Oops Dept.

Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
15,130
Likes
6,958
Location
Live Free or Die !
Feedback: 80 / 0 / 0
From today’s Telegram & Gazette; Officer’s child fires shot in station.

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060425/NEWS/604250526/1003/NEWSREWIND

As soon as I read this several things jumped out at me the first being the reporters acute powers of observation concerning the officer’s “service revolver, a semi-automatic SigSauer P226". I guess they haven’t yet issued the Leominster P.D those “Fully Automatic Revolvers” yet.

The next was the “Accidental” part. Nope. I’m not buying it. This was negligence, pure and simple. He left a live round in the chamber and didn’t put the safety on. (Correct me if I am wrong in thinking the SigSauer P226 has a safety.) Then he put the pistol down where a curious child could gain access and actually get off a shot.

Mayor Dean J. Mazzarella said the important thing is that nobody was hurt.
( Ya think ?! )
If a civilian had done this we would lose our license and be facing charges. [thinking]
 
The article before it disappears

Officer’s child fires shot in station

By Mary Jo Hill TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
[email protected]


LEOMINSTER— The 7-year-old son of a city police officer fired his father’s service weapon inside the police station, said Police Chief Peter F. Roddy.

The bullet went into a ceiling, but nobody works in the area above the ceiling, he said.

“We are very lucky nobody was injured,” Chief Roddy said.


The boy’s father and three other police officers were in the room at the time of the accidental discharge, which happened Thursday, Chief Roddy said.

The officer, whom the chief would not identify, was off duty when he stopped by the station around 1:30 p.m. with his son on a school vacation day, the chief said.

While in an isolated, “non-public” portion of the building, the officer wanted to show someone a demonstration model of a holster for his service revolver, a semi-automatic SigSauer P226, the chief said.

As a safety precaution, the officer unloaded the gun, then handed it and the holster to another officer, Chief Roddy said.

When the officer took back the gun, he reloaded it by putting in the magazine, closing the chamber, and releasing one bullet into the chamber, the chief said. The officer then ejected the magazine, he said.

He placed the gun down, and while he was busy loading the magazine, his son picked up the gun and fired it, Chief Roddy said.

His father told him, “You know better than that,” Chief Roddy said.

The boy responded that he did not know the gun was loaded, the chief said.

“The young boy touched the weapon when he shouldn’t have and it went off,” Chief Roddy said.

The incident scared the child, he said.

It is standard procedure for Leominster officers to have a bullet loaded into the chamber of their service weapons, Chief Roddy said.

An internal investigation is being done into the incident, the chief said, adding that the officer in question is very safety-conscious.

Mayor Dean J. Mazzarella said the important thing is that nobody was hurt.

“Obviously, they’re looking into the matter, and that is standard procedure,” the mayor said.
 
My e-mail to the learned scribe who penned this peice:

Dear Ms. Hill:

I have read your article regarding the negligent discharge in the Leominster police headquarters and note the following:

1. "... the officer wanted to show someone a demonstration model of a holster for his service revolver, a semi-automatic SigSauer P226..."

Nonsense. SIG does not make revolvers. The Leominster PD, like every other department in this state I am familiar with, carries semi-automatic pistols. Revolvers have not been issued in decades.

2. What the negligent officer loaded was a CARTRIDGE; not a "bullet." Bullets are the projectiles; the part that comes from the muzzle when the gun is fired.

3. You might ask the chief what his response would be had a mere citizen been that careless with a gun in the immediate presence of a child. My experience is that the negligent gun owner would have had his/her firearms license immediately revoked and his/her guns seized, with the possibility of charges of child endangerment being brought.
 
Scrivener, Well said ! Ya beat me to it, wifey pulled me off the computer for supper then we had some folks over & I could'nt get back on.

By all means let us know what, if any response you get.
 
MrTwigg said:
From today’s Telegram & Gazette; Officer’s child fires shot in station.

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060425/NEWS/604250526/1003/NEWSREWIND

As soon as I read this several things jumped out at me the first being the reporters acute powers of observation concerning the officer’s “service revolver, a semi-automatic SigSauer P226". I guess they haven’t yet issued the Leominster P.D those “Fully Automatic Revolvers” yet.

The next was the “Accidental” part. Nope. I’m not buying it. This was negligence, pure and simple. He left a live round in the chamber and didn’t put the safety on. (Correct me if I am wrong in thinking the SigSauer P226 has a safety.) Then he put the pistol down where a curious child could gain access and actually get off a shot.

There was no safety, it's a P226. From the Sentinel's account of it, it
sounded like the guy was administratively reloading and topping off his
magazine when it occured... he chambered the first round, (may or may
not have decocked it, who knows) put the gun down and proceeded to
fill his magazine (probalby to top it off). During this window of time the
kid picked the gun up and fired it.

I find this funny that it occured in the "we only think police officers are
competent enough to carry loaded guns" department. Regardless of wether
or not Leominster actually said that, they -IMPLY- it by issuing class B
licenses, or at best restricted A's. From what I heard you can't get
A/ALP there unless you move there with one or you can somehow "justify"
it.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
There was no safety, it's a P226. From the Sentinel's account of it, it
sounded like the guy was administratively reloading and topping off his
magazine when it occured... he chambered the first round, (may or may
not have decocked it, who knows) put the gun down and proceeded to
fill his magazine (probalby to top it off). During this window of time the
kid picked the gun up and fired it.

I find this funny that it occured in the "we only think police officers are
competent enough to carry loaded guns" department. Regardless of wether
or not Leominster actually said that, they -IMPLY- it by issuing class B
licenses, or at best restricted A's. From what I heard you can't get
A/ALP there unless you move there with one or you can somehow "justify"
it.

-Mike


Not true. At least in this time frame (another poster once stated things were once much different), Leominster is handing out LTCA/ALP's quite readily. I know -- I'm one of 'em, and my license was delayed about 2 weeks because they had a backlog of processing them last November when I got mine. The first thing the clerk did when I nervously walked in to do the application was hand me a coupon for 10% off at Dick's Sporting Goods! They do have the silly need to have a POTS telephone number -- not a cell, on the app, and require 3 reference letters, rather than just the references required on the app however.
 
tele_mark said:
Not true. At least in this time frame (another poster once stated things were once much different), Leominster is handing out LTCA/ALP's quite readily. I know -- I'm one of 'em, and my license was delayed about 2 weeks because they had a backlog of processing them last November when I got mine. The first thing the clerk did when I nervously walked in to do the application was hand me a coupon for 10% off at Dick's Sporting Goods! They do have the silly need to have a POTS telephone number -- not a cell, on the app, and require 3 reference letters, rather than just the references required on the app however.

Well, that is good news.... I wonder who sued them? :) The guy I spoke to at the time said at the time he was a licensed
PI and they wouldn't even give him an unrestricted license.

-Mike
 
Here's the response from the reporter:

Hello,

Thank you for your e-mail. The phrase "service revolver" was used in the common sense to refer to a weapon that a police officer uses while on duty. However, in hindsight probably the phrase "service weapon" would have been a better choice. We do plan to do a follow-up story on the outcome of the investigation. Please feel free to write any time.

Mary Jo Hill
Reporter
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
 
Scrivener said:
Here's the response from the reporter:

Hello,

Thank you for your e-mail. The phrase "service revolver" was used in the common sense to refer to a weapon that a police officer uses while on duty. However, in hindsight probably the phrase "service weapon" would have been a better choice. We do plan to do a follow-up story on the outcome of the investigation. Please feel free to write any time.

Mary Jo Hill
Reporter
Worcester Telegram & Gazette


I love left wing common sense. [rolleyes]
 
TonyD said:
Also, let's not address the important issues like safety, reckless endangerment, and being too stuipid to be armed.

I'm sure her follow up story will contain facts next time. [rolleyes]
 
MSM drivel, Part Deux:

Dear Ms. Hill:

Thank you for your response, although I find it inadequate.

"The phrase "service revolver" was used in the common sense to refer to a weapon that a police officer uses while on duty."

To the extent there is such a "common sense," it is due to the misinformation people read in articles such as yours. A revolver is a very specific type of firearm and one which was not involved in this incident in any way, shape, manner or form.

"However, in hindsight probably the phrase "service weapon" would have been a better choice."

That or simply "sidearm."

Further, you do not address the mischaracterization of the cartridge as a "bullet." Or is this another example of the "common sense" you spoke of?

"We do plan to do a follow-up story on the outcome of the investigation."

I look forward to seeing it, particularly where you contrast the non-consequences apparently attending this officer's gross negligence with what a common citizen would be subjected to in similar circumstances.

Film at 11:00 ..............
 
Finally, this NON-response:

"Dear K. Langer:

Thanks again for your reply. I, too, am curious about the outcome of the investigation.



Mary Jo Hill
Reporter
Worcester Telegram & Gazette"

[rolleyes]
 
Scrivener said:
Finally, this NON-response:

"Dear K. Langer:

Thanks again for your reply. I, too, am curious about the outcome of the investigation.



Mary Jo Hill
Reporter
Worcester Telegram & Gazette"

[rolleyes]

Ladies and Gentlemen.... WE HAVE A WHITE FLAG..... [rofl] [rofl] [rofl]
 
I also like the choice words here:
"“The young boy touched the weapon when he shouldn’t have and it went off,” Chief Roddy said."

It's a loaded gun, not an active land-mine. The kid DID touch the gun, but it wasn't a big deal untill he PULLED THE TRIGGER.

Some may think I'm picking nits here, but there is a HUGE peice of our population who thinks that guns can simply "go off" or that Sigs and glocks are uber-dangerous because they don't possess a manual safty like a 1911 or most rifles.

These are people who vote for anti-gun legislation, who are lead by the nose by the Brady Bunch, and keep re-electing Tom Menino to Boston because he's "Tough on Guns" (of course he's "Light on Criminals" so the murder rates and crime rates in Bean-Town are through the roof).

Nope, I'm not picking nits, when you see how many anti-gun laws are based on mis-information, and misconceptions (the assault Weapon's ban? The downfall of the Winchester Black Talon, the branding of the FN FiveSeveN as a "High Powered Cop Killer") They're all BS, and make NO sence if you know anything about guns. But people who don't have a reaction because they have been raised on a huge bed of misinformation, so this all makes PERFECT sence to them.

-Weer'd Beard
 
Weer'd Beard said:
I also like the choice words here:
"“The young boy touched the weapon when he shouldn’t have and it went off,” Chief Roddy said."

Chief Roddy must think everyone was born yesterday. What did he do touch the rear sight and BOOM? [laugh2]

What a moron...
 
Back
Top Bottom