Blaming equipment
Family of a man shot negligently by a police officer is suing Surefire LLC. They claim an attempt to activate the light made the gun go bang. Except that the gun went bang because the trigger was pulled. From the report:
I was attempting to squeeze the light mechanism when my weapon fired and the suspect fell to the ground
You pulled the trigger. I’m skeptical the light had much to do with it. If you needed just a light, use just a light.
Presuming that is what happened, it’s a decent case for the CrimsonTrace Lightguard, which is activated when the gun is gripped.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Going to be a human price for all that mall ninja crap (without training) they are stacking on guns now.
Non-SQUAT team cops are buying it and putting it on their guns and it is the same old song of policicrats attemting to substitute gear for skill.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Wow. I’ve never had a Surefire discharge any of my weapons on me. His excuse may prevent a criminal charge on him, but it wont hold water in civil court. When we were first issued Glocks in the 90s, we had a Detective put a laser in his pistol and accidentally shoot his partner. He blaimed the Glock, Glock testified against him. He lost. I’m sure Surefire will do the same.
Not everyone that carries a gun takes the time to properly learn how to use it, and not everyone that will drop $500 on a tactical light has taken the time to train with it.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
A two hour class makes me think there was little or no live night fire included in the training. Add stress and a probably little or no practice by the officer and you have the recipe for failure with sprinkles on top.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Inanimate objects sure are damn dangerous…
“Did O.C. gun-mounted flashlight cause fatal Texas shooting?”
January 10th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
I wrote about this early this morning. I think the officer is blaming the equipment, of that there is little doubt.
January 10th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
This is where I part ways with Republicans on legal reform.
An on-duty cop violates every rule of basic gun safety and then murders someone (who was unarmed) and damages are capped at $250k?
The problem isn’t the light on the gun. The problem is the cop was pointing the gun at someone he shouldn’t have been pointing the gun at.
The cop should be in jail and personally liable. And the city, as his employer and the provider of the equipment and training (did they train him to use a gun as a flashlight????) should be on the hook for whatever actual damages are in addition to many many tens of millions in punitive damages.
January 10th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Countertop: The ‘city’ doesn’t pay anything- the taxpayers do. The idea of lawsuits and punitive damages is not to throw money at the aggrieved party, it is to give a financial incentive to potential defendants to be more careful. In the case of government, it isn’t their money, and so there is no incentive.
The way that you fix this is not in raising the cap, but by holding people PERSONALLY accountable: The cop, for using his gun as a flashlight (instead of using the flashlight on his gun to illuminate a TARGET), his supervisor and the police chief, if it turns out that this is how the cop was trained, and anyone else who approved this idiocy.
January 10th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Divemedic: And the people elect the city politicians who hire the bureaucrats and fund their purchase of more gear. Yes, the city is liable and should be held so. I agree that all the individuals involved should be personally liable as well, but at the end of the day the cop was acting in uniform as a representative of the city.
Now, if the city were to turn around and state that the cop was acting in an ultra vires manner (that is, beyond his authority/charge as a public employee) and then FIRED HIM (and any responsible supervisors) AND declined to provide any legal protection for him, I would agree the city could make a claim it wasn’t responsible.
But, the fact of the matter is (because the police union would be up in arms and the politicians cower to it) the city will provide a defense for this cop if he were to be sued personally and since he was acting as a police officer he is most likely immune from any personal liability (absent affirmative action by the city to make him so) and therefoe the city should pay. And pay big. And if the citizens of Texas aren’t happy with that, they can elect new leaders who will fix things. Of course, as it stands now, the city (or more properly its insurers) will pay a paltry sum to the family of a murdered citizen and nothing even approaching accountability is likely to happen to any officials involved (yet the innocent – OUT OF STATE – manufacturer of flashlights is somehow going to be held responsible. That makes sense).
January 10th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Guys.. I think we can have it both ways. The city doesnt pay anything, the (hopefully now ex-)cop’s pension does.
January 10th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Maybe a cousin of this Colt?
_________________
Gun Nearly Kills People
The National Rifle Association suffered a setback to their common wisdom “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” when a Colt .45 caliber pistol broke out of its locked case, went to a gun store, and shot and injured two people.
Shreveport authorities chased the pistol for several blocks but lost it when it scurried into a large rat hole in an alley behind the shop.
“It’s the damnedest thing I have ever seen” said recovering shop owner Dale Daleton. “I’ve been in this business for 20 years and didn’t even know guns had legs. Pretty friggin’ freaky if you ask me.”
Shreveport authorities continue their search for the gun, assuring the town’s residents that it can’t possibly travel far on such little metal legs.
http://www.dailyprobe.com/arcs/111201/index.shtml
January 10th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
He will more than likely be culpable for punitive damages. Using your weaponlight as a flashlight isn’t taught as a leo tactic. When you get sued as an employee of the govt, the govt will provide an attorney for both you and the govt; however, that doesn’t absolve you from liability of punitive damages. If the city can distance themselves from liability, they will. When you f@ck up during the course of your normal duties, the city will typically cover the bill. When you f@ck up outside your scope, you’re short. I’ll have to check my Surefire manual, but I’m pretty certain it says in there not to use a weaponlight as a flashlight.
January 10th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Do people get off because they confused the gas pedal with the brake pedal and ran over a pedestrian?
January 10th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
@chas-criminally…if the government doesn’t have a case that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the person engaged in the specific elements of the crime, then yes. Civil court has a much lower burden of proof than criminal. It’s why OJ beat the charge but lost the farm.
January 11th, 2012 at 12:16 am
The article mentions a grip switch was used, mentions “attempting to squeeze the light mechanism,” and the pic shows a tape switch. Pretty sure he would have ND’d with a crimson trace light just as well, they’re pretty much the exact same idea/execution (no pun).
January 11th, 2012 at 5:54 am
Using a pistol for a flashlight? Holy Crap.
While we are on the subject of unintended shootings by police though, does anyone else have a problem with the police tactic of pointing firearms at suspects? Is that really SOP?
Why would police point a loaded weapon at a person when there is no legal cause to pull the trigger? The purpose is intimidation? That kind of intimidation is the tactic of an armed robber and shouldn’t be the tactic of a law enforcement officer.
Police pointing weapons at suspects when there is no legal justification to pull the trigger is bound to generate tragic deaths. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/169/modesto.shtml
January 11th, 2012 at 10:08 am
Accidents happen all the time, they just do. Training or not they happen. If you mount a light on a gun, you will, without a doubt, point it at a person sooner or later while doing a search.
I believe the police would be better served by using a handheld light, which would prevent any “confusion”.
For a family at home gathered in a safe room, it’s a good thing to have light mounted on your pistol/AR IMO.
January 11th, 2012 at 10:11 am
Shootin’ Buddy,
“Going to be a human price for all that mall ninja crap (without training) they are stacking on guns now.”
Yeah. Real men like Col. Cooper would just have you shoot him in the dark. Lights are so mall ninja. Rule Four is for pussies.
January 11th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
The surefire pressure switch and the crimson trace pressure switch are in the exact same location and to the exact same thing.