Update on CCW instructor

[Glock513]

http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/sto ... oting.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I pose another question. I see that he's suspended for a year from instructing. But, an instructor that fails to follow the 3 basic rules, accidentally fires his gun, and ACTUALLY hits a student, horrible!

Be respectful. I just want to hear from a public jury of peers,us . Be respectful. And give a brief explanation of why.

[stringygerm]

He agreed to the one year suspension with the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission, but he can still be hit with up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine when the City prosecutes, right?

[Glock513]

Opinion, please don't hate me.

I think the instructor should've had his instructor's license revoked, indefinitely. In my book, their is no such thing as "friendly" fire, unless maybe you're on a battle field in a war, but even that ain't so friendly. But, for an instructor, in a classroom, to push pure "Carelessness" that far, and accidentally fire his gun, and accidentally HIT a student, that's just not good. The 1st PPT slide in the class clearly states NO LIVE AMMUNITION in class, for a reason. This accident could've killed an innocent person. I don't necessarily think the instructor should go to jail for the accident, since nobody died, but he definitely should NOT be able to instruct another gun class. This wasn't a ricochet round that bounced off the floor or something, not a gun malfunction where the hammer dropped ALL by itself, NOOOOOO, this was a direct hit, finger on the trigger, while pointed in an UNsafe direction, at his student, with a loaded gun, that he forget to check to see if it was unloaded. CARELESSNESS
I do not like it because it gives civilian instructors a bad name, as well as responsible gun owners. I hope this guy has learned a lesson. Maybe give his entire gun collection to his students as compensation or something, also cover his medical bills pain and suffering (which he probably will in civil court).

OK, now you may commence to grilling me, just be nice about it

[JediSkipdogg]

I'd be curious if he was NRA certified how the suspension would have been different. Unfortunately, I know (of) quite a few instructors that have had NDs in class, with at least three shooting themselves and all happened to be OPOTA. I've yet to hear of an NRA instructor do it, although I'm sure there's someone out there that has.

He agreed to the one year suspension with the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission, but he can still be hit with up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine when the City prosecutes, right?

Not sure if he agreed to it or if OPOTA just mandated it. Besides that, yes, his criminal case is still ongoing. His training suspension was simply an administrative move, although I would think it could be court mandated as well since it's an Ohio court and an Ohio training certification. Not sure a court could suspend an NRA training certification.

[DontTreadOnMe]

It's unbelievable to me that if get pulled over and forget to notify a police officer that I have a CHL, it's a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days. This guy actually shoots someone through preventable negligence and his punishment cannot exceed 60 days.

I also agree that his instructor's license should be revoked, permanently. This was absolutely avoidable and is absolutely inexcusable.

I know that NRA training prohibits use of real firearms during classroom training. If OPOTA doesn't, and there may be good reasons for LEO-driven training to include real firearms in classroom training, then it should be a rule at least for OPOTA training given to non-LEOs.

[tbrew85]

"...there were no grounds for a felony charge because the shooting was an accident and Dunlap had not been acting recklessly."

I don't know the legal definition of "recklessly" but Mirriam-Webster defines it as:

1: marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences
2: irresponsible <reckless charges>

The outcome alone would lead me to believe he had to be reckless.

I've had a NEGLIGENT discharge myself (It was not accidental, I pulled the trigger...I was negligent). My adult son was present but thank God no one was injured. (At least I followed one of the rules by not having it pointed at another human being ) It shook me to my core. It took me several days to get over. After all the preaching I have done to my kids, and other people I know, about gun safety, how the *&@# did I have a ND? My "excuse"...I was too tired and sleepy to be handling a firearm. I may as well have been intoxicated because my judgement was that impaired. With that said, I will freely admit that I was both negligent and reckless. And I will NEVER forget that lesson as long as I live.

[JediSkipdogg]

"...there were no grounds for a felony charge because the shooting was an accident and Dunlap had not been acting recklessly."

I don't know the legal definition of "recklessly" but Mirriam-Webster defines it as:

1: marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences
2: irresponsible <reckless charges>

The outcome alone would lead me to believe he had to be reckless.

I've had a NEGLIGENT discharge myself (It was not accidental, I pulled the trigger...I was negligent). My adult son was present but thank God no one was injured. (At least I followed one of the rules by not having it pointed at another human being ) It shook me to my core. It took me several days to get over. After all the preaching I have done to my kids, and other people I know, about gun safety, how the *&@# did I have a ND? My "excuse"...I was too tired and sleepy to be handling a firearm. I may as well have been intoxicated because my judgement was that impaired. With that said, I will freely admit that I was both negligent and reckless. And I will NEVER forget that lesson as long as I live.

ORC definition...

A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that such circumstances are likely to exist.

And before one says this guy acted recklessly....think of the how far you could then stretch it. New shooter on the range shoots another student in the foot? Well, one could say that's reckless on the part of the instructor.

[mreising]

It's unbelievable to me that if get pulled over and forget to notify a police officer that I have a CHL, it's a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days. This guy actually shoots someone through preventable negligence and his punishment cannot exceed 60 days.

I also agree that his instructor's license should be revoked, permanently. This was absolutely avoidable and is absolutely inexcusable.

I know that NRA training prohibits use of real firearms during classroom training. If OPOTA doesn't, and there may be good reasons for LEO-driven training to include real firearms in classroom training, then it should be a rule at least for OPOTA training given to non-LEOs.

NRA does not prohibit the use of real firearms during training. NRA prohibits LIVE AMMO in the classroom during training, except during a reloading class, when they prohibit firearms because you are making live ammo.

[Mr. Glock]

If I'm a student in a required firearms class, and the instructor shoots me, I don't really care about the criminal outcome. I'm calling the nearest ambulance chaser and we are suing in civil court. For a whole lot. Be ause no class waiver would ever stand up in this situation.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

The ORC's definition of reckless, when weighed against "The Rules" of firearm safety that use, seems to make this instructor more than eligible for a felony charge.

ORC definition...
A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that such circumstances are likely to exist.

The Rules
1.All guns are always loaded!
2.Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy!
3.Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target!
4.Always be sure of your target and what's beyond!

If you don't follow these rules, the consequences can be deadly.

Even anti-gunners know that guns are dangerous, so surely the instructor knew.

If he had treated his gun as if it were loaded, he would not have shot his student.
If he had kept the gun pointed in a safe direction, he would have been less likely to hurt a student.
If he had not pulled the trigger, he would not have hurt a student.
If he had chosen a proper target, he would have been less likely to hurt a student.

These rules and the consequences of not following them have been taught and known for decades.

As a trained instructor, he should reasonably have known these or similar rules. This instructor 'disregarded known risks'. He had live ammo in the classroom.

IMHO, he was reckless.

I don't think he needs any further criminal charge(s), but I would like to see him required to take his OPOTA training again before allowing him to teach any more classes.

[Werz]

"...there were no grounds for a felony charge because the shooting was an accident and Dunlap had not been acting recklessly."

I don't know the legal definition of "recklessly" but Mirriam-Webster defines it as:

1: marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences
2: irresponsible <reckless charges>

No. Lexical definitions are used only when there is no definition by statute or under the case law.

Here is an explanation.

[Werz]

The ORC's definition of reckless, when weighed against "The Rules" of firearm safety that use, seems to make this instructor more than eligible for a felony charge.

And what felony charge would that be?

ORC definition...
A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that such circumstances are likely to exist.

***
As a trained instructor, he should reasonably have known these or similar rules. This instructor 'disregarded known risks'. He had live ammo in the classroom.

IMHO, he was reckless.

He must perversely disregard a known risk, and he must do it with heedless indifference to the consequences.

These arguments are starting to sound like the arguments for Inducing Panic when someone carries a firearm openly. "I don't care what the law says! This makes me mad as hell! This guy is dangerous! You should be able to charge him with some serious crime!" It's not good when we sound as irrational and emotional as our opponents.

[BB62]

Opinion, please don't hate me.

I think the instructor should've had his instructor's license revoked, indefinitely...

I agree.

[Chuck]

It's unbelievable to me that if get pulled over and forget to notify a police officer that I have a CHL, it's a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days. This guy actually shoots someone through preventable negligence and his punishment cannot exceed 60 days.

I also agree that his instructor's license should be revoked, permanently. This was absolutely avoidable and is absolutely inexcusable.

I know that NRA training prohibits use of real firearms during classroom training. If OPOTA doesn't, and there may be good reasons for LEO-driven training to include real firearms in classroom training, then it should be a rule at least for OPOTA training given to non-LEOs.

NRA does not prohibit the use of real firearms during training. NRA prohibits LIVE AMMO in the classroom during training, except during a reloading class, when they prohibit firearms because you are making live ammo.

^^THIS^^

[Glock513]

I agree. Waiving a loaded gun around in class is 100% reckless, and careless, where NRA or OPOTA instructor. This guy should've known better . What if this was a YOUTH gun safety class and he "accidentally" shot a kid center of mass, dead. Accidentally discharging a gun is bad thing, hard slap on the wrist, but accidentally discharging and shooting somebody, that's the WORST! No better than some gangbanger that accidentally shoots a bystander. He should be banned as an instructor from OPOTA, NRA, TDI, and any other gun organization. Too bad he can't be sentenced to being shot in the arm to help him understand the pain his recklessness has caused. A COUPLE of misdemeanors, fines, paying the guy's pain & suffering, then 1000's of hours of community service ought to do it. But again, no matter what, this guy should never be a certified gun instructor in ANY gun organization again . He doesn't practice gun safety, therefore he shouldn't be certified to teach it.

The ORC's definition of reckless, when weighed against "The Rules" of firearm safety that use, seems to make this instructor more than eligible for a felony charge.

ORC definition...
A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that such circumstances are likely to exist.

The Rules
1.All guns are always loaded!
2.Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy!
3.Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target!
4.Always be sure of your target and what's beyond!

If you don't follow these rules, the consequences can be deadly.

Even anti-gunners know that guns are dangerous, so surely the instructor knew.

If he had treated his gun as if it were loaded, he would not have shot his student.
If he had kept the gun pointed in a safe direction, he would have been less likely to hurt a student.
If he had not pulled the trigger, he would not have hurt a student.
If he had chosen a proper target, he would have been less likely to hurt a student.

These rules and the consequences of not following them have been taught and known for decades.

As a trained instructor, he should reasonably have known these or similar rules. This instructor 'disregarded known risks'. He had live ammo in the classroom.

IMHO, he was reckless.

I don't think he needs any further criminal charge(s), but I would like to see him required to take his OPOTA training again before allowing him to teach any more classes.