996. The family's attorney argued that the officer's gun had discharged accidentally.

In August, the District paid $375,000 to settle another case in which a D.C. officer accidentally shot and killed an unarmed driver at a traffic stop in 1994.

In June, the District paid almost $800,000 to settle a case from 1994, when a D.C. officer accidentally shot his roommate. The officer had not been to the firing range to train with his weapon in more than two years -- 20 months out of compliance with regulations.

One officer waited so long to come to the range that firearms instructors found a spider nest growing inside his Glock.


Almost immediately after D.C. police adopted the Glock, unintentional discharges increased sharply.

The first accident occurred in February 1989 -- less than a month before the guns reached officers on the street. Officer Adam K. Schutz was helping to test and clean the first shipment of guns when he shot himself in the fingers.

"It bit me," said Schutz, who was left with permanent damage to a finger on his left hand. "I was moving my hand to lower the slide and it jumped forward. I had assumed the gun was unloaded."

Nine months later, the 2-year-old daughter of a D.C. police officer died after accidentally shooting herself in the head with her father's pistol in their Northwest Washington house.

By October 1989, the department had experienced 13 unintentional discharges, double the rate of 1988, the last year with revolvers, according to an internal police memo. Then-Assistant Chief Max Krupo noted in the memo to the chief that such problems were to be expected in departments switching to semiautomatics. Krupo suggested that increasing the five-pound trigger pressure to eight pounds "would be satisfactory." But after studying the issue, Krupo decided that a five-pound pull was just as safe as an eight-pound one.

In February 1990, the Use of Service Weapon Review Board -- responsible for monitoring department shooting trends -- issued a report by Catoe, the deputy chief, in response to "the increasing number of unintentional discharges." The report examined nine incidents, blaming "human error" in each case. The report found no deficiencies in either the Glock or the department's training procedures.

But the report reached a troubling conclusion: "The department is obviously experiencing far too many accidental Glock discharges . . . [which] must be eliminated promptly so that serious injury or death can be avoided."

By the early 1990s, the Glock's alleged problems with unintentional shots were the talk of the gun world. Lawsuits against Glock for accidental discharges piled up. The Firearms Litigation Clearinghouse in Washington, an advocacy center against gun violence, currently is monitoring about 60 pending lawsuits against Glock across the country -- 90 percent of all the cases the center is tracking, the center's executive director said.

Despite such publicity, many firearms experts retain deep admiration for the gun.

""Training has a lot to do with accidental discharges," Samarra said in an interview. "Our only concern was training."


In May 1991, an officer accidentally shot Kenneth McSwain, 18, in the back when the officer slipped while serving a search warrant in Northeast Washington, court and police documents show. McSwain, who was unarmed and was not charged with any crime, collected a $42,000 settlement.

In August 1991, an officer accidentally shot Stephen Wills in the chest during a drug bust in Southeast Washington, according to court and police documents. Wills, who was unarmed and was not charged with any crime, collected a $40,000 settlement.

Four officers were wounded with their own guns in 1992. Over and over, officers fired unintentional rounds in the locker rooms at their district stations, or at home while cleaning or unloading their guns, according to police reports.

Officers are told during training to avoid such accidents by being attentive to the Glock's unique, simplified design: An officer cleaning a Glock has to pull the trigger before removing the slide to get access to the gun barrel. In many other pistols, taking the magazine of bullets from the gun renders it unable to fire. But the Glock has no "magazine safety" -- if an officer leaves a bullet in the chamber, the Glock will still fire if the trigger is pulled.

In March 1993, Officer Lakisha Poge fired a round through her bed while unloading a Glock in her apartment, a police report states. The bullet went through the floor and hit Glowdean Catching in the apartment below. Catching, who was wounded in both legs, has a suit pending against the District. Poge, who has left the department, could not be reached for comment.

"I submitted reports through channels and said, 'You have problems with this gun,' " former homicide branch chief William O. Ritchie, who chaired the department's Use of Service Weapon Review Board in 1993, said in an interview. "I talked to the union and said, 'There is a hazard here.' "

In January 1994, homicide detective Jeffrey Mayberry shot Officer James Dukes in the stomach at police headquarters. "I hear a loud bang and Dukes is slowly falling to the floor," Detective Joseph Fox, Mayberry's partner, said in a deposition. "Jeff jumps up and says, 'Dukes, I didn't mean to do it, I didn't mean to do it.' "

Dukes said in a recent interview, "He was playing with the weapon. This was the second time I had told [Mayberry] during that tour of duty not to point the weapon at me."

Four days after Dukes was shot, Officer Juan Martinez Jr. accidentally shot his roommate, Frederick Broomfield, in the groin while awaiting dinner in their apartment, according to police and court records.

Martinez was unloading his Glock in his bedroom when Broomfield came in and asked Martinez how he wanted his chicken cooked. The gun abruptly went off.

"I looked down and I seen smoke coming from my crotch and then after that, you know, I looked at Jay and I said, 'Damn, Jay,' " Broomfield said later in a deposition. "Then my leg started shaking and I fell."

Broomfield, who nearly bled to death after the bullet pierced an artery in his groin, sued the District and Glock Inc. His attorneys compiled a voluminous case in D.C. Superior Court, marshaling gun experts who gave statements about the alleged dangers of the Glock and the deficiencies of the District's training.

In June, the District settled the case by paying Broomfield $797,500. Glock also settled, but a lawyer for Glock declined to disclose the amount. In court papers, Glock denied that its gun was dangerous or defective.


Accidents also continued in 1996 and 1997, but at a slower pace -- dropping from a high of 27 in 1991 to eight last year. Although the numbers diminished, the tragic nature of the incidents didn't. In May 1996, Courtney Rusnak, the 3-year-old daughter of Officer George Rusnak, died after she apparently shot herself with her father's Glock in their District Heights home.

"It looks like she found the gun and started playing with it," Mark Polk, a spokesman for the Prince George's County police, said at the time. "The gun was fired once, and she was hit directly in the head."

In June 1996, Officer Terrence Shepherd shot and killed 18-year-old Eric Anderson as Anderson sat unarmed in his car at a routine traffic roadblock in Southeast Washington. Although Shepherd said he fired because he thought Anderson posed a threat, his captain testified that Shepherd told him at the scene that he had his finger on the trigger and the gun "went off." The shooting, the captain added, appeared to be accidental.

When an officer's gun discharges accidentally, the shooting is generally ruled unjustified by the department, a review of department records shows. Discipline can follow, but an officer is not typically subjected to severe discipline unless the accidental shot kills or badly wounds someone, or the officer lies about the shooting.

Of the 12 officers involved in the shooting cases detailed in this account, two were charged or dismissed: Askew was indicted and convicted of lying about his accidental shooting, and Shepherd was fired for negligent use of force. Four other officers have left the department. Six remain with the force.

By 1997, the safety issue had turned some members of the D.C. police union against the Glock, according to Robertson, the former union official. Several officials wanted to switch to the Sig Sauer, a more expensive gun with a heavier trigger pull.

"Several kids were killed here when they picked up their fathers' guns," Robertson said in an interview. "A 2-year-old can pick up the Glock and kill someone. It doesn't take much to fire the weapon."
 
trigger lock's on Glock's MANDATORY. He'd be alive today.....
Straight out of the HCI playbook, J. What else would you like to see mandatory? All knives have a mandatory lockable sheath? How about "safe-storage" laws for firearms? Or maybe mandatory by 2005 "smart-gun" technology? Trigger locks sold with every gun and a crime to be caught without the lock installed?

I must not be not following you, J. I get the point about 'if all else was equal, the kid may not have been able to remove a safety and fire the weapon' ie: "trigger lock's on Glock's MANDATORY. He'd be alive today....." (if I'm correctly interpreting that by 'trigger lock' you actually meant 'manual safety'), but it seems to me that you are arguing that that makes this incident the weapons' fault for not having a manual safety?? And from there, that the tool-maker should be forced to modify his design, which works as intended and as advertised, and we should all be forced to use this 'new, improved' version of said tool instead of the tool of our choice, which works exactly as it was designed?

It's a tool, J. It doesn't have a manual safety. That means that to correctly use this tool, you do not leave it in the hands of children.

If you hand a kid a running chainsaw and he lops your leg off with it, it's not the chainsaw's fault for being sharp, gassed up and running.

I can't make it any plainer than that.


- Gabe
 
As for that Washinton (Com)Post article, show me the incident where the tool was defective, malfunctioned, "just went off" or failed to operate exactly as it was designed to.
"It bit me," said Schutz, who was left with permanent damage to a finger on his left hand. "I was moving my hand to lower the slide and it jumped forward. I had assumed the gun was unloaded."
Give me a break. This moron was dropping the slide on a loaded, chambered gun with his finger on the trigger. Every single incident reported in that 'article' is the same. They, the people involved screwed up because they were either ignorant or complacent. Shoot your partner in the back going through a door? You had your finger on the trigger of a loaded chambered weapon and had it pointed at your partner. You killed him, not the gun.

This is ridiculous.
Martinez was unloading his Glock in his bedroom when Broomfield came in and asked Martinez how he wanted his chicken cooked. The gun abruptly went off.
Just like that, all by itself. I can put my Glock on the table in front of me and stare at it till Clinton goes to jail and it isn't going to fire or even so much as get up and do the tango. I can take it and drop it off buildings, throw it across the room, run it through the dishwasher, run over it with my truck and guess what? It doesn't "just go off".

I love this next part.
The report examined nine incidents, blaming "human error" in each case. The report found no deficiencies in either the Glock or the department's training procedures.

But the report reached a troubling conclusion: "The department is obviously experiencing far too many accidental Glock discharges . . . [which] must be eliminated promptly so that serious injury or death can be avoided."
So, 'human error' (aka: your fault, moron) caused the 'accidents', yet the dept.'s response is to sue the manufacturer, for a tool that works exactly as it is designed to work.

If the dept. is so full of rocket scientists that they can't learn and subsequently practice basic firearms safety, then maybe they should have their guns designed by PlaySkool, because real weapons are obviously just too much of a intellectual burden to master.

Looks to me like the Glock design has revealed a serious lack of safe gun-handling practices with the DC police dept. These incidents have volumes to say about the competency of the DC police, but very little to say about the Glock.

If it's the Glocks fault that that rookie cop died, then let's sue Glock. You and me, J. Sue the hell out of em. "Your Honor, if it had been any other gun besides this 'Glock', my client would be alive today. The prosecution rests!"

I feel richer already.

- Gabe
 
Come on GRD. We are talking (speculating) about design features of tool (in this case a Glock) that may have contributed to what happened. That does not make anybody anti-gun or in favor of control. We've also talked (speculated) about training issues that may have contributed to what happened--that does not make us anti-cop. We've also talked about human errors that undoubtedly contributed to the incident. That does not make us misanthropes. I don't how it became unfair, unamerican or just plain wrong to criticize (constructively and/or negatively) a Glock (or any other firearm), but it is something that should be. Does the Glock have some weaknesses it in its design--undoubtedly, but so do other pistols. Does the Glock have some strengths in its designed--undoubtedly, but so do other pistols. What's your problem with people discussing perceived weaknesses (and strengths) in the Glock design?
 
What's your problem with people discussing perceived weaknesses (and strengths) in the Glock design?
I don't have a problem discussing the merits or flaws of any particular design. I do, however, have a problem with blaming the tool for causing accidents.

I thought I had made that clear. If not, my apologies for the confusion.

- Gabe
 
One has to suspect that the DC police change to Glocks didn't start a problem. It reveiled a problem in the habits of the officers that revolvers somehow hid.
 
Another cold hard fact is that ALL handguns are dangerous and just because this happened to be a Glock makes no difference. Does anyone think the outcome would have been different with a Sig Sauer Classic or Smith and Wesson Revolver? Does anyone here TRUST a manual safety? I hope not.


Amen
 
I really DO NOT mean to sound flippant...

And to be sure, I'm not Glocks biggest fan, but come on. I don't think I would want ANY gun that didn't go bang when you pulled the trigger. This wasn't a flaw in the design of the pistol. This was a flaw in the supreme gun safety, the brain of that nitwit who left his gun on the kitchen table with a three year old running around. I have daughters aged 3 and 5, and you HAVE TO BE CAREFUL. I'm just glad the three year old didn't shoot himself. It would be worse for him to pay the price with his own life because he has an idiot for a father.

--Sorry, but this whole thing could have been prevented by a father with a brain.
 
i have sat here and read this entire thread and have seen a number of things:

1. glocks are evil, nasty, bad guns.
2. they are designed wrong, my wunderfiregun wouldn't have done that.
3. if you question this you are wrong.
4. human error and incompetantce.

it's interesting, the people "defending" the glocks are saying nothing more than the firearm worked as per specification, trigger was pulled, it went bang.

those "critizing" the glock say if it had safetys it wouldn't have gone off, it's too dangerous, it's the gun's fault the officer got shot.

the way that i see it, the responsiblity lies with the sadly dead officer. it was HIS responsibility to ensure that his child was not able to gain access to his department issued firearm <doesn't matter if it's a glock or the wunderfiregun>. it was his responsibility to act in a manner to ensure the safety of his family. he failed on all of those counts and has paid the worst price possible, his life.

rather than blaming the firearm, maybe it's time to look into the training practices of "police school", maybe look into why there are so many AD/NDs with ALL firearms, not just glocks, with LEOs.

personally i would like to see if it were possible to recreate the scenerio and see exactally what happened, all we can do is speculate. we weren't there, we didn't see the amazing dexterioty of the 3 year old, or the gene pool cleansing actions of the officer in question. too many questions that are unable to be answered by us.


Adept
 
Back
Top