Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-13-2012, 02:09   #1
JDR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 672
Case law regarding training with issued rifles...

Currently, our rifles (M4's) are issued to vehicles, not officers. I am trying to get us to purchase additional rifles so we are all assigned one, or allow personally owned rifles. I know there is case law regarding using the same weapon you train with. For example, if I am involved in an OIS with the rifle that is in the car I'm driving tonight, but I qualified with who knows which rifle and drive different cars occasionally then there is increased liability for the city. My google is weak and has't turned up anything specific. Admin is receptive if I bring proof, so help me out if you can. Thanks.


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
JDR
JDR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 02:22   #2
Ftttu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDR View Post
Currently, our rifles (M4's) are issued to vehicles, not officers. I am trying to get us to purchase additional rifles so we are all assigned one, or allow personally owned rifles. I know there is case law regarding using the same weapon you train with. For example, if I am involved in an OIS with the rifle that is in the car I'm driving tonight, but I qualified with who knows which rifle and drive different cars occasionally then there is increased liability for the city. My google is weak and has't turned up anything specific. Admin is receptive if I bring proof, so help me out if you can. Thanks.


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
I would really really hate to see what would happen in court when there is an OIS where officer used a weapon he is supposed to use but has never qualified with it. I thought all agencies were pretty much on board due to liability. I guess I'm wrong again.
Ftttu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 03:03   #3
JDR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 672
We qualify twice a year, and all rifles are set up exactly the same way, but we don't always use the exact same rifle to qual with as is in your car.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
JDR
JDR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 05:28   #4
merlynusn
Senior Member
 
merlynusn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 3,284
So are you issued a personal shotgun as well? I'd think the same policy that applies to the shotgun applies to the rifle. But I don't know for sure.

ETA: Maybe the rifle is different because of the range. But if you have to switch out your handgun after you qualified. Do they make you go qualify with that specific handgun or does your previous qual suffice until it's time to qual again?

Last edited by merlynusn; 11-13-2012 at 05:29..
merlynusn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 06:15   #5
JDR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 672
Handguns are issued to you personally so you always use your handgun. We don't have shotguns anymore except as less lethal weapons, but everyone gets an initial 16 hrs rifle course then 4 hrs update training twice a year and it is required to have a rifle when on patrol. They are in the rack, mag inserted, empty chamber on safe. Actually, they are really nice with aimpoint micro T1 optics, BUIS, VTAC slings and Streamlight light, and we only run PMAGS. I'm just looking to support the cost of buying a rifle for everyone or a policy allowing personally owned rifles.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
JDR
JDR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 06:51   #6
collim1
Shower Time!
 
collim1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 10,451
Weapons issued to cars are not a great idea. My agency still did that when we first got hired. Issued a Mossberg 590A1 to each car. No one took care of them, they were rarely shot and never cleaned. One slacker used to tip his cigarette ashes in the barrel day after day.

The guns were in such bad shape they were replaced after only a few years. We are now each issued a 870P. I imagine mine will last the rest of my career.

As far as case law goes I cant really think of any. As long as its a good shoot I cant really see how it would matter. Anyone can raise a BS lawsuit looking for a check, doesn't mean it will go anywhere.

I have heard the "carry the same game you qualify with" and I dont agree with it in all regards. I often have several guys qualify with the same shotgun to save time cleaning at the end of qual day. Leaves more time for handgun shooting.

Lets say I break a trigger spring in my P226 and have to be issued a temporary replacement. Should I really be expected to be on admin leave until I can get to the range and qual with the temp gun? Would you not think a judge or a juror could understand why that was necessary.

I understand wanting each officer to have his own weapon issued to him, but I think you are looking at the wrong angle. Present it as more of a maintenance and longevity concern. Officers who are issued a weapon can be held accountable for its neglect. They are also more likely to shoot the weapon often and notice any problems with reliability.

You are also more likely to know what condition the weapon is in when it is retrieved in an emergency. Is loaded? Is the safety off or on? Is it stored with a loaded mag, safety on, and chamber empty etc...

Good luck. I'd be happy with a rifle issued to my car. We are not allowed rifles and have sent many write ups to the chief. All denied with no explanation.
collim1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 07:02   #7
JBaird22
Senior Member
 
JBaird22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,648
Our rifles are mechanically zeroed and left in the vehicle. I personally hate this but a compromise is to allow personally owned guns. The downside is that we don't have a lot of officers eager to shell out the money to set themselves up with it.
__________________
I'm game though....

Former Certified Super Glock fixer
JBaird22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 07:03   #8
collim1
Shower Time!
 
collim1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 10,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBaird22 View Post
Our rifles are mechanically zeroed and left in the vehicle. I personally hate this but a compromise is to allow personally owned guns. The downside is that we don't have a lot of officers eager to shell out the money to set themselves up with it.
How close to the bullseye they hit at 50yds, on average?
collim1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 07:12   #9
Steve in PA
Senior Member
 
Steve in PA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 7,366
We have department Bushmaster M4A1 rifles assigned to a vehicle. During the last 5 years, every single officer has qualified out to 100 yards using various pool rifles with no issues. The rifles are zeroed by the firearms instructor (me).

I've been a firearms instructor for over 12 years and have never come across a case law stating you must carry the firearm you qualify with. Every officer has qualified out to 25 yards with a handgun that had the sights set at the factory.

There is no increased liability for properly zeroed pool rifles. Are individual rifles a better idea? Sure, but with ever shrinking budgets, do you honestly think a department can afford to buy a rifle for every officer? Personally owned rifles are a way around this, but many big wigs cringe at this thought.
__________________
"The Marines I have seen around the world have, the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps. Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945"

Last edited by Steve in PA; 11-13-2012 at 07:13..
Steve in PA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 08:47   #10
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
I would think it would be required by the governing body who certifies LEOs in your state. Here is an excerpt from our POST Commission in TN regarding annual firearm training:

Quote:
1110-04-.02 FIREARMS REQUALIFICATION REQUIREMENT. Each in-service training session must include firearms training requalification with service handgun and any other firearm authorized by Department; at least eight (8) hours in duration. Each trainee must score at least seventy-five percent (75%) to qualify.
There might be case law out there, but it might be state specific. I will buzz around Westlaw for CA case law on it and get back to you.

I would definitely start with the POST folks though. They may require it as part of your annual training. If they do and your agency doesn't conform to it, then access to those weapons shouldn't even be allowed.

Last edited by SgtScott31; 11-13-2012 at 08:48..
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 08:53   #11
Pepper45
Senior Member
 
Pepper45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,501
In my agency, shotguns are the only "pool" weapons. Anything else, we must qualify with the specific firearm carried or utilized. Every officer assigned to patrol is issued an M4, and personally owned rifles are allowed, as long as they are approved by the armorer and the chief grants permission on a case by case basis.

As the patrol rifle armorer, I want to keep individually issued AR's. As badly as our issued rifles are beaten around in and out of the cars, rattling around in the racks, I can't imaging how they'd look/work if there was no accountability because they were pool guns.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Pepper45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 08:58   #12
rockapede
Senior Member
 
rockapede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,303
My agency (well, really only one sergeant, not sure if there's an actual policy) requires I be qualified on any serial number I carry. I think that's ridiculous. They're all gen 3 Glock 22, for Pete's sake. Not that it really matters as I don't really have an occasion to carry a different gun, but still.

Rifles are personally owned and a different situation altogether.
__________________
“Do you like being a cop?"
"I love it, when it doesn't suck, sir.”

-Edward Conlon

Last edited by rockapede; 11-13-2012 at 08:59..
rockapede is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 09:14   #13
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,435
Mas Ayoob can probably point you in the right direction for appropriate info. He is active in this forum.


http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=256
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 09:38   #14
CJStudent
Fenced In
 
CJStudent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 17,867
Send a message via AIM to CJStudent Send a message via Yahoo to CJStudent
I can understand pool weapons for shotguns; no zeroing to them. For rifles, though, I've always been taught that they have to be zeroed to the individual shooting them (differences in eyesight, relief, etc). Would a pool rifle zeroed by one individual and shot by another be off enough to cause a miss (or worse, a hit to an innocent)? THAT, to me, could open up a major can of worms in an OIS. I know some of the "pool" SMGs that I've qualified with will shoot a nice little group, but shoot 4-6" right for me, with others shooting them and having them spot on, or low, or high (at 50 yards). To me, at least, that's unacceptable.
__________________
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas Edison

Quote:
The first round is a moral decision. All of the following rounds are tactical decisions.
CJStudent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 10:17   #15
DaBigBR
No Infidels!
 
DaBigBR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Circling the wagons.
Posts: 15,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDR View Post
Currently, our rifles (M4's) are issued to vehicles, not officers. I am trying to get us to purchase additional rifles so we are all assigned one, or allow personally owned rifles. I know there is case law regarding using the same weapon you train with. For example, if I am involved in an OIS with the rifle that is in the car I'm driving tonight, but I qualified with who knows which rifle and drive different cars occasionally then there is increased liability for the city. My google is weak and has't turned up anything specific. Admin is receptive if I bring proof, so help me out if you can. Thanks.[/URL]
I have never heard of any such "case law", nor do I believe that the department truly sees any additional liability solely because pool weapons are used. What we are talking about is an argument that could be made by a plaintiff's attorney some day, in the relatively unlikely event that an OIS civil suit actually makes it to a jury without either 1) a summary judgement or 2) a settlement.
__________________
"Logic is rarely the engine that propels a police department forward."

-David Simon in "Homicide"
DaBigBR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 11:04   #16
OLY-M4gery
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern WI
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJStudent View Post
I can understand pool weapons for shotguns; no zeroing to them. For rifles, though, I've always been taught that they have to be zeroed to the individual shooting them (differences in eyesight, relief, etc). Would a pool rifle zeroed by one individual and shot by another be off enough to cause a miss (or worse, a hit to an innocent)? THAT, to me, could open up a major can of worms in an OIS. I know some of the "pool" SMGs that I've qualified with will shoot a nice little group, but shoot 4-6" right for me, with others shooting them and having them spot on, or low, or high (at 50 yards). To me, at least, that's unacceptable.
Why wouldn't it be an issue with shotguns, but be an issue with rifle?

Our range staff zero'ed the armory shotguns we used to qualify with, buck and slugs, and there weren't issues with the sighting.

Our range staff zero'ed the M16A1's they have in the armory, and are used to qualify, and there haven't been issues.

I believe the "everyone's eye sight is different" theory is true, but seriously overstated.

Might it mean you shoot a 1/2" right and the next person shoots a 1/2 left, yup.

Several inches seems unlikely and probably has more to do with the shooter.

For rifles that are capable of 600 yard shots, that are used for 100 yards and closer, the sighting isn't a real issue.

If you were trying to make 500 yard shots, or using the rifle as a "sniper", then yes it should be zero'ed to you individually.

But center off mass shooting, the trajectory of the round has more of an impact on point of impact than eyesight issues.
OLY-M4gery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2012, 11:27   #17
CJStudent
Fenced In
 
CJStudent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: KY
Posts: 17,867
Send a message via AIM to CJStudent Send a message via Yahoo to CJStudent
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLY-M4gery View Post
Why wouldn't it be an issue with shotguns, but be an issue with rifle?

Our range staff zero'ed the armory shotguns we used to qualify with, buck and slugs, and there weren't issues with the sighting.

Our range staff zero'ed the M16A1's they have in the armory, and are used to qualify, and there haven't been issues.

I believe the "everyone's eye sight is different" theory is true, but seriously overstated.

Might it mean you shoot a 1/2" right and the next person shoots a 1/2 left, yup.

Several inches seems unlikely and probably has more to do with the shooter.

For rifles that are capable of 600 yard shots, that are used for 100 yards and closer, the sighting isn't a real issue.

If you were trying to make 500 yard shots, or using the rifle as a "sniper", then yes it should be zero'ed to you individually.

But center off mass shooting, the trajectory of the round has more of an impact on point of impact than eyesight issues.
The 4-6" off groups were with a Colt 9mm SMG at 50 yards, and were personally seen by me. They were nice, tight groups, but almost off the silhouette. To me, that can be the difference between a hit and a miss/bystander hit at 100 yards. As to the shotguns, ours are mostly bead-sight; no adjustment to them.
__________________
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." -- Thomas Edison

Quote:
The first round is a moral decision. All of the following rounds are tactical decisions.
CJStudent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 02:24   #18
OLY-M4gery
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Southern WI
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJStudent View Post
The 4-6" off groups were with a Colt 9mm SMG at 50 yards, and were personally seen by me. They were nice, tight groups, but almost off the silhouette. To me, that can be the difference between a hit and a miss/bystander hit at 100 yards. As to the shotguns, ours are mostly bead-sight; no adjustment to them.
Your 1 experience, vs hundreds going the other way, isn't convincing evidence.

For years my department wouldn't allow scopes, because everyone's eyes work different..............

What actual EVIDENCE have you had presented to you to prove that theory?

If I had to guess why you had such different POA/POI with one carbine, and 2 shooters, I would guess that the shooters were not using the sights the same way.

I would also suggest, that if the theory was valid, it would create more problems with handguns, due to the shorter sight radius.

Yet most service handguns just have mechanically zero'ed sights.
OLY-M4gery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 10:53   #19
SgtScott31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaBigBR View Post
I have never heard of any such "case law", nor do I believe that the department truly sees any additional liability solely because pool weapons are used. What we are talking about is an argument that could be made by a plaintiff's attorney some day, in the relatively unlikely event that an OIS civil suit actually makes it to a jury without either 1) a summary judgement or 2) a settlement.

I guess I read it wrong. I was assuming that officers were not getting the training on the rifles in the vehicles at all. I wasn't focused on the issue of using a different rifle depending on the vehicle you are in. I'm assuming all of the rifles are the same. I don't see a liability issue there either.


We have M4s in every one of our vehicles. All of our officers are trained on that particular rifle. Every rifle is the same make/model/setup with the same sights. I don't see the "sight" being an issue because they have EO Tech ghost sights. You put the dot on the target and fire. From 75 yds pretty much everyone was hitting groups no bigger than a pancake.
SgtScott31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2012, 14:22   #20
Cav
Senior Member
 
Cav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 2,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDR View Post
Currently, our rifles (M4's) are issued to vehicles, not officers. I am trying to get us to purchase additional rifles so we are all assigned one, or allow personally owned rifles. I know there is case law regarding using the same weapon you train with. For example, if I am involved in an OIS with the rifle that is in the car I'm driving tonight, but I qualified with who knows which rifle and drive different cars occasionally then there is increased liability for the city. My google is weak and has't turned up anything specific. Admin is receptive if I bring proof, so help me out if you can. Thanks.


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
I dont think you will find case law that says an officer can not use a weapon they have not qualified with in an emergency.

If your PD was under attack and there was an MP5 on a desk, would you say "I am not qualified, I cant use that, I might get sued" or would you man up and use what is available?

Yes the PD is required to make sure you qualify, but if your duty gun is taken for a shooting and they give you the same make, you can go back to work with the replacement gun. If you need a shotgun from a patrol car and you grab it from a closer car than yours, you can still use it. Same for a rifle. I know what your saying and it would be great for every officer to get issued all the cool stuff, but at time you will need to share and use whats available.
__________________
We need more restrictions on the 1st Amendment and less on the 2nd Amendment.
Cav is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:25.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 766
221 Members
545 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31