No, pulling the trigger back far enough to discharge the firearm would tend to point it in its original direction. Squeezing the trigger takes far less force than rotating a holster attached to a belt. The gun would fire long before rotating as far as it had to for this shot. The gun had to be rotated before the shot. Something's seriously wrong with the PDs claim.

A 'me too' on the thought on how a weapon that's pointed at the ground in a holster could be turned that far AND accidentally discharged from a mere hug (when experts say it's nearly impossible if holstered correctly).

I'm certainly not anti-gun or anti-cop, but this is just plain odd.

And what exactly would be its "original direction"? Where does it state it was a waste holster attached to his belt? Where does it state what type of holster it was?

Although it was at his own home (where he could carry any way he wished), wouldn't it be feasible that he was using a concealed holster, which could have it pointed in an upward direction to begin with?

And what's to say he was not bent over at the time?

He was probably carrying a Glock as it is common for police. Glocks don't have a safety and when chambered and are very light to the touch. Most holsters for this gun have a guard so you don't accidentally pull the trigger taking it out. I am very careful with my new Generation 4. Maybe he did not have the guard on the holster? It can be carried pointed toward the back so the grips are right there when you reach in a coat. I bet this is what happened.

It is a tragic accident and she looked like a nice young lady. My condolences to the family.

It sounds like he was wearing a shoulder holstered weapon. In that case the weapon would be pointed rearward with the grip toward the front. That would be consistent with the victim getting shot in the chest while hugging the officer from the rear. She could have gotten her finger in the trigger guard from that position too if it were an older style holster. It sounds like everyone is assuming the officer was carrying Hollywood style in the waist band of his pants. My heart goes out to the family of the victim as this sounds like a tragic accident.

Kind of suspicious, I would think! This could only happen in Detroit!

slumpbuster, it was a waist holster, not shoulder harnessed so your scenario doesn't make sense. From the article:

Godbee said Parrish's weapon was in a waist holster made of a soft material and worn on the officer’s right side,

Seven2Seven, did you even bother to read the article? It clearly states it was a Smith & Wesson M&P 40 cal.

Same trigger saftey as a Glock.

Why did he have a bullet chambered in the first place? Aside from that, I have to wonder if the hammer was already back in the cocked position and then all it needs is a slight pressure on the trigger for it to fire. Things just don't add up in this case.

Dave: It was a semi automatic. You are talking revolvers. Big difference !!

No, he's talking about a single-action semi-auto pistol, like the Colt 1911, which requires the hammer to be pulled back (cocked) before the gun can be fired. Most newer pistols are double-action, though, so as long as there is a round in the chamber, they will fire if the trigger is pulled, regardless of what position the hammer is in. And I'm sure that most people who carry a concealed weapon do keep a round in the chamber, otherwise the gun wouldn't be ready to fire in an emergency, life-or-death situation, which would defeat the purpose of carrying it in the first place.

Ah, just read your post again, Dave, and I see now what you're asking. A double-action pistol with an external hammer does have a pretty hard trigger pull unless the hammer is pulled back first. Having the hammer in the cocked position (which is what you suspect happened here) does give you a much lighter, single-action trigger pull. I'm not familiar with the S&W pistol in question here, but sounds like it's similar to a Glock, which does not have an external hammer at all. If so, the gun would always be ready to fire, provided there is a round in the chamber; and the trigger pressure required is consistent on every pull (no hard first pull, as with a conventional double-action pistol), and is fairly light. It sounds like this gun's safety is also like the Glock's, which is inserted into the trigger face. I've never liked that design. I don't see how that qualifies as a safety at all, as it can easily be fired accidentally.

The mentality of people who insist on having a round in the chamber of a pistol with no safety eludes me. A Glock and apparently this S&W can hardly be considered to have a safety. Of course a concealed handgun may have to be drawn in an emergency but the second it takes to load a round in the chamber is probably not going to make a difference in whether the person lives or dies. However we see and hear time and again about self-inflicted gunshot wounds to lawmen and others who carry this type of gun. Now it has caused another death in an innocent individual while the officer was OFF DUTY and at a party. If he had been called there because of a disturbance and had drawn his weapon, I would hope that he would have still exercised more caution than he did as a party guest. I bird hunt, frequently with groups of friends, and I frequently call other hunters down for leaving a gun loaded when we take a break. It only takes an accidental bump to discharge a weapon and kill a friend. I saw a recent program partly sponsored by the NRA. It was on handguns and the speaker stated that the military has stopped using the type of handgun that has no safety. He went on to explain that handguns in the military all have true safeties and that military personnel spend a great deal more time on the target range learning their weapon than do civilians, including law enforcement. Maybe law enforcement agencies should require more safety instruction and time on the range as well.

Ever stop to think that maybe she wasn't really hugging him from the back??? On her knees in front maybe. That would make the story a bit more believable. Everyone wants to blame the gun.

So why is it acceptable for the police to have accidental shootings but the common citizen would already be charged with crimes?

Are the police the only people that can have accidents while the rest must be held accountable for their actions?

Where do the rest of us sign up so we can be above the law or deemed human?

Thinker, please think or, at least do some research. Civilians are not charged with crimes in a situation like this unless they aren't supposed to have a weapon, were engaged in some other illegal activity or the investigation finds some sort of criminal activity. I have read several stories recently where civilians whose weapons were accidentally discharged were not charged initially. Some were charged later on, once an investigation was completed and, I am reasonably sure that if this officer is found to be negligent or was involved in some illegal activity that lead to the shooting, he will be charged.

Don't cops in Detroit know to put the safety on their guns when they are in a crowd?

KaiEr

Did you even read the article? It does state that he was wearing a waist holster and that he was invited to a fish fry at a friends house not his. If he was bent over enough to point the weapon upwards he would have to bend to 90 degrees just to make the barrel horizontal. And what kind of waist holster concealed or not has the weapon facing upwards?

danimyl

"Miller had been invited by friends to the officer's home in the city's west side for a fish fry"

Maybe you should read the article correctly first before you criticize others.

Just a suggestion.

It was an accident. Sounds like everyone wants to be a detective. Wait for the report. I am sorry a young girl lost her life. It is really sad, but doesn't sound like it should be a criminal or civil suit.

Gil, I know it was a semi auto. I have quite a few of them myself including the exact same model that is mentioned in the article as well as several revolvers. This particular fire arm is a double action meaning you don't have to hammer it back manually to ring off the first shot but it does take a bit of force to pull it thru when the hammer is down yet it doesn't take much force to fire the weapon if the hammer is already manually cocked back. I have handle firearms in the service as well as being a military firearm instructor so I know what I am talking about. Why was there a bullet chambered in his? That is asking for an accident. Your comment lends me to believe you do not know too much about firearms and come on here trying to be all smarny and troll like.

BTW

While I say the hammer is back, the gun is actually an external hammer-less firearm but in order to chamber a round, the gun gets cocked automatically and the internal "hammer/firing pin" is brought back into the firing position. This, in my opinion, is an awful design and is involved in many accidental discharges. The only reason I own it is because my brother had to get it out of the house when he got married. I will give it back when he gets divorced. ;)

As for the comment about cops not facing the same criminal prosecution as a civilian, I totally agree. Here in California they the "Peace officers bill of rights" which means they never get their name in the paper until an internal review is done while your name would be plastered on the front page the next day and they also have a 1 year statue of limitations. This is BULL$HIT. Right now the wife of the police chief of Oceanside is going to jail for grabbing her husbands gun and firing 2 shots at cops responding to a domestic dispute. If this happened to me I would be charged for not properly locking up my gun and could go to jail for many years and just this week in Northern Ca., a cops kid shot and killed them self when they got a hold of their fathers unsecured service firearm. I doubt either one will face charges.

...a concealed handgun may have to be drawn in an emergency but the second it takes to load a round in the chamber is probably not going to make a difference in whether the person lives or dies.

Jack, that depends to a great extent on exactly what type of situation you happen to find yourself in. If it's an armed robbery situation where the perpetrator is holding you at gunpoint or knifepoint and you are looking for any momentary distraction that might give you the chance to pull your own weapon, you haven't got a chance unless you've got a round in the chamber. Being prepared for situations like this is, for many people, the main reason they choose to carry a concealed handgun in the first place. After all, if the perpetrator isn't armed, you're usually not justified in using your own weapon. So if you ever do need to pull your gun and use it, it will almost certainly be against an armed adversary. Keeping a round in the chamber is the only sensible way to carry a concealed handgun, in my opinion. That being the case, a reliable external safety, or at least a conventional stiff double-action trigger pull on the first round, is an absolute requirement for any gun I might decide to carry concealed. I'd never consider carrying a Glock, or any similar handgun.

Cite one armed robbery where that situation has occurred and then look at all the people who have been shot by a Glock or a Glock-like gun. Just cite the ones who have been killed accidentally and that will be more than enough to prove my point. Part of my argument is the very fact that if a law enforcement officer, or anyone else who carries professionally allows himself to be taken by surprise, it is his own fault in part and innocent people should not suffer from that mistake. If a criminal comes up behind you and shoves a gun in the back of your head it will matter little if the gun has a chambered round or not. There are a lot of other semiautomatics that allow a round to be carried in the chamber with relative safety. What I cannot understand is why a lot of police departments do not allow the Browning High Power to be used. It has a safety and is safer than a Glock or other guns without a true safety and it has an inertia driven firing pin that will not fire a round if the gun is dropped, even if the hammer is down and the safety is off. As far a double action triggers are concerned, they are nearly the same on a pistol as a revolver and I have less of an argument in that case. I own a Glock. It is accurate. I never carry a round in the chamber. The part about being taken by surprised boils down to one of the duties of the profession, which is eternal vigilance.

Even with eternal vigilance, you don't always have time to chamber a round in an emergency. When a police officer approaches a car he's just pulled over and the driver decides to pull a gun and start blasting away, the officer doesn't have the time to cycle the gun's slide and chamber a round. And if the assailant's first shot happens to incapacitate one of the officer's hands or arms, cycling the slide may be impossible. He wouldn't have a chance in that situation. As soon as the first shot is fired, he's got to be able to respond instantaneously. I have to believe that our police officers have the good sense to keep a round chambered when on duty. I personally favor SigSauer pistols, which have no external safety but do have a stiff trigger pull on the first shot. It would be pretty hard to fire one accidentally. Still, if I were to carry a concealed pistol, I'd probably look at Beretta or some other model with an external safety, for the additional peace of mind that would provide.

Sure he does. At the point when he pulls the car over he should then put a round in the chamber before he gets out of his vehicle. That is an entirely different situation. He is in a perilous situation and in that situation he should have a loaded gun. When car he pulled over has driven off, then he has time to remove the round from the chamber again, which in fact is a useful way of insuring that the spring in the clip is functioning properly. My contention is still that if the person he pull over intends to kill him that person will get a shot off and at that point the officer's ability to return fire and how good a shot he is will decide the outcome. The person firing the first shot almost always has to be the other guy in that circumstance and how good a shot he is will depend on whether or not the officer can return fire at all.

Being vigilant enough to have loaded his weapon before approaching the other vehicle is what i am talking about.

Interesting concept, but totally unworkable in the real world. When you consider how many cars an officer must stop in an average day on speeding patrol, that's an awful lot of chambering and unchambering of rounds. Cops have a lot of other job duties they need to attend to, and don't have the time to continually fiddle with their guns before and after each stop. And if, just once, he forgets to eject the round after the stop, then you've got the potentially dangerous situation of him carrying a loaded gun while thinking that it's unloaded. He'd be better off leaving a round chambered for his entire shift and treating the gun with the caution and respect that all loaded firearms demand.

One of an officer's main duties is to carry and safely maintain his sidearm. It takes only a few seconds to load and unload it while he is still in a secure setting. Every gun should be treated as if it is loaded which is what got the woman in this post killed in the first place. By repeatedly loading and unloading the gun, the officer will be more likely to make it part of his natural routine. I don't consider being cautious "fiddling". At least you concede that the gun should be unloaded between shifts, which is not what this officer practiced. Again, way more accidental shootings with a loaded gun than shootings of officers on duty with an unloaded gun are reported.

"I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding how a weapon that's pointed at the ground can be turned literally 110 degrees minimum to be in an upward position to strike someone."

One possible, even probable, scenario is the cop is dancing in front of her, bumping and grinding his butt into her while she pantomimes either slapping his rear end or riding him like a horse - I'm sure most of you have seen that kind of bump and grind dancing at a club or party.

Anyhow, as he's shaking his behind in her direction, he leans forward with his waist perpendicular to the floor, almost like a football 3 or 4 point stance, thus forming a 90 degree or so angle of waist and lower limbs. The holster is already angled 20 or so degrees, so that's your 110 degree angle right there.

And because of the excessive shaking and bouncing around and up and down, that might've caused the gun to slip or jump a bit out of the holster at some point, and when falling back down into place the trigger snags on a fold of clothing or something thus cocking it, and so all is then set for the tragedy when the gun is jostled.

I meant to write the *hammer* snags on a fold of closthing or something and gets cocked

I think your scenario seems the most likely, Khalid.

"Another One Bites the Dust" was being played while she was doing her dirty dancin'.

Sometimes having a fetish for someone in uniform can be a negative attraction.

Khalid-2395974 The firearm in question doesn't have a hammer. It is a double action semi-automatic sidearm that has no hammer or external safety. It does have a very, very long trigger pull. Once the gun is fired then you only have to release the trigger part way in order to pull it and fire again. Something sounds fishy about how this incident occured. Maybe the off duty officer was standing on his head while getting head. Now that may not seem likely it does sound interesting.

Many people who carry weapons for their career or with a concealed carry permit feel better to have it on at all times. I prefer my husband to keep his on his person as that makes it less likely to be found by little hands (who learn more than we give them credit for...my 6 year old saw me putting in my itunes password once and remembered it well enough to purchase a new app).

That being said I am suspicious...what I know of semi-automatic weapons it is nearly impossible to misfire.

It's not about fear or timidity, any more than having a fire extinguisher is about fear or timidity...

Nobody makes plans to have to use a fire extinguisher to put out an accidental fire, but should the need arise, those who are prepared will be glad they were. Those who are not, will certainly regret it.

Similarly, nobody makes plans to need to use a gun to defend themselves. If that need ever arises, and you are prepared, you will be glad you were. If that need arises and you are unprepared, you'll be in for a lifetime of regret... albeit, probably a very SHORT lifetime of regret.

If you won't leave the house without a gun, you're scared. It's that simple

It is clear to me you don't get it EarlyOut! There are dozens of reasons people carry guns, and very few of those reasons are being scared, but I'm pretty sure you couldn't grasp that concept.

That's like saying that if you wear a seatbelt, you're scared. If you have a fire extinguisher, you're scared. If you have health insurance, you're scared. If you have a spare tire, you're scared.

I think you're either a troll, or completely retarded...

There are dozens of reasons people carry guns....

...all of them involving an exaggerated apprehension about what might happen to them. They're all frightened. You can wriggle and dance all you like, but this is an inescapable truth. Those of us who don't ever carry weapons are the ones who aren't living in fear. We'd be even happier if you were unarmed as well, but we won't let that deter us.

I think EarlyOut is a munchkin and lives in OZ.

Those that must carry guns are not afraid, because they can carry guns!

Why would you prefer that other lawful citizens were unarmed? Is it because you're scared of inanimate objects?

Stop wearing seat belts, cancel all of your insurance policies, keep all your money in cash, in your home, and don't worry about locking your doors when you leave. After all, what are you so paranoid of?

Must suck to go through life so ignorant and irrational...

Why would you prefer that other lawful citizens were unarmed?

Because most of them aren't particularly bright, and often exhibit remarkably poor judgment. Think George Zimmerman. They're safer without weapons.

Those that must carry guns are not afraid, because they can carry guns!

Exactly. Without their guns, they'd be scared sh*tless.

You guys are hilarious.

I'm pretty sure you couldn't grasp that concept

Thanks Earlyout, you just proved my point above! Let me guess, you're also one of those who thinks the US Constitution is outdated too, right?

Let me guess, you're also one of those who thinks the US Constitution is outdated too, right?

Nonsense. The Constitution has stood the test of time, provided we understand that it provides a flexible concept of government - it's a document that can adapt to changing conditions. If it laid out everything in black and white, with no shades of gray, no ambiguities, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to interpret it. But it would also be a dead document. Pretending that we live in the 18th Century is great if you're kinky for tri-cornered hats, but otherwise....

Do you have a right to bear arms? Yes, you certainly do. You also have an inalienable right to say incredilbly stupid things, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea, does it? I won't try to restrict your right to bear arms. But I have the right to label it the act of someone who's afraid of boogeymen.

Retarded troll it is Austin.

#3.14...Pot calling the kettle black?!

EarlyOut,

You said that (and I quote you here) "Because most of them aren't particularly bright, and often exhibit remarkably poor judgment. Think George Zimmerman. They're safer without weapons"

First, George Zimmerman is not indicative of the majority of lawful and responsible gun owners. I am a gunowner and I do carry a concealed firearm regularly and legally. I am also a certified range officer, a competitive shooter, a Hunter Education instructor, and a mother. When I'm not carrying my firearm, I store it in a locked gun safe that only my husband and I have keys to, and those keys are in our direct control at all times. I don't look for opportunities to use my firearm, but I have the ability to defend myself and my family should the need arise. I am no more afraid than the average citizen who is informed about the state of our country and the current crime rate. Paranoia and preparedness are two completely different terms that you should look up in the dictionary.

Are those the kinds of remarkabley poor judgement to which you were referring? And in case you're going to dismiss me as not being particularly bright, I graduated college in 2007 with a 3.96 GPA, with honors on the Dean's list. I'd say I'm equipped for any battle of wits or reaason that you could initiate.

Bottom line is this... You're talk out of your rear about things of which you have no real insight or knowledge Go back under your bridge and stop trying to sound intelligent and important.

Austin - So if wearing a gun becaue you are autjhorized to is more a sign of being prepared for your job than being scared/intimidated, why don't firemen carry fire extinguishers on themselves when they are out partying or out at the local eatery? After all, one never knows when the diner may go up in flames.

How many firemen carry their fire extinguishers with them around their own house while partying?

Having a gun and wearing it all times - including inside your own house and at a frickin party is the same as owning a fire extinguisher? Really?

Do you guys go everywhere - including moving from room to room in your own house - hugging your fire extinguisher?

Look at any professional and I'll bet you'll find they keep their vehicle prepared for something they're familiar with. I'll bet most firefighters have extinguishers in their cars. I'll bet most police officers keep traffic safety stuff in theirs, and I'll bet the car of a medic has a pretty extensive first aid kit.

I'll bet that a firefighter doesn't carry an extinguisher around the house, but it wouldn't surprise me if they had one in the kitchen geared for grease fires, one by the fuse box geared for electrical fires, one by the fireplace, one outdoors next to the barbeque, and a few general purpose ones around the house if one of those happened to be too far away. It's not being scared of fire, it's being prepared.

Carrying guns is a similar thing, it's being prepared. The argument about people doing it because they're scared is somewhat valid, but with human nature as it is, I don't blame anyone who deems it appropriate to keep something like that handy. One of my friends continually says "I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."

My wife is a firefighter and a paramedic. We have fire extinguishers in all of our vehicles, several in our home, in easy to access places, on our boats and waverunners... Yup, we have access to a fire extinguisher everywhere we go.

The difference is that with fire a extinguisher you don't have to physically have it on your person when the need arises. The fire doesn't shoot you or pursue you if you have to run away for 5 seconds to go grab the nearest one. Guns are slightly different, in that if you need it, there's probably no option to run inside and grab it, before you're killed. If fires were sentient beings, then carrying one on your person might be more appropriate.

Congratulations, "thinker," you fail at logic.

And it wasn't his house. He was at someone else's house. READ THE ARTICLE.

If the cop is going to carry a gun perhaps bumping and grinding on the dance floor is bad judgement. I don't care if you are a gangsta or a police officer; guns have no place on a dance floor. The police officer deserves discipline for this.

I think we can ALL agree that there was some bad judgement going on here. Sounds like his holster was poorly suited to the task, and there's something VERY fishy about the assertions that it just "went off". We can all agree that this should never have happened. However, responsible carrying of a firearm is being demonized unfairly. Mark Zimmerman is a racist idiot. He does not represent the majority of firearms owners/carriers. Based on the limited information we have about this, we can assume that the officer involved also practiced some pretty poor judgement in order for this incident to have happened. Again, these rare sorts of incidents are hardly grounds to demonize the entire community of gun owners, and those who practice their rights to carry for self defense.

Millions of crimes are stopped every year by legally owned/carried firearms, often without any shots ever being fired, and even in cases where shots are fired, the perp lives.

You are more likely to drown in a swimming pool than you are to die of a gunshot wound. Where is the campaign to outlaw swimming pools? Nobody NEEDS a swimming pool...

Meant to say the per OFTEN lives...

The really sad part to this whole issue is that, as smart as the police chief must be, he was stupid enough to think that people would be even more stupid and accept his lame excuse and investigation. Even idiots recognize the smell of BULL$H!T.

Where is Momma Trayvon when they need her? She should be stirring up the media and public into a more thorough investigation with charges to follow.

Mr. KaiEr,

Please pay attention. The article did mention that it was a waist holster on the officer's right side and that it was made of soft material, which makes the rest of the Chief's statements suspect.

Powdermonkey,

Maybe you missed it in the article but the gun did indeed have a safety on it.

According to the Detroit News, the gun, described as a Smith & Wesson M&P 40-caliber semi-automatic, did not have an external safety, but did have an internal safety in the trigger.

Now another question comes into play I haven't seen here or even asked by any of the reporters during the news update by the Detroit police dept and that is,
Why wasn't the safety on this gun engaged while the gun was in his holster? or am I wrong in my thinking of the style of the safety? (Should be a red button right above and behind the trigger?) If that's the case then my apologies.
A safety on any gun is only useful if and when it is used so, IMHO I'm sort of leaning towards the officer not holstering or properly preparing the gun prior to being holstered. (if that even makes sense?)
I'm not trying to finger the police officer either, Just hoping I'm wrong about the safety but only time will tell now.

Either way this whole thing is a horrible tragic accident and I wish the officer my best and my condolences to this family who lost their loved one. Such a sad ending for such a beautiful lady, may she rest in peace.

The trigger safeties I've seen have a button just like an external safety, it just happens to be actually on the trigger, so it does seem like the safety wasn't engaged in this incident (would be hard to disengage the safety and pull the trigger through the soft holster, one would think). I have a gun with a grip safety (usually called a lemon squeezer), if your hand isn't squeezing the grip it will not fire.

An internal safety is to prevent the gun from firing if it's bumped or dropped. There's no user input. As you pull the trigger the safety releases.

the police and DA and, some other mentalities, routinely declare a lawful weapons carrying citizen/suspect 'paranoid', 'unstable' and/or lives in fear of 'invisible demons' and other terms to discredit his character. The police officer, who is not at this time considered a suspect, may have a departmental requirement to carry a firearm at all times, it may be a departmental option or it may be his choice because of his environment and the people around him. Whatever his situation, it is a tragic and painful position for a career officer with so many years on the force.

The police office... may have a departmental requirement to carry a firearm at all times....

No, there is no such requirement, as clearly stated in the story. The "environment," in this case, was his own home, and the "people around him" were all his invited guests, or their close friends.

Reading comprehension problem?

The reason for wearing your "piece" while off-duty in your own home is the same for most cops - manhood substitution. When you are lacking in physical attributes and mental maturity you compensate through artificial means.

Stupid people do stupid sh!t, he's a stupid cop, end of story!!

Did she eff you in the @ss???

ha ha now that was funny right there! she better hope he didn't have a "holster made of soft matierial" while she was hugging him from behind.

It's Smith&WESSON Augie.

I own a S&W Sigma .40 and you are right - - As the safety feature it has a long and STRONG trigger pull in place of a "safety" switch. Unless the trigger pull weight has been altered - by a gunsmith - this weapon is not easy to fire and tends to "pull" either left or right, depending on which hand it is held in when fired. You have to WANT to fire the weapon because it requires a considerable amount of trigger pull. It is definitely not a hair trigger weapon unless it has been modified.

I have considerable trouble with it being "accidentally" fired no matter what kind of dance they were doing. One post said that they were doing the "Bunny Hop" and she had her hand on his hip. It is enyirely possible that she had her hand on some other anatomical part in the same area. When all is said and done, I believe that three people are involved in this.