It was just an accident for the police couple to shoot 27 rounds at her mother and his in law that lives with them. Luckily the mother was only hit in the leg.

The second incident mention was were an officer shot his daughter as she was sneaking back into the house at night.

How many gun safety rules were violated in these incidents?

Las Vegas, NV — The mother of a police officer is recovering from her injuries after being shot by her own child and in-law with whom she lives.

North Las Vegas police announced last week that no charges will be filed against the officer and her husband who fired more than two dozen rounds at their mother as she returned home around 11:30 pm.

The officer claimed that the 27 rounds were fired “accidentally” and so the department said there is no need for charges.

Of course, shooting at an intruder in your home is a justified measure. However, what does it say about the trigger-happy nature of this officer who would unleash 27 rounds at her own mom, who had to have been screaming for her life upon hearing the first round being fired?

Then we have the second mention

Last year, the Free Thought Project reported on Deputy Easton McDonald, of Loudoun County, Virginia, who shot his 16-year-old daughter as she attempted to re-enter their home after sneaking out for the evening. The deputy claimed that he thought his daughter was an intruder because she tripped an alarm system and was attempting to sneak back in through the garage.

McDonald told investigating officers that after hearing the noises in the garage he grabbed his gun and began firing blindly into the dark because he believed that someone was “coming at him.”

http://www.alternet.org/police-couple-w ... lives-them

Maybe we could have more training on basic gun safety especially the one rule about clearly identify your target. We need to hold the LEOs to a higher standard of handling the tools of their profession especially the deadly tools.

You would expect your doctors and nurses to know and be able to handle the tools of their profession. As a nurse I am held to a higher standard. If I screw up I can't just say oops it was an accident and go on. I have to face the music and possible malpractice suits and can face felony charges of assault and lose my license. Professional hunters are held to the standard of knowing their targets before they shoot. They are held to a higher standard so why not the LEOs.

Then maybe we should only allow LEOs to carry Colt SAA revolvers or other single action six guns.

It's one of the reasons I wouldn't think of shooting at noises I might hear at night. Most likely it's one of my kids or dogs fumbling around.

The other reason is the area I live in is safe enough that all you need to do is have a motion light and a dog to scare off most teens goofing around and lock your doors at night so you aren't an easy target. The dogs would go nuts first, however, I have a lightweight wooden bat in the closet and I can to turn on enough lights in the house from upstairs that I'd see who it was first.

You have to be hopped up on adrenaline to fire that many times in an enclosed space.

Thankfully the mother is alive and hopefully the injury isn't life-altering. With that being said... how does one (or two, in this case) "accidentally" fire 27 rounds? Wouldn't an accident be just... one round each?*

Also, how does one qualify as a police officer when they can only score one hit out of (i'm assuming half of the) 27 shots fired? I'm also assuming this was in the house, so we're probably talking 10-15 yards max, more realistically 7 or less. Since the mother survived in this case though, I'm certainly happy about their accuracy impediment.

*added: technically even one round is still not an accident, it's negligence, but at least I'd sympathize a lot more if it were just one shot vs 27!

Lucky for the mother they suck as marksmen. One hit out of 27 shots, if they are not canned they better be sent to the range.

eelj wrote:Lucky for the mother they suck as marksmen. One hit out of 27 shots, if they are not canned they better be sent to the range.

AS far as I could tell from the article, they were blindly firing into the dark...

SailDesign wrote:

eelj wrote:Lucky for the mother they suck as marksmen. One hit out of 27 shots, if they are not canned they better be sent to the range.

AS far as I could tell from the article, they were blindly firing into the dark...

They hit what they were aiming at...

Dunce wrote:

SailDesign wrote:

eelj wrote:Lucky for the mother they suck as marksmen. One hit out of 27 shots, if they are not canned they better be sent to the range.

AS far as I could tell from the article, they were blindly firing into the dark...

They hit what they were aiming at...

Just ...

Dunce wrote:

SailDesign wrote:

eelj wrote:Lucky for the mother they suck as marksmen. One hit out of 27 shots, if they are not canned they better be sent to the range.

AS far as I could tell from the article, they were blindly firing into the dark...

They hit what they were aiming at...

They did hit the darkness... Mostly.

if they'd used a mosin, they'd have seen who it was by the fireball.

lurker wrote:if they'd used a mosin, they'd have seen who it was by the fireball.

And by that time the mom would have gotten powder burned and lost half her hearing.