D̶e̶p̶u̶t̶y̶ "deputy's gun" shoots at dog, misses, hits kid in the leg.

[Stand_watie]

Clever linethrough courtesy Radley Balko on twitter

http://m.walb.com/#!/newsDetail/25999058

"... Sheriff Wooten said a deputy, who was not named, was approaching the property when a dog ran up to him. The deputy's gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child. It was not clear if the gun was actively fired by the deputy...."

[Ben]

I remember when I was a kid learning to use a hammer and I drove nails crooked, I would blame the hammer and my dad would just laugh at me.

[dogmush]

I wonder how the per capita rates of ND's, and ND's involving injury compare between the LEO and Non-LEO population?

Obviously one tends to get more press, so that could skew perception, but still, we might all be a little safer if we took their guns away.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I wish these idjits would figure out that blaming an acciedent on an ND just makes it sound even worse then it already is.

And this guy shot a kid, instead of the dog. There really wasn't much that could be said to make it worse, but golly! He sure did!

[lee n. field]

"... Sheriff Wooten said a deputy, who was not named, was approaching the property when a dog ran up to him. The deputy's gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child. It was not clear if the gun was actively fired by the deputy...."

Darn smart guns.

[onions!]

I predict less overall internet indignation for shooting a kid vs. a dog.

It keeps the fingers off the triggers or it gets the hose again.

Simple.

[Hawkmoon]

Only law enforcement should be allowed to have firearms, because they're professionals and they know how to use them safely.

[Regolith]

That is one poorly written article. It doesn't get around to giving any details about how it happened until 3/4s of the way in, takes a side trip to talk about the guy the cops were chasing that makes it sound kind of like he was the one who shot the kid (that part really should have been at the end of the article), then there's this: "The deputy's gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child. It was not clear if the gun was actively fired by the deputy." 

[Hawkmoon]

... then there's this: "The deputy's gun fired one shot, missing the dog and hitting the child. It was not clear if the gun was actively fired by the deputy."  

Maybe it was passively fired?

No, I don't know how to do that, but if they aren't certain it was "actively fired," then "passively fired" would logically be the only alternative explanation.

[RocketMan]

Only the most professional law enforcement officers are issued self-firing guns.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Maybe it was passively fired?

No, I don't know how to do that, but if they aren't certain it was "actively fired," then "passively fired" would logically be the only alternative explanation.

Given the rarity of true ADs, does it matter? It's still falls under the catagory of "officer is a dumbbutt"

[Phyphor]

Given the rarity of true ADs, does it matter? It's still falls under the catagory of "officer is a dumbbutt"

Yup.

"DO NOT POINT AT ANYTHING YOU AREN'T WILLING TO DESTROY."

[RoadKingLarry]

'm thinking this one fals under:
Be sure of your target and what's beyond it.

[griz]

The recent news about a smart gun for sale and the resulting ban on future dumb guns (AKA "real" guns) brings to mind a question.  Since various governments seem to be early adopters of every technology they approve of, such as alternative fuels, solar power, electric cars, etc, why don't they issue the available smart guns to police officers?  Of course the actual answer is "because smart guns don't work yet", but all you will hear from them is obfuscation. 

[vaskidmark]

Forget "smart guns" - they are no longer needed.  We have bullets that can make course corrections so they always land on target.

http://io9.com/5880884/this-self-guided-bullet-can-chase-you-down-from-over-a-mile-away

Government engineers have designed a bullet that can aim itself, correcting its own path mid-flight in order to connect with targets over a mile away. Is this the future of armed warfare?

The formidable projectile was designed by engineers Red Jones and Brian Kast of Sandia National Laboratories. And while this bullet is technically a prototype, preliminary tests cleary demonstrate that it has the potential to revolutionize the design of smart ammunition. Here's how it works: ....

No more need to be professional enough - just make sure you carry the right ammo for the job.

stay safe.

[just Warren]

These will be of real help when our household robots malfunction and have to be tracked down and destroyed.

[BlueStarLizzard]

These will be of real help when our household robots malfunction and have to be tracked down and destroyed.

Or not. The smart guns could be in league with the robots.

[vaskidmark]

Or not. The smart guns ammo could be in league with the robots.

FIFY.

stay safe.

[Stand_watie]

Follow up column in the post; A very good read, and applicable much more broadly than just to police agencies. Think of that passive "Mistakes were made" voice from any authority/institution that you've heard in your life from school to corporate to government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/the-curious-grammar-of-police-shootings/

edit: another article about the "why" of passive voice excuses

http://jmsclass.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/passive-voice-makes-perpetrators-disappear-in-news-headlines/

[KD5NRH]

Follow up column in the post; A very good read, and applicable much more broadly than just to police agencies. Think of that passive "Mistakes were made" voice from any authority/institution that you've heard in your life from school to corporate to government.

It's a major reason, IMO, that abuse and coverups continue to happen.  Widespread public ridicule is a powerful weapon, especially when the top of the food chain depends on public opinion for their continued employment.

Imagine, if you will, the headline "reckless handling of firearm by deputy leads to child being shot."  That sheriff would need to gibbet the deputy on the courthouse square to stand a chance in the next election.

[onions!]

Imagine a world where elected officials actually do there jobs,the best they can,with no regards of their future employment.
Imagine the grand mess of things that'd occur when people actually have to take their lumps.
*sigh*

[cordex]

Very good articles Stand_watie.

[T.O.M.]

Follow up column in the post; A very good read, and applicable much more broadly than just to police agencies. Think of that passive "Mistakes were made" voice from any authority/institution that you've heard in your life from school to corporate to government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/the-curious-grammar-of-police-shootings/

edit: another article about the "why" of passive voice excuses

http://jmsclass.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/passive-voice-makes-perpetrators-disappear-in-news-headlines/

I believe that a large motivator for this trend in language is the litigious nature of our society.  Many lawyers will tell clients to not admit anything.  Even in sentencing statements, where acknowledging wrongdoing can be beneficial.  Too many lawyers advise people that acknowledging wrongdoing, even if it is just a mistake, leaves one liable.  And that is a bad thing for society as a whole, IMHO.

[makattak]

I believe that a large motivator for this trend in language is the litigious nature of our society.  Many lawyers will tell clients to not admit anything.  Even in sentencing statements, where acknowledging wrongdoing can be beneficial.  Too many lawyers advise people that acknowledging wrongdoing, even if it is just a mistake, leaves one liable.  And that is a bad thing for society as a whole, IMHO.

Fixed that for you.

[MillCreek]

I believe that a large motivator for this trend in language is the litigious nature of our society.  Many lawyers will tell clients to not admit anything.  Even in sentencing statements, where acknowledging wrongdoing can be beneficial.  Too many lawyers advise people that acknowledging wrongdoing, even if it is just a mistake, leaves one liable.  And that is a bad thing for society as a whole, IMHO.

I do tell my healthcare providers that everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.  That being said, I do commonly admit mistakes and make apologies on behalf of the organization and providers.  Very often with the providers sitting right next to me so they can chime in. But I always tell them that if I start stomping on your foot, that is your cue to shut up and let me talk.