tightloop Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 The safety aspect is inherent within the sport...and if you can't be safe, I will be the first one to the car..but having said that...shooting, safety, and managing the COF are/should be what is on the shooters mind...not looking out for the RO.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Hey...lookie what I found right on the front page of the IDPA website... The 4 rules of gun safety The 1st Law of Gun Safety - The Gun Is Always Loaded! The 2nd Law of Gun Safety - Never Point A Gun At Something You're Not Prepared To Destroy! The 3rd Law of Gun Safety - Always Be Sure Of Your Target And What Is Behind It! The 4th Law of Gun Safety - Keep Your Finger Off The Trigger Until Your Sights Are On The Target! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p99shooter Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 After the shooter blew past the RO, I think they should have the presence of mind to perceive that the RO is in front of them now, and be able to control their muzzle direction. The fact that the SO didn't say behind the shooter is the SO's fault, but the SO didn't make the shooter point the gun at him. Send both of them home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I have twice had to tell an MD that a DQ would stick or I would leave instead so I didn't have to watch him turn loose a proven danger on the range. So far I have prevailed but I am watchful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Well it isn't written down anywhere, but what do reckon the IQ of any RO might be who lets himself get in front of the shooter....bet you could count it on the fingers of ONE hand...Now is that the shooters fault....don't think so... Do you spose that RO inspires confidence in the rest of the shooters...my suggestion is to reshoot the shooter, and replace the RO with someone who knows what they are doing and can keep out of the way and still do their job... I agree that we can disagree on this one...Flex... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynes_world_45 Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 After the shooter blew past the RO, I think they should have the presence of mind to perceive that the RO is in front of them now, and be able to control their muzzle direction.The fact that the SO didn't say behind the shooter is the SO's fault, but the SO didn't make the shooter point the gun at him. Send both of them home. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Okay so what do you do if you end up in a situation where the RO breaks your 180? Can the shooter stop himself at that moment and demand a reshoot? I know this can open up a huge can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasmap Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 (edited) I think the responsibility for the loaded gun ought to be on the person that is actually holding the loaded gun. DQ The loaded gun wasn't in question. The SO not moving out of the way is. The shooter was running the course of fire within the rules and descriptions. It is COMPLETELY the SO's responsibility to keep himself out of the way. The shooter did his part. By your reasoning a mad lunatic can run downrange and be swept and the shooter would be DQ'd. Edited June 20, 2006 by jasmap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 From my view - both arguments presented have a lot of merit. The argument aside. I am taking away from this thread the firm thought that should I ever have to stop, slow down of alter my movements during my run through a COF I will immediately and loudly proclaim foul and demand a reshoot. I do hope the SO/RO will have the courage to recognize and acknowledge the problem as their own and grant the reshoot without giving me grief about it.... I am glad this did not happen to me. I very well may have been invited to never come back after the ensuing discussions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 The shooter should get a reshoot because the SO interfered with his COF. The shooter should get a DQ for allowing the muzzle to cover the SO. The DQ trumps the reshoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waynes_world_45 Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 The shooter should get a reshoot because the SO interfered with his COF.The shooter should get a DQ for allowing the muzzle to cover the SO. The DQ trumps the reshoot. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p99shooter Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Okay so what do you do if you end up in a situation where the RO breaks your 180? Can the shooter stop himself at that moment and demand a reshoot? I know this can open up a huge can of worms. The shooter could claim RO interference and get a reshoot, as long as he doesn't sweep the RO. If the RO knowingly, willingly jumps in front of a muzzle like a madman, he shouldn't be invited back to the range. If the shooter is ultimately responsible for safety, doesn't she / he have a right to stop herself / himself if she / he perceives an unsafe situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 If the shooter is ultimately responsible for safety, doesn't she / he have a right to stop herself / himself if she / he perceives an unsafe situation? If the shooter perceives an unsafe situation the shooter has an obligation to stop rather than put anyone in a life threatening situation. I'd much rather blow a stage than have to do all the paperwork involved in shooting someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 These are Games we're talking about, and no one's life is worth the risk. Scores be damned -- if you see anyone about to get covered with your muzzle, Stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootingirons45 Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 What about Safety Rule S1 (A) ? Endangering any person, including yourself? I think the DQ should stick. The shooter knew he was going to be moving fast. The SO didn't. Perhaps a word of caution to the SO from the shooter would have been appropriate. I think the current rule book tops the old video. I did a quick look through the book and couldn't find anything about SO interference and reshoots. Just that the SO should stay out of the way of the shooter. Obviously the SO didn't stay out of the way. A reshoot was the right call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 It is possible for a shooter to get behind the SO and not flag him. But if the shooter definitely flags the SO it's on the shooter. SO and MD is right to DQ if that happens. Also remember there is no 180 in IDPA. MD's would be wise to clearly indicate the muzzle safe zones in their COF's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precision40 Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 It's obvious there were some serious errors made on both parts, but in MY opinion, an SO's inability to get out of the way should in no way be an excuse to point a gun at another person, unintentional or not. Rulebook or no rulebook, you point a gun at someone at my range, your day is over. Chalk it up as a lesson learned. DQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COF Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I think there's been a lot of hyperbole and a lot of absolutes in this thread without finding out the specific facts of what happened. We know that the shooter got past the SO and the shooter swept the SO with his firearm, but that is all we know. Did the sweep happen because the shooter turned and the SO was in a place he wasn't supposed to be? Was the shooter's finger on the trigger? Did the shooter stand there pointing the gun at the SO or did it veer off when he realized what had happened? Was this an experienced SO or a neophyte? These are all questions I'd be asking as an SO/MD. If the shooter backed up beside the SO, but didn't see him in his peripheral vision because he was focused on shooting, then it was in inadvertant sweep caused by the SO being out of position and being within the safe muzzle points of the COF. This is interference by the SO and a reshoot is in order. From what I've read this seems to be the case rather than a blatant sweep or the muzzle coming past the safe muzzle points. If this happened, it'd be an automatic DQ. Obviously, the SO let himself get out of position and should've stopped the shooter before he got past the SO. I teach SO's to position themselves to stay out of the shooter's way. If the shooter has options on which way they're moving, then the SO needs to ask the shooter which way he/she is going. If the SO is familiar with the shooters, he should know who the speed demons are and who moves at a more sedate pace. I don't ask every shooter that comes to the line what they're 40yd dash time is, but if I don't know the shooter, I will give them a little more space. At the same time, I'm not going to be standing 2yards away from the shooter because I can't control they're actions from that distance. I think we can all get some valuable training from this incident becasue if makes us think about what we would do in that situation. I don't think calls for tar and feathering the shooter, or SO, or both, and running them off the range on a rail serves any purpose. This was an unfortunate incident that I'm sure everyone involved would rather it never happened. The important thing is that no one was hurt and both the shooter and the SO will be thinking about this in the future. Yes, it will slow the shooter down for a while and make the SO more caustious, but they will be be better for the lesson learned. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike4045 Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I have never swept an RO with a muzzle, but after running over a few of them I do warn them to stay back. It seems to work pretty good. I have also had a couple of them who I have hit while going for the draw. I stopped and got a reshoot. It has taught me that when I RO to give the shooter as much room as possible. There is no need to be on top of the shooter in most cases. I don't crowd shooters, because I don't like to be crowded while shooting. As far as DQ they both are at fault, so I won't add anymore to that. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdmoore Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 For me, blame rarely rests squarely on one party (in life in general). For instance, kids watch violence in video games and then act out that violence. There's plenty of folks with some responsibility (parents, game makers, game sellors, peers, ... oh yea, and the kid) Point is I think all would agree that neither party is without fault, so we should be asking A. If both have even a little fault, do they both get DQ, or .... B. Should we determine if there is enough negligence to send neither/either/both packing I don't have the answers to these questions. Once they are answered, then the specifics of the event should dictate the outcome. Thing is, this is a sport, not a court. You make the best decision you can, then live with it and learn from it and move on. One other thing. Flex, I appreciate your "back to the basics" approach. To me, this whole situation highlights one of the dangers that the sport can inadvertantly increase. The gun rules assume that you are looking where the gun is pointing. The sport often allows you to look away from the gun, "hurried retreating" being the prime example. I think overall, it's safer to turn your head uprange as you run backwards (avoid a spill). But now you have a blind spot where the SO may be. That blind spot includes points in front of the muzzle, and in front of the 180 and NOT in front of the 180. In a perfect world the SO doesn't get into that blind spot. ============================ My call? From what I've read, the majority of the blame falls on the SO. I'd call him over, make sure he understands what went wrong (it ain't rocket science), give him the rest of the afternoon off that stage. I'd call it a different way if the shooter seemed to be aware of where the SO was, but had the attitude "that's his fault, if he can't keep up with me he deserves it" in any detectabl level. And if MD, I'd likely include a schpeel about every "retreat with speed" stage that I create in the future where SO's are cautioned about staying out of the shooters blind spot, and well ahead of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 The difference is, had it progressed another degree, the SO is the one who would have gotten shot. So I guess I should ask the MD recruiting SOs his position on this matter. Can I DQ a shooter who points his gun at me, regardless of "right of way" on the range? Save us both a lot of misunderstanding and hard feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Actually, the LGB does address this situation. The LBB no longer includes the language. From the LGB, page 54 Where should I stand?1. Generally, stand about 3’ to the side, and 3’ behind the shooter. 2. Generally, stand on the right side of a right-handed shooter, left side of lefty. This gives you the best view of their firing hand and gun. 3. Keep yourself safe. Don’t get "trapped" by turning, moving shooters. If the shooter has an option, ask him which way he is going to turn, move, etc. and put your self in the safest position. (If the shooter points their gun at you because YOU are in the wrong place, who’s fault is it?) [Emphasis in the original] 4. Try and stay within 3 yards of the shooter. Move as necessary. Don’t let him run into you if he is moving. Do NOT ‘hover’ over the shooter or put yourself in a position that will distract the shooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlamoShooter Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I think the responsibility for the loaded gun ought to be on the person that is actually holding the loaded gun. DQ + 1 Jamie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg K Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I don't care much for this old language from the LGB 4. Try and stay within 3 yards of the shooter. Move as necessary. Don’t let him run into you if he is moving. Do NOT ‘hover’ over the shooter or put yourself in a position that will distract the shooter. 3 yards is too far. You can't stop a shooter from turning and facing you if you are 3 yards away. I'm thinking about a match that I had to smack the side of the pistol with my left hand and step into the shooter to keep him from turning and facing everyone up range, 3 yards would have been way to far away. You were there Jamie, I don't know if you saw the details from where you were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasmap Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I don't care much for this old language from the LGB 4. Try and stay within 3 yards of the shooter. Move as necessary. Don’t let him run into you if he is moving. Do NOT ‘hover’ over the shooter or put yourself in a position that will distract the shooter. 3 yards is too far. You can't stop a shooter from turning and facing you if you are 3 yards away. I'm thinking about a match that I had to smack the side of the pistol with my left hand and step into the shooter to keep him from turning and facing everyone up range, 3 yards would have been way to far away. You were there Jamie, I don't know if you saw the details from where you were. Actually it says "Generally." That is pretty good wording. It doesn't say you have to stay 3' away as an SO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now