Gun expert shot in hand sues PSNI

[xena]

Shared with the usual legal blah, blah, blah,...


Gun expert shot in hand sues PSNI  

Mr Woods' lawyers claim the proper safety procedures were not in place 
A police weapons specialist who shot himself in the hand is suing the PSNI.

Peter Woods, 50, was dismantling a gun at a police facility in February last year when the accident happened.

It is understood that he removed the magazine from a pistol, but a bullet in the chamber fired into his hand. He recovered from his injury.

(more on link...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7654926.stm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhh...  Seriously, how can you pop a round off into your own hand and then claim it was someone else's fault?  Especially when you're employed as a civilian weapons maintenance specialist!  I'm pretty sure I've never heard of any drills that included covering muzzle with your hand while easing springs.

 

[Teflon]

Claims in the article that faulty ammunition may of played a part - Seems to me the ammunition performed properly and the problem may be with the "expert"  }:^)

 

[Pte.Butt]

If he did proper safety precautions before stripping down the weapon, then the accident wouldn't have happened unless the weapon actually did malfunction. Good job  :

 

[JesseWZ]

I might be just an subordinate officer, but I'm of the understanding that we are trained to unload the weapon before stripping precisely so this doesn't happen...

 

[Greymatters]

There have been several cases over the past five years where claimants won because the products being used did not have 'adequate instructions for safe use' (or words to that effect) (i.e., the lady who successfully sued mcDonalds and won because the coffee cup did not identify that the contents were hot) ...

 

[Klinkaroo]

Guess we will now have to stick a big red warning label on the side of all guns stating to properly clear weapon before dismanteling, should we also put a sticker on there stating "Keep out of reach of children"?

 

[kkwd]

You can't put a warning label on the side of the gun, somebody to your side could get shot while you are reading it.
It would be better to put it directly on the muzzle so people are a danger to only themselves.

 

[PMedMoe]

You can't put a warning label on the side of the gun, somebody to your side could get shot while you are reading it.
It would be better to put it directly on the muzzle so people are a danger to only themselves.

Faulty ammo or not, he didn't clear the weapon.  Stupidiot!  :

 

[OldSolduer]

Didn't do his indiv safety precautions...he needs a good session of CSM counselling.....an expert who shoots himself. In the Infantry we call that a "Dumbass"

 

[Rodahn]

Didn't do his indiv safety precautions...he needs a good session of CSM counselling.....an expert who shoots himself. In the Infantry we call that a "Dumbass"

Exactly, remove the magazine, and confirm the chamber is empty as soon as you are given a weapon. At least that was what I was taught many, many moons ago....

I fail to understand how having a second person in the room would make the action safer.... Unless of course, the weapon is pointed at the second person, thereby avoiding injury to ones self!!! :

 

[Klinkaroo]

Exactly, remove the magazine, and confirm the chamber is empty as soon as you are given a weapon. At least that was what I was taught many, many moons ago....

Still taught exactly the same way

 

[Sig_Des]

There have been several cases over the past five years where claimants won because the products being used did not have 'adequate instructions for safe use' (or words to that effect) (i.e., the lady who successfully sued mcDonalds and won because the coffee cup did not identify that the contents were hot) ...

I think what would preclude him using this argument in court would be the fact that he is a so-called "civilian weapons maintenance specialist" ergo, he should have known better.

IMO, he should be looking at a new line of employment if he's gotten this dull in his skills.

 

[armyvern]

WTF!!??

His team argues that a second person should have been present to reduce the risk?

Since when did so-called "experts" (obviously I use the term very lightly as experts are well aware of the fact that they should perform ISPs) require babysitters?

What an idiot.

 

[Greymatters]

I think what would preclude him using this argument in court would be the fact that he is a so-called "civilian weapons maintenance specialist" ergo, he should have known better.  IMO, he should be looking at a new line of employment if he's gotten this dull in his skills. 

In many of the court cases I mentioned, common sense should have prevailed. I mean really, who needs to see a label to know that coffee is hot?  But somehow, they win...