Bordentown police chief shot by own gun fired by preteen

[SecularMotion]

BORDENTOWN, N.J. - May 6, 2014 (WPVI) -- One gunshot rattled nerves inside the Bordentown Township Municipal Building on Tuesday afternoon and sent people scrambling to help 57-year-old Police Chief Frank Nucera who was hit in the leg.

"I knew something big was going on if I'm seeing all these cop cars coming to the station rather than leaving the station," witness Deborah Nabosse said.

It was around 4:00 p.m. when investigators say the chief, who is also serving as town administrator in the small Jersey community, was inside the tax collector's office.

The Burlington County Prosecutor's Office says a child, described as a preteen, somehow got his hand on the chief's holstered service weapon and fired a shot.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=9529452

[ileus]

1. Remember only government employees are trained and trustworthy for firearm use.

[pipoman]

2. betting it was a Glock

[stone space]

3. Shot by a stupid gun, it appears.

...a child, described as a preteen, somehow got his hand on the chief's holstered service weapon and fired a shot.

Guns should be smarter than that.

This is 2014.

Why are guns so stupid?

[Bazinga]

4. What is the reaction when someone makes a grab at a gun in its holster?

Is it not to grab the hand or the gun? Would that not bring an RFID chip into proximity to the gun, thus allowing it to be fired?

Not even a "smart" gun would have prevented this.

[stone space]

5. Why? If the kid manages to get the gun, so what?

Is it not to grab the hand or the gun?

You sound like a person who just doesn't trust guns.

I mean, sure, guns should always be kept away from kids, but wouldn't a police officer's first priority be on restraining the kid, rather than being distracted by a gun that is perfectly capable of protecting itself?

[blueridge3210]

7. You might do some research on weapon retention.

The normal practice if some one is reaching for your weapon is to grab it while still in the holster to keep it from being removed. Someone else can restrain the kid while the weapon is being controlled.

[stone space]

8. Why do people have that reaction? Don't they trust guns? Do they believe that guns are stupid?

The normal practice if some one is reaching for your weapon is to grab it while still in the holster to keep it from being removed.

[blueridge3210]

10. A gun is an inanimate object

and is, therefore by definition, stupid. The priority, if someone is attempting take you weapon from the holster, is to lock the weapon in the holster to prevent access. Most LEO holsters (of which I am aware) are required to cover the trigger to prevent unintentional discharge. If the weapon is locked into the holster the trigger is not accessible and the weapon cannot be discharged. That will allow someone else to restrain the individual with more safety. Again, you may wish to do some research on the topic.

[stone space]

11. Why? Do guns just go off all by themselves?

The priority, if someone is attempting take you weapon from the holster, is to lock the weapon in the holster to prevent access.

[blueridge3210]

12. Reading comprehension problems?

The effort to prevent access is to keep someone else from causing the weapon to discharge. Clearly guns do not normally "go off all by themselves". Again, you may want to do some research on the issue.

[stone space]

16. A gun has to be pretty stupid to not be able to recognize it's owner and allow some kid to make...

...it go off, doesn't it?

The effort to prevent access is to keep someone else from causing the weapon to discharge. Clearly guns do not normally "go off all by themselves". Again, you may want to do some research on the issue.

[rrneck]

14. Oh, for Pit's sake...

Here, let me do some of the work for you.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2009/04/real-world-weapon-retention.aspx

Protect

This is perhaps the most essential component of the POINT method. Protect your gun, preferably while it is still in its holster. Some specific techniques you can use are:

Evasive footwork/body movement
Striking techniques using personal body weapons
Countergrab and control of the aggressor's gripping hand
Deploying other force options, including firearms

If a simple evasive maneuver doesn't suffice, you may immediately strike the aggressor, preventing the aggressor from establishing a grip on your gun. You could deploy another force option such as an impact weapon in conjunction with evasive footwork and body movement, before the aggressor gets a grip on your weapon. Should the aggressor establish a grip on your gun, you can use one or both hands to control or "lock down" the aggressor's hands, preventing him or her from removing the gun from its holster. There are a wide variety of techniques that you can use to accomplish this objective. The one you choose will be driven by each individual situation.

Can you see the trigger on that gun? That's a safety feature. If you can't reach the trigger, you can't fire the gun. If you keep the gun in the holster, you can't reach the trigger. If you're wearing a gun you're supposed to be aware of anybody standing withing an arms length on that side of your body. If anybody touches that gun you clamp your hand down on top of theirs and keep the gun in the holster until you can control them. If the guy let a pre teen draw his weapon he must have been completely oblivious to what was going on around him.



The police chief got complacent and wasn't paying attention to what he was doing. He was doing his town administrator gig and forgot he was wearing a gun. That kind of stupid can't be fixed with fancy technology.

[stone space]

19. In the 21st century, inatimate objects are not inheriently stupid. They are stupid by design. (nt)

[blueridge3210]

23. Okay, that makes absolutely no sense.

How are inanimate objects made in the 21st century and different from inanimate objects made in the 15th century? As they both lack cognitive ability they are both, by definition, "stupid". Please clarify.

[stone space]

24. I'm old as dirt, but I don't have any inanimate objects from the 15th century to make a comparrison.

How are inanimate objects made in the 21st century and different from inanimate objects made in the 15th century?

It would be cool to see what the DU website looks like on a 15th century computer monitor.

Do you have one I could borrow?

[clffrdjk]

25. What exactly is your suggestion?

Last edited Wed May 7, 2014, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Should he have had a smart gun like the vaperware we have had several threads about?
As has been pointed out with that style of system, putting his hand near the gun enables the gun. Should he have kept his hands away in such a situation and let the child have the gun?
In my opinion he should have just used a little bit of human intelligence and attention and avoided the whole situation. This has at its root his inattention and your smart gun would not have fixed that.

[blueridge3210]

26. This one clearly has no suggesstion.

And little purpose other than spamming this thread. I let myself get sucked in when I should have known better.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. Man, the internet is stupid.

The stuff people can post unfiltered is incredible.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. re: "... inatimate objects..."

Inanimate objects lack the basic characteristics which are required for being either smart or stupid. Allowing for the anthropomorphism, enhanced designs qualifying an item as "smart" require that additional sub-assemblies, parts and features are added to generic products and systems. OTOH, nothing additional is required to be added, included or attached to a basic design in order to qualify it as "stupid".

Should you wish to produce a "smart" toaster, new parts and features are required. Producing a dumb toaster requires no additional design. Adding the term dumb only serves to distinguish a basic item from an enhanced one.

I never plan to buy "smart" versions of refrigerators or bathroom scales, lest they begin deciding on their own when I might be permitted access.

In the engineering world there are built in safeties which exist to prevent unintended events. Windows will ask you if you really want to delete a file before sending it to recycle and even then the OS allows it to be restored. Fundamental steps in system design begin with an adequate characterization of the operating environment and required performance. Systems that are safety critical, such as electrical equipment designed for use in patient care areas have considerations not required for equivalent products targeting the typical home. Systems that are both safety and mission critical have even more considerations. Aircraft avionics, for example, have planned failure modes with multi-redundant co-functioning systems for enhanced reliability.

Those responsible folks who choose to CC for protection will be actively planning and training for scenarios where a functioning firearm is critical. Mission critical systems required verifiable reliability. Verifiable means proven by test, analysis, inspection and/or demonstration. The fact that a feature adds safety by design would not, without diligent verification, make that design reliable.

Perhaps you believe that choosing to CC for protection is invalid. No one is requiring you to CC. Those opting to CC need not be subjected to systems with less proven operation over time and embedded features inherently compromising reliability.

[SQUEE]

9. I have quite a few, and no I don't trust them at all.

I believe they are always loaded, even when a chamber indicator shows clear, and when my memory and my lying eyes have checked the chamber.

I believe they are always a bad decision away from killing someone, especially when they are in my hand, even though my finger is along the slide, or above the trigger guard.

I believe they, andthat Murphy guy, are in a constant and on going conspiracy to thwart every one of my safety protocols, and are out to get me.

I believe they are dangerous and uncaring tools that will do all they can to take advantage of any and all my lapses in attention.

SO, I treat them at all times with respect, and constant vigilance to avoid being "that guy" and do my utmost to pass that vigilance on to all i train or counsel on any thing firearms related.

[Bazinga]

13. The safest place for a gun is locked inside a safe.

The second safest place for a gun is in its holster. That is why police officers and others are trained to retain control of the weapon in its holster if someone else tries to remove it. Remember, once it has been removed from the holster it is now in the possession of someone who has already demonstrated a willingness to assault.

The priority must be focused on securing the weapon, restraining the kid is secondary, because without the gun the kid is harmless.

In this case, the officer's efforts to secure the weapon failed, the trigger was actuated, and the gun fired. Replace the standard firearm with a "smart" gun and the result is exactly the same scenario would follow because the attempt to secure the weapon (which is still the proper response) would bring the RFID chip into proximity with the gun and it would still fire.

[stone space]

18. Why is activating the RFID chip the proper response?

(which is still the proper response)

We're talking about a kid here.

Activating the RFID chip only makes sense if you want to shoot the kid.

[gejohnston]

22. even smart guns are stupid

that is why it is better to use the term personalized
If we are using a system like the $1500 German made .22 ($330 watch that makes it work sold separately) simply being within 10 inches of the watch activates it regardless of the intent. The RFID has no way of knowing who is actually holding the gun or why. The system Q put in James Bond's Walther P-99 is as close to real as the Lotus Espirit that can turn into a submarine in a different movie.

The only "smart" system that would work in this case was designed in the 1970s that involves the owner wearing a magnetic ring.
http://www.tarnhelm.com/magna-trigger/gun/safety/magna1.html

[Straw Man]

27. The RFID chip is activated automatically ...

... by the proximity of the bracelet to the firearm. If the officer is struggling to retain the firearm, his hand is on it, and the chip is therefore activated. If the attacker is able to get his finger on the trigger, he can make the gun go off.

Are you suggesting that the officer should put his hands over his head and let the attacker take the gun? That's not a good strategy. First, he would be betting his life on the efficacy of the chip, something most people would not want to do. Second, he would be handing a gun over to a criminal, who would then be free to run out the door with it, using it to threaten people who may not be aware of its "smartness." Eventually, said criminal would be able to make said gun operational; these systems aren't exactly rocket science.

[Bazinga]

32. I think what we have here is a failure to understand the technology.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this failure is not intentional. I look forward to hearing your opinion once it has been informed with a little bit of reading.

[NYC_SKP]

20. There are people who want all new guns to be smart guns, to be followed by the eventual....

...confiscation, removal, or mandatory surrender of non-smart guns.

As much as it may make sense to those who don't think there's any value in the Second Amendment;

Who don't think that people should be able to chose their own home self-defense tools;

Who fully trust the police, the army, all branches of the government now and in the coming 500 years;

Who don't care that then only the rich will have weapons while most of the rest won't be able to afford them, but that's "OK";

Who must think that even in natural disasters people shouldn't be able to protect themselves....

Well, how selfish of the rest of us to not trust them!

[blueridge3210]

21. Facts are not this one's friend. (NT)

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. No doubt- see post #29 for another example

[stone space]

33. You seriously think you are going to fight off the army with your stupid guns?

Who fully trust the police, the army, all branches of the government now and in the coming 500 years;

Shouldn't you be in Bundyville?

[gejohnston]

34. not what he said

what he said was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

&list=FLGjp21lBK0TiXCoaaHdkeSw&index=3

[NYC_SKP]

35. LOL, that's the popular retort among the uninitited reading from gun control talking points lists

At some time in the next 500 years, climate change and other calamities create conditions in which some branch of the government find themselves at odds with the citizens.

It could be a rogue group or it could be a branch taken over by unfriendly forces, or it could be a corrupt branch or agency.

In any event, the chances are that many of their numbers would support the citizens over the agency, so yes, we would fight them off if we haven't been disarmed.

Your implied argument, that because the armed forces has jets and tanks so the idea of fighting them off is unrealistic, is filled with fail and suggests that you don't follow world history particularly closely.

~~~

[SQUEE]

38. For a person against guns

You are quite fond of the shotgun approach to gun control argument, perhaps when someone markets a smart shotgun, you'll do better at this.

[blueridge3210]

39. The world may never know. (nt)

[blueridge3210]

6. Shhh...

Don't interrupt a perfectly good rant with facts! It's rude, don't you know?

[sarisataka]

17. The gun is always stupid

It is an object. Like any object, the person in control of it is expected to be the smarter of the pair

Also it would not have had a chip if available as police are exempt under the law regarding personalized firearms

[sarisataka]

15. Everyone is overlooking a key point

This involves a preteen. it is not like somebody is jumping the chief to take his gun. If he has his gun in a good level 2 or level 3 retention holster there is no way a child could remove it or touch the trigger.

Much like the gun that goes off will cleaning I think other factors are involved here that the chief is keeping quiet about

[davepc]

29. New Jersey law enforcement is specifically exempt from having to use smart guns by NJ law

So I don't know why people keep bringing them up in this thread. Even if they were ubiquitous the cops wouldn't use them.

b. The provisions of this section shall not apply to handguns to be sold, transferred, assigned and delivered for official use to: (1) State and local law enforcement officers of this State; (2) federal law enforcement officers and any other federal officers and employees required to carry firearms in the performance of their official duties and (3) members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of the National Guard.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/PL02/130_.HTM

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Inconvenient truths are often elided by culture warriors...

...whether they are creationists, homophobes, seeking to impose religious law, or gun prohibitionists.

[Jenoch]

36. Why did the chief allow this to happen?

His holster should be secure enough so that a pre-teen cannot access the gun.

What the hell is wrong with the parents? How can they raise a kid that would even attempt to grab a cop's gun?