Possible DQ, but it’s the RO’s fault?

[RJH]

22 minutes ago, IVC said:

 

These situations are frustrating because they are not explicitly addressed in the rules, they come down to interpretation of various general safety rules, and there is a serious potential for unsafe situations. 

If people think pointing a gun in someone else's general direction is ok, then i would really question their "interpretation skills"

 

22 minutes ago, IVC said:

 

I see it as the RO problem and only the RO problem. Once he gives you "make ready" command you are not only free to point down range, it's considered the safe direction. If he now modifies the rules because of a prop malfunction, he would have to make up some rules on the spot about what he is allowing you to do, then he would have to be next to you to ensure you follow those rules because there might be a misunderstanding between the two of you - these are not rules from the rule book, these are rules that the RO is creating on the spot in order to ensure the safety of the range. That's not a good position to be in as a shooter and it's created by the RO. 

Hope you realize that this^^ pretty much directly contradicts this:

 

22 minutes ago, IVC said:

 

At our range we generally require a handgun shooter to put his/her hands on the head if they are hot and someone needs to go down range. This is not required by the rules, but it is also not forbidden. It not only prevents any handling of the hot firearm by the shooter until explicitly authorized (again) by the RO, but it's a signal that the person is hot in case the fix takes longer and the shooter must be unloaded. I would not allow a hot PCC shooter while someone is fixing the stage - there is no holster and the hands are on the gun. It is inviting to the type of situation that you found yourself in and it's not fair to the shooter, not to mention that it is dangerous. 

If i can't trust a loaded and holstered shooter to not draw his gun while a person is downrange setting steel, i will have him unload.  If they are so dumb that they need their hands on head to understand that they can't draw, while a guy is downrange, maybe this sport isn't for them 

 

22 minutes ago, IVC said:

 

Hopefully we see a rule update where these types of issues are explicitly addressed.

 

 

I would generally disagree with this too, but after seeing some of the "interpretation skills" on this thread, maybe we do.....

[RJH]

24 minutes ago, DKorn said:

Even if he directly and explicitly had told me to aim at a target off to the other side that would have absolutely meant that my muzzle would be down range but nowhere near him, the right thing to do would still have been to refuse. 

 

 

The winning answer^^^

[motosapiens]

14 minutes ago, RJH said:

If people think pointing a gun in someone else's general direction is ok, then i would really question their "interpretation skills"

 

 

If you have shot uspsa, you probably are already aware that we point guns in people's general direction all the time, at pretty much every match, but as long as the magic 180 is respected, no one worries about it. It's pretty routine for targets to be shot at 150 degrees or more, and in those instances, either the RO or the scorekeeper is likely to be in the general direction of where the gun is pointed.

[SGT_Schultz]

14 hours ago, IVC said:

Most shooters are not certified ROs and they don't really know the details. If the RO tells them to do something, why or even how would they refuse? Based on what?

 

If the RO tells a shooter to do something that would violate one or more of the four universal firearm safety rules the shooter should either refuse or should modify his firearm's status before proceeding so that no safety violation occurs.

 

By the by, I don't have to wait for an RO to tell me to unload and show clear before doing so.  If I think it needs to happen for safety's sake, I will do it and inform (not ask) him.

[RJH]

16 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

If you have shot uspsa, you probably are already aware that we point guns in people's general direction all the time, at pretty much every match, but as long as the magic 180 is respected, no one worries about it. It's pretty routine for targets to be shot at 150 degrees or more, and in those instances, either the RO or the scorekeeper is likely to be in the general direction of where the gun is pointed.

Next time you are down range pasting, let someone start pointing a loaded gun at you. Please report back at what degree off of you is safe,  and what you feel is unsafe.  If they point it within a couple feet of you is that ok? 

[RJH]

1 minute ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

If the RO tells a shooter to do something that would violate one or more of the four universal firearm safety rules the shooter should either refuse or should modify his firearm's status before proceeding so that no safety violation occurs.

 

By the by, I don't have to wait for an RO to tell me to unload and show clear before doing so.  If I think it needs to happen for safety's sake, I will do it and inform (not ask) him.

 

 

This^^^

 

Personal responsibility and stuff. It amazes me how many people are willing to blame someone else for their lack of muzzle control 

[SGT_Schultz]

40 minutes ago, RJH said:

If people think pointing a gun in someone else's general direction is ok, then i would really question their "interpretation skills"

 

Hope you realize that this^^ pretty much directly contradicts this:

 

If i can't trust a loaded and holstered shooter to not draw his gun while a person is downrange setting steel, i will have him unload.  If they are so dumb that they need their hands on head to understand that they can't draw, while a guy is downrange, maybe this sport isn't for them 

 

 

I would generally disagree with this too, but after seeing some of the "interpretation skills" on this thread, maybe we do.....

 

In agreement 100%.  Some people can't think their way through a problem and must have it all laid out for them.

[IVC]

3 hours ago, RJH said:

Hope you realize that this^^ pretty much directly contradicts this:

Not even close. The rules we use at our range in situations like this are made up rules and they are as much a problem as what happened in this thread - arbitrary rules with more or less safety built in, not objectively evaluated and implemented on the spot. 

[IVC]

3 hours ago, RJH said:

If i can't trust a loaded and holstered shooter to not draw his gun while a person is downrange setting steel, i will have him unload.  If they are so dumb that they need their hands on head to understand that they can't draw, while a guy is downrange, maybe this sport isn't for them 

They don't need their hands to know they cannot draw, we use this so that *everyone else* knows they are loaded. If there is a delay, the person won't just walk away from the start position by mistake. If you have a better protocol, by all means share it so others can chime in. 

 

Again, it's a made up rule and the purpose is to have a visual confirmation. Sort of like having flagged PCC. 

[IVC]

2 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:

If the RO tells a shooter to do something that would violate one or more of the four universal firearm safety rules the shooter should either refuse or should modify his firearm's status before proceeding so that no safety violation occurs.

That's not what happened here. The OP didn't point his muzzle at the RO, the RO walked in front of the OP's muzzle.

 

There was a safety violation and there is no question that such safety violations should never occur. However, the safety violation wasn't by the shooter, but by the RO. If I wave my hand in front of your muzzle, is that your or my fault (we're not addressing whether it's a safety violation, it clearly is, we are addressing who committed the safety violation). If something like that happened, who should be DQ-ed, you or I? 

[IVC]

4 hours ago, DKorn said:

As the shooter, and especially as a trained RO, I should have recognized that pointing my muzzle down range while he was fixing the target was unsafe. Even if he directly and explicitly had told me to aim at a target off to the other side that would have absolutely meant that my muzzle would be down range but nowhere near him, the right thing to do would still have been to refuse. 

Agreed, but you didn't refuse and instead ended up in the situation that you describe in the OP. The discussion is about determining responsibility for the sweeping and whether it warranted DQ of *you*. 

[SGT_Schultz]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

That's not what happened here. The OP didn't point his muzzle at the RO, the RO walked in front of the OP's muzzle.

 

There was a safety violation and there is no question that such safety violations should never occur. However, the safety violation wasn't by the shooter, but by the RO. If I wave my hand in front of your muzzle, is that your or my fault (we're not addressing whether it's a safety violation, it clearly is, we are addressing who committed the safety violation). If something like that happened, who should be DQ-ed, you or I? 

 

You have your hands on the firearm.  You are in control.  That means you are responsible.  No one else.

 

If you rear end someone, you are guilty regardless of any actions (sudden extreme braking) of the driver in front of you.  If you're in control of a vessel or aircraft, you are responsible for anything that happens on it, to it, or caused by it, regardless of how it happened. 

 

I suspect you've never been in a position of having ultimate responsibility without the luxury of excuses (like I have been) and so this concept seems foreign to you.

 

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by SGT_Schultz

[Styro]

The stage designer should be DQ'd

The RO should be DQ'd

 

 

[IVC]

2 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:

You have your hands on the firearm.  You are in control.  That means you are responsible.  No one else.

Rule 10.5.5 must have been written by irresponsible sissies then - it calls for the RM in case the RO is swept to determine whether it's a DQ (responsibility of the shooter). We either change the rules or you're wrong. No, it's not a false dichotomy, it's the fact that we either allow for RM to make some determination (rule 10.5.5) or we go by your underlined rules above and it's always shooter's fault and sweeping is an automatic DQ. Can't be both. 

 

As for the personal attack about the luxury of excuses, I happen to be both a skipper and a pilot and I've done and still doing my share of dangerous sports and activities, so precisely because I do understand the role of checklists and protocols in creating safe environments, I also know the danger of allowing casual behavior when serious consequences can happen. 

[SGT_Schultz]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

Rule 10.5.5 must have been written by irresponsible sissies then - it calls for the RM in case the RO is swept to determine whether it's a DQ (responsibility of the shooter). We either change the rules or you're wrong. No, it's not a false dichotomy, it's the fact that we either allow for RM to make some determination (rule 10.5.5) or we go by your underlined rules above and it's always shooter's fault and sweeping is an automatic DQ. Can't be both. 

 

As for the personal attack about the luxury of excuses, I happen to be both a skipper and a pilot and I've done and still doing my share of dangerous sports and activities, so precisely because I do understand the role of checklists and protocols in creating safe environments, I also know the danger of allowing casual behavior when serious consequences can happen. 

 

I'm talking about a personal level of responsibility that goes beyond a script (rulebook/checklist/whathaveyou).  The one that says you own the outcome because you're the one in physical control of a deadly weapon.

 

I'm going to drop out now since we seem to be talking past each other.

[Part_time_redneck]

     I misread the OP's original post. As I was born and raised in MS you could say English was not my first language and reading comprehension not my strongest suit. OP was directed to go muzzle up which he did while someone went downrange. OP was then instructed to take hold of activator rope. As start position was holding activation rope, I incorrectly assumed the shooter was instructed to assume the start position, which was not the case. Even if he was instructed to assume the start position, he should have simply refused. However the shooter leveled the muzzle of a loaded gun while a person was downrange and the responsibility rest solely on him. Blizzard time. I incorrectly thought he was following RO instructions which is why I was so quick to also point a finger at the RO. 

     I am adamant in my opinion that the RO was deserving of immediate disciplinary action up to or including a DQ for knowingly walking in front of a loaded firearm. 

     No disrespect meant to anyone, just pointing out my faulty interpretation of the original post. My apologizes. Glad no one was perforated. 

     

[gunnerBU]

On 7/6/2020 at 9:36 AM, dmshozer1 said:

RO should NEVER leave the shooter, period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rifle up, someone in the squad does the necessary downrange work.

Patching a target, resetting a swinger, etc.

 I didn’t read the whole thread, but this^^^^^^

[motosapiens]

On 7/9/2020 at 12:01 PM, RJH said:

Next time you are down range pasting, let someone start pointing a loaded gun at you. Please report back at what degree off of you is safe,  and what you feel is unsafe.  If they point it within a couple feet of you is that ok? 

 

Perhaps you didn't understand my post, let me rephrase, If the gun is pointed within say, 30-40 degrees of you (not directly at you), what difference does it make if you are downrange or not? I would say whatever angle is safe to the side is also safe downrange, but I'm pretty good at math.

Edited July 13, 2020 by motosapiens

[RJH]

26 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

Perhaps you didn't understand my post, let me rephrase, If the gun is pointed within say, 30-40 degrees of you (not directly at you), what difference does it make if you are downrange or not? I would say whatever angle is safe to the side is also safe downrange, but I'm pretty good at math.

I look at this the same as I would a 180 violation. We have 180 violations because there are people up range not because it's inherently dangerous to point our gun in a particular direction, so anything breaking the 180 is a violation. It has little to do with exactly where the gun is pointed, just breaking the plane. And the reason we're worried about breaking that plane is because there are people up range. If there are people down range then pointing the gun down range is basically doing the same thing. The reason we have a 180 rule is because we don't want to have to monitor if they're within 20 degrees or 30 degrees of pointing at a person. USPSA has determined that anything breaking a 180 is a safety violation. I know that a guy being down range is not quite the same thing, but it seems pretty logical to use the same determinations for a DQ in this situation. I'm not worried if a guy is pointing within 5 degrees of you or 20 degrees of you if you're down range, if he points his gun down range at all when there are people down range he is going home. Muzzle up is the only semi safe Direction. Once again I'm not justifying the RO's actions in this particular case, but just because the RO does something unsafe, it does not justify the shooter getting to do something unsafe as well. If you don't see where I'm coming from that's fine, but I'm pretty much done with this discussion. And I'm not saying that in a pissed off manner , just tired of rehashing the same thing over and over and over again. Have a good one

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

 Muzzle up is the only semi safe Direction. 

 

everything you say is correct.... as a nitpicker, i must note that muzzle up is still within 90 degrees or  less of pretty much everyone on the range....

[Diver123]

Its black and white in my mind. If an RO tells you to point the gun uprange and you do it, thats on you and you go home. He tells you make ready and there is someone tapping you go home. Just cos the RO tells you to do something doesnt mean its a free pass. If he tells you just point the gun at that barrel and that barrel is 190........ bye you are going home. Does it seam fair? Maybe not but life isnt fair. You are solely responsible for your gun and where it points. The only small exception to this is if the RO trips you and you drop the gun or break the 180 provided you as the shooter couldnt have done anything to prevent it from happening, such as if you turn to run and the RO is in lala land but you decide hell im gonna keep going when you could have stopped and said interferance I would bet most RM would say you go home now!

[ima45dv8]

1 minute ago, Diver123 said:

Its black and white in my mind. If an RO tells you to point the gun uprange and you do it, thats on you and you go home. He tells you make ready and there is someone tapping you go home. Just cos the RO tells you to do something doesnt mean its a free pass. If he tells you just point the gun at that barrel and that barrel is 190........ bye you are going home. Does it seam fair? Maybe not but life isnt fair. You are solely responsible for your gun and where it points. The only small exception to this is if the RO trips you and you drop the gun or break the 180 provided you as the shooter couldnt have done anything to prevent it from happening, such as if you turn to run and the RO is in lala land but you decide hell im gonna keep going when you could have stopped and said interferance I would bet most RM would say you go home now!

Nicely put.

[Sarge]

9 minutes ago, ima45dv8 said:

Nicely put.

Disagree about getting make ready with a taper downrange. If the shooter can’t see him then that’s totally on the RO. Sadly I have seen this happen more times than I’d like and the shooter was never DQ’ed.

  On the other hand I have also seen many cases where the RO said make ready and the shooter pointed out a taper downrange

[ima45dv8]

4 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Disagree about getting make ready with a taper downrange. If the shooter can’t see him then that’s totally on the RO. Sadly I have seen this happen more times than I’d like and the shooter was never DQ’ed.

  On the other hand I have also seen many cases where the RO said make ready and the shooter pointed out a taper downrange

I do, too. And I think he (Diver123 does, too). I took his post as saying that if an RO gives you direction to do something unsafe or stupid, and you actually do it, that's on you.

 

But maybe I misread it...

[ima45dv8]

I'll add that this is why I always finish my last-walkthrough as the next shooter by checking to make sure the range is clear. To me, that's just too important.