Posted on 12/29/2005 9:22:55 AM PST by Abathar
GARY, Ind. -- An auxiliary police officer accidentally shot her fiance in the leg while defending herself from a charging pit bull, authorities said.
The officer, Tracey Berry, will be required to be retrained on firearms, Deputy Chief Jeff Kumorek said Wednesday. Berry's police powers have been temporarily suspended in the meantime, he said.
"Witness accounts support her statement that the dog was attacking her," Kumorek said.
Berry was scheduled to work security for a basketball tournament Monday at Gary West High School and was walking toward the south entrance when a pit bull began running toward her, police said. The closest door was locked, keeping her from seeking shelter inside, and another auxiliary officer's effort to use his car to block the dog was unsuccessful.
At that point, Kumorek said Berry shot at the dog and hit her fiance, 40-year-old Andre Senter, who was nearby. Senter, who was hit in the leg, was treated at The Methodist Hospitals in Gary and released.
"Based on the investigation we believe it's an accidental shooting. But if there is a deficiency in her firearms training, then we need to address that," Kumorek said. "We want to retrain her with her weapon before we put her back on the street."
"The officer, Tracey Berry, will be required to be retrained on firearms."
"Ya think?"
Well...maybe he got the right one...if not then he should go back to the old pop guns and work back up. Gees.
It's all the man's fault.
Obviously, not many of us have fired a weapon in a tense situation. Trust me, it's easy to miss.
About 20 years ago in DC a man got on an elevator and tried to rob a veteran FBI agent at gunpoint. The agent drew and emptied his weapon as did the purp. The worst injury was a powder burn.
Tough to be accurate, especially when your target is moving.
LOL
Did she get the dog?
Are police departments dumbing down the testing to allow for more diversity????????
So is the dog dead or did it complete it's attack and kill this terrified female cop, did the killer dog get diverted and finish off the wounded and bloody civilian? The bigger concern may be her judgment, not her gun skills.
"Witness accounts support her statement that the dog was attacking her,"Since she missed the dog, she must have been bit? Or maybe the sound of the gun scared the dog into aborting its attack? Or maybe the reporter just got tired and couldn't think anymore. It's hard work putting more than five words on a screen at one time. Whew!
I don't know...he could milk this for a long time....
I read the headline wrong and thought it said, "Accidentally Shoots France."
What was the dog doing on that guy's leg????
For seventeen years Annie Oakley was the Wild West Show's star attraction with her marvelous shooting feats. At 90 feet Annie could shoot a dime tossed in midair. In one day with a .22 rifle she shot 4,472 of 5,000 glass balls tossed in midair. With the thin edge of a playing card facing her at 90 feet, Annie could hit the card and puncture it with with five or six more shots as it settled to the ground. It was from this that free tickets with holes punched in them came to be called "Annie Oakleys." Shooting the ashes off a cigarette held in Frank's mouth was part of the Butler and Oakley act. In a celebrated event while touring in Europe, Wilhelm, Crown Prince of Germany, invited Annie to shoot a cigarette held in his own lips. Annie had Wilhelm hold the cigarette in his hand and not his mouth; she accomplished this challenge, as always effortlessly. In this period Annie Oakley was easily recognizable by the numerous shooting medals that adorned her chest.
Really? Want to have a shooting match? What a stupid statement.
Get on the other side of the firing line!
I've just read all these posts and I am amazed at the number of dipples who can't read!!
To all: THE SHOOTER WAS THE WOMAN, NOT THE MAN. THE MAN GOT SHOT.
Just JEEEZZZZZZ!
How do we know that he could tell the dog from his fiance?
EXCEPTION THAT PROVES THE RULE
[Q] From Dave Dewhurst, British Columbia: “How did the phrase, the exception that proves the rule come about? Would an exception to some pattern or consistency not prove the need for a rule, not the existence of one?”
[A] You’re right to query the expression. It has caused as much confusion as any other in the language and is often argued about. The misunderstanding has been amplified by well-meaning but incorrect attempts going back a century to explain it.
These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an inconsistency. Those who use it seem to be saying that the existence of a case that doesn’t follow a rule proves the rule applies in all other cases and so is generally correct, notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the logical implication of finding that something doesn’t follow a rule is that there must be something wrong with the rule. As the old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow to disprove the rule that all crows are black.
It has often been suggested in reference works that prove here is really being used in the sense of “test” (as it does in terms like “proving ground” or “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”, or in the printer’s proof, which is a test page run off to see that all is correct with the typesetting). It is said that the real idea behind the saying is that the presence of what looks like an exception tests whether a rule is really valid or not. If you can’t reconcile the supposed exception with the rule, there must indeed be something wrong with the rule. The expression is indeed used in this sense, but that’s not where it comes from or what it strictly means.
The problem with that attempted explanation is that those putting it forward have picked on the wrong word to challenge. It’s not a false sense of proof that causes the problem, but exception. We think of it as meaning some case that doesn’t follow the rule, but the original sense was of someone or something that is granted permission not to follow a rule that otherwise applies. The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which may be translated as “the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted”.
Let us say that you drive down a street somewhere and find a notice which says “Parking prohibited on Sundays”. You may reasonably infer from this that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week. A sign on a museum door which says “Entry free today” leads to the implication that entry is not free on other days (unless it’s a marketing ploy like the never-ending sales that some stores have, but let’s not get sidetracked). H W Fowler gave an example from his wartime experience: “Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight until 11pm”, which implies a rule that in other cases men must be in barracks before that time. So, in its strict sense, the principle is arguing that the existence of an allowed exception to a rule reaffirms the existence of the rule.
Despite the number of reference books which carefully explain the origin and true meaning of the expression, it is unlikely that it will ever be restored to strict correctness. The usual rule in lexicography is that sayings progress towards corruption and decay, never the reverse. Unless this one proves to be an exception ...
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-exc1.htm
Same city Michael Jackson is from.
Same city where they just arrested
Fourth Graders for making counterfeit money.
Makes you think....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.