Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Sheriff's Deputy Mistakes Pistol for Taser

Art,

Grabbing the gun in stress...mistake, unholstering....mistake that makes me question some things regarding her familiarity with firearms and the quality of training. When my hand hits the pistols grip I go into auto mode in it oporation. I carried both Glock and 1911s when I worked...I stayed familiar with both...it never presented a problem, but I never shot or shot at anybody on duty. Actually going thru that entire sequence of events up to pullint the trigger indicates what others have said...she freezes up and loses her head under stress. At some point a signal from her hand should have told her head she didn't have a taser in her hand.

That being said, if she's fired or not...the answers to your questions about training and policy will be answered when this department completely revamps its taser program, most likely up to and including the use of force policy and when it should be employed.

No need to train against such stupidity...I disagree...but I have dealt with a looooooooot of police. I asked my wife, a nurse, do they just keep all medicines in one cabinet in the ER...she said, no they have methods and policies about like named medicines and meds in containers that look similar to be WIDELY separated and segrated to prevent just such similar blunders.

Upshot...she made the biggest blunder...but not the only blunder IMO.

.280:

I know that officers and former officers grind their teeth over this issue, but it's one I always make a point of exploring whenever I get a LEO's ex-wife in the jury pool on voir dire: an officer's propensity for honesty and truthfulness, compared to people who are not LEOs.

As many of the posters on this thread have pointed out, nobody here was there with the officer in question and all we know is what we're getting from the news reports.

But if she really did say she mistook her taser for her Glock then one of two things is true: she's a fool or she's a liar.

And since none of us were there, we don't know which one it is yet. And because I wasn't there, I don't know that she's a liar.

But damn, her story (if she said it) is hard to believe. And if she's not the fool she says she is, then she's got to be one of the meanest women to have ever put on a uniform and badge.

- TJM

"I'm a software developer. If I improperly shot someone in the execution of my daily professional duties..."

Barak's woman,
I refer you to the above post by your hubby...he brought it up. And it begs the question...why, as a software developer, he would be carrying a gun and shooting anyone in the course of his professional duties? Must be a cranky sort...kinda sounds like a dangerous job. Glad I do something safer. Bottom line: Idiotic analogy. Barak, your a smart feller...you can do better than that! And Mrs. Barak, I am well aware of the fact the law enforcement is held to a higher standard than most of those in the civilian sector...as we should. I don't think too many cops have a problem with that. It doesn't mean were perfect though. We do the best we can, but sometimes we make mistakes...innocent mistakes. And then you have to consider the totality of the circumstances before firing, disciplining, keel hauling, etc. Would a reasonable person, given the circumstances, done the same thing? And what's reasonable? Who's reasonable (Barak...your walking a fine line!)? It's a giant grey area. Now stupidity is a totally different ballgame. We do something really dumb...we got it coming. Something criminal...same thing. Here's something to think about in re: higher standards...some dumbass disparages you in front of Barak, so Barak promptly breaks his jaw. He gets a slap on the hand by our justice system, he's your knight in shining armor, and a hero Monday morning at the water cooler. Same situation with me and my wife? Chances are pretty good I get canned, or spend some time on the beach...w/o pay. Is it right? I don't know. But it is what it is. What do you all think?

And Barak...the "productive job/non-productive job" is a ridiculous over simplification. Just because I one doesn't produce revenue does not mean one is not productive. I'm going to court tomorrow on a child molester. Sending him away for a long period of time would be highly productive, and I think most here would agree...yes, I know...we would all rather shoot him! And I'd be willing to bet Barak, that you would re-think what is productive and what is not if you had a very bad man in your house, doing bad things to you and yours, and one or two of my crew cut, knuckle dragging, jack booted thug bretheren showed up and saved your narrow behind. Then again, it appears you maybe armed while at work programming software, so God knows what you have in the house! Maybe you won't have to call us! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Kid0917....thank you for your kind words. It is much appreciated.

.280 Rem Once a cop, always a cop! Leave him in the tree...I love it! Didn't you just love those stupid/stupid people calls? People wouldn't believe us if we told them about them!

Welcome aboard Zebra. Bury the bastid tomorrow!





Mac

"But if she really did say she mistook her taser for her Glock then one of two things is true: she's a fool or she's a liar. "


All the more reason to send her packing!


Mac

Hi, Zebra. Welcome. Sorry... I should have gone back and checked. You're right. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />Of course, he doesn't. I like his analogy better about killing someone through a mistake in his code. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Actually, I don't think he's ever had a cranky day in his life. Or if he has, he doesn't let it show. He's always kind and even-tempered to me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />I never thought of the shooting as anything but an innocent mistake (i.e. she never meant to shoot him).IMHO, if it's a question of an unarmed guy sitting up in a tree, there's no danger at all... or very little. As long as he's in the tree and isn't brandishing a weapon, she's not in danger. (Just MHO...I tend to be naive about these things sometimes.)It doesn't seem grey to me; she fired the gun, she's responsible. But as I said, sometimes I'm naive.Barak did that exact thing to someone in high school, but it wasn't over a woman and I didn't know him then. But he's not 17 any more, and I like to think that he could settle things without breaking anyone's jaw. I know that he would sure try and that would be a last resort only if the other person put us in a position of actual danger.He has ME in the house... with a shotgun and my Glock... along with other assorted stuff. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Anyone tries to harm my family... well, just be afraid. Be very afraid! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

B'sW

Well, not exactly, but in that direction. I happen to believe that gun-toting professionals should have higher standards than non-gun-toting professionals, but that's not what I was arguing. I was arguing that they shouldn't have lower standards.

It was apparently a good example, because Zebra13 got out of it exactly what I intended it to convey...he just doesn't realize that that's what happened, I think.

How do you know?

Seriously.

How do you know you earn your money?

Perhaps you provide a service that's actually worth several times what you're paid for it. Perhaps you're paid several times what your service is actually worth. How do you know?

I'm thinking that when you say you earn your money, what you probably mean is that you do something difficult for awhile and then you get paid, and you make the assumption that the value of the money and the value of the work you did have something to do with each other.

That's called the labor theory of value (more effort is worth more money), and it's quite easily refuted. Suppose that I spend an hour under a blazing sun digging a big hole in my back yard, and another hour filling it in. Meanwhile, you spend those same two hours in air-conditioned comfort on a couch in your living room and think of a cure for cancer.

Each of us has done a job of work. Which job is more valuable? The labor theory of value says that my job was more valuable, because I worked harder at it than you did. However, I am very unlikely to find somebody who's willing to pay me anything at all for digging a useless hole and filling it back in, while you are well on your way to fame and fortune.

That's the market theory of value: your work is worth exactly what you can persuade somebody to pay for it, of his own free will: not a cent more and not a cent less.

So...the labor theory of value is worthless when we're trying to decide whether you earn your money or not; it tells us nothing of any import.

So what is the worth of your government service according to the market theory of value? How much could you persuade somebody to pay you of his own free will for being a cop or a prosecutor? Answer: nobody knows. Cops and prosecutors aren't paid of anybody's free will; they're paid with extortion money that people must give up or go to prison.

So...I don't know whether you earn your money. Neither do you. Neither does anyone else. And there's no way to find out without privatizing the whole shebang.

This brings to mind tonight when I was in prison... one of the inmates told me that he's going to be going before the parole board soon (rather than in 2008) because he got a "great lawyer." He said that the lawyer was costing $6,000. I asked him how the lawyer could command that much. And one of the other guys piped up, "Because he's good." I said, "No... because someone is willing to pay that amount."

I'm not Barak's wife for nothing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

B'sW

Not ridiculous, simply economics.


Okay, what do you produce and how much is it worth? And (see above) how do you know?


Productive? In what way? No, I don't think that's productive.

I don't think the State has any standing to do anything (except perhaps identify and arrest the perpetrator, depending on which route through the argument you want to take) in the case of a child molester. The culprit did not harm the State in any way; he does not deserve to be protected by the State from justice at the hands of his victim's advocates; and the penalty the State will most likely (completely unjustly) impose on him has been demonstrated repeatedly to have little or no effect. The penalty the victim's father would impose on him would undoubtedly have a much more certain and permanent effect. And, of course, added to that is the fact that the State will victimize the people--including those who have already been victimized by the culprit--in order to extort the money necessary to protect him from justice.

How do you see that as productive?


I don't tend to call the police. I've had many experiences with police in their professional capacity, and not a single one of them has been positive, ever. Police may be expensive and heavily trained and dripping with body armor and etc., but real-world experience would seem to indicate that in the case of some kind of offense against me or my family, I have much more motivation and incentive to see that something useful actually gets done than government cops do. You guys get paid the same whether you solve the crime or not, right?

Attagirl.

Barak's woman,
Great reply...I enjoyed it tremendously. However, I think I gave you the impression that in talking about grey area's, reasonable people, etc., it was in direct referance to the officer shooting the guy out of the tree. I'm not...dig up my first post and you'll see my thoughts on that. I'm referring to the host of critical incidents that a cop has to deal with in the course of his career. And I didn't mean to infer that you thought the shooting was anything other than and innocent mistake. I agree that it was...it was just an incredibly dumb, innocent mistake! And I am glad to hear that you are well armed...we can't be everywhere at once. My wife is also a deputy and VERY well armed...suffice to say, there is no wife beating in our marriages, huh? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Take care,
Justin

Barak...I'm not sure anymore just what exactly the hell your arguing, and I don't think anyone else is sure either!

In your mind, unless it makes money/profit, it is not productive or viable. While I am a firm believer in capitalism, I am also a realist, with a firm grasp of reality. Your got to make money for it to be worthwhile/productive attitude takes things a bit far. If your opinion that law enforcement is not productive...fine. Nothing I am gonna say is gonna change your mind. However, I would imagine that there are alot of people...criminals and lunatic fringe excluded...who are glad cops are out there, despite the fact were not showing a monetary profit. Somethings don't have a dollar amount...like sending child molesters to prison, and no, no matter how hard you argue, the victims dad is not going to get any alone time with the bad guy...it's that whole, ugly reality thing again (As an aside Barak, child molesters typically get very long sentences...NOBODY likes them...even your biggest bleeding heart judge. And while it doesn't solve the problem permenantly, it does solve it for 15-20...which keeps other kids safe, and is therefore productive in my book). But you think it is unjust/have no standing for us to arrest, prosecute and punish someone like that (along with extorting money from you). Let the people at him. Perhaps you should be dreaming of some third world country as oppossed to Idaho...of course your quite opinionated, and in a third world country you more than likely would have your tongue pulled out your mouth with pliers in short order.

And finally, I CANNOT understand why, after listening to your opinions on law enforcement, government, life, the infield fly rule, etc., WHY you would have less than positive experiences with the police.

It's been fun, but now I must go to the gunsmithing forum. Maybe I'll become a gunsmith so I can be productive!
Justin

Don't worry about it. It wasn't aimed at you originally, and you ended up getting the proper flavor out of it anyway. It worked...don't knock it!


Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say it wasn't viable, I said it wasn't productive. That's an economic statement, not a moral statement, and it's pretty much uncontroversial. It's not an insult. I do lots of things that aren't productive: I fly airplanes, I play music, I shoot guns, I volunteer in prison, etc. Well, okay, perhaps the volunteering-in-prison part could be considered productive, because it has been shown to reduce the tax burden; but that's pushing it.


I'm sure you're right. There are some of those people here on this website.


Oh, sending a child molester to prison has a very large dollar amount. First there's the extortion money the State pays the judge and the public defender and the jury; then there's the dozens of thousands of dollars per year of extortion money the State pays the penal system to confine and support him. Without the State getting in the way of what is really just an interpersonal matter, there wouldn't have to be nearly as much money extorted.


Of course not: because he called the police.


That's not true. I know several child molesters who are decent sorts, at least to me. There's one in particular in a maximum-security prison across the state from here whom I really look forward to seeing whenever I visit there.

But if you're trying to comfort me with long sentences, don't bother. I think long prison sentences are expensive and wasteful. I think if a criminal wants to be imprisoned for protection from his victims, then he should pay for that protection himself, for as long as he can afford it or thinks he needs it. There can be no moral justification for charging me money to protect a criminal from his victims.


Postpones it for 15-20, maybe, at terrific expense to the people and at the cost of justice. An angry father with a butcher knife would be much more just, much quicker, much more certain, and much cheaper.


Perhaps.


You know, somehow I just don't think so. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />


You might be surprised. All the guns I got stuck in my face were back when I was a fresh-faced law-abiding nominal Republican. Since 1998, when I began my long slide into anarchism, there've been a couple of cops with their hands on their guns, but not one of them has ever come out of the holster.

Perhaps you've got the causality reversed.

Child molesters are great people, unless you're a child or have a child that's been the victim of one. It's among the most henious of crimes.

No sympathy for a short-eyes.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that but you're missing the point (again). Many criminals seem to be decent, pleasant people until that impulse hits them. Then they abandon the facade of civility and commit a crime.

The point that Barak was making is that it's less just and more expensive to feed, clothe, house, and possibly educate someone at the expense of the taxpayer, than it is to allow the aggrieved party deal with the perpetrator. Our prison system would be less crowded, and our courts would have less to do.

I agree that, under the current system of administrating law, this could be dangerous. A coercive system, with nothing to keep it busy, would have more time to concentrate on those that smoke funny cigarettes or drive around without seatbelts. So in a convoluted sort of way, I guess crime is beneficial to society because it distracts those employed by a bloated bureaucracy from harrassing the average joe.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Such a sytem of allowing the aggreived party to deal with them has several flaws....first, what if the aggrieved party is incapable of dealing with the child molester? The molester beats the aggrieved party senseless, and molests his child again. Second, how is the aggrieved person to know that an accused child molester is actually a child molester, wihtout benefit of a trial? This would require him catch the short-eyes in the act, which is not the way it usually goes down. No forensic evidence, not DNA, nothing but the aggrieve party's instinct and the word of a child to go on. This situation is ripe for abuse.

That's why law enforcemenet is the duty of the state. We have the forensic tools to determine whether a person is guilty or not.

But it used to be that way, sort of. The "aggrieved party" in rape cases, back in the early part of the last century, used to exact justice by getting up a gang and lynching suspects. In one instance, they lynched every black person in the jail, since they wanted to be sure they got the right one. This happend in my county, back in 1902 or thereabouts.

To make it cost-effective, perhaps child molesters could be chained to a big stone and make gravel out of it and fed bread and water.

I enjoyed your post as well. It is SO nice to see a courteous, intelligent person who can respond to something in a sane manner, without name-calling or disparaging comments. And who has a sense of humor to boot! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />Okay... I think you and I probably agree on everything. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />Nope... and I realize how blessed I am when I talk to women in prison who have had to go through that stuff. Yep... I've got the best husband in the world, and I'm sure your wife feels the same way. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Penny

Barak,
Glad to hear you have found several child molesters who were "decent sorts", and that you look forward to your visits with one in particular. Hey...whatever...child molesters need friends too. I'm of the opinion that molesting children relegates one to the indecent column, by virtue of the fact they molest children. But that's just me...
I am well aware of the cost's associated with housing child molesters. Typically, they have to be housed seperately from the other pillars of society who reside in prison, because THEY don't like them. But, while Chester is in prison, he's not victimizing anymore children. And I don't think you can put a dollar value on victimized children. Maybe you can...

Hmmm....political transformation from Republican to anarchist is the reason the cops haven't pointed their guns at you recently? Uhhhh.....mmmmm...nope...not buying that one either. By the way, who's on the anarchist ticket for governer this year? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

And as for the rest of your comments, especially the empty and inane, "Of course not, he called the police", well...I grow weary of them, and will not be responding. With you and your beliefs, and me with mine, it is the proverbial "jousting with windmills", to which serves no real purpose. So, with that, I will sign off and you will hear no more from me...unless of course you call me a name! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Wishing you and yours well,
Justin

Yah, I understand that your profession probably makes it hard for you to understand what I could possibly see in a child molester. There are a few cops in our prison ministry, but there are a lot who aren't. Penny and I tried for several years to get a judge interested in it, but it just wouldn't work for him.

One does what one can...


Some of them do, yes, but the stereotype is far more pervasive than the actuality. Only one of the child molesters I know is in protective custody; the others are in general population.


It's a pretty simple actuarial calculation, involving the cost of apprehending and imprisoning a child molester, among other things.


No. I said perhaps the causality runs the other way.


Unfortunate. Discussing with you is much pleasanter and more educational than with a certain other I could name.

As for my comment about calling the police, I'm not sure what you find empty or inane about it. Calling the police is what people do when they're ready to acknowledge that a problem is beyond them--same as calling the fire department or a plumber or an electrician. If the problem is tractable without bringing in outside help, you handle it yourself; if you do decide to bring in outside help, it's pretty much out of your hands. Do you disagree with any of this?


Oh, I don't argue in order to convince people. I agree with you that serves no purpose. I argue in order to learn. I think my ideas can get better and stronger and closer to the truth if I sharpen them on other people's ideas. If you argue to convince, then it might turn out that you're disappointed (one fellow here spent a lot of sincere effort trying to argue me out of minarchist libertarianism back into conservatism, and wound up arguing me the other way into anarchist libertarianism instead), but I'm most interested in encountering arguments I haven't seen before and seeing what they can teach me.

There are quite a few people here who argue with me reasonably regularly. Almost none of them agree completely with me; some of them don't agree at all. Nobody winds up convincing anybody. But we're good-natured and friendly, and the exercise keeps us all sharp.