A fatal error

[JohnSW]

"Police say Gurley and his girlfriend had opened a door into a stairway and a rookie officer patrolling the pitch-dark stairwell fired his gun.Police Commissioner William Bratton called the shooting an accident. The medical examiner has ruled the death a homicide." - Associated Press

A reminder that, when you carry a gun, you are not allowed to make a mistake. Not one. Not ever.

And some people have a disposition that's incompatible with carrying a gun, such as a hothead, or someone who is prone to panicking, or someone who is prone to being careless.

 

[petepeterson]

Is there a link to the story?

Often times, especially in the media, the word "homicide" is mixed-up with "murder."

Homicide simply means that ones death was caused by another person. I'm sure better legal minds than mine can elaborate.

 

[Comrad]

This happened in NYC a week or two ago.

Police shooting in Brooklyn housing project ruled homicide

 

[armorer951]

A very serious responsibility indeed.

 

[rwsmith]

Too bad.....

What's the first thing you reach for if you think there are people in a dark room with no reason to suspect violence? Um, this is hard......a, a ,a flashight?

 

[Alk8944]

This is a subject which is a particular sore spot for me. While it is true that handling and carrying firearms, particularly professionally, is a great responsibility, there are other everyday actions performed by literally millions of people which can and do have equally grave consequences, much more frequently than firearms accidents. What is it? Driving a car! Literally dozens of people die every day in the United States for the simple reason that someone made a simple mistake which caused the death. Of these "accidents" there are some caused by simple inattention, some by gross negligence, a few suicides that no one seems to have the spine to call such because someone may be offended, and plain murders, which likewise are often never proved to be such. Rarely is anyone changed or convicted in any of these deaths with anything more serious than a misdemeanor, and even more infrequently is any jail time assessed.

Yet interpose a firearm into an accidental death and the whole world wants to lock the actor up for the rest of his life because we have somehow come to believe that a simple mistake or lapse in judgement with a firearm is in some way especially heinous and worthy of severe punishment! This, simply put, is rubbish! And by the attitude most of you have expressed in this thread you have bought into this fallacy.

I am not saying that firearms safety and responsible use are not important, they are! But isn't it logical that the severity of the outcome is what punishment should be based upon, rather than the tool involved? We as a society have come to accept that an accident with a motor vehicle is, for some reason, forgivable in most cases, but the same sort of accident with a gun isn't! Does this make any sense????

 

[mc5aw]

This is a subject which is a particular sore spot for me. While it is true that handling and carrying firearms, particularly professionally, is a great responsibility, there are other everyday actions performed by literally millions of people which can and do have equally grave consequences, much more frequently than firearms accidents. What is it? Driving a car! Literally dozens of people die every day in the United States for the simple reason that someone made a simple mistake which caused the death. Of these "accidents" there are some caused by simple inattention, some by gross negligence, a few suicides that no one seems to have the spine to call such because someone may be offended, and plain murders, which likewise are often never proved to be such. Rarely is anyone changed or convicted in any of these deaths with anything more serious than a misdemeanor, and even more infrequently is any jail time assessed.

Yet interpose a firearm into an accidental death and the whole world wants to lock the actor up for the rest of his life because we have somehow come to believe that a simple mistake or lapse in judgement with a firearm is in some way especially heinous and worthy of severe punishment! This, simply put, is rubbish! And by the attitude most of you have expressed in this thread you have bought into this fallacy.

I am not saying that firearms safety and responsible use are not important, they are! But isn't it logical that the severity of the outcome is what punishment should be based upon, rather than the tool involved? We as a society have come to accept that an accident with a motor vehicle is, for some reason, forgivable in most cases, but the same sort of accident with a gun isn't! Does this make any sense????

Motor vehicles are not viewed with the same contempt as firearms, despite the astronomically skewed numbers of fatalities caused by them each year due to impairment, weather, speeding, etc.

As to attempting to bring logic into the equation, it is futile ... gun haters are illogical, as are their protestations re: the inherent evil of firearms.

 

[John R]

"Police say Gurley and his girlfriend had opened a door into a stairway and a rookie officer patrolling the pitch-dark stairwell fired his gun.Police Commissioner William Bratton called the shooting an accident. The medical examiner has ruled the death a homicide." - Associated Press

A reminder that, when you carry a gun, you are not allowed to make a mistake. Not one. Not ever.

And some people have a disposition that's incompatible with carrying a gun, such as a hothead, or someone who is prone to panicking, or someone who is prone to being careless.

This seems to fit well here.

 

[JohnSW]

Is there a link to the story?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/n...ry-to-examine-akai-gurley-shooting-death.html

"Mr. Gurley, 28, was killed Nov. 20 as he walked in a dark stairwell in the Louis H. Pink Houses in the East New York neighborhood, his girlfriend at his side. The elevators in the building often malfunctioned and residents often used the stairs instead, even though the lights in the stairwells were frequently out, as they were that night.

Officer Liang, 27, was conducting a so-called vertical patrol with his partner, starting on the roof and heading down through the stairwells, a common procedure for officers assigned to housing projects. Officer Liang had his gun out and opened the door to a stairwell; the gun went off, authorities said, as Mr. Gurley entered the stairwell one floor below.

The police commissioner, William J. Bratton, characterized the shooting as “an unfortunate accident.”

 

[Voyager28]

As a former LEO I can say with some degree of certainty that this article account of this event smells of fish.



Two officers patrolling an unlit stairwell in a tenement building, high crime area, neither one carrying a flashlight? I don't think so.



A "routine" patrol with his firearm already out in his hand? I don't think so.



A lot more to this than is being told.



Here's a link to an article giving more information about the officer's conduct AFTER the shot was fired:



http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...n-rep-akai-gurley-lay-dying-article-1.2034219





Bob

 

[Jessie]

This is a subject which is a particular sore spot for me. While it is true that handling and carrying firearms, particularly professionally, is a great responsibility, there are other everyday actions performed by literally millions of people which can and do have equally grave consequences, much more frequently than firearms accidents. What is it? Driving a car! Literally dozens of people die every day in the United States for the simple reason that someone made a simple mistake which caused the death. Of these "accidents" there are some caused by simple inattention, some by gross negligence, a few suicides that no one seems to have the spine to call such because someone may be offended, and plain murders, which likewise are often never proved to be such. Rarely is anyone changed or convicted in any of these deaths with anything more serious than a misdemeanor, and even more infrequently is any jail time assessed.

Yet interpose a firearm into an accidental death and the whole world wants to lock the actor up for the rest of his life because we have somehow come to believe that a simple mistake or lapse in judgement with a firearm is in some way especially heinous and worthy of severe punishment! This, simply put, is rubbish! And by the attitude most of you have expressed in this thread you have bought into this fallacy.

I am not saying that firearms safety and responsible use are not important, they are! But isn't it logical that the severity of the outcome is what punishment should be based upon, rather than the tool involved? We as a society have come to accept that an accident with a motor vehicle is, for some reason, forgivable in most cases, but the same sort of accident with a gun isn't! Does this make any sense????

Very astute observation and I totally agree with it.
The big difference is that most EVERYBODY has a car, so it CAN'T be the fault of the car or else everyone who drives is a danger to society, as of course, gun owners are.
The old double standard at work here.

 

[CH4]

Motor vehicles are not viewed with the same contempt as firearms, despite the astronomically skewed numbers of fatalities caused by them each year due to impairment, weather, speeding, etc.

As to attempting to bring logic into the equation, it is futile ... gun haters are illogical, as are their protestations re: the inherent evil of firearms.

I fully agree, but most will continue to argue the broad, utilitarian value of the vehicle v. the limited/specific use of a firearm; though to keep an bear arms is an inalienable right and driving a vehicle is a privilege. An interesting dichotomy that we frequently discuss in class.

 

[elm_creek_smith]

Hell, I have to complete an incident report if I unholster my handgun in a public area, and I'd better have a good g*&@^%%#$ reason to do so or face disciplinary action!

This stinks!

 

[John R]

I love how the police are investigating, let anyone involved in a shooting investigate their own actions, what a crock.

 

[rwsmith]

Specific use of a firearm?

I fully agree, but most will continue to argue the broad, utilitarian value of the vehicle v. the limited/specific use of a firearm; though to keep an bear arms is an inalienable right and driving a vehicle is a privilege. An interesting dichotomy that we frequently discuss in class.

Everybody says the main purpose of a firearm is to kill people. My guns haven't killed anybody, or anything for that matter, though I've had them 40 years. I must have bought some inefficient guns for a record like that. No, my guns were made for recreation and it's only if somebody forces me to use them otherwise by trying to cause me or my family harm will they become defensive weapons.

Defensive situations are rarely as clean cut as "I've got to shoot or myself or somebody close to me is going to be hurt or killed." or "This person seems to be attacking me, but the situation can be handled without pulling the trigger on a gun."

No, there are only a few seconds or often less time to react to a confusing series of events in a confusing situation under confusing circumstances, which is what a defensive situation is most probably going to be like.

 

[Mcwsky09]

But isn't it logical that the severity of the outcome is what punishment should be based upon, rather than the tool involved?

Not entirely - in most cases the matter of intent is equally or perhaps more important that the outcome.

If I deliberately pulled my gun out and put it to your head and pulled the trigger and you died that is one thing - but if we are out hunting together and I trip and fall and my gun fires and you are hit and die - the outcome is the same - but the intent is quite different. Forgetting negligence and proper firearm handling - the key difference is intent.

I think that may be why so many people get off or light sentences with drunk driving "accidents" because they did not intended to ram their car into another vehicle or a pedestrian. Of course getting behind the wheel while intoxicated should be treated as intent to cause harm.

Consider a case in the parking lot where my sister works. A shopper had finished emptying her cart as a man walked by and asked if she was done with that cart and could he take it - she was - he did and took about two steps before another car smashed into the woman placing her last groceries into her trunk. While I do not know the outcome, the woman shopper was seriously wounded and based on the description I heard I wouldn't be surprised if she lost at least one leg. On review of the store video they found that the woman whose car had stuck the shopper had gotten into her car, started it and put it in gear as she was closing her door when a gust of wind pulled the door open and dragged her out of the car leaving the running car, in gear, to accelerate across an open parking space and the lane into the woman shopper who was injured.

Clearly the second woman did not intend to ram her car into another person causing serious and likely permanent, life altering injuries. Was she even negligent in putting the car in gear with the door open? (Did she have her seat belt on? I think not likely since she was pulled free of the car).

If the second woman had still be in the car but put it into drive instead or reverse, would she be more or less culpable in the resulting injuries?

If the second woman had been under the influence, what then?

If the second woman had been on the phone, what then?

With any nuance of circumstance that led up to the injury it is all too easy to react emotionally and say that the punishment should be severe since the outcome was severe.

When we say that the punishment should fit the crime - lets be careful to make sure we understand exactly what the crime is based on all the facts in the case and not just the result, unless of course you are with the Ferguson protestors.

 

[federali]

Gun Jostled?

The newspapers (and if it's in the papers, it must be true) said the officer's gun hand got "jostled."

I would like to remind everyone that modern handguns have built-in passive safeties which prevent discharge if the gun is jostled or dropped. The trigger must be pulled and held to the rear. For that to happen, one's finger must be on the trigger.

Are we not taught to keep our finger OFF the trigger unless we intend to fire? As to why the gun was in the officer's hand and not holstered, well, I won't go there as I wasn't in the stairwell with him.

 

[Rastoff]

Why was his gun was out?

 

[Engine49guy]

Very unfortunate accident, victim was struck 1 floor below from a ricochet after an accidental discharge ,
In light of recent events the suits will be looking for someone to make an example of.