Hey, there! Log in / Register

Nobody injured when cop accidentally fires gun in restroom at Cambridge high school

Cambridge Police and Cambridge Public Schools report on the discharge at Cambridge Rindge and Latin this afternoon:

At approximately 1:45 this afternoon a Cambridge Police Department Youth Resource Officer assigned to Cambridge Rindge and Latin School accidentally discharged their firearm while using a staff bathroom inside the school. There were no injuries. The officer immediately notified department supervisors and the school administration. CPD then responded to the scene and are currently investigating. The school day was not disrupted and there were no other injuries.

The two departments did not detail how the officer accidentally fired the gun; add they're not going to let the incident harm their relationship:

CPS and CPD value their longstanding partnership as the Youth Resource Officer program is a vital aspect of maintaining safe and welcoming learning environments within our school communities.

Free tagging: 


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!


where I've heard of an alleged "accidental discharge" and felt that it might be just that.


They can call it "accidental discharge" but it's really a mistaken discharge.

Well maintained guns don't have "accidents" (e.g. "I was doing everything right and it still just fired out of nowhere").

They have mistakes (e.g. "I forgot to do the right thing and that's why the gun went off").

Lethal force and public trust leaves no room for "oops". Whether there is reason enough to discipline the officer remains to be determined but he screwed up in a way that should never occur.

EDIT: If the officer had a Sig Sauer P320, then the gun has a design defect that means it could be well-maintained and still lead to an accidental discharge by its crappy design. The fact that we still outfit our officers with that model is disappointing.


If I’m driving and I sneeze and get distracted for a second and crash is that and accident? Or if my foot gets stuck inbetween the gas and brake for a .2 seconds and I crash is that an accident? What if I don’t see a speed limit sign and get pulled over for speeding is that an accident…?

can there ever be a car accident? Or is the concept of an accident impossible when there are humans involved (or in a case where the auto shop forgot to tighten your lug nuts and your wheel comes off, is that an “accident”)

When someone says they had an “accident” we still can assign blame or fault to that person. I beleive that is the way the concept of acccidents are looked at.


…. is looked at when driving is concerned. Accident sounds more like no responsibility to me. Like when a kid is too rough and hurts another kid and tries to get out of trouble by saying it was an accident.

I’m not a big fan of too much political correctness in vocabulary. I think it can sometimes stifle thought and communication and derail attention from actual issues.
However there are some cases when I agree with it. “Accident” versus “crash” is one I think makes sense. To me “crash” is just more honest and to the point. It doesn’t imply responsibility or lack of responsibility. It’s just a fact.
That’s my humble opinion.


Two kids roughhousing is a reckless activity. Maybe driving is too? I get your point but I hear lawyers even talk like this in open court regarding accidents. It’s not something that carries a legal connotation of no one being at fault.

I found this interesting in the dictionary:

an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.
"the pregnancy was an accident"

How is a pregnancy ever an accident then? If we use it in terms like this?

FYI here is definition 1 for accident:

an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
"he had an accident at the factory"


…. if birth control was used but failed. Or someone was ignorant.

I think it’s a word that is evolving. They are always doing that, pesky little things!

I must think about this more.


if the birth control failed was someone negligent in applying it or making it? Does being ignorant excuse you from fault?

Yea I agree it’s just a worrd that people seem to see in different ways.

Not an accident: some joy-riding idiot crashing into a tree.

Likely to be an accident: that example of a sneeze, or other distractions outside the driver's control.

Definitely an accident: a tree branch is dislodged by a windstorm and lands on someone's windshield.

Not an accident, but the fault isn't the driver's: the driver tried to brake, but the carmaker or a repair shop installed defective brakes.

Until you know what caused a crash, you don't know whether it was an accident, and you also don't know what if anything you or other drivers can do to avoid a similar crash.

I’d say being reckless is almost never an “accident”. Being neglectful is sometimes an “accident”.

Like I forgot to shut my car windows last night and rain got in my car. That’s an accident because I was negligent.

I'm not really sure what kind of distinction you're trying to draw here.

Cops/resource officers/whatever stationed in schools should not be allowed to carry guns.


Unless you count the stress of knowing this near miss with a gun happened in a school.


I would love to know the official rationale for why this officer needs to carry a gun in this school. Regardless of the fact that after this incident, this officer has shown they can't be trusted to carry one literally anywhere... except maybe that dark booth in Central Square they can sit in where they can play candy crush to their heart's content.

I like my safe and welcoming learning environments to be free of officers firing off guns while taking a dump, but that's just me I guess.


I mean, places like R&L are locations where guns and gun threats aren’t unheard of.

Also cops are on call to respond other places and should be ready and equipped to respond appropriately.


...if the uniform and policy is that inflexible, it doesn't belong in a school.

A friend of mine has a kid in that school. They got an email from the principal, that same anodyne "unfortunate incident involuntarily discharged his firearm no injuries Cambridge Police Department is investigating" response as above. It will be interesting to see the results and conclusions of this "investigation".


In the UK the policies on firearm carry are stricter than ours. There is less violence there too. Could be a connection.
Weapons deescalation might be a way to go.

I have a friend who is a community police officer. One time he told me he hates guns and wished he was not required to carry one. I’ve never forgotten that.


If armed cops in the high school is some kind of mandatory policy, I would argue the policy should be changed. The last thing we need is officer friendly accidentally shooting a kid while trying to give them a DARE sticker or something.

I haven't heard of any gun incidents, and certainly no shootings at Rindge and Latin in recent years. Nothing in police reports and nothing on the google.


Pose that question to the armed criminals out there, including school shooters. Ever hear of a school shooting?

Why is the gun necessary....(rolls eyes)

Cops don't stop school shootings! Ever hear of Uvalde? Parkland? (rolls eyes)


Are dummies with no valid factual points to make. (still rolling eyes)

So who or what exactly is the comment "bigoted" towards? Tell me, I need a good laugh today.


noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"

Cute, you learned how to cut and paste! That's not an answer, and therefore I must conclude that you have none to offer and were simply squawking in response to the imaginary pain of your irrational butthurt.


Holding up one negative outcome and generalizing it to an entire group like that is bigotry. There's a larger and more complex conversation about the topic that might be valid but it involves a much deeper and more complex analysis of facts. I could easily come along and post an incident like this (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65104487) and say "see? police do stop school shootings," but that also would not be generalizable to the entire group. Lots of issues, questions, and potential confounders regarding school shootings that require a deeper look and well beyond the scope of this article about the incident in question. Similarly, asking why a police officer carries a firearm in connection to an isolated unintended discharge is absurd. If an active shooter appeared at the school and started killing people would you prefer to have an unarmed officer there while the shooter takes out students? The longer term answer probably involves securing and locking down these schools but, again, another conversation with different variables.


armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present


I've read it, but thanks for cutting and pasting it. What's your argument here? I have lots of questions for you about this cross-sectional study of 133 incidents since 1980. I'm sure you can answer them. I'll wait for your response.

...as soon as you explain your hilarious "bigot" comment.

("we're a republic, not a democracy!" in 3...2...)

Sorry, I'm unable to provide you with the education you should have received by now, in this one little text box. But keep on cuttin' and pastin' those journal articles that you clearly don't understand. Lmao

When was the last time you were in Cambridge? 1985?

Cambridge Day reported on this, and this paragraph was interesting:

Cambridge has been sued by one of its officers who says the Sig Sauer P320 9 mm firearm used by department officers fires on its own. He is suing the gunmaker as well, like several other users nationwide. Goulston would said late Tuesday that the school officer was carrying the standard issued firearm – the same Sig Sauer p320.

(Not saying this is why the gun was discharged--I know nothing about guns and not super interested in them. Just wanted to share additional info).


As soon as you mentioned the Sig Sauer I remembered some news stories about that pistol, several lawsuits from around the country and plenty of documentation of "uncommanded discharge". Police need to be armed (unfortunately) but they should have the best firearms available for their needs without any spontaneous pew-pew.


"Unlike other striker-fired guns, the P320 is 'effectively fully cocked at rest', since its striker is under constant spring pressure, which is released when the trigger is pulled."

Also, "Sean Toner, the P320 designer, has acknowledged in court that 'U.S. standards are not very stringent.' There are no U.S. (government) standards on gun safety, since blocked by law."

The manufacturer denies that the problem exists.



Should have undergone immediate field sobriety test & had his blood & alcohol sampled.

Oh but of course, what is good for “civilians” (as they call us) is far too onerous for police. No, he’ll be given days off to rest, to meet with his union rep, and make sure he’s got his exonerating story straight.

Get the cops out of our schools.


Sounds like you conducted the investigation. Tell us about it.

Sounds like you conducted the investigation.

Do you know what this symbol is? That one, right there, at the end of the previous sentence.

The comment sounds like anything BUT "like [they] conducted the investigation".

It isn't lipstick.