Plano officer shoots suspect trying to activate light

[Excaliber]

I don't personally believe that a street wise bad guy is going to buy that he's being approached by an 8 foot tall cop holding a flashlight in front of him when an officer uses the "high and to the left" light technique. He's going to do what they teach in prison: Aim 2 1/2 feet below and 18 inches to the left of the oncoming light.

I'd not heard this before (unsurprisingly, never having been in prison) but my first thought (being a southpaw) is that received "wisdom" like this might put left-handed officers at an advantage, as their COM would be 3 feet away from the bad guy's POA. I wonder whether there are any statistics, or even anecdotal evidence, to support this supposition.

You're exactly right that the bad guy countermeasure is based on the majority of LEO's they face being right handed. A left handed LEO would indeed have an advantage there - but I'm not left handed.

The other seldom discussed issue with the "high and to the left - or right" technique is that it's really easy to hold the flashlight just a little too far back so the side spill from the light dimly illuminates the front of your body - thereby completely negating the "where is he" effect it tries to achieve.

Try it in a dark room with someone watching you from the front to see this in action.

All this is just way more complexity than I'm willing to try to manage in a critical situation. I'll stick with my Harries technique, flick the light on and off to see what I need to, and either shoot and move, or just move and repeat as necessary - from behind cover if possible.

[Excaliber]

Here we have a newly issued piece of equipment that requires a different mode of operation from similar gear the officer was much more familiar with, and a light activation switch that is turned on with rearward pressure applied just under the trigger guard. This switch is designed to be activated by the middle finger on the frontstrap.

My immediate reaction to this is what boneheaded idiot would think this was a good idea? Require the officer to use the exact same movement of his finger in the vicinity of the trigger to activate his light and expect the officer, under the stress of an encounter, to be able to properly perform the action every time? This is a recipe for failure, as this officer has discovered.

I thought we were so thoroughly modern these days that we employed engineers to anticipate and obviate problems like this. Sheesh.

I don't see any engineering failures here.

The switch under the trigger guard is not designed to be activated by any movement of the trigger finger. It is designed to be activated by the pressure typically exerted by the middle finger when a normal firing grip is taken on the gun. The trigger is activated by a much different and longer motion of a different finger. Both involve muscular contractions, but each is significantly different from the other and not particularly susceptible to confusion under most circumstances.

I have laser grips with the same switch positioning and have never had any issues with them. Laser grips and flashlights which use a similar activation mechanism have been around a very long time, and I have never heard of anyone confusing the two before now.

I was not there and have no way of knowing what actually happened in this incident. However, keep in mind that the flashlight switch issue was raised several days after the incident after long consultations with defense attorneys. I also am mindful of the fact that there is a long sad history of negligent discharges when folks put the trigger finger inside the trigger guard before a decision has been made to fire. Furthermore, I have trouble coming up with a way that the pistol could have fired as reported without the trigger finger being inside the trigger guard where it should not have been.

The investigation is still ongoing, and no valid conclusions can be drawn at this point from the information we have. However, we can take the opportunity to examine a number of ways such an incident could happen and take steps to eliminate risks from our own gun handling practices.

For my own purposes, at this time I see no significant ND risk from either a laser or flashlight activation switch on the front of the grip just beneath the trigger guard as long as the basic rules of gun safety are being observed. In police work, Rule 3 (finger outside the trigger guard and alongside the frame until a decision has been made to fire) is especially important, because Rule 1 must sometimes be violated during confrontations with potentially violent suspects. In those cases, a gun may need to be pointed at a suspect when firing on him might be necessary in another second or two, but a final decision to do so has not yet been made. This narrows the margin of safety significantly..

[gemini]

Excaliber:Here we have a newly issued piece of equipment that requires a different mode of operation from similar gear the officer was much more familiar with, and a light activation switch that is turned on with rearward pressure applied just under the trigger guard.

Basically under-trained with the equipment in use? Result = death of suspect.

Excaliber:In the BART case, the officer had received far more training in firing his handgun than his taser, and the taser holstering system setup on his duty rig was arranged so that both the taser and the handgun would be manipulated by the same hand. The hand functions for drawing and firing both were the same. Under the stress of a struggle, while his mental decision was to draw and fire the taser, the hand assigned to that task performed the more dominant function instilled by training - drawing and firing the handgun.

Basically over-trained with the equipment in use? Result = death of suspect.

Not sure exactly what conclusion to draw.

[Excaliber]

Excaliber:Here we have a newly issued piece of equipment that requires a different mode of operation from similar gear the officer was much more familiar with, and a light activation switch that is turned on with rearward pressure applied just under the trigger guard.

Basically under-trained with the equipment in use? Result = death of suspect.

Excaliber:In the BART case, the officer had received far more training in firing his handgun than his taser, and the taser holstering system setup on his duty rig was arranged so that both the taser and the handgun would be manipulated by the same hand. The hand functions for drawing and firing both were the same. Under the stress of a struggle, while his mental decision was to draw and fire the taser, the hand assigned to that task performed the more dominant function instilled by training - drawing and firing the handgun.

Basically over-trained with the equipment in use? Result = death of suspect.

Not sure exactly what conclusion to draw.

You apparently are willing to buy both of these scenarios as presented by defense attorneys weeks or months after the incidents as factual and complete accounts of what transpired in each case. I'm not as convinced as you are, particularly with regard to the Plano case.

There is nothing about activating the SureFire light switch under the trigger guard that is any different than establishing a standard good grip on the handgun - which should certainly be the done when in close quarters with a suspect. In fact, keeping the light off takes a conscious decision to keep one finger a bit more relaxed than it would otherwise be. Gripping the gun properly is not a cause of negligent discharge, whether there's a switch under one of the fingers around the handgun's grip or not.

Front strap mounted light switches of varying types have been in use for at least 40 years and are currently used in the top of the line Crimson Trace laser grips. They have never, to my knowledge, been alleged to have contributed to a negligent discharge before. Nothing in the information released to date indicates that there was anything special about the SureFire switch that makes it any more hazardous than the hundreds of thousands of other similar units that have been used for almost half a century.

There are two circumstances here which have not been fully explained in the information available to the public, but which may be contributing factors that would be consistent with what we've been told so far:

1. The practice of using a handgun with a mounted light as a flashlight (nonlethal) tool that causes a lethal tool (handgun) to be pointed at a person when that action may not be fully justified. This is a potentially negligent action, and it is unclear whether or not this was done, and whether or not the department in question trained its officers on this potentially hazardous use of their equipment.

2. Placing the finger on the trigger before a decision has been made to fire. If this were the case, consciously tightening one's grip on the gun to activate the light may well result in a contraction of the trigger finger as well, thus causing a negligent discharge. I could easily see this happening during a struggle. In this case, the primary cause is not the location of the light switch or the tightening of one's grip - it's the negligent act of placing the finger inside the trigger guard before firing is justified.

It's unknown whether or not the department in question trained its officers in the most basic safety practices designed to prevent negligent discharges, but I'd be really surprised if they hadn't. If an officer disregards this training in the field, he owns the results of his decisions in that regard.

Once again, I don't know anything more than has been released publicly about the Plano incident, and I surely don't know enough to draw any credible conclusions. I can only relate the published accounts to things I know through other experience and explore possible explanations that may stimulate some thought and discussion about how Forum members can avoid similar tragedies.

I suggest we stay tuned to the investigation to see how the facts shake out.

[gemini]

Excaliber: You apparently are willing to buy both of these scenarios as presented by defense attorneys weeks or months after the incidents as factual and complete accounts of what transpired in each case. I'm not as convinced as you are, particularly with regard to the Plano case.

No Sir. I'm not willing to buy anything the PD's or the attorneys present as scenarios. Not sure where that came from.
I was simply quoting your post. The only thing I'm convinced of is that 2 suspects are dead.

[Hoi Polloi]

Excaliber: You apparently are willing to buy both of these scenarios as presented by defense attorneys weeks or months after the incidents as factual and complete accounts of what transpired in each case. I'm not as convinced as you are, particularly with regard to the Plano case.

No Sir. I'm not willing to buy anything the PD's or the attorneys present as scenarios. Not sure where that came from.
I was simply quoting your post. The only thing I'm convinced of is that 2 suspects are dead.

Would you please use the quote box feature to quote others, or at the very least actual quotation marks. By preceding the paragraph with a forum name and colon, it looks like you're addressing your comments to him, not like you're quoting him.

[Excaliber]

Excaliber: You apparently are willing to buy both of these scenarios as presented by defense attorneys weeks or months after the incidents as factual and complete accounts of what transpired in each case. I'm not as convinced as you are, particularly with regard to the Plano case.

No Sir. I'm not willing to buy anything the PD's or the attorneys present as scenarios. Not sure where that came from.
I was simply quoting your post. The only thing I'm convinced of is that 2 suspects are dead.

Sorry, Gemini, I misunderstood the one liners on under training and over training in your post.

I don't see over training in either one. Properly conducted training increases proficiency.

From a training standpoint, I think we're more likely looking at either inadequate or incomplete training or training that didn't take combined with individual officer factors in both cases. Neither of these incidents as reported are common occurrences as they would likely be if they were directly and primarily related to equipment that is used by hundreds of thousands of officers.

[gemini]

Excaliber: You apparently are willing to buy both of these scenarios as presented by defense attorneys weeks or months after the incidents as factual and complete accounts of what transpired in each case. I'm not as convinced as you are, particularly with regard to the Plano case.

No Sir. I'm not willing to buy anything the PD's or the attorneys present as scenarios. Not sure where that came from.
I was simply quoting your post. The only thing I'm convinced of is that 2 suspects are dead.

Hoi Polli wrote,
"Would you please use the quote box feature to quote others, or at the very least actual quotation marks. By preceding the paragraph with a forum name and colon, it looks like you're addressing your comments to him, not like you're quoting him."

Gemini responded,
"Ok. Sorry if my posts were confusing you."

[Hoi Polloi]

Excaliber: You apparently are willing to buy both of these scenarios as presented by defense attorneys weeks or months after the incidents as factual and complete accounts of what transpired in each case. I'm not as convinced as you are, particularly with regard to the Plano case.

No Sir. I'm not willing to buy anything the PD's or the attorneys present as scenarios. Not sure where that came from.
I was simply quoting your post. The only thing I'm convinced of is that 2 suspects are dead.

Hoi Polli wrote,
"Would you please use the quote box feature to quote others, or at the very least actual quotation marks. By preceding the paragraph with a forum name and colon, it looks like you're addressing your comments to him, not like you're quoting him."

Gemini responded,
"Ok. Sorry if my posts were confusing you."

Thank you! It doesn't take much!

[Excaliber]

The most recent issue of the Force Science News identifies what some researchers believe is a significant potential unintended discharge hazard from the use of the type of handgun mounted flashlight switch involved in this incident. The article mentions this event specifically along with others. It sheds new and more complex light on what may have happened in this instance, and what could happen again to others.

The gist of the article is that research shows that under stress, even persons trained to keep their fingers outside the trigger guard until a decision to fire has been made may in fact put a finger on the trigger during a fast breaking incident. This circumstance, combined with the intentional squeezing of the middle finger to activate a flashlight switch may in some cases cause a sympathetic contraction of the trigger finger with enough pressure to fire the gun. This happens too quickly for the person to realize what's happening and stop it.

To avoid both this and unsafe sweeping of nontargets with a handgun, I don't use a gun mounted flashlight at all. Others may want to reevaluate whatever decisions they've made in this regard in light of this new information.

[Carry4Life]

That is sad. Especially since the police department says they don't find fault with the design of the flashlight.
Could have been worse for all of us though. It could have been a CHL that did this.
We need to realize that if LEO's might use their firearm or tactical gear improperly despite their training. We are even at a greater risk of making a mistake like this with our tactical gear because most of us have little more than 10 hours of classroom time before we are let loose on the world of self-defense.
I encourage all of you to really consider my words concerning how you use your own tactical gear, and especially your firearms. Know your gear, practice safely and get consistent with knowing points of failure concerning both your gear, your tactics and your body, especially your trigger finger.

[Barbi Q]

That is sad. Especially since the police department says they don't find fault with the design of the flashlight.
Could have been worse for all of us though. It could have been a CHL that did this.

It doesn't make much difference to the victim who was shot.