According to the Orlando Sentinel, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent from Kansas City on vacation, had a negligent discharge while he was in the Orlando airport.
About an hour later, the police department issued a statement, identifying him as a federal agent, saying that while “unslinging a shoulder bag, the bag caught on the agent’s holstered weapon.”
“While the weapon was falling, the agent tried to catch the firearm and inadvertently pulled the trigger. A bullet hit the agent in the heel,” according to the statement.
The bullet apparently ripped a gash of several inches in the carpet under a bench near the atrium’s fountain.
But, yeah, we need more gun control regulations to keep citizens from shooting each other.
There are no charges pending, [a police spokeswoman] said.
The victim sat in a wheelchair while being treated by paramedics. His heel was bandaged and a nearby gauze pad was stained with a small amount of blood.
He was able to walk to a stretcher to be taken to a hospital.
Why does an ICE agent on vacation carry a loaded firearm in the airport?
And what does any of this have to do with gun control?
That was my question too… Turns out that Feds can carry anytime/anywhere. After seeing this agent, I think he would have been better with a ‘dunlop’ holster. He looks like he has been at Double D’s far too many times. At least no innocent bystander was hit.
NO. You MUST be “trained” and listed with the FAA by your agency to carry onto a plane.
I work for the BOP and ONLY specific trained staff can carry when escorting crooks.
Some of the “control” crowd state that only military and police are trained enough to be trusted with guns. Often, these statements come form senior leadership of police and/or military.
Thus the heavy-duty irony…
Was it this guy again?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY&t=42s
This was Stupidity at its FINEST!!! I have seen this before, what a maroon!
“Maroon”?
Something Bugs Bunny used to say. Well before your time.
Also, a term for Africans who escaped slavery in the New World. Be careful with that expression, it may not be interpreted as innocent in its meaning.
The Maroon Rebellion in Jamaica is probably the most famous example.
It is heartwarming to know that there are people who know how to properly mishandle a gun.
Negligent discharge? Doesn’t that usually end in paternity suits or something?
!!!
Did not come through, meant to say Rim Shot!
SPEW ALERT!
Ok, if this was a civilian, he would be in jail, all guns confiscated and his carry permit revoked. But a Fed do it? Oh it’s ok, He is “Professional”. Funny in the 35 years I have been carrying a gun, I have never shot myself. Time to get a more secure holster, Slick and learn to retain your weapon better. Jackass!
Barney Fife was at least smart enough to carry his bullet in his pocket. Jeez.
So many questions.
How did the mere act of unslinging a shoulder bag manage to pull the pistol from the holster?
What type of safety was in use whereby merely grabbing for a loose pistol allowed the trigger to be pulled?
What type of training did this ICE officer have in the safe handling of firearms?
In what ways did he violate that training?
And most of all:
How many hours of Power Point safety presentations will be suffered by innocent ICE agents who keep their weapons safe?
Most of your questions are answered with two equally-foul words: “glock” and “idiot.”
I’m not a Glock fan, TOW. Never owned one or used one.
That said, my preferred pistol does not have a safety that has to be flipped off/on, but has a 6# pull in DA mode, much lighter in SA mode.
rgr769 (below) says a Glock has a 4# trigger pull – I’m guessing in DA mode. That seems a bit light to me even with the “safety bar” on the bang switch. But again I have no 1st hand knowledge of Glocks & their functioning.
I’m leaning heavy on the “idiot” factor. When he grabs he just naturally puts his booger hook on the bang switch – and this time in his attempt to regain control he squeezed when he grabbed. Something about reverting to how we train.
In all fairness, if a Glock was that much more unsafe than other pistols I doubt that so many agencies would use them. Those with more practical experience with Glocks may correct me.
(And I still don’t like Glocks.)
Not making excuses for the agent, but when I was a cop, we never engaged the safety. Always had one in the chamber, safety off. Ready to go. On duty or off duty.
On the spot promotion….
And if he’s Guard, an ARCOM.
Another Lucien Black School of Weapon Handling success story!
Sounds like the notorious “glock + idiot” combination again. Remind me again why a pistol shouldn’t have a safety? Or why the government that wants to disarm me (and I’ve never had an accidental or negligent discharge) insists on giving guns to idiots?
They carry Glocks. So no safety and grabbing it by the trigger will function it as designed, everytime!
Just don’t carry in those situations with a round chambered.
Only idiots and people forced by idiots carry weapons without a round in the chamber.
David you did make a good point and i wasn’t jabbing at you. I have several Glocks and you are correct.
The allowed carry guns are the issued Sig P229 in .40 cal,Glock 26 9mm or S&W.38 2in.
My money’s on the Glock too.
I would never count on or carry a Glock. Too many things on it that I felt needed to be fixed after purchase to make it even an adequate weapon for my use. Particularly over the P229.Personal preference, but I have owned several of each and just dislike the Glock intensely.
Pretty sure you’re not supposed to grab any gun by the trigger.
If you carry a Glock with a round chambered, that trigger safety lever is the only thing preventing an accidental discharge. But I fail to see how this nimrod could accidentally sufficiently squeeze that trigger. Initial shot trigger travel takes over half an inch and over 4 lbs. pressure.
Imagine the sidearm being popped out of a holster, Surprise!, and flipping end-over-end as it heads for the floor. Queue up the “panic grab”…
Why would he, in an airport going on vacation or anywhere, carry his weapon in condition one?
Fat-fingered report. Sorry.
No problem my friend. If that’s the worst that happens to me this week…I’m golden.
TOW, one fat finger report doesn’t even raise a blip on Jonn’s radar.
Jonn says he doesn’t even pay attention to a reported comment until the number of hits reaches five.
I own my mistakes, big and small.
If you’re going to carry and not with a round in the chamber you shouldn’t be carrying. Carrying without a round in the chamber is dangerously stupid and you’re most likely going to cause a malfunction when you need the firearm to work properly.
I was distracted the other day when this thread was current and didn’t get to respond.
When I carry I DO carry with a round in the chamber always. Whether I am carrying my Glock 30 or Sig P220.
But I was speaking about this nimrod and his need, in his situation to do so. Also, if he was carrying a Glock (and that hasn’t been determined) and it was falling, let it hit the floor. It won’t discharge. Better than grabbing for it and having that scenario unfold. I understand his reflex reaction to grab it but if he knew his weapon, he should have known the best thing to do in case of a drop.
lol @ glock knee.
These are the professionals that should only be armed says libtards.
Actually, many liberals want to largely disarm law enforcement as well.
And to be honest if the government wants to disarm the population then my response to the government would be “you first” anyway.
Why didn’t he just leave it under a shirt in his car?
If she were still with us, I think Kate Steinlee might have problem with that solution. Anyway, with the benefit of hindsight and not being dead.
I have been lurking on this site for the past several months ever since weapons man died and his website closed
I have not made any comments as I am not military
Just an interested civilian who has been a gun enthusiast for 30 years
I would say to FatCircles that the empty chamber, full magazine style of carry has serve the nation of Israel very well
They have stopped plenty of terrorist attacks and ordinary criminals using this method of carry
It is even often called “Israeli carry”
It would have served this agent well to have carried his weapon in this condition
Israeli carry has the advantage of cutting down on negligent discharges and the disadvantages of usually requiring two hands to rack the slide and taking a second longer
Along with the possibility of short stroking the slide
There is a lot of hate on many concealed carry forums for Israeli carry
Everyone has to decide for themselves the balance between safety and readiness for action
Unless your commanding officer orders you to carry empty chamber full magazine!
Empty chamber, full magazine is sometimes ordered in military circles as well, though usually it was chambered, on safe, and full magazine.
Mine was never on safe outside the wire.
My M4 was on safe until I was ready to fire but I kept my sidearm chambered and off safe. The M9 safety location is terrible.
“Stupid is as stupid does.” – Forrest Gump
And it’s often very hard to be more stupid than a number of US Federal Government Employees.
A dropped gun has no handle. Same with a knife.
Negligent discharge?
He needs to see his urologist.
Ah, shaddap; you knew SOMEONE was gonna do that joke!!
The fact that so many in law enforcement handle weapons poorly is why I do not recommend Glocks as service weapons.
They are overrated handguns anyway. The ergonomics are terrible and you have to compensate for the natural tendency of the ergonomics of the weapon to fire high when reflex firing.
Good thing that law enforcement doesn’t seek your recommendations.
Your input on any subject is “overrated”.
Perhaps. But I am right about the Glock.
1. Not a weapon that is forgiving when handled poorly.
2. Poor ergonomics.
Both statements are correct.
never had such problems with mine…but then…we all know how well trained some really are…or not.
Yep, a weapon is only as dangerous as the person handling it.
But, some officers handle their weapons poorly. And when you are dealing with hundreds of thousands of officers, some percentage handling their weapons poorly, day in and day out/
http://www.policemag.com/list/tag/accidental-discharges.aspx
Jesus Christ, Lars actually said something that’s objectively true! Never thought I’d see the day.
If dogs and cats start living together, we’re screwed!
NEXT THING you know there will be dancing in the streets as well!!!
And there is a reason why most of those commenting are making the assumption it was a Glock despite the fact that the article does not name the firearm – because Glocks are notorious for being the weapon of choice for negligent discharges.
Twice in a row, Lars has said something devoid of bullshit! My God! Is it the Broken Clock Principle, or is the apocalypse upon us?
Methinks it’s the broken clock principle or in this case, a clumsy Glock!
You don’t get an accidental or negligent discharge from a Glock if you keep your boogerhook off the trigger until you are intending to fire it, dumbass. All the cops I know carry Glocks and they don’t have unintentional discharges…because they keep their fingers off the trigger until they intend to fire. That is prolly a confusing concept for you Berzerkeley geniuses.
You apparently have a hard time getting your head around small increases in probability in the context of large numbers.
Let me walk you through it.
Handling a Glock is more likely to result in a negligent discharge than most other handguns. However small the probability.
Poorly handling a Glock increases that probability.
Some percentage of law enforcement handle weapons poorly.
There are over 700,000 armed law enforcement officers and hundreds of thousands more armed security personnel.
Each handle their weapons hundreds of times per year.
Given these numbers small probabilities lead to hundreds of negligent discharges per year.
Most metropolitan departments deal with a dozen or more a year. There are over 75 major metropolitan departments. And on average these larger departments have better training for their officers than many small departments with fewer resources.
And I do not give legal advice. When it comes to the law my “legal advice” is always the same; don’t say anything and talk to a lawyer.
However, I do give my opinion in the comment sections of stories and blog posts on issues related to law and the constitution. Welcome to the internet.
You might want to re-think your thoughts that it had to be a Glock, Poodle-dick. Seems that a certain “major metropolitan” PD is having issues with the Sig P320. It goes off when dropped, without assistance from a finger.
Would this make the P320 “notorious for being the weapon of choice for negligent discharges”? At least of the negligent dropping of said firearm variety?
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/02/breaking-p320-recall-issued-dallas-police-prohibited-duty-till-repaired/
No. It would not. It is not nearly as ubiquitous.
And whether the P320 has a design flaw has no bearing on whether the Glock is a weapon that is forgiving when handled improperly.
You just want to argue at this point. Trying to shoehorn irrelevant information about a completely different firearm into the discussion about the Glock is ridiculous.
The only one irrelevant on this board is you, Poodle-dick.
Then why are you paying attention to me?
Move along.
Looky, the Commissar is now giving out firearms advice in addition to his sage legal advice. I’m sure we all will want to give it careful consideration, given his massive skilz and experience on both subjects.
I do have fairly significant firearms experience. Hundreds of hours of formal training, hundreds of hours of refresher and requalification range time, and hundreds more of personnel range time. As well as decades of work experience.
My experience with Glocks is more limited. It was the weapon we trained with at the academy, and I carried a Glock as a service weapon for a time until I replaced it.
I’m glad to see you haven’t hurt yourself! 😀
So far so good.
And yet, you don’t know that the FBI classifies domestic violence assaults and domestic aggravated assaults differently than other assaults and aggravated assaults?
Your vast “experience” didn’t teach you that? Given your ignorance on that, your other “experience” is called into question.
You are clearly extrapolating a false assumption based on something I wrote and you interpreted incorrectly.
Besides, whether the FBI attempts to keep different figures for these two data points is misleading. The FBI cannot make clear distinctions between these two crimes because these crimes are not defined by the FBI. They are defined by the local laws in the jurisdictions in which the crimes occurred. Different states and local jurisdictions have different classifications for various forms of domestic violence, not all states use the same classifications, and even when the classifications are similar the language of the statute is different leading to different definitions and elements of the crimes.
Really, Poodle-dick? You’re going with I made the mistake?
The FBI makes those “clear distinctions” every year, when they report on the number of domestic assaults and non-domestic assaults. The FBI reports that info to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the DOJ. How would they report it, if, as you wrongly claim, they “cannot make clear distinctions between these two crimes because these crimes are not defined by the FBI”?
This is a waste of time.
Crimes are defined by the statutes that criminalize the action. Those statutes define the elements of the crime.
FBI does not pass laws they investigate crimes. So they do not define the elements of crimes.
Domestic violence statutes are defined by the state and local jurisdictions in which the crimes occurred. Each state legislator has different language and different elements of the crime for each statute covering domestic violence.
Some states have more distinctions between different forces of domestic violence than others.
Crime statistics are collected as hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the country enter their crime data into databases (and not all agencies do this). This data reflects their LOCAL interpretation of the type of crime based on LOCAL laws and STATE statutes.
The FBI assigns that data to categories according to a best fit criteria in their crime statistics reports.
But I am not sure how this all matters. You made the assumption that I do not know that the FBI tracks domestic violence as separate statistics to ordinary violent crime. Which is false. I knew that. And the assumption I didn’t is a false assumption made by you.
No, you didn’t know that, you showed that way back when you said there was no way to differentiate between assault and battery and domestic assault and battery.
Yes, YOU definitely made a mistake. I knew the FBI tracked domestic violence separately from ordinary violent crime.
Most local agencies do as well.
No, you didn’t. You claimed that the FBI didn’t track domestic violence separately, that any assault was coded the same, whether it was domestic or non-domestic.
But, when called on it, you do what you always do, you lie. Whether it’s crime, firearms or your pals in AntiFa and your love of socialism.
So, just FOAD.
So full of shit. I never said all violence was coded the same.
I don’t love socialism. It is a fantasy theory.
The economic theory I subscribe to is a more modern theory than socialism, and much more entrepreneurial.
However, you are too ignorant about economic theories to recognize that there is no country in the world that has an economic system that represents one theory.
We have many socialistic influences in our economy. Some of them I like. Some of them you do as well.
In fact I am certain you LIVE off some income derived from socialistic policies.
And I do have “pals” who regard themselves as ANTIFA.
And you should relook at your political ideology if you find yourself hating people that oppose fascism. You should have at least SOME aligned interests with anti-fascists. Unless, of course, you are a fascist.
You sit alone in a room and talk just to hear yourself, don’t you?
I seem to have upset a few Glock fanbois.
Oh well.
I would take a Glock over a Taurus, if I had to chose between only those options.
With firearms and females there is always a lot of room for personal opinions in favor of one over another.
I agree. I was making a broad statement about the typical “best fit” for hundreds of thousands of officers in hundreds of agencies.
Most agencies require officers to use an issued service weapon.
While a Glock may be the best sidearm for an individual officer it is rarely a good choice for an entire agency or department.
Can’t respond in that line any longer, so here goes. “And you should relook at your political ideology if you find yourself hating people that oppose fascism. You should have at least SOME aligned interests with anti-fascists. Unless, of course, you are a fascist”. AntiFa doesn’t “oppose fascism”, moron, they are the fascists.
This statement proves that you shouldn’t be taken all that seriously when you pontificate on anything, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
The notion that the anti-fascists (ANTIFA) are the fascists is ridiculous and shows you spend your time getting your news from alt-right and far right sources where that propaganda narrative is popular.
You mean CNN is alt-right and far right?
Do fucking tell.
CNN does not characterize ANTIFA as “fascists”. That is a narrative predominantly found on alt-right sites that bleeds over to far right sites.
Herr Kommissar,
Antifa are FAR-LEFT fascists:
“How Fascists Take Power”
https://capitalresearch.org/article/how-fascists-take-power/
“So, what’s the pattern? How do fascists take power? First, they are angry with election results or how the country is being run. Then fascists use militant tactics to force the population into supporting, or acquiescing in, their cause, even though most citizens don’t actually support the fascist agenda.
Today, some persons who claim to oppose fascism have started using fascist techniques, such as blockading roads and other modes of transit into the city, perpetrating violence against those who disagree with them politically, and using fear to suppress those who have different political views. But using fascist techniques is never right, and if you just removed “we will fight the fascists” from the Occupy Oakland tweet, it could be easily mistaken for a quote from Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, or Adolf Hitler.”
And then there’s this:
“Fascism”
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
“As an economic system, fascism is SOCIALISM with a capitalist veneer.”
Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?
Jetzt hau ab.
Now you did it, Herr Stachel. Das Kommisar has fled with his skirt over his head, screaming that the mean people won’t take his word for anything.
Fascism is a right wing ideology. A lot of people that do not understand the history of economics assume that because it has elements of socialism in it then it is a “leftist” ideology.
It is not. It is right wing nativism, nationalism, and corporatism responding to the failure of liberal economics.
Despite how the American right likes to spin their ideology, conservatives are not “small government.” Conservatisms roots are in Thomas Hobbes who argued that the government should have all the power it deems necessary to create a ordered, stable, and law abiding society. That is not necessarily “small government”.
And you can still see those roots in modern American conservatism that constantly advocates expanding and increasing spending on law enforcement, military, and domestic security, and strong control over borders.
Capitalism was a fairly “liberal” idea in the 19th century. It argued for free movement of capital, goods, and labor across borders.
In the early 20th century capitalism started showing some points of failure in countries that had “liberalized” their economic policies. Fascism was a right wing ideological response to capitalism. Communism was a left wing ideological response.
The notion behind fascism was a melding of old mercantilist ideas of national strength being based on controlling borders and accumulating domestic wealth combined with early twentieth century notions of strength through industrialization. The idea was that labor (the population), industry (capital), and the government (the state) would be made stronger when unified toward a common goal of increasing national strength. Fascist also argued that the population is made stronger by being made more pure (which is the strong nativist/nationalist theme that is so strongly associated with fascism).
There is nothing about ANTIFA that matches fascist ideology. They are not corporatist and tend to be hostile toward industry. They are generally hostile toward state security. They are as far from nativist as it gets; instead advocating for greater ethnic diversity.
People that claim ANTIFA are fascist are being reductionists and referring to fascism as merely a ideology of control and arguing ANTIFA are using fascist tactics to “suppress” the voices of people they disagree with.
Wow, every time I think you can’t get dumber, you exceed expectations! Facist ideology is only “right ” of communism.. It is not right wing at all, or only in comparison to someone like , Stalin…antifa uses “brown shirt” tactics to perfection, they are the epitome of fascism… and while they claim to advocate for diversity, that does NOT include whites… Please try to pay attention to the world commisar, instead of keeping your head firmly planted up the ass of your professors at berkley, and spouting whatever shit they dump on you!
Herr Kommissar,
Hört doch endlich mit dem Quatsch auf.