Two Tourists In Pai Shot By A Police Officer

[Claymore]

Has anyone found out whether the cop had an automatic or a revolver? If anyone here knows Andrew Drummond perhaps he might be able to find out.

Answered by sabaijai in his post here:

QUOTE (sabaijai @ 2008-01-15 01:53:43)3. A Canadian journalist here (now in BKK) told one of the editors of the Pai Post that the police allowed him to handle the policeman's pistol, which had already been dusted for prints and remanded as evidence. He said it was a double-action semi-automatic fitted with a hair trigger.

Double action semi-automatic with hair trigger? Dont think thats quite the answer required here - sounds more like a defence. Will ask.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

If it is in fact a double action with a hair trigger that raises other questions. A double action would require more than a light pull to discharge the first shot. Then there is the other question, why are the police here allowed to carry as a street weapon one that could so easily be discharged on the second and subsequent shots? There is no margin of safety with a hair trigger.

Edited January 18, 2008 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[Arkady]

QUOTE (sabaijai @ 2008-01-15 01:53:43)

Some news from Pai.

......

3. A Canadian journalist here (now in BKK) told one of the editors of the Pai Post that the police allowed him to handle the policeman's pistol, which had already been dusted for prints and remanded as evidence. He said it was a double-action semi-automatic fitted with a hair trigger.

Interesting. Sounds odd that a double action semi-auto would have a hair trigger. The point of a double action is to prevent accidental discharges of the first shot by having two pressures on the trigger. This is why they are favored by police departments in countries where some thought is actually put into the choice of standardised police weapons. After the first shot the pressure on most double actions is the same as a single action, which is a very slight pressure usually not very much more than a hair trigger, although some models require two pressures each and every shot (at the cost of less accuracy). Virtually all semi-autos on the market in the last couple decades are fitted with safety catches. Perhaps Uthai had modified his trigger to be a hair trigger but that would only apply to the second and subsequent shots unless he had also modified it to be a single action hair trigger. In that case why not save trouble and buy a single action in the first place? In any case it is possible to override the double action of first shot only double actions by carrying the gun cocked but this is normally down only in the cocked and locked position i.e. by throwing off the safety you can get off a first shot in single action model. However, the police have said earlier that Uthai's gun did not have a safety catch. That leaves us with the image of an off duty, out of uniform duty cop with a drink problem packing a double-action semi-auto which had been modified to have a hair trigger and remove the safety catch. If he had habitually carried this around cocked in his waste band while knocking back the Changs and riding his motor bike he probably would have accidently blown his privates away years ago. It is hard to imagine that even a moron would carry a gun around like this. But I have never observed a uniformed Thai cop carrying a semi-auto in the cocked position.

If had been modified as a single action and had no safety, the only safe way to carry it would have been to carry it without a round in the chamber but that would have required a fair bit of effort to pull back the action to get a round in the spout and cock it.

Its seems most likely to me that this was a standard double action 9mm semi-auto which may have been modified with a hair trigger but probably not because there is very little point in this, if the gun is to used in stressful situations, as it makes the gun more dangerous for the shooter, who might shoot himself by accident, and is more likely to fire prematurely before being sighted properly. (However, it is possible that hair triggers are the in thing with some Thai cops who have not thought it through.) It is also possible that it had no safety but unlikely. If you don't want to use the safety, you don't have to. No need to remove it. Even if it had a hair trigger and no safety or the safety was not used, it would still have been difficult to fire the first shot by accident with the double action. My take is that the Canadian journalist didn't know much about hand guns and the police are trying present things so as not to conflict with the accidental discharge theory, consistent with the comment that police guns don't have safety catches which is nonsense because virtually all police semi-autos must have them. Unless the prosecution is motivated to put forward testimony from an independent and impartial weapons expert, it would be quite possible for the accidental discharge theory to go forensically unchallenged in court. Maybe Farang Prince can throw some more professional light on this.

[Foggy Bottom]

the only safe way to carry it would have been to carry it without a round in the chamber but that would have required a fair bit of effort to pull back the action to get a round in the spout and cock it.

And that may just be THE most telling comment in the entire forum.

A - If Uthai habitually went around with a round in the spout, in a weapon "with no safety" and "a hair trigger" then he should quite simply be charged with "possession with intent to murder" everytime he strapped the weapon on.

B - If he followed what in all likelihood would be standing firearms instructions, he would have to carry the weapon with no round in the breech - i.e. he would have to deliberately, knowingly, and manually, slide the breech to load the chamber before the weapon could be fired (safety catch or not) and from that needed action (actual or in accordance with standing orders) could have stemmed the reported criminal charges of "premeditated murder" ?

(BTW - seeing Uthai cock the weapon could also have been the trigger that made Leo go for the weapon while it was still in Uthai's hands - upon seeing the breech pulled and released, I too would assume it was about to be used against me, and with a few drinks inside, it would probably make me attempt an all-or-nothing rush to disarm the weapon holder (and I'm not renowned for such idiocy ..... other idiocies yes, but not ones like that ).)

C - If on the other hand, his version of accidental discharge is true, then he had to have a round in the chamber, and to have knowingly removed "a safety" either by placing his finger on the trigger, or using a thumb lever, or whatever, AND he had to have his finger on the trigger (intent to use) at which point we return to option B above.

D - Factor in alcohol, late night and outnumbered 3:1, an already "heated" situation, and he should also be charged with gross negligence, extreme misconduct, and excession of authority (he was off duty) and be dishonourably discharged from the Police with loss of pension etc ..... and that's regardless of the court case result, for his actions have certainly brought the name of the Royal Thai Police into severe disrepute - which is normally enough for dismissal without accrued privileges etc - in any country.

That would then removed the vested interests of his colleagues in protecting him during the investigation and trial, and would more strongly provide for an open and fair result (in either direction).

..... just my tuppence worth after reading hundreds of nonsensical bickerings over the last few days.

Gaz

Edited January 18, 2008 by Gaz Chiangmai

[Danielle]

Someone questioned whether Ross is the "self-appointed" spokesperson for the family. What do you mean by this? You think he is in there shoving everyone else out of the picture to hog all the media attention for himself? No, the whole family is grateful that Ross has taken so much of the responsibility and burden that has come along with these circumstances. You can trust that he has the permission and support of the family when he is giving statements to the media.

[Johpa]

I hesitate to point this out for fear of being criticized for failing to respect Thai culture by the many highly assimilated members of TV but I just noticed that in the photograph of Sgt Uthai displaying the minute scratch to his right elbow you can see from the fresh looking white strings attached to his right wrist that he had very recently participated in a merit making ceremony. I think I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread the effectiveness of merit making in resolving moral dilemmas and guilt that might otherwise be suffered by Thais who kill.....

Oh please, kindly take this as a dismissive and not a criticism, and pardon this occasionally assimilated TV member from pointing out that there are countless reasons that Thais go about making merit and many reasons, including but not limited to making merit, that they would have a string tied around their wrist. I am not disputing that Thais will often seek merit (tham bun) to make amends for actual or perceived acts of "tham baap" by themselves of other family members, but the string, in and of itself has no intrinsic significance, although it does make for good public relations on the part of our hapless Pai constable. But in opposition to my former professor's recent speech in Bangkok, I believe that most rural Thais are animist at heart with only a veneer of Buddhism on the outside.

[kat]

As you say, there are many reasons for making merit, but the point is that there are fresh strings on his wrist NOW, with an apparent new amulet outside of his shirt, for his first press conference after the "re-enactment".

Of course this is speculation, but my take is that this is part of a "public relations" style photo opportunity, to exhibit that he is sorry and making amends. Not as significant to us as it stands alone as it is to Thais.

[Arkady]

the only safe way to carry it would have been to carry it without a round in the chamber but that would have required a fair bit of effort to pull back the action to get a round in the spout and cock it.

And that may just be THE most telling comment in the entire forum.

A - If Uthai habitually went around with a round in the spout, in a weapon "with no safety" and "a hair trigger" then he should quite simply be charged with "possession with intent to murder" everytime he strapped the weapon on.

B - If he followed what in all likelihood would be standing firearms instructions, he would have to carry the weapon with no round in the breech - i.e. he would have to deliberately, knowingly, and manually, slide the breech to load the chamber before the weapon could be fired (safety catch or not) and from that needed action (actual or in accordance with standing orders) could have stemmed the reported criminal charges of "premeditated murder" ?

(BTW - seeing Uthai cock the weapon could also have been the trigger that made Leo go for the weapon while it was still in Uthai's hands - upon seeing the breech pulled and released, I too would assume it was about to be used against me, and with a few drinks inside, it would probably make me attempt an all-or-nothing rush to disarm the weapon holder (and I'm not renowned for such idiocy ..... other idiocies yes, but not ones like that ).)

C - If on the other hand, his version of accidental discharge is true, then he had to have a round in the chamber, and to have knowingly removed "a safety" either by placing his finger on the trigger, or using a thumb lever, or whatever, AND he had to have his finger on the trigger (intent to use) at which point we return to option B above.

D - Factor in alcohol, late night and outnumbered 3:1, an already "heated" situation, and he should also be charged with gross negligence, extreme misconduct, and excession of authority (he was off duty) and be dishonourably discharged from the Police with loss of pension etc ..... and that's regardless of the court case result, for his actions have certainly brought the name of the Royal Thai Police into severe disrepute - which is normally enough for dismissal without accrued privileges etc - in any country.

That would then removed the vested interests of his colleagues in protecting him during the investigation and trial, and would more strongly provide for an open and fair result (in either direction).

..... just my tuppence worth after reading hundreds of nonsensical bickerings over the last few days.

Gaz

Gaz, my post was rather convoluted, for which I apologize, but I think the existence of a hair trigger (which would most likely be a modification not a stock item) on the double action semi-auto is not very plausible, as it would be pointless and dangerous for a service weapon (but is possible). I think it is much more likely that Uthai carried a standard unmodified double action semi-auto fitted with a safety catch. I suspect that the police were trying to plant the idea with journalists who don't know much about guns that a hair trigger might have made it hard for Uthai to avoid a series of accidental discharges. I imagine that he carried it like most police would the world over, with a round in the chamber, uncocked and with the safety on. Pulling back the slide to load a round into the breech of a semi-auto is seen in a lot in films but I don't think many police would want to have to do this when a bad guy is taking at shot at them. A double action with a round in the breech but uncocked with the safety on can be fired quite quickly by a trained officer but requires the deliberate actions of slipping off the safety and taking up the first pressure on the trigger which is enough to avoid accidental discharge in nearly all circumstances. I suspect the hair trigger and the earlier comment about lack of safety catches on police weapons are deliberate disinformation.

It is quite hard to fire police and other civil servants which is one reason that you read about so many police and military being transferred to "inactive posts". Many have sued their bosses for wrongful dismissal which can turn into a criminal case in Thailand. Recently the former national police chief sued the prime minister for wrongful dismissal and won the case with the civil service commission. Today he has been reinstated as police chief but is transferred to an inactive post until he reaches retirement age, while the actual police chief is officially only acting police chief. The prime minister narrowly avoided a criminal prosecution in the case. Add to that the fact that as a senior sergeant Uthai would know a great deal about crime involving police and influential figures in the district, including possibly extrajudicial killings during the war on drugs. Firing him with loss of pension or even moving him to an inactive post (with no opportunities for graft) are not such intuitive solutions for the police as might seem at first glance. No one can afford a disgruntled whistle blower with nothing left to lose.

[Claymore]

the only safe way to carry it would have been to carry it without a round in the chamber but that would have required a fair bit of effort to pull back the action to get a round in the spout and cock it.

And that may just be THE most telling comment in the entire forum.

A - If Uthai habitually went around with a round in the spout, in a weapon "with no safety" and "a hair trigger" then he should quite simply be charged with "possession with intent to murder" everytime he strapped the weapon on.

B - If he followed what in all likelihood would be standing firearms instructions, he would have to carry the weapon with no round in the breech - i.e. he would have to deliberately, knowingly, and manually, slide the breech to load the chamber before the weapon could be fired (safety catch or not) and from that needed action (actual or in accordance with standing orders) could have stemmed the reported criminal charges of "premeditated murder" ?

(BTW - seeing Uthai cock the weapon could also have been the trigger that made Leo go for the weapon while it was still in Uthai's hands - upon seeing the breech pulled and released, I too would assume it was about to be used against me, and with a few drinks inside, it would probably make me attempt an all-or-nothing rush to disarm the weapon holder (and I'm not renowned for such idiocy ..... other idiocies yes, but not ones like that ).)

C - If on the other hand, his version of accidental discharge is true, then he had to have a round in the chamber, and to have knowingly removed "a safety" either by placing his finger on the trigger, or using a thumb lever, or whatever, AND he had to have his finger on the trigger (intent to use) at which point we return to option B above.

D - Factor in alcohol, late night and outnumbered 3:1, an already "heated" situation, and he should also be charged with gross negligence, extreme misconduct, and excession of authority (he was off duty) and be dishonourably discharged from the Police with loss of pension etc ..... and that's regardless of the court case result, for his actions have certainly brought the name of the Royal Thai Police into severe disrepute - which is normally enough for dismissal without accrued privileges etc - in any country.

That would then removed the vested interests of his colleagues in protecting him during the investigation and trial, and would more strongly provide for an open and fair result (in either direction).

..... just my tuppence worth after reading hundreds of nonsensical bickerings over the last few days.

Gaz

Gaz, my post was rather convoluted, for which I apologize, but I think the existence of a hair trigger (which would most likely be a modification not a stock item) on the double action semi-auto is not very plausible, as it would be pointless and dangerous for a service weapon (but is possible). I think it is much more likely that Uthai carried a standard unmodified double action semi-auto fitted with a safety catch. I suspect that the police were trying to plant the idea with journalists who don't know much about guns that a hair trigger might have made it hard for Uthai to avoid a series of accidental discharges. I imagine that he carried it like most police would the world over, with a round in the chamber, uncocked and with the safety on. Pulling back the slide to load a round into the breech of a semi-auto is seen in a lot in films but I don't think many police would want to have to do this when a bad guy is taking at shot at them. A double action with a round in the breech but uncocked with the safety on can be fired quite quickly by a trained officer but requires the deliberate actions of slipping off the safety and taking up the first pressure on the trigger which is enough to avoid accidental discharge in nearly all circumstances. I suspect the hair trigger and the earlier comment about lack of safety catches on police weapons are deliberate disinformation.

It is quite hard to fire police and other civil servants which is one reason that you read about so many police and military being transferred to "inactive posts". Many have sued their bosses for wrongful dismissal which can turn into a criminal case in Thailand. Recently the former national police chief sued the prime minister for wrongful dismissal and won the case with the civil service commission. Today he has been reinstated as police chief but is transferred to an inactive post until he reaches retirement age, while the actual police chief is officially only acting police chief. The prime minister narrowly avoided a criminal prosecution in the case. Add to that the fact that as a senior sergeant Uthai would know a great deal about crime involving police and influential figures in the district, including possibly extrajudicial killings during the war on drugs. Firing him with loss of pension or even moving him to an inactive post (with no opportunities for graft) are not such intuitive solutions for the police as might seem at first glance. No one can afford a disgruntled whistle blower with nothing left to lose.

The point is Thai police have already signalled the fact that they are going into court to say Uthai had a gun with a hair trigger. And they have shown the gun to a Canadian journalist - working as a part time sub on a BKK newspaoer - to make their point.

[thaigene2]

Someone questioned whether Ross is the "self-appointed" spokesperson for the family. What do you mean by this? You think he is in there shoving everyone else out of the picture to hog all the media attention for himself? No, the whole family is grateful that Ross has taken so much of the responsibility and burden that has come along with these circumstances. You can trust that he has the permission and support of the family when he is giving statements to the media.

Yes I don't understand why people are going on about that..Seems silly to me. He's the lawyer, right? Lawyers often act as spokespeople for their clients - they are hired to act in their best interest so it make sense. It's common in Canada, US, UK, etc..In french the word is avocat - (advocate).

[Danielle]

Someone questioned whether Ross is the "self-appointed" spokesperson for the family. What do you mean by this? You think he is in there shoving everyone else out of the picture to hog all the media attention for himself? No, the whole family is grateful that Ross has taken so much of the responsibility and burden that has come along with these circumstances. You can trust that he has the permission and support of the family when he is giving statements to the media.

Yes I don't understand why people are going on about that..Seems silly to me. He's the lawyer, right? Lawyers often act as spokespeople for their clients - they are hired to act in their best interest so it make sense. It's common in Canada, US, UK, etc..In french the word is avocat - (advocate).

No, Ross is Melissa's fiance. The lawyer is Adriano Iovinelli. Either way, the family is dealing with a lot of stress and grief, so it's a relief that this burden is not on my aunt or uncle.

[thaigene2]

Quotation problem..sorry for this

Keyman said:

You keep telling "need to act" but do what? That newspaper say they sent another minister to talk to his family and explain what they are doing. I would like to know more. Does anyone have any idea for concrete suggestion?

I say..

which part of the above in bold don't you think is action?

You say Canada government should act. You mean it should come and give a news conference too?

I meant either in Canada at their Foreign Affairs Ministry - with the Minister speaking out (not the junior flunky who was assigned the task earlier), or the Ambassador here saying something more than 'we're sorry for the family and offering our assistance' - I keep referring to what happened over the similar death of an Iranian-Canadian woman killed in Iran - following which Canada made a huge stink. So unless she was a spy (which I doubt) why would Canada make such a big deal on that and stay relatively silent on this case? I'm not saying the cases are identical, but I am saying there should be consistency in public response to the killing of their citizens abroad when it involved police or other agents of the state (even if a rural cop is pretty junior in that regard).

The family has decided not to speak out about the Canadian Government role too much - perhaps because antagonizing Canada's Foreign Affairs Ministry may bring down the shutters..understandable. Doesn't stop others from calling on Ottawa to act though..because at the end of the day, that may be in the interests of other Canadians - as one day they may be the person who needs action on their behalf.

[thaigene2]

Someone questioned whether Ross is the "self-appointed" spokesperson for the family. What do you mean by this? You think he is in there shoving everyone else out of the picture to hog all the media attention for himself? No, the whole family is grateful that Ross has taken so much of the responsibility and burden that has come along with these circumstances. You can trust that he has the permission and support of the family when he is giving statements to the media.

Yes I don't understand why people are going on about that..Seems silly to me. He's the lawyer, right? Lawyers often act as spokespeople for their clients - they are hired to act in their best interest so it make sense. It's common in Canada, US, UK, etc..In french the word is avocat - (advocate).

No, Ross is Melissa's fiance. The lawyer is Adriano Iovinelli. Either way, the family is dealing with a lot of stress and grief, so it's a relief that this burden is not on my aunt or uncle.

Sorry for the error - thought I read somewhere in the many pages above that Ross Fortune was the lawyer..

[Danielle]

Sorry for the error - thought I read somewhere in the many pages above that Ross Fortune was the lawyer..

No need to apologize - I know as well as you that this thread is 53 pages long with a lot of questionable and contradictory information.

[grantbkk]

Interesting. Sounds odd that a double action semi-auto would have a hair trigger. The point of a double action is to prevent accidental discharges of the first shot by having two pressures on the trigger. This is why they are favored by police departments in countries where some thought is actually put into the choice of standardised police weapons. After the first shot the pressure on most double actions is the same as a single action, which is a very slight pressure usually not very much more than a hair trigger, although some models require two pressures each and every shot (at the cost of less accuracy). Virtually all semi-autos on the market in the last couple decades are fitted with safety catches. Perhaps Uthai had modified his trigger to be a hair trigger but that would only apply to the second and subsequent shots unless he had also modified it to be a single action hair trigger. In that case why not save trouble and buy a single action in the first place? In any case it is possible to override the double action of first shot only double actions by carrying the gun cocked but this is normally down only in the cocked and locked position i.e. by throwing off the safety you can get off a first shot in single action model. However, the police have said earlier that Uthai's gun did not have a safety catch. That leaves us with the image of an off duty, out of uniform duty cop with a drink problem packing a double-action semi-auto which had been modified to have a hair trigger and remove the safety catch. If he had habitually carried this around cocked in his waste band while knocking back the Changs and riding his motor bike he probably would have accidently blown his privates away years ago. It is hard to imagine that even a moron would carry a gun around like this. But I have never observed a uniformed Thai cop carrying a semi-auto in the cocked position.

If had been modified as a single action and had no safety, the only safe way to carry it would have been to carry it without a round in the chamber but that would have required a fair bit of effort to pull back the action to get a round in the spout and cock it.

Its seems most likely to me that this was a standard double action 9mm semi-auto which may have been modified with a hair trigger but probably not because there is very little point in this, if the gun is to used in stressful situations, as it makes the gun more dangerous for the shooter, who might shoot himself by accident, and is more likely to fire prematurely before being sighted properly. (However, it is possible that hair triggers are the in thing with some Thai cops who have not thought it through.) It is also possible that it had no safety but unlikely. If you don't want to use the safety, you don't have to. No need to remove it. Even if it had a hair trigger and no safety or the safety was not used, it would still have been difficult to fire the first shot by accident with the double action. My take is that the Canadian journalist didn't know much about hand guns and the police are trying present things so as not to conflict with the accidental discharge theory, consistent with the comment that police guns don't have safety catches which is nonsense because virtually all police semi-autos must have them. Unless the prosecution is motivated to put forward testimony from an independent and impartial weapons expert, it would be quite possible for the accidental discharge theory to go forensically unchallenged in court. Maybe Farang Prince can throw some more professional light on this.

For a double action semi-auto to have a hair trigger Arkady is correct to say that the gun would have to be cocked for the first shot. Glock handguns have no conventional safety and each shot is double action. The non conventional safety is in the trigger itself so the gun is ready to be used. Their are other manufactures who approach handgun safety from different directions. Some handguns allow options to how the gun is carried. A Government model Colt Auto is normally carried with the hammer cocked and a thumb safety catch on. Without the safety catch engaged whoever was carrying the gun would not last very long. It must be carried in a holster with a strap between the hammer and firing pin. The Barretta handgun is yet another example of allowing the operator a choice of the thumb safety being on or off. If the thumb safety is off and the hammer is cocked it is ready to go at the touch of a trigger. Each and every handgun can be modified to adjust the pressure necessary to fire the weapon. I'm sure this makes everything clear as mud.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

Dannielle,

I know this is a painful subject, my sympathy. Has the coroner released a detailed autopsy? They should be able to determine the angle the shots entered Leo's body which may give you a clue as to the physical position the officer was in at the time. What was released on the second shot suggests the officer had the gun above Leo since it appears to have passed in a downward angle trajectory stiking both the liver and kidneys. A straight shot should not have struck both the liver and the kidneys. The coroner should also be able to determine if both shots were fired at point blank range. The coroner simply saying both shots were fatal is not a good work when a crime is involved. If they didn't take a closer look at how he was shot please find out why.

Update:

PAI BACKPACKER KILLING

Autopsy shows both shots would have been fatal

An autopsy carried out in Canada on the body of John 'Leo' Del Pinto, who was gunned down by a policeman in Pai earlier this month has revealed both shots would have been fatal.

The Medical Examiner's office in Calgary, Alberta, has completed a report which says he was killed instantly by the bullet to his head.

But the second shot pierced both his liver and kidney and would also have been fatal.

Edited January 19, 2008 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[farang prince]

Please explain what a hair trigger is. I have fired virtually every weapon used by law enforcement agencies around the world. So I would like our "experts" on the board to fully explain their definition of a "hair trigger." Thanks.

[Danielle]

Dannielle,

I know this is a painful subject, my sympathy. Has the coroner released a detailed autopsy? They should be able to determine the angle the shots entered Leo's body which may give you a clue as to the physical position the officer was in at the time. What was released on the second shot suggests the officer had the gun above Leo since it appears to have passed in a downward angle trajectory stiking both the liver and kidneys. A straight shot should not have struck both the liver and the kidneys. The coroner should also be able to determine if both shots were fired at point blank range. The coroner simply saying both shots were fatal is not a good work when a crime is involved. If they didn't take a closer look at how he was shot please find out why.

Update:

PAI BACKPACKER KILLING

Autopsy shows both shots would have been fatal

An autopsy carried out in Canada on the body of John 'Leo' Del Pinto, who was gunned down by a policeman in Pai earlier this month has revealed both shots would have been fatal.

The Medical Examiner's office in Calgary, Alberta, has completed a report which says he was killed instantly by the bullet to his head.

But the second shot pierced both his liver and kidney and would also have been fatal.

Thank you for your concern, ChiangMaiAmerican. I was only briefly in Calgary for the prayers and funeral, so while I was mostly caught up to speed on what is going on over there, I'm out of the loop once again, being in Waterloo. I'm not in a decision-making position, but I will ask about it.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

I have made what would be called a hair trigger (set trigger) for a target rifle I had back in the states. I polished and adjusted the trigger mechanisn with a fine stone until it the trigger pull was very smooth and required almost no pressure to release. This can also be done to handguns. Some target and hunting rifles have two triggers one being a standard trigger the second being a set. There is a link to a set trigger offered by Brownells in the US below. The second link is to photos of a more tradition double set trigger. A comment from the second site,

" It would be dangerous to walk with a loaded rifle having such a sensitive trigger as standard."

http://www.brownells.com/aspx/ns/store/Pro...GLE-SET+TRIGGER

http://www.hallowellco.com/double_set_triggers.htm

Edited January 19, 2008 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[Tony Clifton]

Yes, I noticed that too, Arkady, and it looks like he is wearing a protective amulet.

That's his car insurance.

[farang prince]

I have made what would be called a hair trigger (set trigger) for a target rifle I had back in the states. I polished and adjusted the trigger mechanisn with a fine stone until it the trigger pull was very smooth and required almost no pressure to release. This can also be done to handguns. Some target and hunting rifles have two triggers one being a standard trigger the second being a set. There is a link to a set trigger offered by Brownells in the US below. The second link is to photos of a more tradition double set trigger. A comment from the second site,

" It would be dangerous to walk with a loaded rifle having such a sensitive trigger as standard."

http://www.brownells.com/aspx/ns/store/Pro...GLE-SET+TRIGGER

http://www.hallowellco.com/double_set_triggers.htm

What is the pressure in terms of psi? And how does that compare with a "normal" trigger pull?

[dannyman]

eh! DamianMavis! I'm with you. I know THam-RUAT CORRUPT jing jing!

[grantbkk]

Lets say for this example it takes 7 pounds of pressure to pull the trigger and fire the semi-automatic pistol in double action mode. If the hammer is cocked to fire the same bullet from the same gun takes 4 pounds of pressure. By modify and polishing specific parts relating to the trigger mechanism like ChiangMaiAmerica did it would reduce the number of pounds of pressure to fire the weapon in single action mode to 1 to 3 pounds. That means if the safety is off and the handgun his cocked you could easily accidentally fire it with just an incidental touch of the trigger. Hence the name "hair trigger". This applies to both semi-automatic handguns and revolvers that are cocked and ready to fire.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

What is the pressure in terms of psi? And how does that compare with a "normal" trigger pull?

Normal trigger pull is about 4 to 6 pounds. The pull of a hair trigger can be as low as a couple of ounces. There is a commercial set trigger with a 2oz pull. Good for targets and long range shooting. Unsafe for police sidearms.

Edited January 19, 2008 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[Arkady]

Please explain what a hair trigger is. I have fired virtually every weapon used by law enforcement agencies around the world. So I would like our "experts" on the board to fully explain their definition of a "hair trigger." Thanks.

I remember once being given a single action semi-auto to try by a Thai army weapons instructor I was friendly with some years ago at an army firing range. He was proud of the fact that he had modified it for some one else to have what he called a hair trigger. I have no idea what the pressure was in psi but it fired with very minimal pressure compared to other single actions I was firing at the time. I understood the owner was a civilian who was a keen target shooter and wanted the modification simply for that purpose. I think it would be very dangerous for police work and I don't know if this type of modification is common in Thailand.

The comment about the hair trigger apparently came from the Pai police via a Canadian journalist and from him via a reporter from the Pai Times. We don't know if the police really said that, if they did, more explanation is needed. A police spokesman has definitely been quoted saying that police hand guns have no safeties. Again, if they really said that, it also requires more explanation.

[A_Traveller]

My understanding is that there's no such thing as a 'standard issue police firearm' here, nor for that matter police loads for shells, {lower power to reduce risk to bystanders} or if there are I've never come across them. A walk around Bangkok will show officers, carrying Glocks, a few Sig's, traditional automatics {usually 9mm}, and even a few revolvers. Any police officer I've met has purchased their own weapon, and, I have to say, rather like cars here, customisation seems popular. I can't understand why a police officer would want a 'hair trigger' {requiring very low torque to fire}, given the risk of firing to early {especially in a dynamic situation}, though I could understand machining the trigger to be smooth and progressive to improve accuracy.

As an aside, if memory serves, there is a Glock 18(?) often referred to as a Police Special, which includes a burst-mode {3-rounds}, similar to the old {now collectible} Beretta r. Forgive me, but does anyone know what the make of the firearm used was?

One last point, in many cases, the SOP for police is that the sidearm should not have a round chambered, and the slide {or hammer if a revolver} should be used to ready the firearm. The argument here is that it both reduces risk, and can act as a last step deterrent, i.e.: 'the action says "I'm now chambering/cocking Stop or I will fire". I know this is subject to arguments against and officers may not follow that advice, but in fraught situations it provides a 'cooling off moment', provided, of course, the police office has identified themselves clearly.

Regards

/edit typo//

Edited January 19, 2008 by A_Traveller

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

One last point, in many cases, the SOP for police is that the sidearm should not have a round chambered, and the slide {or hammer if a revolver} should be used to ready the firearm.

Where is this SOP? With the exception of having the hammer on an empty chamber in older revolvers which can easily dischage if the hammer is hit, not having a round chambered and ready with the safety on can result in an officers demise. It may be the case in the UK or countries with similar gun laws but in the US I have never known an officer that did not have a round chambered with the safety on. A friend was shot when he while apprehending a burglar. He would have died if he had not had his weapon on ready. The burglar fired wildly during the incident not aiming his shots. He was able to immediately return fire and fortunately only suffered a wound to his leg. In the US combat pistol shooting with event simulation is standard training for police officers at least for most big departments. Marksmanship and firearms safety is taught as well as when to shoot/not shoot.

Edited January 19, 2008 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[A_Traveller]

^ Guilty of being English.

Regards

PS Lost my connexion or I would have amended the post to reflect this point.

Edited January 19, 2008 by A_Traveller

[Arkady]

One last point, in many cases, the SOP for police is that the sidearm should not have a round chambered, and the slide {or hammer if a revolver} should be used to ready the firearm.

Where is this SOP? With the exception of having the hammer on an empty chamber in older revolvers which can easily dischage if the hammer is hit, not having a round chambered and ready with the safety on can result in an officers demise. It may be the case in the UK or countries with similar gun laws but in the US I have never known an officer that did not have a round chambered with the safety on. A friend was shot when he while apprehending a burglar. He would have died if he had not had his weapon on ready. The burglar fired wildly during the incident not aiming his shots. He was able to immediately return fire and fortunately only suffered a wound to his leg. In the US combat pistol shooting with event simulation is standard training for police officers at least for most big departments. Marksmanship and firearms safety is taught as well as when to shoot/not shoot.

I don't have any police experience but from handling different types of semi-auto would concur with CM American that I wouldn't want to have to chamber a round before reacting to a life threatening situation. The slides of some semi-autos, specially some .45s, can be quite stiff too and might be tough for some one who is already injured. A chambered round in an uncocked double action on safe would seem the right balance.

A Traveller is also right in saying there are effectively no standard issue Thai police weapons, except for the M16 assault rifles normally kept locked up in the stations, and most officers buy their own guns according to whatever takes their fancy. A visit to the gun stores around the Old Siam Center in Bangkok's Yaowarat district will reveal many police shopping for their own side arms. You are also right in saying that there is no restriction on the loads used by police (or whether hollow point or not). They can buy a standardised product made locally by Thai Arms for a low price but, if they want to buy imported ammo, they are free to do that and many people regard the Thai Arms product as inferior. The gun stores sell quite a lot of imported pistol ammunition and some of this must go to policemen. I expect that to a Western policeman the idea of Thai police running around with whatever side arms and loads they fancy (on and off duty) is absolutely mind boggling and one can imagine that their weapon training is extremely sloppy with so many different types of gun. But this all fits in with the way the system operates i.e. very low pay and operating budgets but you get a uniform and authority and can forage for yourself. How well you do financially will depend on how much you can guarantee to the next level up.

[farang prince]

Please explain what a hair trigger is. I have fired virtually every weapon used by law enforcement agencies around the world. So I would like our "experts" on the board to fully explain their definition of a "hair trigger." Thanks.

I remember once being given a single action semi-auto to try by a Thai army weapons instructor I was friendly with some years ago at an army firing range. He was proud of the fact that he had modified it for some one else to have what he called a hair trigger. I have no idea what the pressure was in psi but it fired with very minimal pressure compared to other single actions I was firing at the time. I understood the owner was a civilian who was a keen target shooter and wanted the modification simply for that purpose. I think it would be very dangerous for police work and I don't know if this type of modification is common in Thailand.

The comment about the hair trigger apparently came from the Pai police via a Canadian journalist and from him via a reporter from the Pai Times. We don't know if the police really said that, if they did, more explanation is needed. A police spokesman has definitely been quoted saying that police hand guns have no safeties. Again, if they really said that, it also requires more explanation.

I agree with your response, Arkady, and that was the point of my post about a "hair trigger." There is no standard for what a hair trigger is and the first time I saw the term introduced into this sordid tale of the shooting of the two Canadian tourists was when a journalist said he handled the weapon that was allegedly used by the Thai police officer. The journalist made a subjective remark about the gun having a "hair trigger." In reality, police officers would be crazy carrying a weapon with a "hair trigger" because of the risk of accidental discharge. Nothing worse than shooting yourself in the foot. In the years that I worked undercover or as a detective, I carried a Smith&Wesson snub-nosed airweight .38-caliber revolver with a hammer shroud to keep the hammer from getting caught in my clothing as it was being removed from my holster. The hammer had an extra long pull to it in order to avoid accidental discharge. It was an ideal off-duty weapon too. In my 23 years as a cop, I rarely had to unholster my weapon and only had to fire it twice in the line of duty. And I never shot myself in the foot either. By the way, the SOP for most police departments whose officers carry semi-automatic pistols is to have a round in the chamber and the safety on.