If Finished perceived AD, is it a DQ??

[motosapiens]

On 12/25/2017 at 12:21 PM, Gary Stevens said:

Re: DNROI

 

It seems to me this train of thought has possible unintended consequences.

 

The next time a shooter fires a shot on the draw that hits 12 feet from them, can I DQ the shooter because I judge that their intent was not to shoot into the ground where no target was available?

 

Maybe transitioning from one array to another, without movement, and fires a shot between the arrays where no target was available. Can I DQ the shooter because I judged their intent was not to fire a round where no targets were available?

 

If not, why not, if I am allowed to judge intent?

 

that seems like a totally different situation to me. The shooter knows the gun is loaded, and is actively aiming and firing at things,  and cooks off a shot while prepping the trigger. Doesn't seem like a safety problem to me.

 

OTOH, a shooter who is clearly not aiming, and is unloading his gun and cooks off a shot that merely *happens* to go in a safe direction seems like a major safety problem to me. As I said above, I can easily imagine situations where it's not as clear-cut, but the way it's described, it doesn't seem like it takes a fortune-teller to divine the shooter's intent.

 

I totally understand your arguments, and if you were RM, I wouldn't have any heartburn over my call being overturned and someone else re-running the shooter, but as an RO/CRO, if it's obvious to me there was an unsafe AD, I'm not going to dress it up under some technicality and allow unsafe behavior to continue. As one astute poster mentioned above, the list of unsafe gunhandling examples is not all-inclusive, it's just some examples.

Edited December 28, 2017 by motosapiens

[Sarge]

3 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

that seems like a totally different situation to me. The shooter knows the gun is loaded, and is actively aiming and firing at things,  and cooks off a shot while prepping the trigger. Doesn't seem like a safety problem to me.

 

OTOH, a shooter who is clearly not aiming, and is unloading his gun and cooks off a shot that merely *happens* to go in a safe direction seems like a major safety problem to me. As I said above, I can easily imagine situations where it's not as clear-cut, but the way it's described, it doesn't seem like it takes a fortune-teller to divine the shooter's intent.

I'm trying to agree but the "intent" part of it causes problems for me. The shooter who is engaging targets and "cooks off a shot while prepping trigger" didn't "intend" for the gun to go off yet either.

[motosapiens]

6 minutes ago, Sarge said:

I'm trying to agree but the "intent" part of it causes problems for me. The shooter who is engaging targets and "cooks off a shot while prepping trigger" didn't "intend" for the gun to go off yet either.

probably true, but it's still a totally different situation to me. the rules don't say anything about intending for the gun to go off. But they do say something about the gun going off while unloading. the judgement of intent is more about whether you are certain the shooter was unloading when the unintentional shot went off. That's a dq. Shooting at stuff when the gun unintentionally goes off is NOT a dq. Seems pretty straightforward to me, but like I said, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to be overturned. 

 

Note that we also have to judge the shooters intent if there is an unintended shot while moving. Was he actually shooting at targets? if so, all is well. If not, DQ. How can you judge intent? Seems pretty obvious to me all the times I've seen it. We had one like that my 2nd nationals, AD on the draw, but further than 10' from the shooter. Troy thought about it long and hard, and questioned all 3 RO's separately to verify we thought the perp was moving but not shooting at targets (there were none available from that position), and he let the DQ stand. As I understand it, if the shooter had stood still and AD'd on the draw in a safe direction, *then* started moving, it would have not been a dq.

Edited December 28, 2017 by motosapiens

[Gary Stevens]

I don't think we have to judge intent on the things you mentioned.

 

Apply an action against facts and make a call. Shooter fires a shot, while moving, where no target is available, DQ. Intent is irrelevant.

 

Shooter runs past a target without engagement, FTE. Action against fact, intent is irrelevant.

 

The key is being sure of what you are seeing, no guessing, and no intent needed.

[Brooke]

17 hours ago, jester121 said:

 

Not to be overly pedantic, but the COF is not complete until "Range is Clear" is given. 

 

Not pedantic at all. You are exactly correct.I should have said shots are not prohibited by the rules until ICHDH is given. 

[Brooke]

17 hours ago, jester121 said:

 

Not to be overly pedantic, but the COF is not complete until "Range is Clear" is given. 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by Brooke
double post

[motosapiens]

13 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

I don't think we have to judge intent on the things you mentioned.

 

Apply an action against facts and make a call. Shooter fires a shot, while moving, where no target is available, DQ. Intent is irrelevant.

 

Shooter runs past a target without engagement, FTE. Action against fact, intent is irrelevant.

 

The key is being sure of what you are seeing, no guessing, and no intent needed.

c'mon gary, you know it's not that simple. there are lots of situations where a target may be available, but if the shooter is obviously not aiming or shooting at it, and the gun goes off while moving, you have to judge intent. similarly with FTE, sometimes it's crystal clear, other times it's not.

 

the shooter having the gun down, looking at it while unloading is one of the 'facts' that one can use to make a call if it goes off.

[Gary Stevens]

Perhaps it comes from my training in a previous life. I make calls based on facts applied to a rule set. If the facts and the rule set match up, then I make a call. Otherwise, I keep my mouth shut.

 

 

[ac4wordplay]

4 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:

Perhaps it comes from my training in a previous life. I make calls based on facts applied to a rule set. If the facts and the rule set match up, then I make a call. Otherwise, I keep my mouth shut.

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, how often do ROs here carefully observe the competitor's ULASC process?

 

Who here issues a 10.5.9 when they see it at ULASC? Who pretends not to see it, or to be uncertain that it occurred? Who chooses not to be that observant?

[noexcuses]

On 12/28/2017 at 11:40 AM, motosapiens said:

We had one like that my 2nd nationals, AD on the draw, but further than 10' from the shooter. Troy thought about it long and hard, and questioned all 3 RO's separately to verify we thought the perp was moving but not shooting at targets (there were none available from that position), and he let the DQ stand. As I understand it, if the shooter had stood still and AD'd on the draw in a safe direction, *then* started moving, it would have not been a dq.

 

Why? same results moving or standing still. An AD was still fired with no available targets, if a DQ was issued for one why not the other?

[Sarge]

8 hours ago, noexcuses said:

 

Why? same results moving or standing still. An AD was still fired with no available targets, if a DQ was issued for one why not the other?

Because

USPSA Handgun Rules, February 2014 Edition

10.4.6

A shot which occurs during movement, except while actually shooting

at targets.

 

[motosapiens]

9 hours ago, Sarge said:

Because

USPSA Handgun Rules, February 2014 Edition

10.4.6

A shot which occurs during movement, except while actually shooting

at targets.

 

exactly. because rules. You can do less safe stuff and get away with it when you are standing still and when not reloading or unloading.

[Thomas H]

On 12/26/2017 at 2:09 PM, MemphisMechanic said:

 

Who said anything about DQing someome for hurting their score?

 

I just think it’s often a poor ability to do math, unless you have forgotten an entire target array.

 

The entire thread (plus DNROI's article) is about whether or not a DQ makes sense for deliberately pulling the trigger after ULASC but before ICHD.

 

On 12/28/2017 at 1:25 PM, motosapiens said:

i think both are pretty similar. I support Troy's reasoning, and I would almost certainly call a dq on both situations.

Admittedly, it does bring a bit of subjectivity into the decision, but we already have subjectivity with pretty much *any* close call. If I thought there was reasonable doubt, and that the competitor might have actually known  the gun was still loaded, and was intentionally firing a shot, well sure, I might not make the call. I can easily imagine some situations that might be hard to decide.

 

Putting the above together with the below...

 

On 12/28/2017 at 1:28 PM, motosapiens said:

OTOH, a shooter who is clearly not aiming, and is unloading his gun and cooks off a shot that merely *happens* to go in a safe direction seems like a major safety problem to me. As I said above, I can easily imagine situations where it's not as clear-cut, but the way it's described, it doesn't seem like it takes a fortune-teller to divine the shooter's intent.

 

 

 

DNROI's situation was not the above situation.  In the article by DNROI, the shooter deliberately points the firearm in a safe direction while not moving, and deliberately pulls the trigger.  And the gun goes off. 

 

So---precisely what was unsafe about that situation?  (You say you support Troy's reasoning, which is why I'm asking.) And how was that "unloading his gun"?  We don't require aiming or using the sights at any other point in time during the course of fire, why would that be important suddenly now?

 

On 12/28/2017 at 1:40 PM, motosapiens said:

probably true, but it's still a totally different situation to me. the rules don't say anything about intending for the gun to go off. But they do say something about the gun going off while unloading. the judgement of intent is more about whether you are certain the shooter was unloading when the unintentional shot went off. That's a dq. Shooting at stuff when the gun unintentionally goes off is NOT a dq. Seems pretty straightforward to me, but like I said, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to be overturned.

 

So again, we have the "gun going off while unloading".  How is "raising the gun, deliberately pointing it in a safe direction, and deliberately pulling the trigger while not performing any other action on the firearm"  equate to "while unloading"?

 

That's why I'm curious about, and so far, every person who has attempted to answer giving a justification for the "while unloading" simultaneously has given a justification for DQing every single person who has fired a shot with a round in the chamber but no magazine in the gun.

 

That's the thing, to me----the OP's situation and DNROI's situation, to me, are completely different things.  The OP's situation occurs while in the process of manipulating the gun to unload it.  DNROI's situation doesn't.  It specifically says that the person points the gun in a safe direction and deliberately pulls the trigger.  There are no other firearms manipulations going on at the time. 

 

So how is that "while unloading," and if not, what justification is there for a DQ?

[MemphisMechanic]

@ThomasH

 

If we discount confusing “clarifications” and the like, in the world of Common Sense rules?

 

Someone nearly clearing the gun, seeing a mike, and delibrately sending the round in the chamber into it with a sighted shot ? Intentional, no DQ.

 

Someone sending a round off the bermyards from the nearest A-zone while extracting the magazine from the gun with their finger unknowingly on the trigger? DQ.

 

In between these two crystal clear examples there’s plenty of gray area. And in that area, unless you’re 100% certain the gun was negligently discharged? Benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter so you don’t go DQing people for what they were probably doing.

 

RO’s exist to keep people safe and the sport fair. Not to hunt for any possible reason to penalize competitors, until all fun has been leeched from the sport.

 

Edited December 31, 2017 by MemphisMechanic

[Thomas H]

11 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

@ThomasH

 

If we discount confusing “clarifications” and the like, in the world of Common Sense rules?

 

Someone nearly clearing the gun, seeing a mike, and delibrately sending the round in the chamber into it with a sighted shot ? Intentional, no DQ.

 

Someone sending a round off the bermyards from the nearest A-zone while extracting the magazine from the gun with their finger unknowingly on the trigger? DQ.

 

In between these two crystal clear examples there’s plenty of gray area. And in that area, unless you’re 100% certain the gun was negligently discharged? Benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter so you don’t go DQing people for what they were probably doing.

 

RO’s exist to keep people safe and the sport fair. Not to hunt for any possible reason to penalize competitors, until all fun has been leeched from the sport.

 

 

Agreed (for a definition of "negligent discharge" that follows the current USPSA rules regarding what NDs are actually DQs).  That's why DNROI's justification for a DQ for a shot fired while unloading makes no sense to me, since your first example would be a DQ under the exact same "while unloading" definition.

[motosapiens]

16 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

So how is that "while unloading," and if not, what justification is there for a DQ?

 

if it's not obviously 'while unloading' to you, the don't issue the dq. I've seen perfect examples of both scenarios happen more than once. One was obviously while unloading. One was obviously shooting at targets. It's not rocket surgery to tell the difference most of the time.

Edited December 31, 2017 by motosapiens

[Thomas H]

46 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

if it's not obviously 'while unloading' to you, the don't issue the dq. I've seen perfect examples of both scenarios happen more than once. One was obviously while unloading. One was obviously shooting at targets. It's not rocket surgery to tell the difference most of the time.

 

My question is that given that description in DNROI's article, what part of that is "during unloading"?  He is saying it is, which makes no sense to me, and saying we should issue a DQ, which I don't understand.  I don't want to issue DQs that I don't understand, but I also don't want to just randomly run the rules in a way that isn't correct.

 

I've already made clear how the OP's case is indeed during unloading to me, and DNROI's is not.  I'm trying to understand why someone who thinks DNROI's case is "during unloading" thinks so, based on the rulebook and how we've been running matches.  I've yet to hear why other than "he didn't actually mean to shoot" but that isn't a criteria we can use, because ADs (as a overall category) aren't automatically DQs in the rulebook.

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, Thomas H said:

 

My question is that given that description in DNROI's article, what part of that is "during unloading"?  He is saying it is, which makes no sense to me, and saying we should issue a DQ, which I don't understand.  I don't want to issue DQs that I don't understand, but I also don't want to just randomly run the rules in a way that isn't correct.

 

the way it is described, the shooter is clearly in the process of unloading, doesn't finish that process, and the gun goes off.  Unloading ends when the gun is clear. Of course the shooter could stop the unloading process, and *choose* to fire an intentional shot, but in this case it seems more than clear that the gun went off before the shooter was done unloading.

 

Started unloading. didn't finish unloading. gun went off. I don't see how it could be more obviously 'during unloading' than that.

 

Quote

A shooter on a Virginia Count Classifier finished his string of fire. The "if you are finished, unload and show clear" command was given. The shooter lowered his rifle, tilted it sideways, pulled back the slide and a round ejected, held the slide open momentarily, (maybe a second) to show the RO, let go of the slide and pulled the trigger before the RO could verify it was clear and no "if clear..." command was given by the RO. Because the shooter had not removed the magazine during that initial show clear, another round was chambered and when he pulled the trigger the gun fired down range hitting the berm between targets, also chambering another round. The RO repeated the “if you are finished unload and show clear" command, and the shooter did not realize the magazine was still in the rifle. The shooter did the exact same slide pullback ejecting a round, held it for a second, and let go of the slide loading another round but did not pull the trigger as the RO said the magazine is still in your rifle and that you just chambered another round. The shooter then said "oh, my bad", ejected the magazine and showed clear.

 

[Thomas H]

17 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

the way it is described, the shooter is clearly in the process of unloading, doesn't finish that process, and the gun goes off.  Unloading ends when the gun is clear. Of course the shooter could stop the unloading process, and *choose* to fire an intentional shot, but in this case it seems more than clear that the gun went off before the shooter was done unloading.

 

Started unloading. didn't finish unloading. gun went off. I don't see how it could be more obviously 'during unloading' than that.

 

 

 

So....what you are saying is that if you start unloading, you can't fire a shot until the gun is clear----so every single person who fires a shot with a magazine out of a gun is still in the process of unloading?  That's going to be a LOT of DQs at all sorts of times during the course of fire.  I've seen people drop a magazine, notice something, and fire a shot with the one round left in the magazine any number of times during the course of fire.

 

Because "intentional shot" doesn't appear anywhere in the rulebook, and at every other time during the course of fire, deliberately pulling the trigger while not moving while not performing any other firearms manipulation with the gun pointed in a safe direction isn't a DQ whether they mean for the gun to go off or not. 

 

So that's my question, really:  Are we making a new specific rule for the "ULSC" sequence in which "unloading" is defined as something different than everywhere else during the course of fire, except if it is an "intentional" shot (whatever than means, since it isn't in the rulebook)? 

 

No firearms manipulation is going on, other than the personal is deliberately pulling the trigger while pointing the firearm in a safe direction.  How anyone can look at that and call it "during unloading" is something I don't get.  We don't use the "until the gun is clear" as the end of the unloading sequence any OTHER time someone deliberately pulls the trigger while pointing the firearm in a safe direction---as such, this completely seems like trying to find a way to DQ someone who made a mistake (there's no doubt it is an AD) but didn't do so in an unsafe fashion (in our rulebook, ADs do not automatically equate to DQs, and a deliberate shot in a safe direction while not doing anything else is not a DQ at any other point in time).

 

If people are going to argue that this is a DQ "while unloading" then it means that people can't deliberately fire a shot in a safe direction while not moving and while not performing any other manipulation of the firearm once they have racked the slide or dropped the magazine until they have completely cleared the gun first. 

 

It really seems to me that this is simply trying to find a way to DQ someone because they pulled the trigger before the RO could say "if clear, hammer down."  I can't see any other reason for this application of rules that doesn't match how we apply those rules anywhere else during the course of fire.

 

 

[MemphisMechanic]

@ThomasH I can’t speak for everyone else who holds a timer in the world, but regardless of what the DNROI says? I don’t plan on suddenly DQing people for aligning the sights with the target and firing a delibrate makeup shot that occurs before “if clear, hammer down, holster.”

 

If someone else challenged me on it, I’d simply shrug and tell them it was clearly neither negligent nor accidental, and thus cannot be an AD or ND.

 

Aside from a very small percentage of jerks certified as ROs who were pulling such shenanigans already, I don’t think anyone else is going to suddenly try to DQ responsible gun handlers, either.

 

[motosapiens]

On 1/1/2018 at 8:02 AM, Thomas H said:

 

So....what you are saying is that if you start unloading, you can't fire a shot until the gun is clear----so every single person who fires a shot with a magazine out of a gun is still in the process of unloading?  That's going to be a LOT of DQs at all sorts of times during the course of fire.  I've seen people drop a magazine, notice something, and fire a shot with the one round left in the magazine any number of times during the course of fire.

 

 

 

no, that's not what i'm saying at all, and in fact I explained the difference between the 2 situations. There is an obvious difference between a shooter who stops the unloading process to fire an intentional shot and one who has an unintentional discharge while unloading. If you can't tell the difference, then you shouldn't make the call, but so far I have been able to *easily* tell the difference.

 

I get the whole idea of wanting the rules to be so clear and complete that you could just program a robot to be an RO, but that's not the way it is. Situations aren't that clear and RO's aren't robots, they are usually intelligent creatures who can tell the difference between stopping the unload process to fire an intentional shot and AD-ing during unloading.

[motosapiens]

12 hours ago, MemphisMechanic said:

@ThomasH I can’t speak for everyone else who holds a timer in the world, but regardless of what the DNROI says? I don’t plan on suddenly DQing people for aligning the sights with the target and firing a delibrate makeup shot that occurs before “if clear, hammer down, holster.”

 

 

I hope you don't think Troy's statement has anything to do with someone firing a deliberate makeup shot.

[MemphisMechanic]

5 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

I hope you don't think Troy's statement has anything to do with someone firing a deliberate makeup shot.

 

I can read.

 

The problem with this thread is that it got off onto a couple of very different hypotheticals (like “what about an *obviously* intentional makeup shot?”)  and I got mentally stuck addressing those.

 

I’ll let you guys return to the actual topic at hand.

Edited January 2, 2018 by MemphisMechanic

[Thomas H]

On 1/2/2018 at 10:05 AM, motosapiens said:

 

no, that's not what i'm saying at all, and in fact I explained the difference between the 2 situations. There is an obvious difference between a shooter who stops the unloading process to fire an intentional shot and one who has an unintentional discharge while unloading. If you can't tell the difference, then you shouldn't make the call, but so far I have been able to *easily* tell the difference.

 

I'm just still wanting to know how, when someone lifts the gun, deliberately points it in a safe direction, and pulls the trigger firing a shot (while not performing any other action on the gun), you are saying it is "while unloading."

How is that "while unloading"?

 

I've asked that several times, and you haven't been able to answer it other than by a "I know it when I see it" or an explanation of how the exact same set of actions in two different situations is somehow different.  And that doesn't work.  If there is nothing specific about that action that you can point to as being "during unloading," then it isn't "during unloading."

Similarly, if your justification for a DQ for deliberately pulling a trigger and firing a shot in a safe direction "during unloading" is equally applicable to taking a deliberate shot at any other time under the same circumstances, it means that the consequences you are planning on applying should match.

 

Towards the end of a course of fire, someone removes the magazine from the firearm.  Then, deliberately pointing the firearm in a safe direction, deliberately pulls the trigger while not performing any other sort of action on the firearm, and fires a shot.  Is that a DQ or not?

[Thomas H]

On 1/2/2018 at 10:05 AM, motosapiens said:

 

There is an obvious difference between a shooter who stops the unloading process to fire an intentional shot and one who has an unintentional discharge while unloading.

 

Situations aren't that clear and RO's aren't robots, they are usually intelligent creatures who can tell the difference between stopping the unload process to fire an intentional shot and AD-ing during unloading.

 

Thought I should add:

Unintentional discharges are not automatically DQs.  Similarly, accidental discharges are not automatically DQs.  (I though I'd mention them both since you used both terms.)

 

It is only a DQ if it is "during unloading."   And you still need to show how the exact same set of actions, performed twice, gives rise to one being a DQ, and the other one not being a DQ.   Because the rule for a DQ for firing a shot "while unloading" doesn't say "firing a shot accidentally or unintentionally while unloading" is says "firing a shot while unloading."

 

So if the exact same set of two actions occur, the fact that one is accidental and the other is not is NOT a defense against a DQ for "firing a shot while unloading."  Hence my question:  What part of those actions is "while unloading"?

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by Thomas H