Talk:Jacob Kovco

9mm handguns in the ADF?

An anonymous contributor has raised doubts about whether ordinary soldiers in the ADF carry 9mm pistols. Expert commentary on this issue would be very welcome. — JEREMY 08:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

45 is and has been standard issue through most military organisations throughout history; however issue of 40 and 38sig (depending on country) are also an option, however I couldn't see someone using a nine in a combat scenario. Further, I truly couldn't see any known modern firearm (pre-1980) that could 'discharge' no matter how hard one hit it, no matter from what height it dropped and no matter what went on short of a finger covering the trigger fully and discharging the firearm with intent.

Due to the lack of a 'safety switch' mechanism, almost all semi-automatic handguns have a triple or dual split trigger which requires full coverage of the trigger, when the hammer is cocked (and even in the uncocked position) there is literally a chunk of steel blocking the firing pin from hitting the primer of the ammunition in the chamber, thus preventing any accidental knocks occasioning discharge.

This entire situation stinks of cover-up, there is no question of 'if' something is wrong with this story, the question is why he was shot / shot himself. Jachin 10:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Firearms chambered in 9mm are actually quite common in various military organisations. As I understand it, by and large the U.S. military currently uses the 9mm Beretta 92FS (M9) as the standard sidearm. And I'm pretty sure the Browning Hi-Power 9mm remains the sidearm for Australia, Canada and the UK.

I feel that there are several errors you have made in your statement. You said "Due to the lack of a 'safety switch' mechanism, almost all semi-automatic handguns have a triple or dual split trigger which requires full coverage of the trigger", which does not make much sense to me. The Browning Hi-Powers DO have a manual safety, as do virtually all single action semi-automatic pistols.

I also do not fully understand what you mean by "triple or dual split trigger". As far as I know there's no mechanism of any kind on a Browning Hi-Power that would in any way prevent discharge of the pistol should the safety be disengadged, the hammer cocked, the firearm loaded, and the trigger pulled to the rear in any manner. The Hi-Power has no trigger safety like a GLOCK, or grip safety like a 1911.

You are correct that like all well designed modern semi-automatic pistols, the Hi-Power has a half cock, disconnector, and firing pin safety that would keep the pistol extremely safe from accidental discharge, assuming of course common sense firearms handling is maintained, specificly keeping your finger off the trigger and outside the trigger guard.

Unfortunately common sense isn't as common as one would like, and negligent discharges of firearms do happen when people act foolish, and I see absolutely nothing unusual about the scenario that Private Kovco accidently killed himself. It wouldn't be the first time such an accident has happened, and won't be the last until everyone understands that you don't point firearms at what you can't afford to shoot, and you don't put your finger on the trigger unless you have a reason too. IUJHJSDHE 07:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Very True, I believe that the "dual split trigger" remark was referring to the likes of Glock 9mm weapons, which have no manual safety, and use a dual split trigger safety. However, the Browning 9mm pistols issued to ADF units do have a manual safety as stated. They also contain a magazine safety latch...which will stop the trigger from releasing the pistol hammer if there is no magazine inserted into the weapon. But these are the only safety devices present in the weapon. Caladandc 05:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Most SECDET Private Soldiers now have MKIII Browninh Hi Power Pistols with a dual safety catch. It is a single action pistol, which means the safety catch must be flicked off in order to fire weapons.

Died in Baghdad?

I wasn't aware there were Australian soldiers in Baghdad. Aren't they all in al-Muthanna? QazPlm 11:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

(Elements of?) 3RAR are in Baghdad, guarding the embassy. — JEREMY 13:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate?

Does anyone have a cite for Kovco's birthdate (or at least the year of his birth)? It doesn't look good to have a question mark in there. — JEREMY 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Previous jobs

Kovco previously worked in a slaughterhouse "where he was responsible for shooting injured cows". Not only is this an odd thing to be responsible for in a slaughterhouse (don't they all get "injured"?), it seems to me to be an extraneous, and even salacious, piece of information. What's wrong with "worked in a slaughterhouse"? We can imagine the rest. - LP

3RAR

Removed the "elite" tag and the "Selection" one for 3RAR. It is not elite, and there is no selection process to join it, it is the same as the other regular battalions in the way soldiers are assigned to it

Also, Kovco failed 'elite' sniper selection - kovco failed one part of the selection. He passed everything on the course except for the last day. This last day was essential to pass. He was placed in the Snipers cell as OJT's (On The Job Training) and would have completed another selection on return to 3RAR

Unusual deaths

I have removed him from List of unusual deaths because the aspects of his death that might make it truly unusual are all unproven. Right now, he's a soldier who died of a gunshot wound. If official findings support really weird circumstances, then perhaps he can return to the page. - DavidWBrooks 11:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Update needed

Now that the Board of Inquiry Report into the death of Private Jake Kovco is complete and available this article needs a major overhaul to remove all the speculation over Private Kovco's death, much of which is has now been proven wrong. I've added a link to the report and the ADF's response to it at the bottom of the article. --Nick Dowling 23:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Inquiries

There is much missing from this article since the military board of inquiry was completed. Doubt (from senior ADF personnell) about the integrity of the military boards' findings surfaced almost immediately after the report was released. Further, a coronial inquest into the death is still pending. Also, the first paragraph seems to be against the NPOV policy in stating that "died while deployed in Iraq as a result of an accident which occurred while mishandling his pistol" - while no other cause of death has been proven, neither has this scenario. I would like to edit this first paragraph to read that this was one theory of cause of death. I would also be willing to make updates to the main work relating to the events surrounding the military inquiry. Freefly27 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Go for it - the article is badly out of date, and most of the material in which various people speculate on the cause of death should probably be removed or replaced. However, while the military inquiry's conclusions have been questioned, it's still the only comprehensive investigation of what happened to date so I'd suggest that it's conclusions be taken seriously. I'd strongly suggest that any changes to the article be cited and be in line with the guidelines on handling fringe theories - of which there seem to be lots floating around about Kovco. Remember that his death involves lots of living people so WP:BLP is also relevant (eg, don't include anything about his room mates and personal life which isn't supported by a reliable source). --Nick Dowling 02:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I will work on this page now and as the case progresses, keeping in mind your advice. Thanks.Freefly27 03:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I've updated it as best as I can with the little time I have available right now, hopefully it'll do, or will constitute a starting point for someone else. While I found that the response to the second verdict by Kovco's mother and widow may prove relevant to the article in light of the lobbying by parts of Kovco's family following the military inquest and thus included it, I have intentionally excluded mentioning some of the more controversial evidence that was heard at the second inquest because this is the second inquest which has ruled out suicide - to include the stuff that came out in the Coronial inquest was adjudged to have no influence on events, and is thus superfluous... and since it's superfluous, I'm of the view it's inclusion would go beyond encyclopaedic editing and would be disrespectful to Kovco's family and to his memory. It's not needed in the article, so it's been omitted. If it's added in later... well, I'll leave that Barney to someone else. Cheers.... Xlh (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates Xlh. This article really needs a lot of clean up in regards to how prior entries have been added - much of what is here was written as the story was unfolding and is incorrectly written in the present tense. I'll work on it over the next couple of weeks and also add some more detail for both the military and civillian investigations as there is much information that is relevant to how the case progressed and why the coronial inquest took place which is not shown. Nova210 (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Jacob kovco small.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jacob kovco small.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)