Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Officers Lose 243 Homeland Security Guns

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the they-were-right-here-a-second-ago dept.

Government 125

In a screw up so big it could only be brought to you by the government or a famous athlete, 243 guns were lost by Homeland Security agencies between 2006 and 2008. 179 guns, were lost "because officers did not properly secure them," an inspector general report said. One of the worst examples of carelessness cites a customs officer who left a firearm in an idling vehicle in the parking lot of a convenience store. The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside. "A local law enforcement officer later recovered the firearm from a suspected gang member and drug smuggler," the report said.

cancel ×

125 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31201990)

Some members of an organisation we don't like did something that is bad and which looks to work opposite to their general mission which makes them look stupid and hypocritical!

Re:Hooray! (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202266)

It is hard to say if it makes them look stupid or hypocritical, without knowing the punishment for losing your gun. Apparently, since one officer at least recovered his from a gang member, it is not termination of employment.

Re:Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31202610)

RTFS, it was lost by a customs officer and recovered by a local cop.

Re:Hooray! (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31205918)

Anonymous Coward is right, the customs officer didn't recover it, it was another officer who found it on a gang member.

Re:Hooray! (2, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203590)

It is hard to say if it makes them look stupid or hypocritical, without knowing the punishment for losing your gun. Apparently, since one officer at least recovered his from a gang member, it is not termination of employment.

If people in that agency were fired for incompetence, there wouldn't be anybody left by now. So presumably the punishment is having to figure out a new way to annoy the general public.

All of them are "Throw Guns" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31203842)

You know the kind, if you don't participate more than mere "cooperation" in an investigation of dispute, then why do they have evidence of you stalking those officers and where did you rob this Dep. H.S. gun from?

Did you find it just recently sir and want to return it to us out of concern for national security, and maybe do a little more than the statutory "cooperation" in regards to this?

sir, confesss!

PS: those missing Guns always show-up on dead bodies, just like in Los Angeles and Jew York.

Uh.. what? (2, Insightful)

CerebusUS (21051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202240)

by the government of a famous athlete

I'm sure you had a joke in there that you were dying to get out, but this makes less than no sense.

Re:Uh.. what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31202250)

He's talking about Tiger Woods. Reading the news doesn't hurt

Re:Uh.. what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31202288)

He's talking about Tiger Woods.

I'm with parent. For my simple brain, please explain where you get Tiger Woods from this?

Re:Uh.. what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31202384)

it's pretty obvious and funny.

Re:Uh.. what? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203394)

A famous athlete who screwed up and had an embarrassing press conference just a few hours ago.

Re:Uh.. what? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 4 years ago | (#31205244)

A famous athlete who screwed up and had an embarrassing press conference just a few hours ago.

Dunno about this press conference but if you're talking about a famous athlete with a gun problem, my go-to choice would have been Arenas [cbs2chicago.com] .

Re:Uh.. what? (1)

Joren (312641) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202768)

by the government of a famous athlete

He's talking about Tiger Woods. Reading the news doesn't hurt

Ok, I guess I must have missed the headline where Tiger Woods had formed his own government.

Re:Uh.. what? (2, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31205996)

Odd. The story reads "government or a famous athlete" here.

Re:Uh.. what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31202414)

There was a typo... it now reads: by the government or a famous athlete

It's quite simple (2, Funny)

SterlingSylver (1122973) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202702)

Only America has famous athletes (Look at David Beckham--came to the US to become famous). Only the US Goverment can make mistakes this hillariously collosal. Thus, only famous athletes' government (the US) can do this.

QED

Re:Uh.. what? (2, Informative)

DeadboltX (751907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202928)

by the government or a famous athlete

It's still a bad joke that he was dying to get out, but at least it makes slightly more sense.

Re:Uh.. what? (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204756)

The summary says "or", not "of".

Re:Uh.. what? (2, Funny)

CerebusUS (21051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204994)

Sure, it does _now_.

Re:Uh.. what? (2, Interesting)

The Moof (859402) | more than 4 years ago | (#31205434)

I think he's referring to Plaxico Burris [cbsnews.com] having a concealed weapon and accidentally shooting himself with it, resulting in gun charges against him.

Sleeping? (4, Funny)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202252)

The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside.

Sleeping in the back seat again?

Hopefully that number also represents ... (1)

Hohlraum (135212) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202346)

the number of DHS officers who were fired as well.

Re:Hopefully that number also represents ... (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | more than 4 years ago | (#31205572)

Hmm; need to wonder if they should have called it the Department of Homeland Stupidity. Seems to fit as well with the insecure bastards that need the very sword shoved through their chests.

More Proof of Government Incompetence (0, Troll)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202350)

This is yet more proof, as if any more was needed, of government incompetence and stupidity. How can people continue to believe that the government would do a good job running health care, or indeed anything else, in the face of repeated demonstrations to the contrary? For another example, take the stimulus (which btw has largely failed to create jobs). Are we supposed to be happy that 20 new jobs were created in New Jersey, which received 99 million in stimulus dollars, at a cost of approximately 5 million per job? The best defense that our intrepid leaders can muster is, "well, it would have been much worse if we hadn't done anything". Does anyone here honestly believe that the next three years are going to be any better? The Obama administration has failed and we are paying for their failure. The Dems don't understand business and the private sector; they don't understand what actually generates wealth in this country because they themselves are destroyers, not creators, of wealth. The best that can be hopped for is that the people learn a hard lesson these next three years and don't make the mistake of trusting the likes of Nancy Pelosi, who has almost zero business experience, ever again.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (-1, Troll)

mat128 (735121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202554)

We don't need more proof... The govt of Canada isnt doing anything good with our healthcare... why would the US do any better?

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31202808)

We don't need more proof... The govt of Canada isnt doing anything good with our healthcare... why would the US do any better?

You must have a personal problem with the Canadian health care. The Canadian government does not directly control the health care. What they do have is a Canadian Health Act [hc-sc.gc.ca] , which stipulates the minimum required coverage per province. The individual provinces then create their own modifications to the Canadian Health Act to utilize the tax money allocated for that purpose. The provinces have to give at least the minimum care required.

What's interesting is Canada has an average increased life expectancy of ~2 years more than the U.S. [wikipedia.org] .

In addition, the individual tax burden for Canada, as a whole [wikipedia.org] is lower than the cost for health care in the US paying piece meal.

I appreciate your cynical view of Canadian health care, however, I would still rather get seriously sick (or be seriously injured) in Canada as a Canadian citizen than in the US as a US citizen.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (3, Informative)

jbezorg (1263978) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203760)

The goal here is an irrational rant. Preferably in wall-of-text format. Why bother actually forming an informed opinion when we can spume and froth at the mouth and work up a good outrage?

So please, quit confusing the issue with stuff like "facts" and "details" like the following.

Infant Mortality Rate and Life Expectancy, by Sex: Canada
Year: 2010
IMR Both Sexes: 4.99
IMR Male: 5.34
IMR Female: 4.63
Life expectancy both sexes: 81.29
Life expectancy male: 78.72
Life expectancy female: 84.00

Infant Mortality Rate and Life Expectancy, by Sex: United States
Year: 2010
IMR Both Sexes: 6.14
IMR Male: 6.81
IMR Female: 5.44
Life expectancy both sexes: 78.24
Life expectancy male: 75.78
Life expectancy female: 80.81

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base.

United States - Latest Data Used in the Estimates and Projections
Reference years: 2007
Data source: vital registration
Data collection years: 2007
Notes: Preliminary data on total registered deaths.
Citation: National Center for Health Statistics. 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_21.pdf [cdc.gov] .

Canada - Latest Data Used in the Estimates and Projections
Reference years: 2004
Data source: vital registration
Data collection years: 2004
Notes: Registered deaths by age and sex.
Citation: Statistics Canada. 2006. Annual Demographic Statistics: 2005. Ottawa.

Note: Infant deaths are approximated as IMR times births in the year and may not add to totals due to rounding.

U.S. data are based on official estimates and projections. Population estimates for 1950-1999 are based on the resident population plus the armed forces overseas. Population estimates for 2000-2008 are for the resident population and are based on Census 2000. Population data in the IDB for 2009-2050 are projections of the resident population. The U.S. population components shown in the IDB for 2000-2050 may not match the official population components for the United States, due to differences in how they are displayed (calendar year versus midyear estimates). Revised official population estimates are released each year (see http://www.census.gov/popest/ [census.gov] ). Therefore, the U.S. population estimates (official compared with IDB) may not match due to differences in the timing of their releases.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (1)

praecantator (102628) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204924)

Thanks for injecting sanity and numbers... :-)

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (1)

jbezorg (1263978) | more than 4 years ago | (#31205264)

You're welcome. To explain further and give those numbers better meaning.

Infant Mortality Rate - The number of deaths of infants under 1 year of age from a cohort of 1,000 live births. Denoted 1q0 or IMR, it is the probability of dying between birth and exact age 1.

Life expectancy at birth. - The average number of years a group of people born in the same year can be expected to live if mortality at each age remains constant in the future.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31205758)

As a Canadian living in the US I can tell you that on some level most people here realize that the Canadian system is better - unless they swallowed some bullshit Republican lies about "wait times".

The problem is: There are more people who have some sort of health care right now than do now; ergo the majority will not want change - since that change WILL result in higher taxes.

Yes, the Canadian healthcare system is unquestionably superior in delivering proper care to ALL citizens to the one in the US, but it isn't FREE either - we pay for it via much higher income tax. The real reason why Americans do not want universal healthcare is that even if they don't admit it - they don't want to pay more tax so that people they don't know get the healthcare they deserve.

Barring that thinking, there are also those who don't feel like the government can actually successfully improve the system - and they may be right. Insurance company lobby may remove the only useful parts of any bill before it gets made law.

I can tell you right now that if a healthcare bill gets passed without a public option it will not benefit the country in any way. What really needs to happen is the complete abolishment of all private health insurers or the conversion of the existing companies to non-profit entities that provide jobs to their employees but are not motivated by the bottom line.

If you start spewing "but thats socialism", or "that isn't the American way" - that's fine, but don't pretend it's not because you're a selfish piece of shit.

Disclosure: I am in a higher than average tax bracket so it actually harms me if healthcare reforms get passed, and in Canada I paid huge income tax - but I still believe that everyone should have access to healthcare, and the same healthcare; not a two-tier system where rich people are able to obtain better care.

Healthcare is human, you don't deserve to be cared for more no matter how many millions of dollars you have acquired, sorry.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (5, Insightful)

PoderOmega (677170) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202608)

I understand your point regarding incompetence, but the only reason we know about this is because this is a government agency. If it was private company the public would have no idea. You could make an argument regarding hiring standards between the government and private companies, but based on my experience private companies hire lazy and incompnent employees as well. Where is the public report from a Health Care company where mistakes cost hundreds of premium paying customers money or time to recoupe money due to sloppiness on the insurance company? Or worse, where are the reports where people were delayed necessary procedures? You won't see it because it is a private company. I agree the government may not do a great job managing heathcare, but this is not a valid example.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (5, Insightful)

qzak (1115661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202642)

You'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence. Not that I necessarily assume the government is competent, mind you, but losing 250 out of a total number of guns that must be in the hundreds of thousands doesn't constitute 'proof' of anything.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (3, Interesting)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204368)

The DHS has a total of around 200,000 employees. The number of those who are actually armed (as opposed to sitting on their butts in an air conditioned office in D.C.) is significantly less. In a cursory search, I couldn't turn up any concrete numbers, but I imagine it's safe to say that probably 10% of DHS employees are actually "agents" of some type (Border Patrol, ATF, Air Marshals, etc). So that's 20,000 armed employees.

I don't see a 1% loss rate as "statistically insignificant" when you're talking about firearms lost through negligence.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204820)

You'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence. Not that I necessarily assume the government is competent, mind you, but losing 250 out of a total number of guns that must be in the hundreds of thousands doesn't constitute 'proof' of anything.

OK, bounce the DHS ratio of lost weapons vs. issued against any other major police agency and see if it's even close. An average of one gun "lost" every 4 days is pretty damn bad if you ask me, especially when talking about "trained" personnel.

Still think they're not THAT bad? Try and think about the number of manpack-sized nuclear devices that are "misplaced" out there. Yeah, seems we have a few of those we can't really put our hands on...

Incompetence is incompetence, and I cannot help but to hold the fucking department of HOMELAND SECURITY to a higher level. Learn how to secure your weapon.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31206634)

You'll have to explain to me how losing a statistically insiginficant number of weapons constitutes proof of government incompetence.

It might not be that. I have the same handgun as the first batch that DHS got. The trigger is pretty bad, I don't really enjoy shooting it. Maybe they were microwaving their iPhones, so to speak.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (1)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202960)

People are incompetent. The government is composed of people. Can you present a solution to social and economic issues that involves NO human oversight and control? If not, your complaint is totally invalid.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (1)

Unordained (262962) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203254)

Validity of your rant aside, please be consistent; too often I hear both this rant ("government is incompetent") coupled with conspiratorial, big-brother, black-helicopter rants that assume the government actually is capable of doing something, sometimes, as long as it's something nefarious. I'm not saying they're not capable of such, nor doing such -- I'm just saying ... please, to all of you, be consistent. Either the government can, or it cannot, get its act together.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204600)

Colbert already blew the lid off of this one. There's normal Obama, who presides over the incompetent government that can't do anything. Then there's evil Obama, who rules the evil government that is an unstoppable menace bent on destroying the country.

Thus the government can *and* cannot get its act together.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31205704)

I think you're excluding a middle here - the possibility that it is both incompetent *and* malicious.

Consider an example: An officer Tasers a man to death for not obeying instantly. This is both malicious ("tortured a citizen to death", which cannot reasonably be considered a "non-malicious" action) and incompetent ("did not do job as 'officer of the peace', did not preserve public life and safety, did not increase the welfare of the citizenry by his actions").

Most government actions are "malicious" (usually in the 'anti-social' sense) and "incompetent" (in that they do not achieve their stated goals, and frequently do not even efficiently achieve most posited clandestine goals).

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (4, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203438)

The Dems don't understand business and the private sector; they don't understand what actually generates wealth in this country because they themselves are destroyers, not creators, of wealth
 
Interesting idea when you consider the largest destroyers of wealth are in New York City on Wall Street, rather than in Washington DC. But those of us in the know, know that the Dems and Reps all have their campaigns paid by Goldman Sachs anyway.
 
To understand power in the United States, don't follow government. Follow the money.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31204442)

The U.S. government blows trillions of dollars each year, trillions that are expropriated by force (yes, the threat of jail for not paying your taxes is force--politely whitewashed, of course, but force nevertheless). Wall Street's fat cats wettest dreams don't have that kind of monetary clout.

The only people getting their "wealth" from the government are government employees and welfare recipients. And all that "wealth" was taken from someone else--it wasn't just created out of thin air by Obama's magical rainbow fairies.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204808)

The U.S. government blows trillions of dollars each year, trillions that are expropriated by force (yes, the threat of jail for not paying your taxes is force--politely whitewashed, of course, but force nevertheless). Wall Street's fat cats wettest dreams don't have that kind of monetary clout.
 
Last I saw, the estimate for the amount of wealth Wall Street's fat cats blew in September 2008 was $650 Trillion. For comparison, the Gross World Product is only $22 Trillion, the GDP of the United States is $13 Trillion, Obama's 2009 Federal Budget was $3.1 Trillion, and the annual Income Tax revenue of the United States is $2.1 Trillion. What was that again about Wall Street's Fat Cats not having that kind of clout?
 
  The only people getting their "wealth" from the government are government employees and welfare recipients. And all that "wealth" was taken from someone else--it wasn't just created out of thin air by Obama's magical rainbow fairies.
 
Agreed, but exactly the same could be said replacing "government" with "the stock market" and "government employees and welfare recipients" with "investors and financial companies". And the scary thing is, both statements are entirely equal, thanks to modern campaign financing, Wall Street IS the government. The people in Washington, DC are just figureheads.

Re:More Proof of Government Incompetence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31204314)

81% of U.S. firms lost laptops with sensitive data in the past year (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9002493/Survey_81_of_U.S._firms_lost_laptops_with_sensitive_data_in_the_past_year). This is yet more proof, as if any more was needed, of business incompetence and stupidity. How can people continue to believe that private businesses would do a good job of running healthcare, or indeed anything else, in the face of repeated demonstrations to the contrary.

As far as jobs created by the stimulus, if I spend a billion dollars to build a road with a crew of 100 people, it's true that you could say the cost was a 10 million dollars per job. But at the end I also have a road! If the goal of the stimulus were to make the $/jobs ratio as high as possible, we could just take 800 billion dollars and give 20k to 40 million people - woo hoo, 40 million jobs created! Except we'd have to do it every year. I think I prefer using the money to fix infrastructure and have people do other productive things that, as a side effect, create jobs. And incidentally, those jobs mean people are now making income that they pay taxes on which goes back into the system to build more roads, hire more teachers, police officers, etc.

But I guess since the government is incompentent and 81% of business are incompetent (not counting all the mistakes made by the other 19%), we should all just fly our non-tax-deductible personal aircraft into buildings to teach everyone a lesson.

Report shows people are still human (1, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202390)

Yup, we all do stupid things. Lose our car keys, forget to lock up our guns, dont wear a condom...

Oh, but when it comes to a cop, they better be more than perfect.

Just the other day a 3 year old shot themselves while attempting to get a gun from under their grandmothers couch.
So... yeah. If anything this just shows they need better weapons handling training. What? You think this was the first time someone did something stupid with a gun?

Re:Report shows people are still human (1)

landoltjp (676315) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202862)

Oh, but when it comes to a cop, they better be more than perfect.

Should they be perfect or "more than perfect"? No, but I would hope that they are better at demonstrating an adherence to the very law(s) that they strive to uphold, and better at putting practices and policies for that purpose.

The theory is that these are officers of the law. They represent The Law. Y'know, serve and protect, uphold the law ... that sort of thing. In theory they should be held to, and hold themselves to, a higher standard of practice.

I imagine that there are very defined practices for storing or securing service revolvers while both on and off duty. Which is where they'd see that 74 percent, or 179 guns, were lost "because officers did not properly secure them". And also, why the DHS did not have "specific procedures and policies in place regarding firearms".

In this case, the DHS itself is not holding itself to a higher ideal. I can't imagine what policy would say that keeping your weapon in a lunch box constitutes good practice or "reasonable care".

sigh ... I miss Judge Dredd.

Re:Report shows people are still human (3, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203430)

Well, we all also do illegal things, but you best be extra perfect in front of a cop. All you need to do is one illegal thing in front of a cop, and he will gladly do his job and process you into the system for punishment. Why should hey get a break when he gets caught slipping?

-Steve

Re:Report shows people are still human (3, Interesting)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203986)

Oh, but when it comes to a cop, they better be more than perfect.

Yes. Exactly.

We're talking about *cops*. We entrust them with our lives, and give them power over us, so yes, I think it's reasonable to expect them to be a little less careless than the average slashbot such as yourself. If they can't handle those expections, they should #gtfo, because they don't deserve the responsibility they've been given.

We're also not talking about a set of keys, here. We're talking about a *firearm*. Last I checked, most people aren't dumb enough to lose their 38 special between the seat cushions of their couch.

Frankly, I'm shocked this even surprises you.

Re:Report shows people are still human (2, Interesting)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204498)

Yes, most people are. Try carrying a firearm 24/7 for a few decades. There's a significant chance you will lose one (or more) over the course of a career, no matter how careful you like to think you'll be.

We're human beings. We're flawed. We do that sort of thing. Some leave their coffees, their groceries, or even their CHILDREN on top of their cars when they drive off. Some forget to take the iron off the board when they leave and their house burns down. Some forget to put the bar in the window and their child falls out when the screen gives way. Some turn around to talk to their kid about some detail of the day and drift in front of a semi. And none of us are immune to this sort of thing. Some are a little better than others, but no one is perfect.

It's unfortunate, but there is no way any human being can remain utterly alert to a specific danger for days, much less decades. A moment of inattention when we are paying attention to something seemingly important, and something truly important gets missed. Fortunately, in most of these cases, nothing terribly bad happens. We miss a meeting, or drop our cell phone in the toilet, and we deal with it.

Most gun owners have the option of securing their firearms in a locked cabinet and only pulling them out when heading to the shooting range or to bag a critter for supper. Law enforcement doesn't have that option - they HAVE to have their firearm handy all the time. It's usually a job requirement. And that means some of them will get lost from time to time.

Re:Report shows people are still human (2, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204650)

We're human beings. We're flawed. We do that sort of thing. Some leave their coffees, their groceries, or even their CHILDREN on top of their cars when they drive off. Some forget to take the iron off the board when they leave and their house burns down. Some forget to put the bar in the window and their child falls out when the screen gives way. Some turn around to talk to their kid about some detail of the day and drift in front of a semi. And none of us are immune to this sort of thing.

No. But you also don't have dumbasses excusing this behaviour, saying moronic things like "Yup, we all do stupid things. Lose our car keys, forget to lock up our guns, dont wear a condom...", as if any of those things is even remotely equivalent to losing a firearm or leaving their child on the top of their car.

Just like idiot parents should be reprimanded severely for leaving their kid on the top of their car and driving off (an action which, I'm certain, would wind you up in court for charges of negligence), cops should be reprimanded severely for losing their firearms. Period. No if's, and's, or but's. It's inexcusable behaviour from someone entrusted with my life, not to mention a dangerous weapon.

Re:Report shows people are still human (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204864)

I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences. I'm just saying it's going to happen.

Re:Report shows people are still human (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31205080)

well I hope they fired this one 'One of the worst examples of carelessness cites a customs officer who left a firearm in an idling vehicle in the parking lot of a convenience store. The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside.'

Not only did he lose his gun he allowed them to take him as well.

Re:Report shows people are still human (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204880)

On the other hand, the more responsible population generally has/wants better jobs than being a cop and the institutions themselves filter out any outliers (too smart, too expensive) leaving only those that have no viable other choices (because they're undereducated or underperforming) or those that like the power trips (because they've been repressed at school or home or because they're sociopaths).

Re:Report shows people are still human (1)

niko9 (315647) | more than 4 years ago | (#31205716)

We're talking about *cops*. We entrust them with our lives, and give them power over us, so yes,...

Going off slightly off topic from the main article...

Who is we? I don't *entrust* my life to any police officer or any other official, and I sure as hell don't give them any "power" over me. This is on of the greatest myths, misconceptions, whatever-you-wanna-call-it that is self perpetrated amongst the American public. You alone are responsible for your own safety.

Don't get me wrong: I don't have issues with hating law enforcement and such but...

The police have no responsibility or legal obligation to protect you. Nada, zero, zip. Wanna know why? Because court after court --including the Supreme Court of the United states-- has ruled so.

Look at these court cases:

Warren v. District of Columbia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia [wikipedia.org]
Castle Rock v. Gonzales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales [wikipedia.org]
DeShaney v. Winnebago County: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County [wikipedia.org]

The Warren v. D.C. case is most relevant here. Even if the police, that most people "entrust" their lives to, spectacularly fail at doing their job your have zero legal recourse. But wait, it gets better and stranger!

Riss v. New York. Link: http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html [hematite.com]

Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968). [Note: Linda Riss obeyed the law, yet the law prevented her from arming herself in self-defense.]

I live in New York City. See the problem? If I want to take responsibility (and I am willing) for my own safety the City of New York won't let me. I am forced to depend on them. And if they force me to depend on them for me safety and make an utter mess of protecting me, then I have zero legal recourse.

Something to ponder.

Statistics (5, Informative)

FishOuttaWater (1163787) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202408)

So, over 3 years, 179 / 188,500 weapons went missing, 0.09%, only slightly higher than the percentage eaten by beavers or flattened by steam rollers.

What a travesty. How could they have been so careless with our tax dollars. Let's impeach Obama.

=^P

Re: Statistics (1)

flahwho (1243110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202726)

I can believe the steam roller deaths, but I wanna see some proof of the people eaten by beavers!

Re: Statistics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31204370)

I believe he was referencing the number of weapons eaten by beavers. A serious problem.

Re: Statistics (3, Interesting)

flahwho (1243110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204674)

well that puts a completely different spin on it. Hmmm. I can still believe the weapons being flattened by steam rollers, but now I wanna see proof of beavers eating weapons. Of course if you have proof of beavers eating people, I'd still be interested in that too.

Re: Statistics (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204926)

He must be talking about rifles. And I still don't see them fully consuming the firearm, what with all those hard metal parts. Unless they're some sort of radioactive commie SUPER BEAVERS with admantium teeth. Another reason to hate those damn Canananadians!

Re: Statistics (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#31206548)

I believe he was referencing the number of weapons eaten by beavers. A serious problem.

What do you expect if you make the guns out of freaking wood?

Re: Statistics (4, Funny)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204518)

Don't search for that on Google. Just... don't.

Re: Statistics (1)

Pteraspidomorphi (1651293) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204812)

I think he's saying the guns are eaten by beavers.

Re:Statistics (2, Insightful)

6ULDV8 (226100) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202812)

How about looking at personal responsibility and labeling the individual as at fault. If you do that, your statistics will mean more. One officer was issued two weapons and lost one.

Re:Statistics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31203678)

I think that was merely fish's attempt to be sarcastic. I doubt anyone thinks someone else is responsible for those lost guns other than the officers that committed gross negligence.

Re:Statistics (3, Insightful)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203498)

well you need to compare this to the army and the average loss rate in the general population

Re:Statistics (3, Insightful)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204556)

I think you'd find the loss rate in the Army vanishingly small. The kinds of punishment a cop gets for misplacing a weapon pale beside what they can do to a soldier losing a rifle.

For a good number of years I was the company armorer and ran the company arms room when I was in the Army and we never lost a weapon--because every soldier knows what will happen to him if he loses his rifle, and every sergeant knows what will happen to him if his troop loses it, and so on up the chain.

I doubt any of the DHS employees got more than a wrist-slap

Re:Statistics (1)

anglico (1232406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31206056)

I was thinking the same thing. In the Marines if we had a rifle checked out of the armory we had better have it at hand at all times. if you wanted to take a leak you slung it over your shoulder, one guy made the mistake of leaning it against a tree and of course along comes the officer. He regretted that mistake for a long time. I think if every cop/DHS knew they would lose their pay or rank or even fired for misplacing it then they would be very careful.

Re:Statistics (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203610)

Bingo. If this were Fark.com, this'd have been [NEWS FLASH] People lose and steal shit.

Re:Statistics (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31204038)

There are better reasons to impeach Obama but, sure lets go with that...

That is the wrong statistic. Here is the correct 1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31204308)

The correct statistic would be to compare this with how many DHS agent there is. If 0.09% is the number of weapon lost by DHS agent in average anmd there are 185K total lsot by all enforcement agency , civilian etc... Then we can then see if DHS agent are in average MORE careless than the population, or less careless. Since tehre are obviously less than 0.09% DHS agent in the U ( 300 000 000 * 0.0009 = 270 000) then we can assume DHS agent are more careless. Therefore they are incompetent.

Re:Statistics (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204484)

I think they're intentionally misleading you with their statistics. There are only around 200,000 employees in DHS and the vast majority are paper pushers. I'd be surprised if over 10% are actually "agents" in the gun-toting ATF, Border Patrol sense.

While the officer was inside? (0, Redundant)

MoxCamel (20484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202438)

The vehicle was stolen while the officer was inside.

Worse. Law enforcement Officer. EVAR.

(Ohhhh, wait, nm I see wut u did there...)

Re:While the officer was inside? (1)

captaindomon (870655) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203528)

Actually, this is very common. It isn't unusual at all for an officer to leave a vehicle running pretty much all day with the doors unlocked. It helps keep the cabin cool in the summer and warm in the winter. More importantly, most police cars are essentially roving data centers with limited backup power and no backup cooling. Boot up time for the CAD/Mobile client, the private radio broadband system, GPS locator, car-handheld radio relay, video evidence system, radar, and ALPR system can run upwards of five minutes. Most modern cars shunt A/C vents into the trunk to help cool all the boards down. That's a dang long time before you are ready to resume patrol, so most officers just keep them running if they step away for a few minutes.

You missed a key detail (2, Interesting)

name_already_taken (540581) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203670)

Actually, this is very common.

Yes, but law enforcement vehicles which need to be left running are equipped with a lockout switch which keeps the engine running and the accessories energized without allowing the vehicle to be driven

You start the car normally, turn on the lockout switch, and then remove the ignition key. The car can be shut off by turning the lockout switch off, but it cannot be restarted or driven without the ignition key.

There's never a good reason to leave the keys in a running and unattended vehicle. This is what the officer in question did.

Re:You missed a key detail (1)

DigitalReverend (901909) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204512)

I think I have seen 2 or 3 videos where a person in the back seat of a police vehicle has somehow gotten into the front and driven away. Are you sure about this lockout switch? The one thing is that people are assuming the DHS person was driving an official vehicle. I doubt that was the case. He was probably in his PoV.

Re:You missed a key detail (2, Interesting)

KC7JHO (919247) | more than 4 years ago | (#31204720)

My patrol car has no such switch, except the one on the door, and neither do any of those in my department. I have never seen a patrol car with this feature, though technologically it is something that SHOULD and could be put in place! This would greatly help when having more than one officer at a scene needing to warm up but only one having the spare key... You would not have any links to where this system could be obtained would you?

Re:You missed a key detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31206300)

Search for car remote starter.. couple hundred bucks a piece, you can start it with a button, and if you get in and dont put the key in, the second you hit the brake it turns off. (Note: just cause you have to hit the brake to kill it doesnt mean someone can drive away by not using the brakes, you have to hit the brake to put it in gear no? (not assuming your an idiot, but when i explained it to my roomate, he was like wha? so i figured id add the disclaimer) )

Re:While the officer was inside? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31203802)

if only there was some way we could lock and unlock the doors from outside the vehicle while leaving it running..

Re:While the officer was inside? (1)

fred fleenblat (463628) | more than 4 years ago | (#31206512)

My assumption was that to some degree they are just making the police car into a bait car. If someone is dumb enough to steal a police car, they would be more than happy to let him drive off in it in exchange for the pleasure of arresting him in a few minutes.

grammer nazi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31202576)

... examples of carelessness sites a customs officer...

That would be cites, son.

spelling nazi (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31202828)

grammer nazi

That would be grammar, son.

Re:grammer nazi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31203056)

grammer nazi

That would be diction, son.

Too big to fail (1, Offtopic)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#31202890)

And we really need this huge, bloated, self-justifying, all-powerful organism to run our health care system because...?

Re:Too big to fail (1)

NoCowardsHere (1278858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203012)

The Department of Homeland Security runs our health care system? Oh my god, that explains SO MUCH!

Re:Too big to fail (3, Informative)

Gramie2 (411713) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203060)

...because the alternative is a ravenous beast that feeds on the sick to generate monstrous profits. Socialized medicine has been shown to work* in countries all over the world. I (a non-American) don't have to worry that changing jobs will mean a loss of health insurance, nor that a catastrophic illness/injury will make my family paupers.

*work in the sense that decent healthcare is enjoyed by all residents of a country, instead of having superb care for the rich, generally adequate for the middle class, little or none for the working poor.

Re:Too big to fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31204786)

So how is that socialized medicine working out for you? Along with the 23% vat, the $4 a gallon tax on fuel, and an overall tax rate of 75% of your income, and you still have long waits for health care.

I lived in Europe for 3 years. Other than the beer and hoards of much skinnier women (than the US) I didn't see much else to be impressed with.

Re:Too big to fail (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#31206558)

I lived in Europe for 3 years. Other than the beer and hoards of much skinnier women (than the US) I didn't see much else to be impressed with.

There's a more relaxed attitude towards gambling too. That gives you booze, pretty women and blackjack. What else were you looking for again?

ultimate troll weapon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31205110)

Actually, the countries where socialized health care works are ones that are racially homogenous.

Re:Too big to fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31205980)

care to provide the population of your country vs. America? I'd love to know what fraction of 300 million it is, and point out to you that that lower population might be a reason why the government can more easily provide healthcare.

Re:Too big to fail (2, Insightful)

Lithdren (605362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203484)

...Because a 0.09% rate of failure isn't as bad as you make it out to be.

because its better than our corporate healthcare (1, Offtopic)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203618)

who care more about delivering value to stockholders, than delivering you life

the idea that there will be government death panels is hilarious, since we currently have corporate death panels: ex-nurses in cubicles looking at your list of CPT codes purposefully working hard to make sure you don't cost so much as you die

besides, i wonder if you've ever dealt with the maze of paperwork between hospitals, doctors, health insurers. now THAT'S a bloated bureaucracy. not that the feds won't indulge in odious amounts of waste, but it might actually be an improvement, since there are currently so many entities in the game throwing reams of paper at each other. and it would COST less, since there is no profit motive to run 900 tests on you every time you have a chest pain, while completely ignoring things like preventative medicine because its not profitable. instead, forcing uninsured diabetics to sit in expensive emergency rooms because they can't afford a doctor. which you pay for, and its more expensive. pathetic

no one says universal socialized healthcare is perfect. i advocate for it, and openly admit it would suck in many ways

the point is it would suck WAY LESS than the bullshit system we have no

so i accept admit and endorse every criticism of universal socialized healthcare you can imagine

and then challenge you to defend our current bullshit system as remotely better in any way

wake the fuck up

Re:Too big to fail (2, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203816)

No one else has proven capable.

Next question?

This is YRO how, again? (1)

CleverDan (728966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203482)

Yet another off-topic article. Or maybe /. has entirely become off-topic?

No, I didn't RTFA, but the summary doesn't even try to explain how this is affecting my rights, online or otherwise.

Lost? (2, Informative)

Eggbloke (1698408) | more than 4 years ago | (#31203690)

Did they check behind the sofa?

Re:Lost? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31205444)

Actually, my first thought was if they checked on eBay.

They're just doing their part... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31203874)

... in turning the criminal underground into a polite, well-armed society.

Isn't that what the anti-control lobby is arguing for?

Hypocrites! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31204838)

These days practically ever gun comes with a (sometimes cheap) trigger lock, we're bombarded with "think of the children, lock up your guns" advertisements, some states/cities even have specific laws criminalizing not having your guns under lock and key. And yet hear we are, guns left in running cars, guns left out in the open, guns forgotten in yards, all by LEO's who spend a lot of their time chastising the rest of us for being irresponsible. Kinda reminds me of the whole "don't talk on your mobile phone while driving" campaign going around, despite the fact that several times a month I see officers driving 35-45MPH in a 25 zone while talking on one of the things. And they wonder why a lot of people don't trust them.

Note: I know some of this rant doesn't apply specifically to Federal but I kinda doubt it really matters

A fair trade (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31205466)

The border guards can have my laptop if I get their gun?

Not a big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31205554)

That number looks big but that's out of hundreds of thousands of weapons. It just shows that a) they are victims of theft themselves on occasion and b) they loose shit occasionally just like everyone else does.

Sure it would be great if the number of lost weapons were zero but ...

Not
A
Big
Fucking
Deal

Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31205714)

1. Buy cheap gloves und wear them.
2. Steal HS gun.
3. Shoot Cheney.
4. Put HS gun back.
5. Burn gloves
6. Give the media a anonymous tip.
7. Rinse, and repeat (with another real douche)
8. Watch them beat the shit out of each other with accusations.
9. Be quick, before they can react with new rules.
10. PROFIT. ;)

happens all the time (1)

cstacy (534252) | more than 4 years ago | (#31206376)

The government and police lose guns (including machine guns) all the time. It hrdly ever makes the news, it's just a well-known dirty little secret.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>