[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Sig M18 might have just killed an Airman (Page 25 of 28)
|
Quoted: It isn't over yet. The airman has been charged. Anyone can be charged with anything, doesn't make it true. See my post with the hypothetical above. I would not even blame the investigator for coming to the conclusion of foul play without any direct evidence. We all have a normalcy bias that says "guns don't go off by themselves." It will be interesting to see what other evidence comes to light. I would caution that with a general court-martial, we may hear absolutely nothing until the trial has concluded. Could be a long while unless they drop the charges. dude this is straight up delusion. stop it anti p320 hivemind is borderline a disease |
|
Quoted: dude this is straight up delusion. stop it anti p320 hivemind is borderline a disease It's delusion to not accept criminal charges as being The Truth™ without a trial? About 70% of murder and manslaughter charges result in convictions in this country. I'm delusional unless I believe that other 30% is straight up guilty and just got off on technicality? Glad I don't live in your universe. I'll wait and see. |
|
Quoted: Charged, not convicted. Quoted: Quoted: Kudos to OSI for getting to truth regarding this tragedy. Charged, not convicted. And yet everyone still insists it's the guns fault. Can't wait until the Cheyenne paper has to say about it after virtually claiming it was totally the guns fault. And the family spouting the same shit about it. |
|
Quoted: I'm far from shocked. Same I wondered of course but it just didn't sound right. When the pistol went back on the sides of our Airmen with just a cursory inspection I had a gut feeling that it was foul play and not a weapon failure. I still took the inspection docs home from work and inspected my own 320. I noted the pictures in the inspection documents showed a dirty ass gun. Buy your troops some ultrasonic cleaners if they will let you use them. They are the absolute best way to clean the FCU of a 320, followed by brake cleaner. |
|
Quoted: You do know how courts martial work, right? Yes, do you? With the seriousness of these charges he will go before a general courts-martial and need to be found guilty by 3/4 of the jury. Again he has been charged, not convicted. USAF's conviction rate on GCM is in the neighborhood of 70%, not 100% |
|
Quoted: Yes, do you? With the seriousness of these charges he will go before a general courts-martial and need to be found guilty by 3/4 of the jury. Again he has been charged, not convicted. USAF's conviction rate on GCM is in the neighborhood of 70%, not 100% It's nearly 80, not 70. But if you dig deeper you'll find the the entire military justice system is basically just a rubber stamp for whatever the accused is charged with. And yes, I know the system intimately. It is fully rigged at every level. |
|
Quoted: It's nearly 80, not 70. But if you dig deeper you'll find the the entire military justice system is basically just a rubber stamp for whatever the accused is charged with. And yes, I know the system intimately. It is fully rigged at every level. Nah. My number is a lot closer. Sauce: https://www.nimj.org/caaflog/by-the-numbers-2022#/ The Air Force completed 161 GCMs and 153 SPCMs. There were 43 acquittals for a conviction rate of 86%. For GCMs the conviction rate was 77% up from 55% in FY21. So for general courts-martial (GCM) the USAF conviction rate was 77% in 2022 and 55% in 2021. Average those numbers together and you get 66%. ETA: most recent USAF numbers from 2024 are here on PDF page 74: https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Combined%20Service%20FY24%20146a%20Reports_1.pdf Tried: 169 Convicted: 93 Acquittal: 42 So that's 55% for 2024. 2023 numbers here on PDF page 68: https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Article%20146%20reports/Joint%20Service%20Article%20146a%20reports%20-%20FY%202023.pdf?ver=gw-c6FaSPdIjO4_hmIHYeQ%3d%3d Tried: 154 Convicted: 92 Acquittal: 49 60% for 2022. |
|
Quoted: I'd think it would be easy for detectives to know whether or not it went off in a holster, or while someone was holding it. The Safariland holster USAF uses is not an open-bottom design, so there would definitely be obvious evidence of that. Right now, there's not an obvious conclusion to be drawn. It's just a charge, and we don't know the specifics. Something prompted a force-wide inspection of all M18's. Something prompted this Airman to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. I don't know what to make of it. |
|
Quoted: The Safariland holster USAF uses is not an open-bottom design, so there would definitely be obvious evidence of that. Right now, there's not an obvious conclusion to be drawn. It's just a charge, and we don't know the specifics. Something prompted a force-wide inspection of all M18's. Something prompted this Airman to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. I don't know what to make of it. Honestly, pretty easy to make out the forest for the trees on this one. Inspections were likely from an abundance of caution, and so they are seen as "doing something". May have even found some wear on the M18 in question and investigated to see how widespread it was. An Airman being charged for faking the story and covering up lower-enlisted fuckery is more along the lines of what we all should have expected. Occam's Razor and all, as well as the normal reputation of what Lower Enlisted will get into. Maybe that's not what happened. But that's what it certainly sounds like. |
|
Quoted: Honestly, pretty easy to make out the forest for the trees on this one. Inspections were likely from an abundance of caution, and so they are seen as "doing something". May have even found some wear on the M18 in question and investigated to see how widespread it was. An Airman being charged for faking the story and covering up lower-enlisted fuckery is more along the lines of what we all should have expected. Occam's Razor and all, as well as the normal reputation of what Lower Enlisted will get into. Maybe that's not what happened. But that's what it certainly sounds like. Again, I just can't see them doing that without there being a hole in the bottom of that Safariland holster. |
|
Quoted: The Safariland holster USAF uses is not an open-bottom design, so there would definitely be obvious evidence of that. Right now, there's not an obvious conclusion to be drawn. It's just a charge, and we don't know the specifics. Something prompted a force-wide inspection of all M18's. Something prompted this Airman to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. I don't know what to make of it. The deadline and inspection was to look at the weapon. It’s part of the investigation and prudent. At the same time the investigation of the incident continued. There are wise actions to take and these are just that. |
|
Quoted: Actions taken by the USAF indicate he was killed by an Airman. The gun didn’t kill him. Well that's one conclusion you can jump to. Another is that the second (charged) airman placed a holstered gun down on a desk with the muzzle pointed towards the first (deceased) airman, at which point it went off. I just don't see a force-wide inspection with such detailed criteria regarding sear surface burrs and inspection of the striker and striker safety lock if there wasn't a hole in the bottom of a Safariland holster. |
|
Quoted: Nah. My number is a lot closer. Sauce: https://www.nimj.org/caaflog/by-the-numbers-2022#/ The Air Force completed 161 GCMs and 153 SPCMs. There were 43 acquittals for a conviction rate of 86%. For GCMs the conviction rate was 77% up from 55% in FY21. So for general courts-martial (GCM) the USAF conviction rate was 77% in 2022 and 55% in 2021. Average those numbers together and you get 66%. ETA: most recent USAF numbers from 2024 are here on PDF page 74: https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Combined%20Service%20FY24%20146a%20Reports_1.pdf Tried: 169 Convicted: 93 Acquittal: 42 So that's 55% for 2024. 2023 numbers here on PDF page 68: https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Article%20146%20reports/Joint%20Service%20Article%20146a%20reports%20-%20FY%202023.pdf?ver=gw-c6FaSPdIjO4_hmIHYeQ%3d%3d Tried: 154 Convicted: 92 Acquittal: 49 60% for 2022. Quoted: Quoted: It's nearly 80, not 70. But if you dig deeper you'll find the the entire military justice system is basically just a rubber stamp for whatever the accused is charged with. And yes, I know the system intimately. It is fully rigged at every level. Nah. My number is a lot closer. Sauce: https://www.nimj.org/caaflog/by-the-numbers-2022#/ The Air Force completed 161 GCMs and 153 SPCMs. There were 43 acquittals for a conviction rate of 86%. For GCMs the conviction rate was 77% up from 55% in FY21. So for general courts-martial (GCM) the USAF conviction rate was 77% in 2022 and 55% in 2021. Average those numbers together and you get 66%. ETA: most recent USAF numbers from 2024 are here on PDF page 74: https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Combined%20Service%20FY24%20146a%20Reports_1.pdf Tried: 169 Convicted: 93 Acquittal: 42 So that's 55% for 2024. 2023 numbers here on PDF page 68: https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Article%20146%20reports/Joint%20Service%20Article%20146a%20reports%20-%20FY%202023.pdf?ver=gw-c6FaSPdIjO4_hmIHYeQ%3d%3d Tried: 154 Convicted: 92 Acquittal: 49 60% for 2022. Oh come off your ridiculousness. https://a.co/d/1vq3HGh |
|
Quoted: Well that's one conclusion you can jump to. Another is that the second (charged) airman placed a holstered gun down on a desk with the muzzle pointed towards the first (deceased) airman, at which point it went off. I just don't see a force-wide inspection with such detailed criteria regarding sear surface burrs and inspection of the striker and striker safety lock if there wasn't a hole in the bottom of a Safariland holster. I actually have the inspection on my computer at work. It’s not a detailed inspection at all. The Airman was charged. Plain and simple. I know for a fact that SOME M18s were deadlined by the inspection but locally it was roughly .3% and that just meant closer inspection. Let the OSI build the case and the court determine responsibility and guilt. |
|
Quoted: And yet everyone still insists it's the guns fault. Quoted: How certain are you about that? |
|
Quoted: Well that's one conclusion you can jump to. Another is that the second (charged) airman placed a holstered gun down on a desk with the muzzle pointed towards the first (deceased) airman, at which point it went off. I just don't see a force-wide inspection with such detailed criteria regarding sear surface burrs and inspection of the striker and striker safety lock if there wasn't a hole in the bottom of a Safariland holster. Quoted: Quoted: Actions taken by the USAF indicate he was killed by an Airman. The gun didn’t kill him. Well that's one conclusion you can jump to. Another is that the second (charged) airman placed a holstered gun down on a desk with the muzzle pointed towards the first (deceased) airman, at which point it went off. I just don't see a force-wide inspection with such detailed criteria regarding sear surface burrs and inspection of the striker and striker safety lock if there wasn't a hole in the bottom of a Safariland holster. Wasn't the airman charged with making a false statement as well? It kinda matters |
|
Quoted: Wasn't the airman charged with making a false statement as well? It kinda matters Not a high bar if his original story was that he never touched the gun. Perhaps they were gearing up and he handed him the holstered pistol muzzle-first. We don't know and may not know for some time. |
|
Quoted: Not a high bar if his original story was that he never touched the gun. Perhaps they were gearing up and he handed him the holstered pistol muzzle-first. We don't know and may not know for some time. Quoted: Quoted: Wasn't the airman charged with making a false statement as well? It kinda matters Not a high bar if his original story was that he never touched the gun. Perhaps they were gearing up and he handed him the holstered pistol muzzle-first. We don't know and may not know for some time. I am still on the fence as to there being a legit issue with the pistol. But in this case, it's getting pretty obvious it wasn't the P320s fault. |
|
Quoted: Holy fuck dude. Give it up. IN THIS SITUATION the most likely thing is that it was NOT a mechanical issue of the pistol that caused the death of the airman. I'm not ruling that out either, but based on this post you seem emotionally invested in ruling out other possible scenarios that do involve a UD. We don't have that info one way or the other, and shouldn't pretend we do. |
|
Quoted: I'm not ruling that out either, but based on this post you seem emotionally invested in ruling out other possible scenarios that do involve a UD. We don't have that info one way or the other, and shouldn't pretend we do. Quoted: Quoted: Holy fuck dude. Give it up. IN THIS SITUATION the most likely thing is that it was NOT a mechanical issue of the pistol that caused the death of the airman. I'm not ruling that out either, but based on this post you seem emotionally invested in ruling out other possible scenarios that do involve a UD. We don't have that info one way or the other, and shouldn't pretend we do. |
|
Quoted: Holy fuck dude. Give it up. IN THIS SITUATION the most likely thing is that it was NOT a mechanical issue of the pistol that caused the death of the airman. I am still on the fence as to there being a legit issue with the pistol. But in this case, it's getting pretty obvious it wasn't the P320s fault. |
| I think I need to make a Ben Stoeger thread. Ben is going to need to find new material to attract drama queens. I have no reason to believe the P320 is not a flawed design but his entire re-launch has been based on the Sig. Good luck with that one after this, Ben. |
|
Quoted: Why you screaming in all-caps if you're on the fence my guy? Quoted: Quoted: Did you not read the second half of my post where I said I'm on the fence about it? Why you screaming in all-caps if you're on the fence my guy? Please don't bother addressing my point, you're just drifting now. |
|
Quoted: I think I need to make a Ben Stoeger thread. Ben is going to need to find new material to attract drama queens. I have no reason to believe the P320 is not a flawed design but his entire re-launch has been based on the Sig. Good luck with that one after this, Ben. Weird to single out Ben when he called this four days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw1eD1K5c7o |
|
Quoted: dont we have 320s going off in holsters, untouched, on camera in police stations? or was that bullshit? I have yet to see a single video of a P320 going off "untouched" - every single one was obviously hit by something on the video before going off. It's exaggerations like these that make the anti-Sig crowd so difficult to take seriously. You already have your mind fully made up and aren't interested in determining what's actually happening. |
|
Quoted: I have yet to see a single video of a P320 going off "untouched" - every single one was obviously hit by something on the video before going off. It's exaggerations like these that make the anti-Sig crowd so difficult to take seriously. You already have your mind fully made up and aren't interested in determining what's actually happening. And we all know cops never lie. |
|
Quoted: Wow, you seem pretty on the fence about this. Quoted: Quoted: Strange how the P320 sat quietly in a cop's holster until he bent down and then stood up. Almost like something pulled the trigger. And we all know cops never lie. Wow, you seem pretty on the fence about this. This involves Security Forces. 2 ND's happened in my squadron. Both lied about it. He's not wrong, in my experience. |
|
Seems there is more to this story, more at link. The Air Force has arrested an airman in connection with the July 20 death of another airman, which involved a Sig Sauer M18 and led the service to suspend the use of the pistol following the incident. In a Friday statement, a Department of the Air Force spokesperson said that the unidentified arrested person is accused of making a false official statement, obstruction of justice and involuntary manslaughter. |