aimpoint h-1 drama

[signal4l]

If you dont want to paint the H-1 you may want to sell it and add a bit of $. Purchase the T-1 and thank your "instructor" for being so smart

[Deoje]

Guys guys guys. What if he is involved in a shooting that is even in the least bit scrutinized? If he has an unapproved optic that will give a family/lawyer tons of ammo. You guys are right that there isnt enough difference and probaly would get by just fine. But, if any shootings that he is involved with were to be thrown under the microscope not having an "approved" optic would be suicide!

Even if it's a good shoot he could open himself up to problems if the weapon or optic violates department policy. Even though that is silly and ridiculous it's the way lawyers think. To me it wouldn't be worth the risk.

If you can get the policy changed great, but I would be much more inclined to sell the optic and just buy a T1. Even if you can get the policy changed, how long is that going to take. They took 3 years to put the thing out, so it's not going to be changed quickly. My PD doesn't do anything quickly and I imagine yours doesn't either.

[wesprt]

Better to ask forgiveness than permission.. I'm just saying.

[locobombero]

Better to ask forgiveness than permission.. I'm just saying.

Yea, try that one in a court of law with blood thirsty lawyers. Im just saying.

[wesprt]

Yea, try that one in a court of law with blood thirsty lawyers. Im just saying.

I'd have to say that even as low as some lawyers will stoop, the fact that you had a non approved optic would be pretty low on the list of priorities.. Hell I doubt anyone can even cite a case where something similar was a factor. A good shoot is a good shoot.

[SapperRob]

Guys guys guys. What if he is involved in a shooting that is even in the least bit scrutinized? If he has an unapproved optic that will give a family/lawyer tons of ammo. You guys are right that there isnt enough difference and probaly would get by just fine. But, if any shootings that he is involved with were to be thrown under the microscope not having an "approved" optic would be suicide!

One of the first things done when 1 of our rifles is used in a shooting is the stripping off of all QD items like optics & lights. The State Crime Lab just needs the weapon itself. A good reason to use LaRue mounts.

YMMV depending on where you work.

[trunkmonkey]

Hmmm. If I were you I'd get an "approved" optic on their.

Regardless of what morons your superiors evidently are that has nothing to do with the scrutiny you'd come under if you used that in a shooting.

good luck trying to plead ignorance. Which anyone with two brain cells knows won't hold up and is no excuse.

Pretty much just blame yourself for getting something before it was approved.

I'd get it exchanged. And if you don't like the lack of knowledge that your fellow officers apparently have..........change your profession.

[mtk]

Guys guys guys. What if he is involved in a shooting that is even in the least bit scrutinized? If he has an unapproved optic that will give a family/lawyer tons of ammo. You guys are right that there isnt enough difference and probaly would get by just fine. But, if any shootings that he is involved with were to be thrown under the microscope not having an "approved" optic would be suicide!

Assuming for a minute that his Duracoated H-1 would even be discerned from a T-1 (an assumption I'm not willing to concede) exactly what possible ammunition could this provide in a lawsuit? Any attorney worth a shit could blow that whole line of thinking right out of the water. Assuming 1) the officer was legally justified in shooting him, 2) meant to shoot him, and 3) successfully shot where he was aiming, what possible bearing would the non-approved scope play in it? Particularly when you've got a letter from Aimpoint that says the only difference is the lack of waterproofing and NVG compatibility, along with a lower price.

It just doesn't pass the smell test.

In fact, when was the last time ANYTHING to do with a cop's weapon of choice was a factor in a shooting-related lawsuit. I can't recall a single incident offhand.

Now it MAY be an issue with management, but I don't see any possible legal issues unless your lawyer is a total schmuck.

[Deoje]

Assuming for a minute that his Duracoated H-1 would even be discerned from a T-1 (an assumption I'm not willing to concede) exactly what possible ammunition could this provide in a lawsuit? Any attorney worth a shit could blow that whole line of thinking right out of the water. Assuming 1) the officer was legally justified in shooting him, 2) meant to shoot him, and 3) successfully shot where he was aiming, what possible bearing would the non-approved scope play in it? Particularly when you've got a letter from Aimpoint that says the only difference is the lack of waterproofing and NVG compatibility, along with a lower price.

It just doesn't pass the smell test.

In fact, when was the last time ANYTHING to do with a cop's weapon of choice was a factor in a shooting-related lawsuit. I can't recall a single incident offhand.

Now it MAY be an issue with management, but I don't see any possible legal issues unless your lawyer is a total schmuck.

Yeah, you are right. Violating department policy and using using a piece of equipment that is not approved is always a good idea.

Will it make a difference? Probably not, but why take the chance.

[locobombero]

Listen. Im not saying that this is ever going to happen. What I am saying is the difference in cost out weighs having to defend your self in a court of law. A family and a good lawyer could use an unapproved optic to then dissect your whole carer and make you out to be the bad guy who cant even follow his employers rules. I know its out there but look at the BS a civil lawyer will go after these days. It just seems to me that for the cost difference its a no brainier.