Service firearm concern

[OZrookie]

Hey everyone. (A scenario for you) You have just passed your final qualification shoot at the Academy with an Academy pistol. You are not issued your service firearm until graduation day. You have not fired that weapon yet, and have no opportunity to fire that weapon until your next qualification shoot in another 12 months. You are not permitted to use your service issued weapon at a private range, or the police range unless it's a qualification shoot. How would you feel about that???????

[KenM]

I always like to put my life on the line with an unproven weapon.


http://www.officer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif


------------------
"Trust me. I'm from the government, I'm here to help."

[Don]

You can bet your you know what that the weapon WOULD be fired. No matter how far I had to go to "get out in the boonies."

I have heard of some stupid rules and regs, but this has to just top everything. Are you sure about this, or is somebody just pullin' your chain?

------------------
"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining". . . Judge Judy
6P1 (retired)

[movista]

Sounds like chain pullin' to me. Imagine the liability...*whew*

------------------
Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice.

[OZrookie]

Don,

Unfortunately that is true, as I was the one who did my qualifying shoot today at the Academy. Things are "a little?" different over here. Scary huh? You guy's must be laughing over this, although it's not reallly a laughing matter is it. I'll have to work on this problem.

I have heard of some stupid rules and regs, but this has to just top everything. Are you sure about this, or is somebody just pullin' your chain?

[Niteshift]

Wow! http://www.officer.com/ubb/eek.gif

I'd find some way of proving to myself that it worked, even if I had to load up some blanks to prove that the darn thing will at least go bang.

Of course, most of us American cops forget that there are still a few places in this country where you will check out a shotgun at the begining of your shift, turn it in at the end of the day and get a different one the next day. I know it's not the same in terms of accuracy, but do you REALLY know the one you got will fire?

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[John from Maryland]

"That's some catch, that Catch-22."
"It's the best we have."

You might want to talk to your supervisor or FTO when you reach your duty station. Perhaps there is some provision for qualifying, officially or not. I would not, however, make a big deal about it. If you're told to carry the weapon and be happy about it, I would grin inanely and walk away. As Don suggested, I would then find some isolated area to fire some rounds down range. You should at least ensure that the weapn is mechanically sound, even if you can't learn all its idiosyncracies.

As PC as I Australian police management to be, that does have to be the stupidest, most wrong-headed policy I have heard of and one that would like land the Police Service in a world of hurt if an officer's round misses the tango and blows through a baby carriage.

I believe you carry Glocks. Those do tend to be pretty reliable and most shooting are at close range. You'll probably be alright. Be safe. Good luck.



[This message has been edited by John from Maryland (edited 11-22-2000).]

[CustomsCop]

This sort of backdoor liability dodging is becoming very commonplace. Every agency I've worked for so far has that kind of policy, but I've found that the firearms instructor/armorer who issues the newbies their weapon has usually put a few rounds through it before issue.

Just don't carry anything with you to the private range of your choice that indicates you are a cop! And don't screw up!

[FinCop]

Originally posted by OZrookie:
Hey everyone. (A scenario for you) You have just passed your final qualification shoot at the Academy with an Academy pistol. You are not issued your service firearm until graduation day. You have not fired that weapon yet, and have no opportunity to fire that weapon until your next qualification shoot in another 12 months. You are not permitted to use your service issued weapon at a private range, or the police range unless it's a qualification shoot. How would you feel about that???????

Dear Colleaque Officer,

I have found out that the rules concerning service firearms seems to have stupid policy what ever I hear. It is very typical almost all around the world, as I feel, that you will get a firearm from your department but training how to use it is very limited. If it is a new weapon, you do not even know, if it works.

Especially for an officer it is important that he can load the gun very properly. Good way is to keep the gun unloaded when you aproach for example a gang. If you really need your gun then you can first take it in your hand and load it, not fire. I would say that this is for example to me more important thant to shoot. If you make your gun ready to fire too early, you miss one very important "trick" to motivate people to make what you say.

If you need to fire, even the first ammo to the air, situation is different in your registers. You have fired your gun on duty, and you need to have very very good reason to do that. Situation will always be investigated and typically very easily some punishment is given to the cop. Of course if a suspect shoots against you (suspect must start shooting) then you are allowed to shoot so much back (police does not shoot to kill) that you can get yourself behind somekind cover (e.g. car).

If it is allowed to have a fire arm in your country, you can buy a similar gun by yourself, for hunting or sporting purposes.

Let's be careful, shall we.

FinCop

[Monty Ealerman]

FinCop:

Is the Finnish government completely crazy?

Good way is to keep the gun unloaded when you aproach for example a gang.

No. This is not a "good way". This is a stupid way. I'm not saying you're stupid, but this idea is clearly stupid. It can get police officers killed. The "good way" is to keep your gun loaded and either at hand or in hand when you approach, for example, a gang. Whether at hand or in hand depends on the situation.

If you really need your gun then you can first take it in your hand and load it, not fire.

If you really need your gun, then you need it loaded. You can't afford to take the time to load your gun when you need it. If you need it, you usually need it immediately.

If you are dealing with an armed person who would rather kill you than get arrested, but would also rather get arrested than get killed, then showing an unloaded firearm, and indicating it needs bullets by starting to put one in, can get you killed.

I would say that this is for example to me more important thant to shoot.

The fact the gun can be used to threaten comes from the fact that it can be used to shoot. The fact that it can be used to kill or otherwise incapacitate someone is much more important that the fact that it can be used to threaten someone.

If you make your gun ready to fire too early, you miss one very important "trick" to motivate people to make what you say.

Your gun can never be ready "too early". It should always be loaded when you are carrying it, and if you empty it for any reason, you should reload as soon as you can thereafter.

You appear to be suggesting that an officer draw an unloaded firearm, and use the action of conspicuously loading it to show the onlookers that you mean business.

If you really mean business, you'll keep your gun loaded to begin with.

If you need to fire, even the first ammo to the air,...

If you need to fire, you probably need to fire at someone; not into the air. If you can afford to fire into the air, you probably don't need to fire.

In many states in the US, warning shots fired into the air used to be used to stop someone from running away, but the situations in which shooting a fleeing person is allowed have been narrowed so far that there is now very little reason to fire a warning shot.

If a person is armed and fleeing the scene of a violent felony, he can be shot without warning, and if he is a mere misdemeanant who is not armed, shooting him is forbidden, so he'll probably ignore any warning shots.

Situation will always be investigated and typically very easily some punishment is given to the cop.

I hope the police are not being unjustly punished for proper duty-related use of firearms. If they are, they should protest, and continue to use them properly anyway.

Of course if a suspect shoots against you (suspect must start shooting) then you are allowed to shoot so much back (police does not shoot to kill) that you can get yourself behind somekind cover (e.g. car).

1. Except in rare circumstances (gor example if you are not in uniform and a uniformed officer, not seeing that you are a police officer, points his gun at you) if someone points a gun directly at you, you should shoot him immediately. If you wait until he fires, you could be killed by the first shot.

2. If you have the right to shoot at the person, you should shoot to incapacitate. If your best incapacitating shot is probably going to be lethal, you should take the shot anyway. The intent is not necessarily to kill; however, the killing may be necessary to reliably effect the incapacitation.

3. If you are in a position to take cover, and your laws say that once you have adequate cover you should not return fire against a person who is shooting at the police, then that part of your laws is nonsensical, and should be improved to allow a better job of protecting the public to be done.

Let's be careful, shall we.

Yes, let's. Let's be careful to ensure that our lawfully carried guns are properly loaded, and let's take careful aim when justly shooting someone in self defense or in defense of others.

Regards,

Monty

[Niteshift]

Monty, I'd like to either clarify or give a different POV on a few things:

First, you need to understand that the US way of doing things is not universal. While we may think ours is the best way (and it often is), others may be hampered by laws and regulations that do not permit things to be done in the ideal. For example, carrying a round chambered. I fully agree that carrying what is, in essence, and unloaded gun, is not the best thing. But, I'd stop short of correcting a cop who talks about it, since that may be the regs he falls under. I think I'd rather ask him about his policies.

"If a person is armed and fleeing the scene of a violent felony, he can be shot without warning."

That is a dangerous statement. I disagree, as do a lot of courts.

"...if he is a mere misdemeanant who is not armed, shooting him is forbidden..."

This is not alway true either.

"if someone points a gun directly at you, you should shoot him immediately."

I wouldn't say that it is that black and white. Shooting may not be the best answer in all situations.

"If you have the right to shoot at the person, you should shoot to incapacitate"

How about we just say shoot to stop and avoid some of the confusing explaination.

"Let's be careful to ensure that our lawfully carried guns are properly loaded"

Again, this is not always an option in all countries.



------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Dave]

your policy sounds a bit like ours, i am in the military, and we go to the range 2 times a year to qualify. no one ever hits a thing, and we are not allowed to cary with one in the chamber. the go out to the boonies idea sounds like a good idea, but ust make sure the area is clear for sever hundred yards down range, and there is no one around, it would be very hard to explain shooting some one. i am not sure what you $$ situation is like or the lays in your area but you could do like me buy a wepon like yours, it wil not be the same as your service wepon, but it should be close, you can fire it till your harts content, then come qualification day. you will be a bit better prepaired+ yuo can practice your grips and what not. i know it helped me out a whole bunch went from just qualifying to expert every time.

[Monty Ealerman]

Niteshift:

I can go along with your provisos and caveats in this matter. What I wrote is I think in most situations correct; however, when considering firearm use, the specifics must always be taken into account, and the general rules are subject to "not necessarily" revisions. Thanks.

Regards,

Monty

[FinCop]

Dear Monty Ealerman,

First of all, sorry my language. I mean gun unloaded that there is no bullet in chamber. Glock 17 (our gun) can be made ready and fired in a second if I need it (just the slide once back and fire).

Second important thing almost every country here in Europe is that a suspect does not have a gun in 99,99 % of cases. It is illegal to carry a gun without good reason, and loaded gun not at all. Only police, military etc. authorities can have a gun ready and carry it that way.

So, a loaded gun in a pocket is strictly forbidden. The gun must be in locked case (recommended) and unloaded (compulsory) and you need to have very good reason to have a gun with you (only if you are on your way to practising place etc.). We regognize suspects very well if there is even a small possibility that he/she might have a gun.

I do not recall, say in last 20 years, that police has shot a suspect. Really!

In England I think they do not even carry a gun at all. Every uniform in Finland has a pistol (Glock 17). Sweden too, i think. Guns are given by department. Anything of your own must not be used (by our laws).

Our government is not stupid. We have had everything here very peacefully. This concerns the whole of North Europe. Army is mandatory in Finland, very good. Not very many foreighn people in my country. Good social service ("no poor ones --> no bad problems"). Everybody has something, nobody thinks "I have nothing to loose".

In last 5 year 2 uniforms are killed on duty. Unfortunately in Helsinki where I live.
Shooting agains officers does not happen often. In this country it is very bid matter and I would say always in newspapers.

Main point: Permit to have a gun is given by Finish Police. If you have drug or alcohol problems, mental problems or you have had troubles with cops, no permit or existing ones canceled.

Everyone who has a gun in Finland takes very good care of his gun, so that you do not loose your licence. Mine practicing gun is behind 3 locks and still the gun itself has a special locking, which cannot be taken off without key or you damage the gun so much, it cannot be fired anymore.

Making it simple: Gun policy in Europe is good.

[Monty Ealerman]

FinCop:

I recognize that Finland does not have as high a percentage of shooters in its gang population as Chicago.

Even so, if you're taking a second to rack a round while your enemy is using that same second to crack one off at you, you're at serious disadvantage.

It was the following that led me to question whether your government is crazy:

if a suspect shoots against you (suspect must start shooting) then you are allowed to shoot so much back (police does not shoot to kill) that you can get yourself behind somekind cover (e.g. car).

If someone points a gun at you, you should not have to feel obligated to wait until he starts shooting to fire at him. You might get killed by the first shot.

If you have your gun out, with a round chambered, and you are aiming at someone, if he points a gun at you, in most instances the only sensible thing to do is shoot him.

In general, making a police officer wait until he is being shot at, rather than until he recognizes immediate mortal danger from a gun being pointed at him, is in my opinion crazy.

If he is already actually shooting at you, trying to restrict your return fire to something which does not kill, and only allows you to take cover, is also crazy, especially in a country where everyone has military training.

I'm glad the police are not shot at very often in your counry. I hope that if they are shot at, they will act appropriately to defend themselves and to seize the perpetrators, even if they have to kill them to do so.

Regards,

Monty