ouch ... workplace ND in TX


PDA






30 cal slob
October 31, 2007, 12:00 PM
linky:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306719,00.html


Texas Office Worker Accidentally Shoots Himself in Both Legs While Sitting at Desk
Wednesday, October 31, 2007

FORT WORTH, Texas —

A 47-year-old man was shot in both legs when he accidentally discharged a handgun while sitting in his cubicle at an insurance office, police said.

The man, who hasn't been publicly identified, had put his .45-caliber gun into his jacket pocket and then draped the jacket over the back of his chair, said Brett McGuire, Lake Worth police chief.

The gun discharged Tuesday morning as the man settled into his chair. He said the man must have done something to make the weapon fire.

The bullet passed through both of the man's legs and a bookcase before lodging in the wall of a cubicle.

McGuire said there was no indication the man had brought the gun to target anyone.

"He wasn't having problems with his bosses or co-workers that we know of," McGuire said.

McGuire said his department has no record of the man being licensed to carry a concealed weapon. He said detectives would wait until the man, who was taken to a hospital, had recovered before deciding whether to pursue charges.

If you enjoyed reading about "ouch ... workplace ND in TX" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JesseTX
October 31, 2007, 12:06 PM
.. Wha? I don't see how that's even possible if he just sat down while the jacked was draped over the chair.

Seems fishy.

ClickClickD'oh
October 31, 2007, 12:09 PM
Glock. Put it in a holster moron.

El Tejon
October 31, 2007, 12:12 PM
Ahhh, the shining brilliance of "pocket carry" comes through yet again.:rolleyes:

I'll bet he was told at the gun store that "carrying a gun in your pocket is all you need.":banghead:

Pursue charges? For what, following the advice of a gun shoppe? About time we prosecuted people for that.

Buy a good holster and a good belt. Put your pistol in your holster on your belt. Stop listening to Gun Shoppe Commandos.

K-Romulus
October 31, 2007, 12:13 PM
Good job - chalk one up for the anti's . . .

As others said, be sure you have a SECURE holster system. They even make pocket holsters that would help prevent this sort of thing. Knowledge is power . . .

ClickClickD'oh
October 31, 2007, 12:14 PM
Pursue charges? For what...The person in question does not have a Tx CHL. He was illegally carrying when he shot himself. Not the brightest bulb.

wdlsguy
October 31, 2007, 12:15 PM
Pursue charges? For what, following the advice of a gun shoppe?

McGuire said his department has no record of the man being licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

tnieto2004
October 31, 2007, 12:16 PM
Pursue charges? For what

McGuire said his department has no record of the man being licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

scurtis_34471
October 31, 2007, 12:18 PM
Pocket carry without a holster is beyond stupid, especially if you have a gun with no manual safety. Its not like pocket holsters are expensive or difficult to use, so I really don't get it.

40SW
October 31, 2007, 12:21 PM
Agree with you guys 100%!!!!!!!!, I don't care what type of action your pistol has, if you are going carry inside the pocket, GET A HOLSTER!!!!!!:banghead::banghead::cuss:, and I don't want to hear, "I'm on a budget and can't afford one!!". I hear that alot from students. Uncle Mikes has great stuff for $10-$20. You don't have to get $50-$100 Galco leather. , and I don't want to hear, " oh, but it has a 7 lb trigger pull, nothing is going to happen, don't you know, its a law enforcement Glock with a 7lb trigger.", what!!!!!!!!!:banghead:, I don't care if its a S&W Sigma with a 12lb trigger. If you do Mexican carry or inside the pocket, No holster=dumbarse:cuss:

K-Romulus
October 31, 2007, 12:33 PM
It seems that the AP story has a few more details that the FoXNews version left out.

More info:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103101055.html
McGuire said the man must have done something to make the weapon fire. The bullet passed through both of the man's legs and a bookcase before lodging in the wall of a cubicle.

There was no indication the man had brought the gun to target anyone, but rather he "just felt the need to carry it," McGuire said.

"He wasn't having problems with his bosses or co-workers that we know of," McGuire said.

Police have no record of the man being licensed to carry a concealed weapon. He also appears to have violated his company's policy against bringing guns to work without company officials' permission.

damien
October 31, 2007, 12:43 PM
Pursue charges? For what...

The person in question does not have a Tx CHL. He was illegally carrying when he shot himself. Not the brightest bulb.


I am not sure that this is the case. Even in Illinois, which does not have a CHL at all, this is probably not illegal. He had the gun on private property. If that was he was the owner/renter or had permission, it would be totally cool. In Illinois, at least.

They would have to prove that he had the gun on someone's property who did not give him permission or on public property. I am only guessing here, but I seriously doubt Texas says you can't have a gun at your own place of work. We don't even restrict that in Illinois (although it is not that common, excepting gun stores and 7-11s!)

Police have no record of the man being licensed to carry a concealed weapon. He also appears to have violated his company's policy against bringing guns to work without company officials' permission.

Now this could be a problem unless a manager wants to stand up for him and say he had given permission.

ClickClickD'oh
October 31, 2007, 12:54 PM
I seriously doubt Texas says you can't have a gun at your own place of work.Texas law says you can wear a weapon openly or concealed on any private property with the consent of the property owner. By Texas law, you can wear a concealed weapon on private property without the consent of the owner (exempting certain legislated locations) if you have a CHL. The worst a non-consenting property owner can do to a CHL holder is tell them to leave or have the police give them a tresspassing notice. A non CHL holder on non-consenting property is carrying a weapon illegally.

For the record, the company in question was non-consenting to weapons carry.

Mr. Designer
October 31, 2007, 01:07 PM
I carry a revolver and I still have a pocket holster. Not worth the risk to pocket carry without one.

CTPistol
October 31, 2007, 01:10 PM
morons like this feed the fight against us!

be real special of that ND went into the next cubicle and killed his co-worker.

soory, but this a NON-EXCUSEABLE event

:fire:

LeoC
October 31, 2007, 01:11 PM
...when he accidentally discharged a handgun while sitting in his cubicle
He said the man must have done something to make the weapon fire.
I was glad to see the way these details are being reported. The police chief definitely made it clear that guns don't fire by themselves. The responsibility for the ND is purely the worker's. Good that the writer including that in the story.

Now if we could just get them to correct "the gun discharged" wording :p

texas bulldog
October 31, 2007, 01:12 PM
Texas law says you can wear a weapon openly or concealed on any private property with the consent of the property owner.
For the record, the company in question was non-consenting to weapons carry.

and company policy aside...it is highly unlikely that the company is the "property owner" in this case. they probably lease their office space like most every other company in the DFW area. so even if the company allowed carry at work, he could still be subject to prosecution based on the fact that he is unlicensed. company permission on property they don't own does not substitute for a CHL, it seems to me...

RNB65
October 31, 2007, 01:17 PM
:scrutiny: There's more to this story than what's being told. Guns don't just go off spontaneously while sitting in a jacket pocket. My guess is that he jammed the gun into the pocket with his finger on the trigger and pulled it.

ClickClickD'oh
October 31, 2007, 01:20 PM
company permission on property they don't own does not substitute for a CHL, it seems to me...That depends largely on the wording of the lease. Dig deep enough into a lease and you will likely find language granting the occupant of the property to act in the stead of the landowner in most concerns. Generally, it's not something the police are going to be looking at. The current occupant of the property is most often the party referred to for permission.

Now, if the actual owner of the property disagreed with the current occupant and made that disagreement known, then that avenue might be opened up. Such as your example where the owner says no, but the occupant says ok. Then you get into the mess of subleasing... General rule to live by: If the current occupant says no, the answer is no.

Vonderek
October 31, 2007, 01:25 PM
Both legs and into a bookcase? Sounds like he was also packing FMJ.

romma
October 31, 2007, 01:50 PM
Up here the very least charge he would face would be "Negligent Discharge Of A Firearm". Followed by "Illegal Possession Of a Pistol/Revolver", and Carrying A Pistol Without A Permit.

In Ct You need a permit to bring a pistol anywhere. Oh, Let's not forget the infamous "Reckless Endangerment" that CT is famous for...

He is lucky he shot himself in Texas not Connecticut!

texas bulldog
October 31, 2007, 01:55 PM
clickclickd'oh:

perhaps so...and i won't argue the point. still seems like a real bad idea to me to carry a gun without a permit. and it also seems like a charge of some kind will be unavoidable given that the company apparently does not allow carry.

damien
October 31, 2007, 02:00 PM
I agree. I just wanted to point out that in certain situations, e.g. shopowner in Illinois, no license is necessary. Private property, you know. And this is in Illinois! We actually have a few rights up here. Just a few.

yesit'sloaded
October 31, 2007, 02:25 PM
I'm taking from this that a non permit holder without a holster that was carrying a non-1911 .45 (grip safety would have prevented it) loaded with FMJ managed to pull his jacket right and set it off. So he broke rules 2 and 4, maybe 3 by proxy. This only confirms that most of the time a complete FUBAR is required to shoot yourself or another "by accident" and that people that illegally carry guns are stupid on many different levels. His having a permit would have made this a little better for him. Still lucky guy that he missed his arteries.

Sistema1927
October 31, 2007, 02:31 PM
He said the man must have done something to make the weapon fire.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Bazooka Joe71
October 31, 2007, 02:41 PM
The gun discharged Tuesday morning as the man settled into his chair. He said the man must have done something to make the weapon fire.

Are we so sure about this? Give the guy some credit, guns do fire on their own sometimes don't they?:confused:










:D:D:D

arthurcw
October 31, 2007, 02:50 PM
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
http://www.l337projects.com/pic/captain_obvious.jpg

NO THANKS NEEDED CITIZEN!! JUST DOING MY JOB!

KelVarnson
October 31, 2007, 03:07 PM
...and that people that illegally carry guns are stupid on many different levels.

A bit of a generalization there. Certainly the guy in question did something negligent in the handling of his gun, but it hasn't yet been established that he was carrying illegally, and even if he was I don't see how this could be directly tied to the ND.

How about people who take the Second Amendment literally, and choose to carry regardless of the "laws", does that make them stupid? Not IMHO.

I think this was probably some fine upstanding insurance agent, who believed in the 2nd, and carried for whatever reason he wanted, but should have learned more about handling his firearm.

wdlsguy
October 31, 2007, 03:12 PM
I believe he was in violation of Texas Penal Code Section 46.02:

A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
...

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01815F.htm
I think you would have a hard time arguing a company-owned cubicle was a premises under the person's control.

damien
October 31, 2007, 03:34 PM
What is control of a property if control cannot be delegated? The question is, did the manager (who controlled the premises and can presumably can delegate that right) actually delegate it or not?

Maybe the law varies, but store owners in Illinois can delegate premises control as far as the right to carry a gun goes, to their employees. Check any large gunshop (G.A.T., Megasports) for an object lesson on all the employees with holstered weapons.

wdlsguy
October 31, 2007, 03:38 PM
The question is, did the manager (who controlled the premises and can presumably can delegate that right) actually delegate it or not?
Apparently not:

He also appears to have violated his company's policy against bringing guns to work without company officials' permission.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103101055.html

yesit'sloaded
October 31, 2007, 04:39 PM
It's kinda like the 1st amendment letting you yell fire, but you are responsible for the consequences. When you work for a company, you agree to abide by the company rules. There are many jobs available and many are CCW friendly. He broke many laws here. He didn't have a permit, discharged a weapon in a manner that disturbed the peace, exposed his fellow workers to possible hearing damage, is lucky he didn't kill someone else, and finally :A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control. It was definitely reckless, thus making the intent or knowledge irrelevant.

ClickClickD'oh
October 31, 2007, 04:45 PM
It was definitely reckless, thus making the intent or knowledge irrelevant.

In that particular law, the reckless mental condition applies towards his carrying the weapon, not to what happens with the weapon.

For example: Leaving a weapon in a bag you took to the range, then going to work with that bag (gun still inside) the next day qualifies the reckless mental state since a normal person would have taken measures to remove the firearm before going to work. The person may have forgotten the firearm was in the bag, but they were still reckless with it being there.

The reckless mental state for the discharge of a firearm is under a different law. Yeah, he broke that one too.

Soybomb
October 31, 2007, 09:30 PM
Ahhh, the shining brilliance of "pocket carry" comes through yet again.
Whats the pocket have to do with it? Its not his pocket's fault he didn't have the trigger covered anymore than it would have been his waist band's fault if he shot himself with an unholstered gun tucked there.

He said the man must have done something to make the weapon fire.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Actually I find it quite refreshing to see the officer clarifying that the gun didn't just "go off." Usually that sort of clarification is left out of the news stories and winds up leaving the public thinking guns just go off on their own.

Big Boomer
November 1, 2007, 12:10 AM
well at least he wasn't carrying mexican style in the front when the ND happened :uhoh:

He could have lost his inheritance when the family jewels disappeared in the great darwin award caper!

Double Naught Spy
November 1, 2007, 08:48 AM
A bit of a generalization there. Certainly the guy in question did something negligent in the handling of his gun, but it hasn't yet been established that he was carrying illegally, and even if he was I don't see how this could be directly tied to the ND.

How about people who take the Second Amendment literally, and choose to carry regardless of the "laws", does that make them stupid? Not IMHO.

I think this was probably some fine upstanding insurance agent, who believed in the 2nd, and carried for whatever reason he wanted, but should have learned more about handling his firearm.

Right, the laws are not what the Supreme Court holds them up to be, but what we interpret them to mean in whatever way that makes up happy. Hell, I often drive over the speed limit because there is nothing in the Constitution on speed limits.:rolleyes:

You know, when you decide to interpret the laws contrary to the legal system and then get caught because you ended up doing something like shooting yourself through both legs in a place where you don't have permission to carry and while not having a concealed carry license, that is stupid. If you are dumb enough to get caught breaking a law, then you are dumb enough to do time for it. That goes double if you manage to disable yourself in the process.

I am still trying to work out just what sort of pocket carry he had that allowed for the gun to discharge from the pocket and penetrate both legs and then into a bookcase and wall.

BayAreaTactical
November 1, 2007, 08:53 AM
OMG Stupidity :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Aguila Blanca
November 1, 2007, 09:05 AM
Maybe the law varies, but store owners in Illinois can delegate premises control as far as the right to carry a gun goes, to their employees. Check any large gunshop (G.A.T., Megasports) for an object lesson on all the employees with holstered weapons.
The laws do vary. I don't claim to have reviewed this for all states, but my recollection of those I have reviewed (perhaps a half dozen or so) is that unlicensed carry in a place of business is legal only for the owner of the business -- and that means that ONLY the owner may carry without a license, the owner has no statutory authority to allow employees to carry at his place of business.

The Texas law seems to follow this model. The business owner would be the person/entity exercising control over the premises. I suppose further investigation might be in order to see if Texas law allows a business or property owner to delegate control to one or more employees, but in the present case the guy is a cube dweller, so it's unlikely he's high enough in the food chain to have been delegated "control" of the premises.

Plus, someone has already posted that the company had not granted permission. (Dunno what the source of that info was, however.)

KelVarnson
November 1, 2007, 06:16 PM
Hell, I often drive over the speed limit because there is nothing in the Constitution on speed limits.

Ah, but unlike speeding, there IS something in the Constitution very clearly affirming the right of the poeple to keep and bear arms. And unlike speeding, the mere possession of a gun does not generally endanger people around you. Generally.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to excuse this guy's boneheaded ND. In my original post I was merely saying that carrying without a permit does not automatically make one a stupid person.

ClickClickD'oh
November 1, 2007, 06:36 PM
but my recollection of those I have reviewed (perhaps a half dozen or so) is that unlicensed carry in a place of business is legal only for the owner of the business -- and that means that ONLY the owner may carry without a license, the owner has no statutory authority to allow employees to carry at his place of business.If that were so, armed security couldn't exist.

Any person acting with the consent of, and as an agent of the owner of the property may act with the full rights of the property owner.

I suppose further investigation might be in order to see if Texas law allows a business or property owner to delegate control to one or more employees,If you were right about Texas law only allowing the property owner, and not employees of the property owner, to carry.. then there would be heaping helps of trouble at all the gunstores. Every non big-box store I've been into, the employees are al carrying.

wdlsguy
November 1, 2007, 06:50 PM
If that were so, armed security couldn't exist.
Property owners carry under the authority of TX PC 46.02(a)(1), while armed security carries under the authority of TX PC 46.15(b)(4).

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01815F.htm

ClickClickD'oh
November 1, 2007, 07:01 PM
Property owners carry under the authority of TX PC 46.02(a)(1), while armed security carries under the authority of TX PC 46.15(b)(4).
Read a current version of the penal code. 46.02 was ammended in 1997. There is no 46.02(a)(1) in the current penal code.

Property owners and security both carry under 46.15. (b)(2) and (b)(4) respectively.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm

wdlsguy
November 1, 2007, 07:13 PM
Read a current version of the penal code.

The penal code at http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm hasn't been updated with the changes from 2007 yet. The DPS booklet has been updated though:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf

Or you can read the changes to TX PC 46.02 and 46.15 here:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01815F.htm

ClickClickD'oh
November 1, 2007, 08:46 PM
What? They moved the thing back again? Oh good god, that's the exact same thing it used to say pre 1997.

Dear state reps, stop playing merry go round with the Penal Code.

Well, now we know the current law, and how it originated.

MD_Willington
November 2, 2007, 11:36 AM
Well his personal injury coverage will not cover him since the injury was not caused by a 9x19mm or a ficus tree...

BTW, I really dislike insurance agents ATM... don't ask!

Double Naught Spy
November 2, 2007, 02:34 PM
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to excuse this guy's boneheaded ND. In my original post I was merely saying that carrying without a permit does not automatically make one a stupid person.

No, not a stupid person, but a stupid act for carrying without a license which is illegal and challenges to the contrary have held up in the courts. So while RKBA is in the Constitution, it has been interpretted to not be absolute. This makes the Constitution argument pretty silly. The guy got caught breaking the law (illegal carry) because he shot himself in both legs with one shot.

It is one thing to have an ND while committing legal activities. It is another to do so while breaking the law. It is still another to do so while breaking the law and have someone get injured or killed.

KelVarnson
November 3, 2007, 02:09 AM
So while RKBA is in the Constitution, it has been interpretted to not be absolute.

It's hard for me to understand why so many people have such a hard time comprehending the phrase "shall not be infringed". But this is not a RKBA thread really, and I won't try to turn it into one.


This makes the Constitution argument pretty silly.

"Silly"? I hope you never make it onto a jury. You call people who disregard unconstitutional laws "silly", I think of them as patriots. But I can see this is going nowhere, so why don't we just agree to disagree?


It is one thing to have an ND while committing legal activities. It is another to do so while breaking the law. It is still another to do so while breaking the law and have someone get injured or killed.

You seem determined to connect the guy's permit status to his recklessness with the gun. An argument can be made that people with permits might be better trained, but you don't have enough information to make that connection in this case. That guy could have been just as reckless if he were carrying legally, and the holes in his legs would be just as big.

Double Naught Spy
November 3, 2007, 09:04 AM
"Silly"? I hope you never make it onto a jury. You call people who disregard unconstitutional laws "silly", I think of them as patriots.

You know, I would like to think such laws are unconstitutional, but the entity under the Constitution responsible for making such determinations, SCOTUS, disagrees. You see, the Constitution is not set up in a way that says it is up to the individual citizen to interpret the law, but the courts, of which SCOTUS is supreme. You don't get to make the determination as to whether or not the law is unconstitutional. Sorry, but the Constitution you cherish does not empower you with that right or responsibility.

You seem determined to connect the guy's permit status to his recklessness with the gun.
I wasn't the one carrying illegally and blasting my own legs. The guy with the gun was. He connected his permit status with his reckless behavior when he had the unintentional discharge, not me.

It would have been just as bad had a person with a permit had the same unintentional discharge in regard to the recklessness, but they would not have been arrested for illegal carry of a conceal weapon. When you are breaking the law, it is not good to call attentional to yourself lest you be caught. Shooting yourself in both legs sort of calls attention to you and then you get busted for the illegal carry. Heck, he probably could not have gotten away if he wanted to, being as humans are bipedal and he shot himself in both legs. It would have been a slow chase.

A Patriot? I would be a whole lot more convinced he was being patriotic if he was making claims to his belief in the Constitution and proclaiming the laws surrounding gun control as being unconstitutional. Maybe he was a silent patriot, or maybe just a careless criminal. In my world, patriots support the law of the land and work within the laws of the land to make a better society, or they overthrow the government of the land and seize power in what is considered treasonous acts by the government formerly in control. This guy didn't seem to be doing anything patriotic, just stupid.

The Annoyed Man
November 3, 2007, 09:57 AM
When I worked in an ER, I actually saw several patients over the years - all young males with somewhat sketchy social "memberships" - who had shot themselves in their own peepees by stuffing a .22 down the front of their pants. One of them bagged both his peepee AND his left nut. The interesting thing is that, to a "man," they each had some outlandish tale of how it had happened...

"...Essť knocked me on my ass, man! And when I was down, essť stoops over like this (indicating holding pistol parallel to ground about 12" off the floor) and shot me, man! I wadn't doin' NUTHIN', man!" (While this is going on, the nurse is busy cataloging the patient's possessions, including a pair of boxer shorts with massive and obvious powder burns on the inside...)

I always told the aggrieved party that he should thank God it wasn't a .44.

I don't believe permits were involved. :D

If you enjoyed reading about "ouch ... workplace ND in TX" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!