Special treatment for military and police?

[Grandpa Shooter]

Seems recently that I have been reading news stories on here and on the net in general where gun safety, negligent discharge of firearms, abuse of authority, assault with a firearm, general foolish behavior with a gun; are all dismissed or taken lightly because the persons involved are military or police.

Is it just my impression, and do we indeed have a double standard for acceptable gun practices and related behavior?

 

[conw]

I do agree that your general citizen feels this to be the case, and that it is sometimes the case, but I (you will probably agree on this) do not think it is at all justified, morally or doctrinally.

Although it's important to differentiate between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable and how it changes from position to position. Military, from what I know, are given much more leeway with aggression in a state of war than, say, police with a suspect. Likewise, police who are serving a warrant and have reason to expect violence (and thus are in an offensive position) are also more justified using preemptive violence than a regular citizen in a defensive-type scenario.

 

[Dark_Harvest]

"gun safety, negligent discharge of firearms, abuse of authority... general foolish behavior with a gun"


how can the above charges be in any way justifiable??? justifiable negligent discharge? justifiable foolish behavior?

there is a HUGE disconnect between justifiable violence in executing a warrant on a violent felon, and a "person" with a badge shooting himself and blaming it on the gun.


i agree with the OP. disturbing upturn in numbers of applied double standard. i have seen sheriff's say "the gun just went off" when they SHOT THEMSELVES during cleaning... etc... no excuses for that whatsoever...

 

[conw]

To be fair, I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for shooting themselves (by accident or intentionally). I'd imagine it's a pretty good lesson.

 

[DBSweetwood]

What you may not read or hear about with the military cases are the punishment given by the millitary. Not only do we get in trouble with the civilian courts, but we will also get in trouble with the uniform code of military justice. That means on top of whatever the civilian judge gives us, we will also loose rank, up to half a months pay for a whole year, as well as many months of extra duty. That is even for an ND that causes no harm. The military does not take this stuff lightly. If you do any of the things listed above, the military will take it out of you and your wallet.

 

[10 Ring Tao]

Hahahaha...of course we have a double standard.

Make no mistake. Some animals are indeed more equal than others.

 

[Old Dog]

Is it just my impression, and do we indeed have a double standard for acceptable gun practices and related behavior?

No. You are wrong. There is no double standard.

As far as the military goes, gun safety violations or

negligent discharge of firearms, abuse of authority, assault with a firearm, general foolish behavior with a gun

are typically dealt with far more harshly than you could imagine, with an Article 15 at the least and a court-martial for the more egregious situation.

As far as law enforcement -- come on -- the average citizen doesn't typically jeopardize his career for a stupid gun-related mistake. In spite of what most of you here seem to want to believe, law enforcement personnel are normally held to a higher standard, and problems with firearms simply aren't tolerated. However, since law enforcement personnel utilize firearms in their profession, those who have problems with guns generate high-profile attention, whereas what happens to Joe Sixpack doesn't normally make the national news ...

Of course, my opinion is based only on about 26 years of active duty and 9 years total law enforcement (reserve and full-time), so what do I know?

Make no mistake. Some animals are indeed more equal than others.

And your opinion is based on what personal experience? What you read on MSN, Yahoo or FoxNews?

 

[Intune]

I can only address the military aspect to the question, "...have a double standard for acceptable gun practices and related behavior?" I don't know about "double" but the military is ALL about standards & behavior. My dad was a retired military judge and I can assure you that the Army does not play when it comes to rules, regulations, standards or behavior.

Wanna clean up America? Put JAG in charge of it. (The preceding was tongue-in-cheek. Pantie wadding is unnecessary. Breathe...)

On second thought I will address the LEO aspect, it's gonna get your thread locked. Apples & oranges discipline-wise. And the oranges are about to get squeezed. Watch...

 

[TAB]

Every one is equal under the eyes of the law, just some people are more equal then others.

 

[ronwill]

I don't know about special treatment and agree with Intune when it comes to the military. That being said however, with the relaxing of recruitment policy for the military services another look may be necessary. With some states allowing active duty military to carry concealed without a permit, and waiving many of their restrictions, some who otherwise shouldn't have a gun may get one.

 

[Killermonkey21]

I agree with Dark Harvest in a way. A person "over here" that shot and killed someone who they claim pointed a weapon at them, or in any other way displayed hostile intent or hostile act would be "justified" in his RIGHT to self defense.

In ANY OTHER setting there is NO difference. When you're in civvies, you are held accountable by your actions by civil/criminal courts and the UCMJ, at least in my experience.

Are there going to be incidents where the "good ol' boys club" covers for its own in the LE or military side? Of course. Do people do it? Yes. Is it right? Maybe not, but I tend to think that lays more along the lines of morals.

My parents, both ex-cops. Both have admitted to being part of the "GOB" club at some point or another. Me being a cop-kid got me out of over $500 in tickets for speeding at 16. It happens. And theres nothing you can do about it, unless someone is caught, IMHO.

In the military sense we got the bases covered with the UCMJ. LE side there tends, again IMHO, to be more leniency with prosecution for irresponsible acts.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Seems recently that I have been reading news stories on here and on the net in general where gun safety, negligent discharge of firearms, abuse of authority, assault with a firearm, general foolish behavior with a gun; are all dismissed or taken lightly because the persons involved are military or police.

I believe this is due to the fact that most of the news is not published to inform the public or it's news worthiness but for pure sensationalism. News about the military, police, politician, or celiberity will get more readers attention then news about the average person.

Is it just my impression, and do we indeed have a double standard for acceptable gun practices and related behavior?

No!

 

[Sato Ord]

The thing I notice is that we tend to get the sensational aspect of the case. We get the huge headline "Officer shoots other officer accidentally!". Followed by the story of the incident itself.

What we don't see is the follow up a week later that might be buried on page 12 where the officer is disciplined.

Things like this are taken seriously by police departments for many reasons. One being that police officers are held to a higher standard than the rest of us. Also, do you know what an officer involved shooting accident does to a department's insurance? That costs big bucks and often the choice is to either fire the officer involved or pay thousands of dollars extra for insurance.

As it has been said, when some "Harry Homeowner" accidentally shoots his friend in the leg showing off his pistol his boss at the accounting firm doesn't usually can him: unless he shoots his boss, of course. Then, even if he does get fired he doesn't lose his entire career over the incident.

 

[Harve Curry]

"Special treatment for military and police?

Seems recently that I have been reading news stories on here and on the net in general where gun safety, negligent discharge of firearms, abuse of authority, assault with a firearm, general foolish behavior with a gun; are all dismissed or taken lightly because the persons involved are military or police.

Is it just my impression, and do we indeed have a double standard for acceptable gun practices and related behavior?"

ABSOLUTLEY

 

[Phil DeGraves]

As far as law enforcement -- come on -- the average citizen doesn't typically jeopardize his career for a stupid gun-related mistake. In spite of what most of you here seem to want to believe, law enforcement personnel are normally held to a higher standard, and problems with firearms simply aren't tolerated.

Nonsense. There is definitely a double standard. If a regular citizen did what the officers did, they would either be prosecuted or sued or have to give up their right to carry.
Double standard? You better believe it.

 

[brighamr]

I have personally seen the double standard for LEOs. It's unfortunate, but it's hard to hide (take for example the LEOs who accidentily no-knock the wrong house... I've never heard of them being punished for this). Then again the same applies to most government agents (Did anyone go to jail for the Waco mess?)

I agree that LEO are not perfect and will make mistakes, however IMO they should be held to a higher standard for safety, considering a lot of states nowadays only let the LEOs CC in a lot of places.

As for .mil; I think there have been a few instances where they may have got off easy in the civil courts, but I've NEVER heard of .mil not prosecuting their own...

 

[buck00]

gun safety, negligent discharge of firearms, abuse of authority, assault with a firearm, general foolish behavior with a gun; are all dismissed or taken lightly because the persons involved are military or police

I would be quick to argue many military (combat veterans included) are not shown special courtesy by LEOs, even though you think they would. I think that (in some caes) has to do with envy or feelings of insecurity about their authority.

However, LEOs generally back each other up (unless there is rivarly between two PDs, etc). Remember, they are the ones doing the investigation.

Case in point. My friend is an LEO/SWAT. If he drives drunk in his town or gets in a bar fight, his pistol NG's, etc, his friends are the one responding to the call, they write the report, and he's let off. Not judging it, that is just the way it is. However, the cops in the next town hate them... and will throw the book at them if they were caught over there for any infraction (traffic stop, etc). One of the main reasons for the antagonism? One LEO had relations with the other's girlfriend and it created bad blood between PDs!

 

[10 Ring Tao]

And your opinion is based on what personal experience? What you read on MSN, Yahoo or FoxNews?

Hello? Does H.R. 218 ring a bell?

Hello? Does 'Professional Courtesy' ring a bell? Such to the point that the cops who violate that expected 'courtesy' are ostracized: http://www.copswritingcops.com/

Then pile on example after example of situations where if the offender were a civvie, he would have been hung out to dry, but since he was in the GOB club, he received nary a slap on the wrist.

Case in point, being followed by a prominent 2A activist Joel Rosenberg, is Martin Treptow. He is being hung out to dry because of a misbehaving, roadraging cop, who has the entire system trying to whitewash and cover up what actually happened.

http://www.ljseek.com/treptow_s4Zujoelrosenberg.html

If Landon Beard wasn't a cop, this would be a very very different affair.

 

[Thernlund]

If we're talking about gun safety, I don't think so. The same standard applies to all. The problem is that in the citizenry, those that have guns tend to know how to use them safely because they chose to have them. In LE, they all have guns even if they aren't "gun people". As such, their interest level in studying good safety practices might not be as high as a citizen who owns a gun/guns.

If we're talking about general conduct, there SHOULD be a double standard, and the standard by which LE is held to should be the higher of the two.


-T.

 

[mainmech48]

The most egregious example of the case-in-point I've heard of was the case Clint Smith detailed in his "Reality Check" column in "American Handgunner" a year and a half ago.

A police recruit was shot and killed by his Instructor in a classroom during a training exercise. Said Instructor had the students line up across from each other and point guns at one another. Then he had them drop the mag, reload with another, and rack the action - all while being mandated by that instructor to point their weapons at the person across from them.

In the public record following the "tragedy" these things (among others) were said:

The recruits were worried about his teaching methods.

The instructor physically moved the students so they would point guns at each other.

In 2000, the Director of the Academy forbid this instructor from using live weapons in the classroom. All live ammo and working firearms are banned by state policy from police academy classrooms.

This instructor taught his classes with " Little review by the academy staff."

The Training Center Director said afterwards that "Everything we were doing was consistent with what we should've been doing. There is no live ammo in our classes." Except for the round that killed the recruit, of course.

Is there a double standard? IMO there must be, because in this case a grand jury declined to indict and the police did not recommend any charges be lodged against the instructor. All of the Directors, department heads and officials came up with statements clearly attesting to the fact that it wasn't their fault, and it wasn't their fault that procedures weren't followed and it wasn't their fault that it wasn't their fault. They made darn sure that everyone knew that, but nobody addressed just how that could be true. Somebody got killed, but nobody was responsible. It wasn't anyone's fault.

Any civilian involved in a situation under the same circumstances with the same result would've been literally crucified. By God, someone would've been held accountable for their sheer negligence, if nothing else! And I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that they'd have done hard time for it.

In what civilian enterprise could state -mandated rules forbidding the very presence of live weapons and ammo in the room be ignored, any directors or senior staff paid to oversee the operation fail to exercise due diligence resulting in someone's death and nobody be held responsible?

QED: There is a double standard, and it stinks.

 

[Old Dog]

10 Ring Tao responded with

Hello? Does H.R. 218 ring a bell?

I'm unaware that HR 218 cuts all LEOs a break when it comes to:

"gun safety, negligent discharge of firearms, abuse of authority... general foolish behavior with a gun"

Anxiously awaiting further enlightenment in this regard.

Hello? Does 'Professional Courtesy' ring a bell? Such to the point that the cops who violate that expected 'courtesy' are ostracized: http://www.copswritingcops.com/
Then pile on example after example of situations where if the offender were a civvie, he would have been hung out to dry, but since he was in the GOB club, he received nary a slap on the wrist.

Ah, yes, everything I know to be true I learned on the internet. I can't believe you're really linking to that sleazy, suspect website; still, anonymous persons claiming to be wrongfully ticketed cops hardly applies to firearms transgressions. At any rate, I submit that unless you were present for all the followup action in each case of LEO gun safety violations or misconduct, and have verified the outcome for every officer involved in one of these situations from a credible source (i.e., the officers themselves, the agencies or the prosecutor's office concerned, you have no clue what the impact was on the officers.

Granted, there are departments out there whose disciplinary actions in rare cases of officer misconduct may be suspect or from the outside, appear to be far too lenient. Still, for the most part, citizens who do stupid things with firearms, unless convicted of an actual felony, ordinarily do not face permanent loss of their chosen careers, or a permanent halt to their professional advancement, as do most law enforcement officers for what you may consider minor offenses.

When you, Joe Sixpack are at home handling your firearms, and you experience a negligent discharge, killing your new 60" plasma screen TV, what are the official sanctions? You're out a TV and you're probably sleeping on the couch for a while. When Joe Patrolman experiences a negligent discharge in his precinct's lockerroom, I guarantee you there are official sanctions. Sure, go ahead believing that those in the military and law enforcement are not held to a higher standard by their organizations. These discussions make for good competitive urination on the wonderful world of the internet. Just don't go suggesting your nonsense in person to any serving Marine, vet or cop ...

Who is holding you to any standard in your house or on your own property?

 

[Grandpa Shooter]

Two incidents which come to mind were posted on here recently. I am sure they could be found if I could get search to work.

One was of forced entry into the wrong address when executing a warrant. The officers then went on to raid the right address. What happened to compensate the homeowner who had a gun stuck in her face if I remember correctly? If I broke into someone's home and brandished a firearm I wouldn't get away with saying, "Oops, I'm sorry" and walk away.

The other was the two young military men who discharged a firearm outside a strip club and later were found to have firearms under the seats in the car. Again, in the civilian world we wouldn't get to plead down and return to work. I don't care what the military "might" do to them. They committed a crime in the civilian world and should pay the civilian penalty BEFORE being released to join their unit.

I am ex military and did some work with police. They should be held to a higher standard and if they can't measure up, can their butts. The GOB may have been justifiable at some point in the past, but I don't believe in our troubled times the military or the police can afford any smudges on their image.