I’ve received a few emails like this one:

I am not close to being a firearms expert, but I do own a version of the HK USP .45 used by the cop. Like you, I do not believe this cop intentionally shot Sal.

Nonetheless, the police version of events is, simply stated, a load of shit.

[...]

When a firearm is in single action mode, there is ZERO doubt that a reflexive flinch can result in the unintentional discharge of a firearm (again: in single action mode). The science here is pretty solid. In fact, there is a famous bit of news footage of just such a discharge (the cop fired a round about two feet from a face down suspect’s head–she missed, but her flinch was caused by the fact that, with her non-gun hand, she had reached behind her back to grab some handcuffs out of her belt, and the grasping of her non-gun hand caused an involuntary grasping of her gun hand. Again, all of this is seen very clearly on the video.) Many experiments show this “collateral” movement and the Fairfax Police outside expert is, in fact, a leader in this field.

However, the Fairfax Police insist that the shot here was a double action shot. I would like to see the science on this. If I hit you with a baseball bat while you are typing, I believe you could (with your trigger finger), by mistake, type a J instead of an H. The science supports this. But, if I hit you with a bat, and you type “To be or not to be, that is the question”–well, that is going to surprise me. I doubt there is any science that would support a reflexive double action shot. At the very least, a double action unintentional discharge is many, many times less apt to happen.

[...]

And speaking of odds, the police report states plainly that the officer did not aim his gun at Sal–this was a random muzzle position. The police then are saying that it is pure coincidence that an accidental shot just happened to be a perfect tactical hit from twenty feet away. What luck–had to be one in one hundred thousand. AND this one in one hundred thousand muzzle position happened when???? At the exact split second in time when a highly trained officer pulled through a double action trigger by accident. My question is this: when cops investigate cops, is there any story they won’t believe?

My guess: the cop carried “cocked and locked.” He took the gun off safe as he drew it from the holster. He pointed it at Sal. He got bumped by something and sent the shot down range. The cops are telling this silly story so that this poor cop can get his pension.

Another reader sent this interesting and disturbing study on involuntary muscle contractions as they relate to police shootings. I’m nowhere near qualified to comment on the research, but I will say that if it’s true, and these spasms are somewhat frequent, uncontrollable, and can’t be “trained away,” it is yet another argument for using SWAT teams only in emergency, imminent-threat situations. If accidental discharge is going to an acceptable excuse for police shootings, it makes even more sense to cease sending cops with drawn guns after nonviolent offenders. Also, if the science on this is as sound as Fairfax PD claims it is, it cuts both ways. Prosecutors are now going to have to take it very seriously when a defendant claims an “involuntary muscle contraction” caused his weapon to discharge.

They won’t of course, especially if the defendant is charged with, say, shooting a raiding police officer he mistook for a criminal assailant.

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 13th, 2007 at 11:11 am by Radley Balko and is filed under Police Militarization. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.