Lodi Police Officer Shot When Child Pulled Trigger On His Gun At Reading Event

[Silent_Bob]

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/09/02/lodi-police-officer-shot-when-child-pulled-trigger-on-his-gun-at-reading-event/

LODI (CBS13) — A Lodi Police SWAT officer had a Glock .35 with a flashlight in his thigh holster at a children's reading event when a boy managed to pull the trigger and shoot the officer.

"It doesn't have an external safety or anything like that," said Lt. Sierra Brucia with the department. "The gun functioned how it was supposed to. When the trigger was pulled, the gun went off."

The officer was showing off the department's SWAT truck, vest and other gear at a children's event called Reading Roundup on Aug. 24.

"A small child, witnesses tell us was 6 to 8 years old, was able to walk up to the officer and was able to pull the trigger."

The bullet hit the officer's leg. He was taken to the hospital for a minor injury and released.

The department is investigating the shooting to see if protocols or procedures need to be changed to prevent the same thing from happening again.

Officers want to find the child and his parents to piece together what went wrong.

"Hopefully, speaking to the child and the child's parents to find out how they were able to get access to the officer's gun, what the child's intent may have been—we don't know if it was accidental or unintentional."

Police say because the gun was in a holster the accomodate the attached flashlight, the trigger was more accessible.

The officer has been on the SWAT team for 5 years. He is back on duty.

[Jim Johnson]

Glock has their "safety" in the trigger.     

Police guy doesn't have a holster that covers the trigger.   

And no one will be charged with child endangerment.   

[MaineShark]

Glock has their "safety" in the trigger.     

That's all that should be necessary because, as you noted, the holster is supposed to cover the trigger...

Mechanical safeties are ridiculous.  The safety is between the ears of the user, and that safety should cause him/her to use a holster which entirely covers the trigger.

[Jim Johnson]

Glock has their "safety" in the trigger.     

That's all that should be necessary because, as you noted, the holster is supposed to cover the trigger...

Mechanical safeties are ridiculous.  The safety is between the ears of the user, and that safety should cause him/her to use a holster which entirely covers the trigger.

No, the safety is there to prevent unforeseen shit.

[MaineShark]

No, the safety is there to prevent unforeseen shit.

Problem is, a lot of folks rely on the safety to do that.  And the one time that someone relies upon it, is the time it will fail.  Better to trust the safety between your ears, than a mechanical device that can fail when you need it.

[KBCraig]

Glock has their "safety" in the trigger.     

That's all that should be necessary because, as you noted, the holster is supposed to cover the trigger...

Mechanical safeties are ridiculous.  The safety is between the ears of the user, and that safety should cause him/her to use a holster which entirely covers the trigger.

No, the safety is there to prevent unforeseen shit.

You mean like a kid reaching into a poorly designed holster and pulling the trigger?

[KBCraig]

And what the hell is a "Glock .35"? 

[Jim Johnson]

Glock has their "safety" in the trigger.     

That's all that should be necessary because, as you noted, the holster is supposed to cover the trigger...

Mechanical safeties are ridiculous.  The safety is between the ears of the user, and that safety should cause him/her to use a holster which entirely covers the trigger.

No, the safety is there to prevent unforeseen shit.

You mean like a kid reaching into a poorly designed holster and pulling the trigger?

Yes, exactly like that. There is all kinds of cases where a trigger can be accidentally pulled.

Safeties are also there in the case of mechanical failure of other parts of the weapon.

And I wouldn't believe, that the cop did not intentionally use that holster just so he could get his finger on the trigger faster.

[Jim Johnson]

I imagine that most Glock people have already seen this...  http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/g35-40kb.html

[MaineShark]

Yes, exactly like that. There is all kinds of cases where a trigger can be accidentally pulled.

Safeties are also there in the case of mechanical failure of other parts of the weapon.

And I wouldn't believe, that the cop did not intentionally use that holster just so he could get his finger on the trigger faster.

There are no accidents when it comes to firearms.  A trigger is pulled intentionally, or negligently.  Those are the only two options.  Carrying with an exposed trigger is negligence.  And it would still be negligent to do so, even if there were a mechanical safety.

I imagine that most Glock people have already seen this...  http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/g35-40kb.html

Yeah, that's one reason I won't own or carry a Glock.

[Pat K]

Revolvers don't have safeties, is there a big problem with "accidental" discharge because of that?

I am Just asking-what I know about guns could fit in a thimble .

[Jim Johnson]

Revolvers don't have safeties, is there a big problem with "accidental" discharge because of that?

I am Just asking-what I know about guns could fit in a thimble .

Some revolvers have a safety switch, typically those that are referred to as hammerless.  Most revolvers have a half cocked and locked position on for the hammer.  If your revolver doesn't have one of those two options you keep one chamber empty and let the hammer rest on the empty chamber.

[MaineShark]

Some revolvers have a safety switch, typically those that are referred to as hammerless.

May happen in some rare cases, but it's not common.  Better than 99% of revolvers have no safety.

Most revolvers have a half cocked and locked position on for the hammer.  If your revolver doesn't have one of those two options you keep one chamber empty and let the hammer rest on the empty chamber.

That doesn't act as a safety.  Carrying on an empty chamber only applies to revolvers without a transfer bar to prevent the firing pin from hitting the primer if it is dropped and hits the ground, landing on the hammer.  Doesn't do anything to stop it from going off it someone pulls the trigger.

[Jim Johnson]

Some revolvers have a safety switch, typically those that are referred to as hammerless.

May happen in some rare cases, but it's not common.  Better than 99% of revolvers have no safety.

Most revolvers have a half cocked and locked position on for the hammer.  If your revolver doesn't have one of those two options you keep one chamber empty and let the hammer rest on the empty chamber.

That doesn't act as a safety.  Carrying on an empty chamber only applies to revolvers without a transfer bar to prevent the firing pin from hitting the primer if it is dropped and hits the ground, landing on the hammer.  Doesn't do anything to stop it from going off it someone pulls the trigger.

Yes, you are correct.  The safety on a revolver is to not have it cocked. 

[MaineShark]

Yes, you are correct.  The safety on a revolver is to not have it cocked.

Most revolvers are double-action.  Pull the trigger, and it goes off.  Having it cocked is not a requirement.