I don’t want to click the link because I don’t want to watch a video of a guy shooting off his finger.
Is he going for a jury trial?
Whether he has a legal leg to stand on (probably shouldn’t have been shown to him loaded), I don’t think a jury is going to be sympathetic to a** police officer** for handling a firearm incorrectly.
Then they’d share some level of responsibility for what happened to an innocent victim. Are you saying they would owe the shooter something in that case?
I believe this will be the standard that is applied.
Most of you are focused on how it was an experienced gun-handler so it was 100% his fault. If it were a novice, first time-buyer would that change your opinion?
If I am not mistaken, the dealer has a duty to ensure that weapon is not loaded. The officer is a moron and should have known better. He contributed to his own injury. But the dealer should never have handed a loaded firearm to the customer and the incident was a foreseeable result.
Of course not; presumably he’d be charged with negligent homicide or something. But from the father of this hypothetical kid’s perspective, the store should never have handed a customer a loaded gun.
This.
The officer should have been more responsible due to his experience and training - the store had a duty to be more responsible.
I could see a jury splitting the liability. I wouldn’t want to bet on what percentages they’d choose.
I’m guessing the store has some strict rules on procedure when it comes to the management of their firearms in all regards. If so, that right there could be enough for a lawsuit seeking damages, regardless of where the true negligence lies.
I’m with this. The “all guns are loaded” rule is for one’s own personal use, not to absolve a criminally negligent store. A store should not be handing out loaded weapons, esp. without checking them. The number one rule for handing over a weapon is ‘always hand over an unloaded weapon’, and, the number one rule for a gun store is “don’t hand over a loaded gun to a customer.” See “The Terminator” for my cite.
The store/employee screwed up, bigtime.
Right. So if the store owes nothing to that shooter, why should it owe anything to this one? The moral quality of the two shooters is identical, it’s just chance that this real one hurt only himself.
Right. The store owes something to the victim of a loaded gun it hands to an idiot, but it owes nothing to the idiot who shoots someone with that loaded gun. The confounding factor is that in this case the idiot shot himself.
And if they don’t have any strict rules on procedures for the management of their firearms, then that could be enough for a lawsuit. It’s not like they are stocking candy.
Not to defend the officer because he was an idiot, but who the hell keeps or allowed loaded guns in a showcase?
Back to the point of the officer being an idiot. According to the article, the officer wants money to make up his loss in salary 'cuz he can’t work as a policeman now. That would be tricky if I were on the jury. I’d be torn between simply laughing in his face and going beyond that to award something to the store for keeping the idiot out of a uniform.
Cool story bro, funny anecdote follows…
I once took my mom gun shopping years ago, she found most handguns too heavy so the clerk showed her a relatively lightweight Beretta and she took it in hand and immediately trained it on the clerk. He said ok ma’am rule number 1 of gun safety is even if you think it is unloaded never point a gun at something you don’t want to kill, she apologized profusely.
LOL
The cop is an idiot and he pointed a loaded weapon at two, no three people and thankfully only hurt himself.
I found it somewhat interesting that the store security camera caught the ‘red mist’ when he shot his finger off.
This.
There is a 100% chance of a customer walking in without ever handling a gun before.
I’m curious about the loss of his job. Did it happen while he was on duty?
He didn’t pull the mag out but he racked they slide back as if to clear it. It’s amazing he didn’t hit another customer.
So, it started off as a pistol with a loaded magazine and an empty chamber. By racking the slide, he loaded the chamber. Way to go. Both the clerk and the cop blew it.
There are anecdotal reports that he was on duty and out of town, nowhere near where he should have been at the time of the incident and that is why he was fired. I’m not going to research it, just what I read, I would be inclined to believe it though… He looks like a fat lazy slob, probably on the take and putting the heavy pinch on misdemeanors for info on bigger fish.
Fuck’em, they don’t play nice, I don’t play nice.
INAL, but my general understanding is the store is the only one at fault from a legal perspective. It’s no different than not putting up a “wet floor” sign. By handing him the gun the customer had full expectation that it was safe to handle and most reasonable people would not have an expectation for display guns to be loaded. To me this is almost textbook.
And yes, I’ve know the gun rules since I was a kid, and yes the guy should have checked, but the gun store gives customers guns from behind the glass every day of every year and it is the duty of the store to make sure that process is done responsibly. You can’t have an accident like that and blame the uninformed or careless customer who is a statistical certainty but let the gun store whose business it is to let customers safely handle firearms off the hook.
So yes, call him an idiot, but maybe just had a lot on his mind that day. The store can, will, and should get sued for compensatory and potentially punitive damages. Handing customers loaded guns without telling them is a shoddy and negligent business practice waiting for an accident.
For those that don’t know, there is a distinct difference in both sound and feel of releasing a magazine on a loaded magazine. Not to mention the fact that the slide would stay back on its own if the mag was empty. This guys sounds very inexperienced. I still can’t watch the video for another couple weeks when I get away from these mountains and back to fast internet. This guy is a mess, but legally I think I still think the legal liability is on the store though. At least for the loss of the finger if not the job.
The store probably will settle with non-disclosure terms, so we’ll never find out whether he can retire to his summer house in Switzerland.