This should result in a new method for testing whether a holster maker's holster has proper retention.
If you can do a backflip with it and the sidearm is still retained, you're good to go.
Call it the Bishop Flip Test.
Printable View
This should result in a new method for testing whether a holster maker's holster has proper retention.
If you can do a backflip with it and the sidearm is still retained, you're good to go.
Call it the Bishop Flip Test.
The bigger problem wasn't really the retention level of his holster. The bigger problem was that this so-called professional doesn't seem to know Rule #3
The gun fell out, hit the floor and all was fine until this fool stuck his booger hook into the trigger guard.
^This
Got to keep the booger picker off the bang button!
I am so old, I can remember being required to demonstrate holster retention with a forward roll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin
Lane also said that toxicology screenings done after the shooting, which prosecutors had been awaiting to see if they would file further charges, have been returned and there will be no further charges.
That doesn't answer the question.....did he drink ANY alcoholic beverages?
How much does it matter?
I'd hope they would keep the level of punishment commensurate with that of a civilian facing the same charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
They state the screening was done after the shooting, but how soon after? I seem to recall there was a gap in time between the incident and his being taken into custody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duman
Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duman
From a standpoint of CO law it doesn't matter. CO law doesn't prohibit people from drinking while they carry firearms. CO law only prohibits possession of a weapon while "under the influence" of alcohol or drugs. (CRS 18-12-106 (1) (d) ) However the statute does not define what "under the influence" means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Now, if drinking alcohol while being in possession of his weapon is a violation of FBI policy, that would be between the agent and his employer and would likely not be a public record (at least not without a FOIA request which could take a long time.) But if the FBI has a policy that prohibits agents from drinking while carrying, I would imagine it's probably the most widely ignored policy in the whole bureau.
EDIT: Of course, since David Lane is involved the question will not be whether Bishop was in violation of the law but rather whether he was negligent. If this goes to trial (which I doubt it will) Lane will make the argument that Bishop drinking and doing backflips while he was armed were both evidence of negligence on his part.
But I doubt this would see the inside of a courtroom anyway. Why would it? The whole thing is on video and there's pretty clear and convincing evidence of negligence on Bishop's part.
The million dollar question (literally) would be whether the responsibility for Bishop's actions can be laid on the FBI and their deep pockets. If the FBI is able to successfully argue that Bishop was not in the performance of duty then they can escape responsibility.
But if the Bureau's policy is that agents have to be armed at all times, that would seem to imply that they're never really "off duty", wouldn't it? Otherwise why would they have to be armed? I think the FBI is going to be on the hook for this one.