Author Topic: All Things Negligent Discharge (merged)  (Read 108382 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Infanteer

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,309
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2003, 21:38:00 »
Quote
However, if you‘re in an extremely low-risk peacekeeping operation, having the chamber empty makes a lot of sense too.
And are you considering Afghanistan one of these.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Marauder

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 834
  • Dirty Infidel
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2003, 22:03:00 »
"Every time we walk out that gate, all of Canada walks with us. And I don‘t think Canadians would be particularly impressed if we were going out in any other way than we are right now."

That‘s a real easy rationale for Joe Liberal Canadian to make when his ***  is sitting in a climate controlled Timmy Ho‘s in Mississauga reading the Toronto Star (commie ****ing ****rag that it is), but that ignores the realities and dangers of the situation. What Jill ****head here at home doesn‘t know CAN mess up Bloggins over in Indian Country.

Sounds to me like some officers are feeling pretty comfy and secure locked in thier CP in the middle of camp. But that‘s just my interpretation.
"Lions mustn't concern themselves with the opinions of lambs."

Offline combat_medic

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 2,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,537
  • Mod of burninating
    • Seaforth Highlanders of Canada
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2003, 01:50:00 »
Infanteer: No, certainly not. I would consider Afghanistan high-risk peacekeeping and therefore more in a grey area. The people actually deployed there would be in the best position to make a determination as to whether or not weapons should readied; a far better position than the politicians making such decisions.

I believe in an either/or; neither answer is right all the time, but the situation should dictate the decision.
"If you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck." - Paracowboy

Offline Rider Pride

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 29,408
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,815
  • Easy to draw, hard to spell
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2003, 09:53:00 »
Exactly as the other medic says..
ground and situation dictate,

Thats why the descision to put a round in the chamber of small arms is left to the patrol commander, or on scene commander.

As a leader, it leaves me ALOT of independance to assess the situation, and deal with it with all the tools the ROEs give me.
"Return with your shield, or upon it."

Offline Jungle

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,181
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2003, 13:58:00 »
Quote
Thats why the descision to put a round in the chamber of small arms is left to the patrol commander, or on scene commander.

As a leader, it leaves me ALOT of independance to assess the situation, and deal with it with all the tools the ROEs give me.
The important question is: is the patrol/ on-scene commander ready to accept the consequences if something goes wrong ? Not only in the case of a ND, but what about having one of ours killed because we took too long to respond ?
Personally, as I have written before, "I‘d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six".
"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
- John G. Diefenbaker. July 1, 1960. From the Canadian Bill of Rights.

logistik

  • Guest
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2003, 15:03:00 »
Quote
Besides, said Denne, the first thing a soldier does when he comes under direct fire is to take cover.
What about the double tap in double tap dash down crawl observe fire?

Offline Doug

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 122
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 345
  • Paratrooper
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2003, 16:28:00 »
The first thing that you always do when coming under fire is take cover.  That other stuff‘s a load of crap!  You‘re going to do what you can do, depending on the situation, not necessarily in that order.
No matter what tour you‘re on, no matter what country you‘re in, no matter what type of ROE that is in effect, some idiot will have an ND.  It‘s a simple fact.  It‘s like a law of nature, someone will always get caught fraternizing.  Yeah, it‘s not good, but unfortunately it‘s bound to happen.  Hopefully no-one get‘s hurt or killed in the process, soldier or civilian, it makes no difference, sucks either way.
A good commander should have a grip on the actions of his/her subordinates, enough so that he/she will know what they‘re specific reactions to certain situations will be.  Knowing this, control should be absolute, always assuming responsibility for all the group‘s actions.
Every man dies, not every man truely lives...

Offline Jungle

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,181
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2003, 19:03:00 »
The double tap is used when coming under fire during advance to contact, meaning you are in a war. Peace support ops are different, ROEs do not allow firing blindly in a general direction. You have to ID the target before engaging.
"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
- John G. Diefenbaker. July 1, 1960. From the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Online Infanteer

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 114,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,309
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2003, 19:27:00 »
Quote
Personally, as I have written before, "I‘d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six".  
That, my good Warrant, is what seperates the men on the ground and the pencil pushers in Ottawa.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

justa guy

  • Guest
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #34 on: October 01, 2003, 20:01:00 »
This is a very interesting discussion and one that has been going on for years. I just wanted to add a pet peeve of my own.

Long ago when we carried the FN C1A1 rifle we didn‘t seem to have as many negligent discharges. I know they did occur but they were much rarer than they are today. I believe that an important contributing factor was that the C1 rifle could be put on safe at any time. It may seem a small thing but we developed the habit of always putting the rifle on safe wether it was loaded or not. For a soldier the natural state of his rifle was "on safe".

The C7 rifle will not go on safe unless it has been cocked. So for much of the time the rifle is left on repetition. Soldiers today are not in the habit of checking their safety lever because most of the time you can‘t move it. When ordered to load the C7 you have to remember to change the lever. For most of our soldiers this is not a problem. But for a very few it can be forgotten and contribute to an ND.

I think this technological change has increased the number of NDs and resulted in a more dangerous work environment for our soldiers.

I am not a wpns tech so I don‘t know if it is even possible but if the C7 could be modified to go on safe when the hammer is not cocked I think it would help to cut down on the number of NDs we are experiencing. It would make things safer for our soldiers and also for the precious Afgan civilians.

Offline Rider Pride

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 29,408
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,815
  • Easy to draw, hard to spell
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #35 on: October 03, 2003, 20:27:00 »
I really don‘t think the type of weapon matters if peopls can not keep thier fingers away from the trigger.......

  :mg:
"Return with your shield, or upon it."

towhey

  • Guest
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2003, 16:49:00 »
True, Canadian police officers do carry their weapons with a round in the chamber.  However, their "rules of engagement" require sidearms to remain in the holster until there is a clear and present danger.

Carrying a rifle with a loaded magazine on it, then charging it when a clear and present danger exists is, in essence the same thing.

Police issue sidearms also have positive safety mechanisms that permit safe carry with a round chambered.  Standard issue Canadian service weapons do not (Non standard issue weapons such as Sig-Sauer Pistols do, as may special ops weapons, etc.)

If there was a credible risk of an aggressor popping up with an AK-47 and effectively engaging Canadian troops, I suspect that may be grounds for charging weapons on entering the situation.

Having served on numerous "peacekeeping" tours, including one in southern Africa -- I can personally attest to the value of effectively escalating one‘s response to a threat.  Something as simple as an obvious change in posture or behaviour can have an incredibly sobering effect on a hostile crowd.  Charging weapons, like fixing bayonets, is an immensely powerful form of communication.

Personally, I believe Canadian soldiers are highly-trained professionals -- some of the best soldiers in the world -- and I trust them to make appropriate judgement calls on the ground.

Offline GrahamD

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 357
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2003, 20:09:00 »
Quote
I really don‘t think the type of weapon matters if peopls can not keep thier fingers away from the trigger.......
 
Fingers are only one of many mechanisms that can depress a trigger.

For example I would never sling a loaded and cocked hunting rifle over my sholder while using a range finder, binoculars, GPS, taking a piss, or whatever.  Its unlikely, but still a remote possibility that as you are doing whatever you are doing your prey springs into view, you hastily snatch at your rifle from your shoulder, a branch you hadn‘t noticed sticks in your trigger guard creating leverage, depresses the trigger and you shoot your buddy in the face.  It seems unlikely that it would ever happen to anyone with experience, yet there are multiple hunting accidents in North America every year resulting in fatalities. Many from accidental discharge. (Like the guy who dressed his dog up as a hunter, rifle and all, and somehow the rifle fired and killed him. I‘m pretty sure I saw that clip in Bowling for Columbine).  Considering all that, imagine how many near misses go unreported.

   
Quote
"He‘s lucky,‘‘ said Denne. "He‘s extraordinarily lucky. Exceedingly lucky. He could have hurt or killed one of our soldiers but, worse, he could have hurt or killed an innocent civilian.‘‘
This is just my personal viewpoint, but I would rather take a round from a buddy than see him be responsible for the potentialy devastating repercussions of killing a civilian in a foreign conflict zone.  Such an incident can (and has) cause intense scrutiny on the entire Canadian Forces,  damage our positive reputation globaly, and wound national pride based upon that reputation.
   In the worst case scenario, such an incident could bring the wrath of the locals upon the rest of the peacekeepers in the region, and cause a significant loss of life on both sides.

Sig

  • Guest
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #38 on: October 05, 2003, 18:39:00 »
:cdn:  Every member of the CF is soldier first.  That means you have to be able to competently handle your personal weapon.  Any ND is just that.  AD was a very poor term, that is why it no longer exists.  Besides, yes, bringing the weapon up is an excellent deterrent, not to mention cocking it.  If you feel the time spent cocking the weapon might mean the difference between being "judged by twelve or carried by six" perhaps you were not sufficiently aware of the situation.  One final point.  Anyone who has ever had a weapon in a SMP veh knows how many things it can get tangled in.  Having one in the spout is foolishness.   :cdn:

Offline Gunner

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 6,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,836
  • Artillery Forum Moderator
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #39 on: October 06, 2003, 19:10:00 »
A friend of mine was injured by a Signaller‘s ND in Africa.  I don‘t think you can have too cavalier an attitude when dealing with NDs.  It can take a life.  In my buddies case, he will have the scar for the remainder of his life.  What is the price on that?
Had a wonderful ~26 years in the military and still miss it.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 205,731
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,545
Re: Negligent Discharge Punishment
« Reply #40 on: October 07, 2003, 16:40:00 »
I still think in a hostile enviroment they should have one ready.

"Any ND is just that. AD was a very poor term, that is why it no longer exists" I was told by a friend int rentont hat they are no longer calling it an ND when the airforce do it because some of them are insulted by it or something like that. IT makes them sound bad, they call it an accidental discharge now.

Offline kellywmj

  • Banned
  • New Member
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 27
Re: Accidental discharges
« Reply #41 on: December 28, 2004, 12:32:01 »
Its relevant to point out that in the British army, the term "negligent" discharge has always been used, the implication being that any unwanted discharge of a weapon is due to the negligence of the soldier. There can be no other way to characterise it. You have have control of your weapon, or you don't. An accident, by definition, is an occurance without cause, and that was not foreseen. A round up the spout, change lever on Fire, finger on trigger, Thats negligence.
I am an idiot...kick me please

Offline axeman

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 387
  • It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.
Re: Accidental discharges
« Reply #42 on: December 28, 2004, 12:39:45 »
Its relevant to point out that in the British army, the term "negligent" discharge has always been used, the implication being that any unwanted discharge of a weapon is due to the negligence of the soldier. There can be no other way to characterise it. You have have control of your weapon, or you don't. An accident, by definition, is an occurance without cause, and that was not foreseen. A round up the spout, change lever on Fire, finger on trigger, Thats negligence.
i agree as i knew a person who was killed by a negligent discharge civy side . i personally know after killing a friend of mine and making his wife a widow all the person got was 3 lousy years in jail .  when its broken down to what youve stated and ive always believed in is that its never an acident...
I'm not saying to kill all the stupid people . .. Just remove the warning labels and let nature run it's course

Offline 48Highlander

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,404
    • Applied Ballistics
Re: Accidental discharges
« Reply #43 on: December 28, 2004, 12:51:55 »
I don't see why people are attempting to justify ND's.  Sure, it'll always happen, and so will all sorts of other injuries due to negligence.  However, they shouldn't happen to anyone who knows their weapon and is aware of what they're doing.  I've never even come close to having an ND on any weapons system, nor have the majority of the people I work with.  Saying that they're "inevitable" for every person (I beleive the phrase was "the longer you go without one, the more likely it is to happen") is foolish.  I carry my weapon with me wherever I go.  If there's no requirement for it to be readied, I make sure it's not.  If it IS readied, I make sure it's on safe.  Whenever I change my grip on it, the first thing I do is line up my thumb with the safety.  The only way I could concievably have an ND is if I was on heavy drugs and totaly unaware of what I was doing.  Those who do have ND's usualy don't need heavy drugs in order to have no clue what they're doing :)

Offline WB

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,281
Re: Accidental discharges
« Reply #44 on: December 28, 2004, 14:46:37 »
While it is something we should all be concerned about, we shouldn't be afraid of readied weapons. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's heard of guys overseas leaving the bolts out of their weapons, taping rounds inside the mags so they don't feed properly, and cocking their weapons with no mags so they can put it on safe and make it look ready, and only fix a mag after. I've been under the impression that this is more of a problem in the support trades, but I've heard of guys doing this in my own Regiment as well. crap like that makes my blood boil. In the infantry, everything we do is based on the fact that we can use or threaten to use deadly force. But if your fear of an ND stops makes you combat ineffective, then there is a major ******* problem.

NDs do happen, and they should always be punished severly. But intentionally sabotaging your personal weapon should be dealt with 20 times worse. Instant repatriation at the very least.

Offline Mark C

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 431
  • Ask me about my amazing weight-loss programme!!
Re: Accidental discharges
« Reply #45 on: December 28, 2004, 14:47:17 »
I have seen more than a few NDs during the past 25 years, working with soldiers of many different nations with varying levels of training and experience.   I think it is safe to say that any expectation of zero incidence of unintended firing is delusional.   Mix soldiers (especially tired or excited soldiers) with firearms and ammunition, and there are inevitably going to be unintentional discharges.   They are simply a fact of military life, just as automobile accidents are a fact of civilian life no matter how carefully everyone drives.   

The key is incidence MINIMIZATION through repetitive training to the point that safe weapons handling (including muzzle awareness) becomes instinctive, and the handling drills become ingrained in muscle memory.   In other words, the ideal level of training sees all soldiers so repetitively drilled in safe weapons handling that they perform the correct drills and observe safety without having to consciously think about it or be told to do so.   Are we in the Canadian Army there?   No, but overall we are pretty good - at least within the combat arms.   Remember this the next time you hear anyone pissing and moaning about having to run through supervised TsOETs for the "umpteenth time".   Theoretical knowledge is inadequate.   Intense repetition of correct handling drills, coupled with immediate correction of faults, is the ONLY effective method for minimizing the incidence of NDs.

As a final point, I fully concur with KellyWMJ.   There is only one type of "Accidental" discharge.   And that occurs where a loaded weapon can be demonstrated to have fired without human manipulation due to verifiable mechanical malfunction.    Every other incidence of unintended firing is the result of individual Negligence of one form or another.   It may be willful, or it may be unintentional.   But at the end of the day it is Negligence on the part of the soldier, his/her chain of command, or a combination of both.

Just my $.02

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,335
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: Accidental discharges
« Reply #46 on: December 29, 2004, 01:27:27 »
I agree fully with MarkC on this issue - and with Ghostwalk (we had a Cpl walk around with out his bolt in Afghan...)

 For those who don't know: I was repatriated from Op Athena RotoII (after 87days) for failure to report a Sr NCO who had a ND with his sections Remington 870 shotgun.  Worse yet I got a replacement round from the CQ to make up the sections missing round (I had signed for all the Pl's 12ga ammo).  When the Sgt fired the round he had placed the weapon in a safe direction and made a terrible misatke assuming that it was not loaded (he had pumped the slide...)  However IF you had seen his face after the discharge you woudl have known that he learned more from that - than he would or did from any administrative action or charge he woudl (and did) face.  These days I place a large degree of blame on the system for the individuals do not get the weapon handlign they NEED.  However I beleive ND's in theatre and ND's in Canada need to be aproached the same way - we have had Theatre ND's by a Capt with a LAV cannon be swept under the rug (Bosnia Roto 11) we have had DLOC ND's go merriliy away the Cpl shot the OC with a simuntion round (small fine and was later promoted to M/Cpl  ::) ) furthermore in 1VP we had a Cpl have two C7 ND's on one ex (one durign a safety breif  :o) and then he was promoted to M/Cpl...

 Sadly the CF needs to get its act together on the issue of ND's - either they are a big deal - or they are not - but they must be enforced across the board - less we get into another gray area where rules are selectively enforced depanding upon if the chain of command like the individuals involved.

IMHO we should have 1 (ONE) standard for ND's be it live, blank or sim - in Canada or abroad. 



Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline Carcharodon Carcharias

  • Drawing the crabs from Downunder :) WTF is TWL?
  • Banned
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 29,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,250
Re: Accidental discharges
« Reply #47 on: December 29, 2004, 02:13:12 »
A few years back a guy in my PL had an UD with an AUG. He had the rifle slung across his back while carrying stores to make a strong point.

He had gone thru some bush repeatly, doing a slow jog, as the rifle slapped against his back the safety went to fire, and coming thru the bush again a branch got caught in the large trigger guard of the rifle, discharging a single shot, while slung across his back, and with his hands full.

The member was indeed charged. No injuries.

The safety catch is a poor design and after repeated UDs in theatre (and on Ex etc), DMO came up with a test (and a gauge to measure). The safety catch needed a mininum of 3kg pressure to go to fire. This made about 80-90% of rifles   'NS', and caused a shortage force wide of safety catch srprings which took almost a year to procure. A new spring was designed, and the pressure was dropped from 3kg to 2.2kg, and thats where it stands right now.

The unload drill after the 1993 Somalia death simply means the barrel has to be removed in EVERY unload drill and for 'inspect weapons'. A steel barrel wearing on an alloy housing, and this is not good. The barrels have indeed over a short period damaged the front of the housing, causing unnecessary damage to the rifle. Mainly cosmetic in nature (causing burrs which have been known to cut soldiers), but all the same, the rifle has never been designed to have the barrel removed each time you do an unload. It was ment to be removed for cleaning and changing the barrel length (ie from carbine to rifle, etc).

To combat weapons competancy all soldiers, all trades were required to carry a weapon loaded with blanks during their normal work day (even in the office). NCO's barked out T'sOET daily, and over time even the clerks became much more competent than they were before. Any UDs were met with a charge bearing the same as if it was a live rd.

Another feather in my cap in my dislike for the AUG. Although I have confidence in the weapon, I am prepared to carry one anywhere anytime, I would prefer a M4 any day.


Cheers,

Wes
"You've never lived until you've almost died; as for our freedom, for those of us who have fought for it, life has a flavour the protected will never know." - Anonymous

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,641
Re: Accidental discharges
« Reply #48 on: December 29, 2004, 04:31:18 »
I agree that we will probably never eradicate NDs: I have narrowly avoided a couple myself, one quite recently. But, if I asked myself why these near-NDs happened, and I am honest, I have to say it was because I was not paying attention to the drills I was taught, not because I do these drills every time I re-enter a base camp after a road trip. Practice of military skills should improve them, not degrade them. Both times it was cocking without taking off the mag. If I had had an ND, there would be nothing in my defence. And, I am in complete agreement that it is "N", not "A".

I do not think we should treat NDs as a capital offence, but they must be punished, and punished for all to see, regardless of rank. Like Kevin B, I am aware of at least one case (years ago...) in which an officer was treated more leniently than an NCM might have been. This is completely unacceptable: if anything as officers we have a duty to set a standard. I would like to think that today it would not be so easy to hide things.

As for buying little bits of kit to stick on weapons to "prevent" NDs-no, thanks. The answer is training and supervision. If recruits cannot avoid NDs it is because they are not being trained properly. Cheers.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Online MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,195
Re: Accidental discharges
« Reply #49 on: December 29, 2004, 10:24:49 »
To combat weapons competancy all soldiers, all trades were required to carry a weapon loaded with blanks during their normal work day (even in the office). NCO's barked out T'sOET daily, and over time even the clerks became much more competent than they were before. Any UDs were met with a charge bearing the same as if it was a live rd.

Wow I can't ever imagine them trying to do that here, although it would be interesting.  Was that across the board in the ADF Wes? or just a specific unit/brigade thing?

I too have seen the ugly side of letting NDs go by the wayside for officers and even a few NCOs, and it destroys the trust the troops have for the COC and the leders themselves, especially down the road when a troop gets nailed hard for an ND

Hope is not a valid COA