TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:There's a difference between bullseye shooting and shooting human size targets. I just don't accept the triggers as being an acceptable excuse for shooting bystanders.

There is NO acceptable excuse for shooting bystanders. However there are reasons they shoot bystanders and lack of training would be the number one cause in my opinion. NYPD had a problem with negligent discharges but instead of increasing training to fix the problem they just mandated the triggers be 12 lbs hoping that making them harder to pull would make up for the lack of training.

Sure, with training people can overcome the 12 lbs trigger pull - but they can't even train their officers to keep their fingers off the trigger...

In my opinion the "professional law enforcement officers" should take it upon themselves to be the best darned officer they can be, dedicating much of their spare time to do the training the department won't/doesn't give them. But I have been told by LEO on this board that is unrealistic - they will do the minimum required and call it is good enough, and that is just sad.

Exactly. We as a society have grown lazy and complacent in our jobs as well as our character and that's a very dangerous way to be as an LEO, for themselves and anyone within range. This mentality and lack of care & training might cause someone to shoot at an unarmed person in a crowd...

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:There's a difference between bullseye shooting and shooting human size targets. I just don't accept the triggers as being an acceptable excuse for shooting bystanders.

I don't think there is ever an "acceptable" reason but that doesn't mean you stop looking at what may of played a part.

If a driver rear-ends another car, it's probably operator error. If he tries to blame it on the company car being a 4-door sedan instead of a sports car with better brakes, that only makes me more convinced it's operator error.

Alf wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:There's a difference between bullseye shooting and shooting human size targets. I just don't accept the triggers as being an acceptable excuse for shooting bystanders.

I don't think there is ever an "acceptable" reason but that doesn't mean you stop looking at what may of played a part.

If a driver rear-ends another car, it's probably operator error. If he tries to blame it on the company car being a 4-door sedan instead of a sports car with better brakes, that only makes me more convinced it's operator error.

I'm not trying to argue with people who care more about making a point than acknowledging reality. You rear end a car your at fault but pretending that it doesn't matter if the car has bad breaks or not seems stupid to me.

I see your point and I hope you can see mine that the driver is responsible for their driving skill and for maintaining their vehicle. Incompetence and negligence are not valid excuses.

So, if I miss and hit innocent bystanders, I can blame the bad trigger on my gun to avoid prosecution or liability?

mojo84 wrote:So, if I miss and hit innocent bystanders, I can blame the bad trigger on my gun to avoid prosecution or liability?

Who is saying that!! Anyone!! Where is there even the slightest hint of someone saying that? But if the trigger on a gun is horrible and makes it harder to shoot it's worth noting don't you think? God forbid we try and actually understand an issue rather than just making sure you can pin the blame on someone.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:So, if I miss and hit innocent bystanders, I can blame the bad trigger on my gun to avoid prosecution or liability?

Who is saying that!! Anyone!! Where is there even the slightest hint of someone saying that? But if the trigger on a gun is horrible and makes it harder to shoot it's worth noting don't you think? God forbid we try and actually understand an issue rather than just making sure you can pin the blame on someone.

EEllis
Post subject: Re: NYPD shoots bystanders; suspect chargedPostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:33 am
Online
Senior Member

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:54 pm
Posts: 806
gigag04 wrote:
NYPD still have those stupid heavy triggers on their Glocks?


The one's that make them almost impossible to shoot accurately? Yep.

mojo84 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:So, if I miss and hit innocent bystanders, I can blame the bad trigger on my gun to avoid prosecution or liability?

Who is saying that!! Anyone!! Where is there even the slightest hint of someone saying that? But if the trigger on a gun is horrible and makes it harder to shoot it's worth noting don't you think? God forbid we try and actually understand an issue rather than just making sure you can pin the blame on someone.

EEllis
Post subject: Re: NYPD shoots bystanders; suspect chargedPostPosted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:33 am
Online
Senior Member

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:54 pm
Posts: 806
gigag04 wrote:
NYPD still have those stupid heavy triggers on their Glocks?


The one's that make them almost impossible to shoot accurately? Yep.

Impossible to shoot accurately now equals OK to shoot bystanders? I'm done and out.

I asked one question about the triggers, some folks answered, and all of sudden people assume we are making excuses shooting innocents.

I used to look forward to meeting forum members whether buying or selling guns and gear, grabbing lunch, or sitting in a booth at a gun show. I'm not so certain I'd be interested in that anymore.

gigag04 wrote:I asked one question about the triggers, some folks answered, and all of sudden people assume we are making excuses shooting innocents.

I used to look forward to meeting forum members whether buying or selling guns and gear, grabbing lunch, or sitting in a booth at a gun show. I'm not so certain I'd be interested in that anymore.

They way it was floated out there in this particular thread sure gave the impression you two were trying to raise the question the triggers had something to do with it.

For people that always want to make their decisions on facts, what factual evidence prompted the concern about the triggers? Did the official report from the shooting investigation indicate the triggers may have contributed to the innocent bystanders being shot? I'm just curious what even brought the triggers to mind and why was it asked in this thread if it wasn't to allude to the fact that New York cops' heavy triggers had something to do with it.

I'm just trying to understand the logic and why there appears to be such a double standard.

"Had something to do with it"

DOES NOT EQUAL

"Is responsible for it"

Does that clear it up?

mojo84 wrote:

gigag04 wrote:I asked one question about the triggers, some folks answered, and all of sudden people assume we are making excuses shooting innocents.

I used to look forward to meeting forum members whether buying or selling guns and gear, grabbing lunch, or sitting in a booth at a gun show. I'm not so certain I'd be interested in that anymore.

They way it was floated out there in this particular thread sure gave the impression you two were trying to raise the question the triggers had something to do with it.

For people that always want to make their decisions on facts, what factual evidence prompted the concern about the triggers? Did the official report from the shooting investigation indicate the triggers may have contributed to the innocent bystanders being shot? I'm just curious what even brought the triggers to mind and why was it asked in this thread if it wasn't to allude to the fact that New York cops' heavy triggers had something to do with it.

I'm just trying to understand the logic and why there appears to be such a double standard.

It was just a question inspired by the thread. Everything else reads to me like bait for a good ol internet argument.

No thanks.

Is there a report showing "it had something to do with it"?

If there is, that may clear it up.

It didn't come across as a simple question. It came across as bait and a potential excuse. I'm done too.

mojo84 wrote:Is there a report showing "it had something to do with it"?

If there is, that may clear it up.

It didn't come across as a simple question. It came across as bait and a potential excuse. I'm done too.

I dunno "had something to do with it" were your words.