Kentucky Sheriff’s Deputy Accidentally Shoots His Mother In Church

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by steve knight, May 5, 2015.

  1. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #1
    well this guy sure screwed up.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/kentucky-accidentally-shoots-mom-wedding-article-1.2211370
     
  2. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #2
    Is he related to Holly Golightly? I recollect she was a slackjawed yokel, too.
     
  3. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #3
    I guess you could say their sheriff's department is going to hell.
     
  4. skottichan macrumors 6502a

    skottichan

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #4
    Niiiice
     
  5. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #5
    And the reason this is in the PRSI is because Kentucky shouldn't have sheriff deputy's, or sheriff deputies shouldn't have guns, or sheriff deputies shouldn't have mothers?

    Or is it to mock a horrible mistake?'

    Or did he mean to?

    This is just cutesy fun, I guess.
     
  6. steve knight thread starter macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #6
    this is to say no matter who well yo are trained you can still hurt or kill someone accidentally.
     
  7. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #7
    More like a lack of training or a poorly thought out police policy. If you're going to carry a loaded gun with a round in the chamber, the gun should have a safety switch. If the gun doesn't have a safety, then there should not be a round in the chamber.
     
  8. burgundyyears macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #8
    I am, in general, extremely skeptical of "I dropped it and it accidentally shot somebody" claims. Testing has shown time and time again that most modern pistols will not fire no matter how much you drop them. It's more likely the trigger was pulled somehow than it simply dropped and fired.

    Mechanical safety switches are largely obsolete on modern pistols.
     
  9. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    he shot her on purpose & dropped the gun:eek:
     
  10. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #10
    He was probably aiming for the in-laws, and his mom got caught in the crossfire.
     
  11. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #11
    There isn't much reason for them to have guns when they are off duty like this guy was here.

    Also one would expect that a sheriff's deputy would have some form of training with the gun so that things like this don't happen accidentally. So it could be a critique of poor training of law enforcement or noting that even trained people can have accidents so maybe we should rethink the whole letting anyone who wants to run around with a gun in public.
     
  12. bunnspecial macrumors 603

    bunnspecial

    Joined:
    May 3, 2014
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #12
    Police actually have a couple of very good reason to carry guns off duty.

    The first is that they are never truly "off duty" and are often expected to intervene if they find themselves in a situation that requires police intervention at least within their jurisdiction. Some agencies require off-duty carry for that reason.

    The second is that the police have many opportunities to make enemies in their line of work-such as folks who felt they were wronged by being arrested/jailed by a particular officer. The Federal LEOSA exists for this reason.

    I won't disagree with your second statement, though. Even here in "Guntucky" I'm often scared of the poor marksmanship and gun handling I see from police officers at the range. It certainly isn't true of all of them, but is true more often than I would like. Police officers aren't necessarily "gun people."

    There are very few modern handguns in common use by the police that have any sort of manual safety.

    The only one that comes immediately to mind is the 1911, which admittedly isn't a modern design but is still in common use. The manual safety on it is integral to its manual of arms. Current wisdom is that 1911s should be carried "cocked and locked"-i.e. with the hammer cocked and the manual safety engaged. 1911s also have a grip safety, which prevents the hammer from dropping(or trigger being pulled) if one's hand is not wrapped around the grip. Hi-Powers are probably less common, but when carried are typically carried the same way(the 1911 and Hi-Power share a common designer in J.M. Browning). BHPs do lack a grip safety.

    Most other hammer-fired semi autos in common use-including Beretta 92 series guns, Sig-Sauers, S&W 3rd Generation semi-autos-have a "decocking lever" in lieu of a manual safety which will safely lower the hammer. Once this is done, they typically have a long(1"+) and heavy(10-12lb) trigger pull to cock the hammer for the first shot, and this serves as their safety.

    Polymer stiker-fired semi-autos, which are probably the most common guns in use by police(i.e. Glocks, Springfield XDs, S&W M&Ps), rely on their sort-of double action pull(which is also relatively long and heavy) along with a "trigger safety" that requires the finger to physically be on the trigger before firing. The Springfields also add a grip safety.

    Very few revolvers have a manual safety. I do have a cheap 22 single action(Heritage Arms) that has a manual hammer block safety, but it's the only one I've ever personally encountered. Single action revolvers in general won't fire unless the hammer is pulled, although single actions patterned after the Colt Model 1873 action(a.k.a. the Single Action Army or Colt Peacemaker) will fire if the hammer is hit with a live cartridge under it. For this reason, for the past 150 years these guns have been carried with an empty chamber under the hammer. I've had the phrase "load one, skip one, load four more" drilled into my head for years, and this is how I load mine even at the range. Modern single action designs(such as those from Ruger) typically add some form of drop safety so that they can be safely carried fully loaded-although I don't out of habit.

    Double action revolvers also rely on their long and heavy trigger pull. In addition, a properly fitted retention holster will keep the hammer from being cocked when the gun is holstered. DA revolvers also have a hammer block safety to prevent the gun from firing when dropped. Colt(when they still made DA revolvers) had a very solid hammer block design from their first designs around the turn of the century. S&W(starting with the model of 1899) initially used a less substantial hammer block, but the design was changed quite a bit after one was dropped and went off on a navy ship during WWII. They have used the same hammer block since the mid-1940s, and it has proven itself to be completely safe. Rugers DA revolvers have had a drop safety(in the form of a transfer bar rather than hammer block, although the distinction really isn't that important) from the beginning.

    So, as a summary to my rambling, modern guns do not simply "go off" from being dropped. Every modern design requires a finger on the trigger, and some a properly placed hand on the grip. Some single action revolvers can if loaded improperly. 1911s and BHPs theoretically can if they are carried with a round chambered and the hammer down, although NO trainer or authority would call this an accepted practice.
     
  13. JamesMike macrumors demi-god

    JamesMike

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Location:
    Oregon
    #13
  14. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    We reap the rewards of the gun-culture daily, so it seems. Can never be too prepared. Why one? I suggest 3.
     
  15. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #15
    Someone, please tell me that this is a recycled April Fool's story. I mean, as a TV script, it sounds like really dumb sitcom stuff from the late 50's or early 60's. Please tell me this is not real.
     
  16. dec. Suspended

    dec.

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #16
    I wouldn't be surprised to read some messed up "religious" statements like "hadn't it happened in a Church she would 'of' (lol) been killed! God bless". :)
     
  17. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #17
    I had to beat Renzatic to that one.
     
  18. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #18
    You lucked out this time. I was asleep.
     
  19. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #19
    If she'd been carrying, she could have taken him down first.

    There aren't enough guns in the US. When will people learn!
     
  20. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #20
    Do we know how well this guy was trained? I don't recall reading that. In many cases, officers receive very little training, and, the training may be mainly in quick reaction and marksmanship, rather than gun safety per se. And just going through a police academy isn't necessarily the only thing that should be required, either. Police officers should be required to go through the same kind of progressive on-the-job-training that teachers often have to.

    Not to mention, as I have often brought up, training in dealing with mentally ill people -- people that police officers deal with every day, but, are not often trained to deal with.
     
  21. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #21
    There's a tendency in this forum to casually lump all law enforcement in America as if it's one entity and then make generalizations about them.

    Peace officer training and standards vary from state-to-state. Of course it's easy to say everyone needs more training, like who doesn't in any field?

    Peace officers should be required to attend progressive training? I agree with you. In my area it is required in order to retain certification. POST approved training aside there's annual defensive tactics, firearms, legal updates, policy updates, cultural sensitivity just to name a few. Those are determined by the agency and your assignment. District patrol supervisors will also receive training in critical incidents, mass casualty, tactical medicine, and in management skills.
     
  22. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #22
    I agree with you. People from other countries often fail to realize how decentralized governance is in the U.S.
     
  23. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #23
    Oh, and yet even with that said you're still right. It appears more training is needed across the board...maybe in helping identify and address perishable skills and improved candidate assessment. I say that knowing how tough of job it can be and I now sit in the cheap seats.
     
  24. richwoodrocket macrumors 68020

    richwoodrocket

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Location:
    Hamburg, NY
    #24
    I guess this guy thought that you never know when youre going to need a gun in church.
     
  25. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #25
    Because preachers can get a bit long winded particularly at weddings. Nothing will shorten up a sermon faster than a gun in the back pew ;)
     

Share This Page