Cop Who Shot Off Finger With Loaded Weapon Sues Gun Store

Posted by | January 20, 2015 08:00 | Filed under: News Behaving Badly Top Stories

Republish
Reprint


The former Kentucky police officer was handed a loaded gun in a gun store last March and shot off his finger.

Video surveillance captured the incident, which shows the officer fiddling with the weapon, then cocking it. Seconds later, Smith shoots a finger off his left hand.

The BG Daily News reported that Smith agreed to retire from the police force following the incident, but didn’t receive workers’ compensation because the injury was not work-related. On Friday, Smith filed a lawsuit against the store to cover his medical expenses and lost earnings.

“While Mr. Smith was looking at the firearm, believing it to be unloaded, the gun discharged causing serious physical injury to [Smith],” the lawsuit says. It goes on to say that Smith exercised “reasonable care and due diligence for his own physical well-being” while handling the loaded weapon, according to the Glasgow Daily Times…

Todd Logsdon, a co-owner of Barren Outdoors, told the BG Daily News that the video will show who is ultimately at fault.

“I will say this – the whole incident is on video, so it should be easy for the court to reach a conclusion about the liability,” Logsdon told the publication.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: William

retired military , former cop, lifelong gym rat and doting grandfather alive and living in Maine

38 responses to Cop Who Shot Off Finger With Loaded Weapon Sues Gun Store

  1. tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 08:13

    A cop is unable to tell or even check to make sure a gun is not loaded, pathetic

    • rg9rts January 20th, 2015 at 08:13

      Thwack TAG and PIQUE LOL

      • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 08:14

        lol, look at us. I say it is a draw

  2. rg9rts January 20th, 2015 at 08:13

    NRA safety course graduate…with honors

    • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 08:13

      pique kitty

      • rg9rts January 20th, 2015 at 08:14

        Its down to who can type faster….LOL a real oh damn moment

  3. tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 09:13

    A cop is unable to tell or even check to make sure a gun is not loaded, pathetic

    • rg9rts January 20th, 2015 at 09:13

      Thwack TAG and PIQUE LOL

      • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 09:14

        lol, look at us. I say it is a draw

  4. rg9rts January 20th, 2015 at 09:13

    NRA safety course graduate…with honors

    • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 09:13

      pique kitty

      • rg9rts January 20th, 2015 at 09:14

        Its down to who can type faster….LOL a real oh damn moment

  5. Wayout January 20th, 2015 at 08:42

    Strike 1. The gun store clerk did check to see if the weapon was loaded before handing it to the customer. Strike 2. The customer did not check to see if the weapon was loaded before handling it. Strike 3. The customer did not keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction. Conclusion? Three strikes and you are out and thankfully no one was killed.

    • arc99 January 20th, 2015 at 09:09

      Just goes to show you that the blather from your messiah about more good guys with guns making us safer is pure BS.

      More good guys with guns simply means that there is more of a chance that someone will be killed or injured by that good guy’s negligence.

      • illinoisboy1977 January 21st, 2015 at 17:34

        A “chance” is hardly justification for banning anything. There’s always a “chance” that I’ll die horribly, in a car accident. But, we’re all still driving.

  6. Wayout January 20th, 2015 at 09:42

    Strike 1. The gun store clerk did check to see if the weapon was loaded before handing it to the customer. Strike 2. The customer did not check to see if the weapon was loaded before handling it. Strike 3. The customer did not keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction. Conclusion? Three strikes and you are out and thankfully no one was killed.

    • arc99 January 20th, 2015 at 10:09

      Just goes to show you that the blather from your messiah about more good guys with guns making us safer is pure BS.

      More good guys with guns simply means that there is more of a chance that someone will be killed or injured by that good guy’s negligence.

      • illinoisboy1977 January 21st, 2015 at 18:34

        A “chance” is hardly justification for banning anything. There’s always a “chance” that I’ll die horribly, in a car accident. But, we’re all still driving.

  7. Larry Schmitt January 20th, 2015 at 09:18

    The obvious question is: Why are there loaded guns in a gun shop in the first place?

    • fahvel January 20th, 2015 at 12:15

      what good is an empty gun? gotta be ready for any and all possibilities eh?

  8. Larry Schmitt January 20th, 2015 at 10:18

    The obvious question is: Why are there loaded guns in a gun shop in the first place?

    • fahvel January 20th, 2015 at 13:15

      what good is an empty gun? gotta be ready for any and all possibilities eh?

  9. ExPFCWintergreen January 20th, 2015 at 10:24

    Tsk, tsk. Frivolous lawsuits! Tort reform! Personal responsibility! (Insert assorted other conservative canards here.)

  10. ExPFCWintergreen January 20th, 2015 at 11:24

    Tsk, tsk. Frivolous lawsuits! Tort reform! Personal responsibility! (Insert assorted other conservative canards here.)

  11. Foundryman January 20th, 2015 at 11:26

    Lucky thing the guy at the other end of the counter didn’t lose the back of his head, he could have ended up with an even bigger lawsuit.

  12. Foundryman January 20th, 2015 at 12:26

    Lucky thing the guy at the other end of the counter didn’t lose the back of his head, he could have ended up with an even bigger lawsuit.

  13. allison1050 January 20th, 2015 at 14:21

    Don’t get me wrong but what the hell was his finger doing there?

  14. allison1050 January 20th, 2015 at 15:21

    Don’t get me wrong but what the hell was his finger doing there?

  15. illinoisboy1977 January 21st, 2015 at 17:32

    The clerk was negligent in not making sure the chamber was clear, before handing the weapon to a customer. However, the ultimate responsibility is on the officer, for not clearing the chamber, himself. If I was a judge, I’d throw out the officer’s lawsuit, based on his stupidity, and petition the ATF to suspend the shop owner’s FFL, until he completes a basic gun safety course.

  16. illinoisboy1977 January 21st, 2015 at 18:32

    The clerk was negligent in not making sure the chamber was clear, before handing the weapon to a customer. However, the ultimate responsibility is on the officer, for not clearing the chamber, himself. If I was a judge, I’d throw out the officer’s lawsuit, based on his stupidity, and petition the ATF to suspend the shop owner’s FFL, until he completes a basic gun safety course.

Leave a Reply