Re: LE agencies using something besides .308/.223
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Driftwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would be reluctant to carry a weapon or ammunition that was not provided by your department.</div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why? What is the problem with using personally owned rifles? </div></div>
I carried a personal weapon for back up and off duty, but it had to be inspected and approved by the department armorer. I suppose the same could be true with rifles; however my department and their attorneys didn’t feel the same way. My personal 40X with hand loads or Federal Match ammo outperformed my issued M86, loaded with Remington 150 PSP ammunition, but that wasn’t the point. The department was not willing to accept the liability. I wasn’t willing to accept all the liability, even if they wouldn’t have stopped me from doing it.
Using your own rifle, without the departments’ written support and documentation, seems foolish to me. If you are going to use your own equipment, then you are going to be accepting more liability if you are sued civilly. Using a department furnished rifle and ammo, I can’t be held accountable for their selection if for some reason one or the other fails.
I was never allowed to modify any of my issued weapons, then or now. I currently work for a much larger agency. They still provide both my weapons and ammunition. They employ armorers to inspect the weapons to make sure they are properly maintained and that they are not altered. The departments I have worked for have all wanted to limit their liability, by keeping all weapons as purchased from the arms manufacturer. So in the event that something fails, they can possibly pass some liability off on the maker. The Remington trigger issue comes to mind. If you do anything to your trigger, you have just accepted the liability for that piece of equipment and let the manufacturer off the hook.
You seem to be much more comfortable accepting liability than I am. If your departments’ attorney gives you the thumbs up and you are comfortable assuming responsibility for anything that could go wrong real or imagined, I say go for it. The opposition only has to convince a jury that you were part of the 51% at fault in a civil trial to win.
I would agree that much of LE goes with “It worked in the past, it will work now”. When I started LE in 1989 we were still using wheel guns, there was a lot of resistance to change to autos. I am not saying there aren’t better calibers out there, I am saying there use is not the norm and for civil liability reasons, I would try to stay in the “norm”. I am not saying the 308 is better, just that its more the norm in law enforcement sniping.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Driftwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are involved in a shooting, good or not, you AND your department will be sued civilly, count on it. </div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Would this be true in a State that has a statute which says that if you were committing a felony at the time you can't sue for your injuries? </div></div>
My state didn’t have that statute. Did you violate said felons civil rights by shooting him? I am sure some shyster could convince a federal jury that you did. If he was able to, your state statute wouldn’t apply in the Federal court system, so, my answer would be yes. I don’t even know how well a statute would hold up in a state supreme court. I think its fair to say if you shoot someone regardless of who owns the firearm you stand a good chance of being sued civilly in any state.
In a civil trial its not a guilty/ innocent verdict. They can split it up among several different parties and assign fault to each one. At the end, if you pull the trigger and are only found 10% liable on the side that is determined to be 51% responsible, then you will only be responsible to pay 10% of the plaintiffs’ $1,000,000 award, which is more than I would want. As a law enforcement officer you do enjoy a limited immunity from civil litigation, so long as you stay within standard procedures and don’t, do anything that would “shock the conscience”. That limited immunity is not absolute though, if you deviate from standard procedures you could lose it. It’s your call with how far out of the norm you are willing to go. If you do choose to deviate from the norm, then you should have a very good reason that you can articulate, because there will be another attorney sharpshooting your decision in hopes of creating a little doubt in the mind of a juror.
To the OP, I would ask your departments’ attorney or better yet, I would ask your own attorney. My departments’ attorney made it very clear to us who paid his check and stated that we should all think of retaining our own attorney, as his responsibility was to his employer. He would protect us so long as it was in his employers’ best interest. However, if he could limit his employers liability, by assigning all or part to us, he would do so, as it was his job. That to me is throwing me under the bus. If you don’t think your departments’ attorney will do the same, you clearly don’t understand his legal responsibilities. While I am giving you some “legal advice”, I am not an attorney and you really don’t want to take legal advice off the internet anyway.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Driftwood</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact that most LE agencies use it as their primary round is helpful in civil litigation.</div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> How would this be helpful in litigation? What legal issue(s) does it address? </div></div>
It’s really been covered. Since you are in law enforcement, I assume you get legal briefs from your departments’ attorney. Anything you can do to limit your personal liability is a plus. The opposing attorney will try to make an issue of the fact that you are using some “experimental round” rather than the established norm. I know you are going to argue that there is no “norm”, however, if you were to take a poll of all the agencies in the United States and ask what caliber they use, the statistical norm will be .308/.223. I have already stated I don’t like the .223 as a sniping round because of its poor performance on barriers. That certainly doesn’t mean that those are the two best rounds it simply means they are what most departments are using.
Any attorney looking to make a dollar, will try to make an issue of the fact that you are not using one of those. They may say you were looking to kill the perpetrator rather than just stop him. Yes, a shot to the head is usually fatal, but in law enforcement you are simply shooting to stop the perp as quickly as possible. Some things are stupid, like why I was issued .38++ “controlled expansion” rounds to shoot oout of my issued.357 magnum. The guy on either side of the pistol really couldn’t tell the difference. It just sounded better in court to the department lawyers.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 308Shooter1911</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did I read someone suggest handloading for your duty rifle??? Seriously...YOU DONT WANT THAT LIABILITY!!!</div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What liability is it that you would be 'getting', and why would you not want it? </div></div>
You seriously can't be advocating using handloads in a sniper system for law enforcement duty rounds. I have no issue using the to augment practice. I don't think you can find a civil litigation attorney in the states that would tell you that is a good idea, unless he was hoping to one day go against you in court. You want to use vicarious liability to your favor. If something goes wrong, you want Federal, Winchester or whoever made your ammo to explain why. You attorney and department will do their best to let the maker share some of the civil liability pie and help in their defense in the law suit. What possible benefit could you really gain other than cost to make it worthwhile to use your own instead of Federal Gold Match or your departments favorite flavor? What ever it is if you use your own you assume all liability for how it will perform. You release the maker from their vicarious liability to some degree, just as you do when you alter a firearm from its manufactured state, to "Make it better". They will argue that you made it worse and you are the reason it failed. There isn't any reason I would ever give for someone to use their own hand rolled ammunition for LE duty ammunition. You can even make an argument that you should be practicing with what you carry not the cheaper reloads. Again there just isn't enough benefit to justify the risk.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If, as the OP stated, he has his personally-owned rifle; then let's say it gets chambered in 6.5-something, his rifle and whatever ammo he uses are approved by the department, and he qualifies with them, and the rifle is maintained like any other department weapon, and he keeps records/logs of his training with them like with any other department weapon, then can anyone articulate what, exactly, is the supposed secret-squirrel legal 'problem' that everyone presumes to know about but no one appears to be able to explain? </div></div>
There are plenty of attorneys that will explain it to you. It’s not secret squirrel, it’s just not what you want to hear. Why would you be looking for a legal explanation on the internet anyway? You can certainly do the above, but you will assume a bigger slice of the civil liability pie, plain and simple. I suggest you have a chat with your department attorney. I am not saying he won’t bless the above, but he would be in a much better position to explain the implications of the above decision to you better than I would be. I am not an attorney; I have just had to sit through a bunch of legal briefs given on “Use of force” by them.
I have always been fortunate enough, to work for a department / agency that supply me with very nice equipment; I understand not everyone is that lucky. I like my personal rifles better than my current rifles I am issued. I wouldn't dream of using any of my rifles on the job, even if I could get them in country. When you are involved in an LE shoot, your weapon is confiscated and inspected. They check to make sure everything is working properly and nothing has been altered. Why would they do that? It could also be put into evidence. There just isn’t enough benefit for me to choose my rifles over those supplied by my employer. I understand that others are more willing to take on the civil liability involved with using their own weapon or hand loaded ammunition, but I am not. Doing so without your departments written consent and approval is just foolish.
