Cop kills woman during role playing demonstration.

[elgarak]

Seems hard to believe they would intentionally fire a blank round at a person.

Blank rounds are not risk free. There are a few ways to be killed by a blank round, as a couple of actors found out, by dying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum#Death

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Lee#Death

I agree with Hexum (he held a revolver loaded with blanks to his temple, assuming blanks are safe at close distance).

But not with Brandon Lee. The gun, again a revolver, was loaded with dummy rounds for a closeup scene in which the bullets had to look real. The dummies were self-made by the 'armorers', who took the bullets off normal rounds, removed the powder (but left the primer), and reattached the bullets (safe dummy rounds without any explosive, not even primer, can be bought). The gun was fired with those dummy rounds. The primer was enough to dislodge a bullet into the barrel, where it got stuck. Subsequently, the gun was loaded with blanks, but not properly checked (which is why I put marks around the term 'armorers', who acted grossly negligent, IMO, and don't deserve the professional title). Then Lee was shot on camera, intended to be with blanks at safe distance. At this point, the gun acted like being loaded with normal ammo, and not with blanks. It's not clear what happened in-between the two firings with the gun in detail (the one with the dummy rounds, and the fatal one) because the gun handlers did not have a proper procedure in place.

I know armorers on whose watches neither event would have happened. They don't leave guns, neither loaded nor unloaded, for actors to play with, they double check the weapons, and they prepare safe dummies (both guns and ammo) to act the part.

 

[elgarak]

If they are not mentally equipped to role play a crime then they are NOT MENTALLY EQUIPPED TO BE POLICE OFFICERS! If they cannot unload a gun, cannot turn on the safety, and cannot keep their fingers off the triggers, then they cannot safely serve as law enforcement officers.

ETA
And even if one is using an unloaded weapon as part of a role play, there is no reason to point the weapon directly at a person - pointing the weapon in a person's direction without actually pointing the weapon at the person's vital organs is a perfectly acceptable way of adding another layer of safety.

There's the sad little fact that guns without external safeties exist solely for the purpose of having police officers not having to deal with them. That's one of the reasons why police used revolvers for a long time, and why Glocks, Sig-Sauers P2xy variants, and the H&K P7 (among others) work the way they are with no external safeties.

Quite often those guns are changed specifically for police use with higher trigger pulls (!).

The P7 has an interesting history. It has a lever in the front of the grip that, when pressed, cocks the gun, and de-cocks automatically when released. In order to fire, you'll need to press this lever, and pull the trigger. The original version of the gun did not discriminate what needs to happen first, which lead to a few negligent discharges in the field, when police officer drew the gun with the finger on the trigger (and trigger pulled), and then the gun discharged when they didn't intended it to when the rest of the fingers pressed the lever.

You could train police in the proper handling (with drawing without finger on the trigger, and handling safeties), but this takes a long time in which the police is not out fighting crime. Given how seldom police actually require to use the gun in countries like here in Germany, this does not seem prudent. In the USA, OTOH, it looks to make sense to invest a little more in gun training.

 

[Noztradamus]

If they are not mentally equipped to role play a crime then they are NOT MENTALLY EQUIPPED TO BE POLICE OFFICERS! If they cannot unload a gun, cannot turn on the safety, and cannot keep their fingers off the triggers, then they cannot safely serve as law enforcement officers.

.

Yeah that's where I was going with that

 

[Modified]

I hope you're right, and do acknowledge that some of what appears to be things getting worse is probably the increased visibility of things. What I don't like at the moment is the adversarial attitude that is appearing in public opinion, and the reluctance of police departments to toss the bad ones. Anyway, I hope you're right, and will happily accept being wrong.

I think Dr. Keith is absolutely right, but it's going to be a painful transition. Eventually the public and jurors will have an expectation of dashcams and body cameras recording when appropriate, and any lack of footage will require a reasonable explanation.

 

[Bob001]

.....
I know armorers on whose watches neither event would have happened. They don't leave guns, neither loaded nor unloaded, for actors to play with, they double check the weapons, and they prepare safe dummies (both guns and ammo) to act the part.

Just curious, if this doesn't digress too far: The performers' unions have pretty rigid rules about health and safety. For example, Equity (the stage actors union) requires that fight scenes must be rehearsed in "fight calls" before every performance, even when actors are already doing eight shows a week. What do SAG and AFTRA and Equity say about firearms safety on the set or stage? (Personally, if I was an actor I would want to check every gun myself, at least the ones that were going to be pointed at me.)

 

[arthwollipot]

I can see good reasons for wanting to train with blanks. A gun makes a very loud and sudden sound - the startle reflex will often make someone hesitate if the gun goes off, and training to get through that reflex might be worth the trouble.

However, I know nothing, and if someone who knows something says that this is bull, I will accept that. It's also worth noting that as far as I am aware, blanks are not even remotely risk-free, especially at close range.

 

[angrysoba]

Not to mention the passive language that was used in the press conference, something along the lines of a discharge hit the woman. No, a discharge did not hit her, a careless officer used live ammo.

I hate to sound like the...er... grammar police here, but I must pull you over for this incorrect identification of "passive language".

Assuming you meant the passive voice - which style guides often counsel against - the construction, "a discharge hit the woman" is not in the passive voice but is in the active voice and uses a transitive verb. Ironically, "the passive language that was used in the press conference" is an example of the passive voice.

I hereby dock you three points on your Grammar Pedant License.

 

[Pup]

I can see good reasons for wanting to train with blanks. A gun makes a very loud and sudden sound - the startle reflex will often make someone hesitate if the gun goes off, and training to get through that reflex might be worth the trouble.

However, I know nothing, and if someone who knows something says that this is bull, I will accept that. It's also worth noting that as far as I am aware, blanks are not even remotely risk-free, especially at close range.

That makes sense, though I wonder what the trade-off would be in risk of hearing loss? Even if everything goes perfectly, even if the gun is aimed to the side, blanks are quite loud at close range.

 

[elgarak]

Just curious, if this doesn't digress too far: The performers' unions have pretty rigid rules about health and safety. For example, Equity (the stage actors union) requires that fight scenes must be rehearsed in "fight calls" before every performance, even when actors are already doing eight shows a week. What do SAG and AFTRA and Equity say about firearms safety on the set or stage? (Personally, if I was an actor I would want to check every gun myself, at least the ones that were going to be pointed at me.)

Good question. I don't know. "The Crow" (where Brandon Lee was killed) was an independent movie, and may not have to follow all union rules (there are such things as non-union productions).

It could also be that the rules are so tight now because they were changed because of such events. There were things done in the past that couldn't be done anymore today (such as the extensive helicopter action on early 1980s TV shows like "The A-Team". I guess the accident on the set of "Twilight Zone" (1985) had something to do with that [a chopper crashed on Vic Morrow and two child actors, killing them, nearly decapitating Morrow], and post-9/11 there's a lot of bureaucracy to get flight permissions in metro areas). One of the most interesting comments I recall was by James Cameron in the commentary to "Terminator 2". There's a stunt where Arnold's stunt double just walks across two fast moving cars/trucks, with a rifle, and starts shooting into the truck. The stunt was filmed pretty much as you see it: The cars/trucks were free moving, independently, there were no safety wires or similar attached. Cameron said he would refuse to do such a stunt today for safety reasons (recorded about ten years after the movie was made in 1991). [Speaking of which, Linda Hamilton lost hearing in one ear because she forgot her earplugs for a scene in an elevator car, shooting blanks.]

 

[steve s]

I can see good reasons for wanting to train with blanks.

In the police academy maybe, but not when you're play acting with the public. As Pup pointed out, the risk of hearing damage should be enough reason not to use blank rounds.

Steve S

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Even the US Army, when using blanks in a rifle with a screwed-in muzzle block (Blank Firing Adapter, BFA), yell "safety kill" rather than firing at people less than 15 feet away.

 

[elgarak]

In the police academy maybe, but not when you're play acting with the public. As Pup pointed out, the risk of hearing damage should be enough reason not to use blank rounds.

Steve S

If you want to make it go bang, use cap guns. I'm pretty sure you can get them with a fairly loud bang -- enough to startle, but not to damage ears. Otherwise, non-firing training dummies with the gun wielder shouting "bang bang bang" works fine without hurt. There are also soft airs, paint ball markers (could be had with replica guns, too) and other non-lethals (could damage eyes, though). Plenty of options that are safer and, more importantly, safer to handle in a chaotic environment with trained and non-trained people around. Heck, a NERF gun with styrofoam bolts might do the trick, too.

 

[Ladewig]

In the police academy maybe, but not when you're play acting with the public. As Pup pointed out, the risk of hearing damage should be enough reason not to use blank rounds.

Steve S

This may be a stupid question, but for revolvers, shouldn't one be able to buy blanks with smaller charges which produce less volume?

 

[Bob001]

This may be a stupid question, but for revolvers, shouldn't one be able to buy blanks with smaller charges which produce less volume?

Blanks use a tiny amount of powder compared to real cartridges, but it's still an explosion, and you don't want it happening near your ear.

 

[Planigale]

If it was stupidity not involving injury, you'd be correct.

The guy's finished, as he should be.

The only thing left to be determined will be criminal charges and what the municipality pays out for his negligence.

This is exactly what should not happen. One needs a root cause analysis; the system needs to be blamed. If this was an aviation incident the FAA would be investigating. The cause of the error and what could be done to prevent the error would be identified. Just accepting it as an error and blaming the individual will not stop the same thing happening again. This is probably why so many people gat killed by police in the same circumstances. Individual police forces and counties investigate and no lessons are learned and certainly not propagated. If the officer followed procedures, the force should be prosecuted for manslaughter. Only if he deliberately failed to follow procedures should the individual be prosecuted. There may be (and I know nothing about US LEO rules) a rule that uniformed officers have to be armed; or it may be that the training facility used had no where to securely store a firearm so the officer had to carry.

Clearly in a training scenario real guns should be secured beyond use, and only disabled training weapons used. But there have to be 'failsafe' systems to ensure this happens.

 

[Bob001]

...
There may be (and I know nothing about US LEO rules) a rule that uniformed officers have to be armed; or it may be that the training facility used had no where to securely store a firearm so the officer had to carry.

Clearly in a training scenario real guns should be secured beyond use, and only disabled training weapons used. But there have to be 'failsafe' systems to ensure this happens.

The officer was not using his duty weapon. He didn't pick up the wrong gun. According to police, the gun was intended to be used in the training scenario and it was intended to be loaded with blanks. This is gross negligence on multiple levels.

 

[shuize]

What has the NRA said about this "exercise"?

Being all about safety that they claim to be, they must certainty condemn their methods, yes?

Rather than the NRA, I'd be more interested to hear the anti-gun folks explain why they think it's only people like this idiot police officer who deserve to be armed.

 

[arthwollipot]

Rather than the NRA, I'd be more interested to hear the anti-gun folks explain why they think it's only people like this idiot police officer who deserve to be armed.

Speaking as one who self-identifies as one of the "anti-gun folks" (which I'm really not, but whatever), why do you think we think that this idiot police officer deserves to be armed?

 

[angrysoba]

Rather than the NRA, I'd be more interested to hear the anti-gun folks explain why they think it's only people like this idiot police officer who deserve to be armed.

It's true. I think it is better when police are not armed with guns.

 

[cullennz]

Rather than the NRA, I'd be more interested to hear the anti-gun folks explain why they think it's only people like this idiot police officer who deserve to be armed.

As a non anti gun but pro gun control person.

Explain why anyone "deserves" it