Posted on 11/27/2008 11:50:44 PM PST by Coleus
For what it’s worth, I read the article to say that this was not the suspect’s gun, but the partner’s gun.
I would assume that it is a rule that you can not interview a suspect alone while armed, so the partner gave his gun to the guy to hold while he was doing the interview.
The cops I have known do not unload every time they take it off or store it. So why would we expect it to be done here?
Playing devil’s advocate here, maybe he was sitting somewhere where he could not put the gun in a drawer or other storage place.
His partner hands him the gun and rather than sitting there holding a gun, he tucks it into his waistband. (the picture seems to show it’s not a large piece)
When he leans back, the chair breaks and he starts to fall backward. I would think under this senario your first instinct might be to grab the gun so it does not fall to the floor, thus he grabbed the gun the most natural way.
If the gun did not slide smoothly from his waistband, this might lead to him pulling the trigger as he fell backwards.
Just a thought.
That cop watched far too many movies.
I really can’t express how disgusted I am with a-hole cops in general, our “justice system” and NYC as a whole.
Take the magazine out.
Pull the slide back to eject the round and lock the slide.
You’re free to scratch your head with said pistol if you wish.
He had a negligent discharge in a police station. If I was the presiding judge I would have thrown the suit out, then angrily asked him “Why didn’t you follow proper firearm safety rules?” He nearly would have left with my shoe up where the sun doesn’t shine.
***What is the first thing you do when someone hands you a gun?***
Check to make sure it’s not loaded.
Of course it was loaded. He knew it was loaded.
It was his partner’s duty gun. Why would he unload it while he’s sitting there with a loaded gun in his holster?
Why unload it? Because somebody walking in, either not handcuffed or cuffed hands in the front, can pick it up and start taking shots.
It’s a safety issue. The cop that had the negligent discharge can probably barely handle one pistol, nevermind two.
NYPD issues Glocks, which don't have traditional safeties.
READ the article before posting, dummy.
Why was his finger in the trigger guard? Did he think he might have to shoot the other cop who was giving him the gun?
Or idiots in the jury box?
Except for the socialized medicine.
Still, the award was beyond excessive, considering the guy IS WORKING!!!
Let’s see, let me guess, he didn’t have the safety on, or this pistol isn’t equipped with a safety AND he forgot to unload it before sticking it into his belt. Got it. Wasn’t his fault it was the fault of his superiors who allowed such an untrained idiot to run loose on a police force!
Why unload it? Because somebody walking in, either not handcuffed or cuffed hands in the front, can pick it up and start taking shots.
It’s a safety issue. The cop that had the negligent discharge can probably barely handle one pistol, nevermind two.
_______________________________________________________
That’s why he stuck in his waistband. If he unloads it and then clears the chamber, he’s now sitting there with a shell, a magazine, and a pistol in his hands.
What does he do now? What if he has to go to the bathroom?
> Except for the socialized medicine.
The system works well INCLUDING the socialized medicine. This is because our economy and infrastructures have been custom-designed to include universal access to medicine as a spending priority.
You still end up paying for somebody else’s accident in the US: you just fool yourselves into thinking you don’t. Where did the four million dollars compensation for the clumsy cop come from? The tooth fairy?
If it came from the gummint you paid for it in taxes. If it came from an insurance company you paid for it in premiums. If it comes from a company’s bottom-line profit you pay for it in higher prices. No matter where it comes from you pay for it.
The only difference is, socialized medicine is a tad more transparent and just possibly more efficient.
no, if the law doesn’t provide a remedy by default, then the judge doesn’t turn the outcome of the case over to the jury.
Sorry; I would like to see less government involved in health care, not more. And I’m saying this as an RN who has to comply with stupid regs because of Medicare and Medicaid.
More government; less freedom
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.