www.police1.com
One that didn't cover the trigger and guard. And looking at that video the officers made a few more mistakes IMO. You have a combative suspect, 3 cops and a bystander in an elevator and you don't have complete control of the perp ? They didn't seem to be paying much attention to the bystander, who was wearing a shirt with a pot leaf on it. Certainly they need to rethink their equipment. No holster with an open trigger guard is acceptable for anything other than competition. They need to rethink their training protocols as well it seems.
"...I do agree that without the facts we shouldn't make any assumptions, however, this is just an informal group of us nitwits talking about gun related stuff so assumptions is pretty much what we do."Ah, my mistake.
As for the holster, the article stated that the suspect slid his finger into the holster and pulled the trigger on the officer's gun, while it was holstered. That alone indicates a breakdown in training or at least a breakdown in execution of training. It likely indicates a different set of criteria for holsters may be warranted as well. The Chief said as much in the article. We are taught in professional training classes that holsters that don't completely cover the trigger are dangerous. Particularly with striker fired weapons. And it's almost certain that officer was shot with a Glock of some kind.
I do agree that without the facts we shouldn't make any assumptions, however, this is just an informal group of us nitwits talking about gun related stuff so assumptions is pretty much what we do.
Well you would have to ask a police officer. And no one said " All these". We are talking about a specific department here. And as I said, in that article, which is the topic of THIS thread, the chief of police stated that They needed to look at their holsters. Furthermore it doesn't even have to be fully open. If your finger can slip into the trigger housing it is a dangerous holster, period. And there is no doubt the perp slipped his finger in there so.....
Still a dangerous holster.
....
a very sensible statement
As far as whether or not the holster is "dangerous" can depend on facts not yet in evidence. Holsters are not magic and just because a person may have been able to torque the gun and force a finger into the trigger guard does not automatically make it dangerous. How much force is required is important and the level of difficulty it would take to actually repeat this action in testing under controlled conditions would be rather important. Determining whether or not this weapon was properly secured to begin with is important, determining whether this offender is familiar with these type holsters is probably important. I would hold off on judgement until all the facts are in and reasonable test performed. Again, holsters are not imbued with magic pixy dust.
^ Yup. Again, in many cases, the use of today's most popular handgun-WMLs means a holster design that's somewhat compromised where it comes to the potential of something - be it an object or a finger - being able to interact with the trigger while the gun is still secured in the holster. With the light physically being wider than the frame of the gun, there's some geometric issues.....
^ The above is from Reddit member FlyingDog14, and left-to-right are as-quoted verbatim "Glock 20/Safariland 6285, Sig M17/Safariland 7390, Glock 19/old school Bravo Concealment." I could show the same, with my XDms with either the old Insight M6/M3(x) or Surefire X300, with my old Safariland 5188 bucket, RCS Phantom Light Bearing, or my Glock 32/X300, with my Dark Star Gear. My current EDC IWB from KT Mech? Not so much, but that's because the gun is paired with a small and slim Surefire XC1, a holster and light combo which would be unsuitable for open-carry in a duty/service context.....
Also one has to keep in-mind that the interaction does not have to be intentional/purposeful. That someone's finger, be it a child's or a slim adult's (or even the pinky of a rather larger adult that was forced into that opening due to the two individuals' physical, entangled fight) many just slip/pop in there (in the OP's cited case, because the suspect was literally attempting a gun-grab...who knows what the physical forces involved in trying to keep that grab from being successful may have inadvertently produced?) and literally be dislocated, fractured, or even de-ring'ed on the way out has little to do with the simple fact that said appendage caused the unintentional discharge.
These aren't fly-by-night, third-job-to-support-a-case-a-day-of-beer-plus-child-support kydex benders.
Is it dangerous? I don't know: maybe the designs can be further refined (and they have: and if it is the case that the Department failed to keep pace with modernizing equipment, a case can definitely be made, there) to reduce this risk, but a not-insignificant portion of this also has to do with the light's design. Sadly, in several cases, the lights with the better form-factor falls behind in other areas that are arguably just as important (output, reliability, and durability).
Regardless, as @KASHIRA-3 noted above, the weapons-retention techniques -as well as simple administrative procedures- which allowed this incident to happen are really what is at the crux of this issue, and needs to be addressed in addition to reviewing the holster/gun/light combo for possible excessive vulnerabilities, on a technical basis.
It’s Las Vegas, pot is legal, hard to walk down the strip without getting high.