A call for officer accountability with basic firearm safety
I am writing this article as an observation on the Sept. 4 published piece “Former Norwalk cop shot in onthejob accident sues gunmaker.”
As an EMT of six years in the Hudson/Catskill area in New York and three additional years as a Connecticutcertified EMT, I can relay firsthand to the reader the damage exerted upon flesh by firearms of various calibers in the prehospital setting. I feel terribly for any person who must bear the pain of an accidental (albeit always avoidable) shooting.
Regardless, as a frontline first responder I understand all too well what it is like to clock into a shift and not know what the day holds for me. And I write this article with the utmost reverence and respect for all individuals who are public servants. This brings me to my main reason for writing.
It is my opinion that the victim officer and his legal team are neglecting to address the human element of error in this shooting. Accountability being the foundational cornerstone of any first responder, I am stumped as to why the firearm and its manufacturer itself are being seen as faulty in a clear breach of basic firearm operational safety. The victim officer himself seems to acknowledge this by saying “I was shot by someone who was irresponsible” and I do not disagree.
Now, perhaps the reader has come to a few suppositions relating to why the Glock pistol is faulty based on the lack of a manual safety on the firearm, and the fact that the trigger must be depressed to disassemble the pistol for cleaning purposes. However true that may be, I encourage the reader to check the officer’s disassembly, which is described in the article against the foundational rules of gun safety. These rules are:
1. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded.
2. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. 3. Know your target and what is beyond it.
4. Never point your firearm at anything you wouldn’t want to destroy.
The officer who discharged his firearm during cleaning has neglected every rule in accordance to safety. The article states the officer depressed the trigger after supposedly racking the slide back and assuming or being ignorant to the loaded status of the firearm. Strike one for rule one and strike two for rule 2. The fact that the bullet hit a bench and struck the victim officer implies the gun was pointed down, but not away from anyone who was in the room. Strike three, rule 3.
If the bench was the only thing hit I suppose this could have been “chalked up” as a very serious (and also illegal) case of a negligent discharge. Unfortunately, that was not all the damage done. When it comes to the officer responsibility in this case, I have found little evidence of culpability. Intuitively, after doing a little research into firearm offenses we find almost 90 percent of firearms cases in Connecticut are nollied, dropped or covered by other charges (Office of Legislative Research Case Statistics for FirearmsRelated Offenses, 2018). Certainly, more laws would not have kept anyone safe, nor does it make sense to seek damages from the manufacturer for operator error, negligence or willful homicide.
Ignorance of the law and safe firearm handling is no excuse to grievous injury or death. So why weren’t these rules followed? Doubtless, you may see the defense attorneys in this case asking the same questions.