Cops shooting themselves

[Tom Sawyer]

Students claim police chief who shot himself was careless
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080507/D90GF6C81.html

Hansen held the Glock 40 under a table to disassemble it when a bullet fired, Walker said.

The chief cried, "I'm hit," and fell over. Students who were screaming "Officer down!" were urged to call 911.

[Tom Sawyer]

This one is the all time classic...

[Kat Kanning]

Dangerous to be around people like that. 

[Lloyd Danforth]

 "He declined to offer specifics but disputed the accounts of Ulm and Walker, describing the pair as "disgruntled."

Other students "did not share that feeling" about the chief, Ebert told The Associated Press."

Its not about feelings or opinions.  The idiot shot himself!

[Puke]

I bet a  Puerto Rican did it!
The cops already have several suspects in mind.

[Jim Johnson]

Glocks have to be the most dangerous pistol for accidental firings... safety in the trigger...  please

[KBCraig]

Glocks have to be the most dangerous pistol for accidental firings... safety in the trigger...  please

A pistol can have no safety at all and still be safe, if users just keep their booger hooks off the bang switch.

I believe we see negligent discharges with Glocks more often, mostly because they are fielded with less training, by police departments that are afraid of guns.

[ancapagency]

We see negligent discharges with Glocks more often because more and more police departments are cutting deals with Glock to equip all their officers with them.  Before they were using Glocks, they were having committing Negligent Discharges with other pistols.  There is a hell of a lot of "fratricide" amongst LEOs as well.

The police generally have abysmal training with their weapons.  I have been to numerous ranges across the Eastern US in which when police officers showed up, it was time to pack up and leave, because they were so awful on the range (safety-wise).  In Alabama, I asked an officer no less than 4 times to keep his muzzle on the firing line (he kept backing up so his muzzle was behind the other folks on the firing line), before most everyone (including me) finally just packed up and left.

I have talked to a number of officers who were obviously ignorant of the basic principles of operation of their issued pistols, and a couple who weren't even able to identify the difference between a revolver and a semi-automatic.  I have only occasionally met officers who were conversant with the four basic safety rules.  I have generally attempted to rectify that ignorance, if only in self-defense (in hopes they wouldn't shoot me during their ND). 

Even if we stipulate that Government Police should exist (which, of course, I do not) they need to up their employment requirements.  I've known a few somewhat decent and competent LEOs--and a lot of ignorant and incompetent ones--and quite a few just plain assholes as well. 

[Puke]

Well, cops are obviously superior to normal folk. Most of them are probably such cocky assholes that they think they don't need training.

[ancapagency]

Well, cops are obviously superior to normal folk. Most of them are probably such cocky assholes that they think they don't need training.

Well I'm sure that's true for many of them.  As you may know, there was a study done that determined that the more incompetent a person is in a particular area, the more ignorant of their incompetence they are.

That being said, a lot of the problem (again, if we even stipulate LEOs should exist as such, which I do not) is that the recruiting is done absolutely wrong.  Too often, people (even outside Law Enforcement) mistake enthusiasm for aptitude.  One of the problems I've noticed in a lot of police is that they are very emotionally involved in their job.  This can be a good thing in some jobs perhaps, but it is bad in investigation and in de-escalating crises.

First of all, in a crisis, an emotional person is all too likely to escalate the tension, even if that is not their intent.  A thick skin isn't enough--one needs to be totally dispassionate with regards to the situation.  It really can't be of the slightest concern to you that someone is calling you names, or whatever.  If it is, you will get emotional, and you will begin to get angry, and even if you control your tone, your body language will put out that information at a subconscious level, and others will pick up on that, which will ratchet up the tension.

Second, in an investigation, an emotional person waxes hot and cold--they're either really interested and excited, and thus they rush forward without proper caution and miss things and destroy evidence; or they are bored and slack off.  It's very much like archaeology--Indiana Jones, as cool as his movies are, is actually a terrible archaeologist.  You need the guy who can sit for hours and brush the dust away from a stone structure with a paint brush without complaint.  The guy who will spend 2 years looking through archives and libraries to find the properly nuanced translation of a piece script written on a scrap of cloth.  That combination of interest and curiosity in everything combined with the infinite capacity for taking pains and utter patience.  The guy who doesn't find delayed gratification to be at all an exercise of will power.

Third, in chasing a suspect, you don't want the guy who likes the idea of doing the TV/Movie car chase.  You want the guy who has the dogged determination to keep following, day after day, without rest, and without getting excited either way.  The guy who will observe, think, and learn about his quarry, and plan,  until one day the quarry walks right into his hands.

In all three situations, you need pretty much the same person.  And this sort of person is rare, especially in our society--because these traits are actively selected against and "indoctrinated out."  But these are the folks you would want to recruit.  You would have a lot less car chases and shoot-outs, a lot less hostage situations, a lot less "suicide by cop," and a lot less situations that started small but ended up with long court cases.  You would also have a lot less innocent people being found guilty, a lot less guilty people getting off on technicalities, and a lot less unsolved cases.  You would also have a completely different perception of the police by the public--one that would be a lot more favorable.

[kola]

cops are dangerous....

to others and to themselves.

They should only be allowed to carry one bullet and keep it in their pocket (like Barney Fife).

Kola

[Shane Maxfield]

I'm familiar with two ND's here, one involving a veteran and the other a new recruit.  The first case involved recklessness and contempt for the weapon, the second pure ignorance.

Of several ND's by civilians around here, the reasons were as above.

The main problem I've seen with Police Officers is the "familiarity breeds contempt," thing.  Unfortunately, many of them, over time, don't manipulate their weapons often enough, so that when they eventually do so they're fumbly with it or its controls (call it loss of muscle memory or whatever term your "school" ascribes to).

MATT...muzzle, action, trigger, target...adhere to that and you cannot hurt anyone (including yourself).

[Kat Kanning]

ND?  What does that mean?

[Puke]

Negligent discharge.

[Tom Sawyer]

Negligent discharge.

They can cure that with Tetracycline can't they?