Guns used by LA deputies put officers, public at risk

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by Atomic_Ed, Dec 17, 2015.

  1. Atomic_Ed

    Atomic_Ed Member

    377
    2
    Just saw this from CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/us/los-angeles-sheriffs-department-guns-report/index.html

    The story is so pathetic on so many levels, but the one fact that caught my attention was:

    “In 2014, "after substantial adoption of the new weapon in patrol settings," the report noted, accidental discharges in the field shot up by more than 500% -- from three in 2012 to 19.

    Sixteen of the accidents involved deputies armed with handguns, the report found. Fifteen of those were carrying the Smith & Wesson.”

    If I’m reading this right, the LA County Sheriff’s Department had 19 accidental discharges of their firearms in one year?? And their blaming it on the S&W M&P?

    Am I out of line thinking this is a ridiculously high number of ADs for a single law enforcement agency? As a safety guy, this statistic alone would tell me there are problems with their organizational culture and would warrant independent review of their fundamental behaviors. I would disallow even the IGs report.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2015
  2. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,854
    11,333
    NE Utah
    It's not the gun....:cool:

    "Adding to the problem was some deputies violating a basic firearms safety rule by placing their finger on the trigger prior to making the conscious decision to fire, the report states.

    I rest my case.:rolleyes:
     

  3. tallbump

    tallbump Supporting Member

    I read that too and was coming to start a thread.

    It is definitely operator error, but the new gun, or more specifically, the differences between the new gun vs the old gun, contributes to the problem.

    But really, at the end of the day, it comes down to this
     
  4. Grant

    Grant Member

    399
    7
    Why don't officers buy the gun the are comfortable/proficient with, within some broad guidelines. If the dept wants to use 40, why is that not about the end of the guidelines. This would allow for individual taste, preference and match the shooter to the gun. It would likely cut this down to near 0. Has anyone here had an AD?
     
  5. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,854
    11,333
    NE Utah
    That increases costs of training, makes standard SOP problematic, allows for challenges by lawyers regarding the choice of the officer and opens the dep't up to liability...

    ...there's a TON of reasons, almost all bean counter and lawyer based.
     
  6. moona11

    moona11 King of you Monkeys Lifetime Supporter

    The department buys the guns. Uniform weapons makes it easier to work on share mags etc.. its not the weapon it the users fault.
     
  7. USMC_VET

    USMC_VET Supporting Member

    Just issue them high point C9 9 mm pistols !!!:rofl:


    That way if they jam from the rounds nose diving the officers can throw the pistols at the assailants and hopefully hit them !! :rofl:
     
  8. Atomic_Ed

    Atomic_Ed Member

    377
    2
    Well, my profession is poking out here, but as a safety person that investigates/evaluates safety performance at the management level, there are two red flags in this article.

    Assigning equipment failure, the M&P in this case, as a root cause is a rare thing. I would need to know the rate of ADs with this firearm as compared to other firearms. Only about 10-15% of accidents are due to faulty equipment. I would guess firearms are even less so, given the liability hovering over the manufactures.

    Also, citing training as a root cause always makes me suspicious. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen this quoted as main cause of an issue and after a hard look, it really wasn’t. Follow through and re-enforcement of the training by the field supervision is more likely the case. What was done with the feedback from each AD?

    Granted, I don’t have any real information in front of me, but my line of questioning would start out at the leadership level. Why do they have a full year of data with 19 ADs? My guess is the leadership give this issue lip service: talks one way and allows a different behavior. What they don’t get is this “Ho-Hum” attitude spreads throughout the dept. and becomes evident to the public.

    No wonder this law enforcement agency considers the “armed citizen” a dangerous entity. In their professional eyes, an armed citizen, with less training and experience, has to be more of a risk.

    I would make no friends there if I did the investigation.

    OK, rant off.
     
  9. Atomic_Ed

    Atomic_Ed Member

    377
    2
    I just talked to our security chief. We've only had two ADs in 20 years on our site. This is for a security force of roughly 150 law enforcement officers that carry M4s and Berettas.

    I asked him how he would approach this AD issue. He chucked and said "He wouldn't, the new chief would be addressing it."
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2015
  10. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,854
    11,333
    NE Utah
    Funny thing..my cousin is a LEO, FFL, and a Glock fanatic.

    His dep't has been looking at the M&P, but he says they have an issue with the screw that holds the rear sight, if it loosens up you lose the sight, and it jams the gun as well.

    Just an anecdote, of course, but it is funny how things are when you introduce new things.

    Not to mention...isn't LocTite a well known thing?:confused:
     
  11. planosteve

    planosteve Lifetime Supporter

    My screws have never come loose, don't listen to my wife. :)
     
  12. Atomic_Ed

    Atomic_Ed Member

    377
    2


    Now that is a great example of an equipment failure!
     
  13. FlashBang

    FlashBang I Stand With Talon Lifetime Supporter

    There is no such thing as an "accidental" discharge, they are Negligent discharges.

    Departments that provide their Officers weapons do so in order to standardize on parts, training, and magazines for the same reason the military uses standard weapon assignments. If SHTF you can swap magazines and stay in the fight. If the guy next to you is using a 9mm Beretta and you have a 9mm Glock, you can't share magazines if needed.

    .
     
  14. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    And there it is again. Who's going to take up the fight this time? Ask him to define "accident." :)

    When is the last time that happened?

    I hear this reason a lot but how often does LEO need to "share mags" because they've run their reserve dry? Does anyone have any stats?

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  15. When my dept. switched to semi autos, one of our part time guys full time job was Leo sales rep for glock. Being part time I was allowed to purchase what I wanted within certain parameters. I chose the h and k usp. My chief gave me crap saying if in a shtf situation he ran dry I couldn't slide him an extra mag. To which I relied. .. if you screwed the pooch and wasted your ammo, I sure as he// ain't giving you mine to waste. .
     
  16. FlashBang

    FlashBang I Stand With Talon Lifetime Supporter

    If you don't want people to post what their opinions and thoughts are, then close the forum.

    If you have your finger on the trigger of a firearm when it is not needed and you discharged it that is negligence, you didn't accidentally do it.

    Ever hear of the L.A. Bank robbery? Ever hear of Vietnam or Desert Storm? I have personally had to get additional magazines from Teamates in a fire fight, I'd be happy to hear about your experiences. Leo's and military train and equip for potential situations, it's called being prepared for worse case scenarios whether they occur or not.

    You can define accident vs negligent any way you want, I'll do the same but mine will be based on actual events and first hand knowledge. If you don't like it, too bad.
     
  17. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,854
    11,333
    NE Utah
    Maybe...but maybe it's an accident, due to negligence?:confused:

    But NOWHERE in your first statement did you mention the trigger finger thing. You just made a blanket statement saying that accidents simply don't exist.


    So....what if your finger is NOT on the trigger, and the gun goes off for some reason totally out of your control, or for some reason beyond what normal care and practices would have covered?

    Still negligence, or an accident?
     
  18. Rachgier

    Rachgier Administrator Staff Member

    I think the last time we had this argument, "accidental" was defined as an unintended discharge not based on user action. Like a failure of the internal parts. That was then argued to still be considered negligent by WW citing improper routine maintenance as the cause. For me, accidental would be a purely mechanical failure of the firearm.
     
  19. tallbump

    tallbump Supporting Member

    Wow....I left the whole accidental discharge thing alone.

    I had actually typed a reply, but didn't bother posting it.

    Negligent or not, if it wasn't intended, by definition then is is accidental.
     
  20. FlashBang

    FlashBang I Stand With Talon Lifetime Supporter

    The topic and thread pertains to the OP and LAPD Officers discharging their weapons from having their finger on the trigger, it was not about a firearm going off while in the holster untouched or laying on a desk. My reply was clearly in response to said topic.

    .