Shooting reported outside Empire State Building

[xtry51]

"A review of law enforcement shootings clearly suggests that regardless of the number of rounds fired in a shooting, most of the time only one or two solid torso hits on the adversary can be expected. This expectation is realistic because of the nature of shooting incidents and the extreme difficulty of shooting a handgun with precision under such dire conditions. The probability of multiple hits with a handgun is not high. Experienced officers implicitly recognize that fact, and when potential violence is reasonably anticipated, their preparations are characterized by obtaining as many shoulder weapons as possible."

FIREARMS TRAINING UNIT
FBI ACADEMY
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

July 14, 1989

"Since most shootings are not anticipated, the officer involved cannot be prepared in advance with heavier armament. As a corollary tactical principle, no law enforcement officer should ever plan to meet an expected attack armed only with a handgun.

The handgun is the primary weapon for defense against unexpected attack. Nevertheless, a majority of shootings occur in manners and circumstances in which the officer either does not have any other weapon available, or cannot get to it. The handgun must be relied upon, and must prevail. Given the idea that one or two torso hits can be reasonably expected in a handgun shooting incident, the ammunition used must maximize the likelihood of immediate incapacitation."

Twenty something years later, nothing really has changed.

This does not cover the situation at hand because they came on site responding to an active shooter. They knew there was a gun and they reasonably should have expected they would need to engage him with their handguns. So either they completely ignored this and negligently went forward, or they were improperly trained and ignored common sense when approaching a hostile suspect who already shot one man without drawing their firearms. Either way they are stupid AND negligent.

 

[KBCraig]

"A review of law enforcement shootings clearly suggests that regardless of the number of rounds fired in a shooting, most of the time only one or two solid torso hits on the adversary can be expected.

Remember the Chevie Kehoe shootout in Ohio? As Ron White put it, "These two emptied their magazines at point blank range and couldn't even hit the f*ck'n Suburban!"

 

[xtry51]

Have you ever shot under life-and-death stress? Just wondering.

I'm willing to ignore the poor shooting since they work in an environment where guns are treated like leprosy, but not the poor decision to use them in a way that put dozens of bystanders at risk after stupidly forcing a confrontation they clearly were not prepared to deal with.

The video shows a suspect retreating with no gun in hand. They should have followed at a distance and called it in, not force a confrontation.

 

[TayNinh_66]

The video shows a suspect retreating with no gun in hand. They should have followed at a distance and called it in, not force a confrontation.

The video I saw shows a killer escaping with a gun in his bag who then decided to force a confrontation by pulling his gun out and pointing it at two cops.
What's the link to the video you saw?

 

[xtry51]

The video I saw shows a killer escaping with a gun in his bag who then decided to force a confrontation by pulling his gun out and pointing it at two cops.
What's the link to the video you saw?

Bonus question for those of us with the powers of logical deduction. If the gun was in his bag and he was running away, what made him stop and pull it back out?

Oh yeah, that would be the keystone cops. Seriously, you need to start using that space between your ears before typing.

A man who shoots someone and then puts the gun away in a bag and runs is not "forcing a confrontation" he's clearly trying to AVOID confrontation. That's what running away is.

 

[whatluck]

Kudos to the two NYPD cops who stopped an armed killer. They were given a description, and pursued the perp without calling in for backup. That's courage. When the perp turned on them with a pistol, they drew their weapon and opened fire. A trained reponse. They fired until the perp dropped. Good decision.
Most large PD's qualify once a year. Most cops never fire their service weapon in the line of duty. The two cops went through their fear and responded appropriately to a deadly threat. I am surprised they hit him as many times as they did considering the inevitable adrenaline rush. And a 12lb trigger pull?

It takes a lot of combat experience to finally respond to hostile situations like joe cool. Sometimes things happen really quickly and you don't get a lot of time to think. These 2 cops were out their on their own. They deserve a medal for heroism. (and a little time at the range wouldn't hurt)

 

[Terminator03]

Put aside everything about LE for a second. If this WAS two legally armed citizens, would we as a 2A community parrot the language of media as '9 people shot' when the last report (that I can find) was that only 3 were shot, and the rest hit by fragments of something (bullets, concrete, etc?) The fact is, that on any city street, you would have to argue that NO ONE ever shoot (citizens or cops), because with the amount of concrete, and amount of people, unless you have 100% hit ratio and perfectly expanded rounds... something bad could happen.

I don't think that anything should happen to a citizen or cop that acts in good faith.

Very sound argument!

 

[TayNinh_66]

Put aside everything about LE for a second. If this WAS two legally armed citizens, would we as a 2A community parrot the language of media as '9 people shot' when the last report (that I can find) was that only 3 were shot, and the rest hit by fragments of something (bullets, concrete, etc?) The fact is, that on any city street, you would have to argue that NO ONE ever shoot (citizens or cops), because with the amount of concrete, and amount of people, unless you have 100% hit ratio and perfectly expanded rounds... something bad could happen.

The black rifle commandos will be disappointed by this news: only three people were shot. sixteen shots shots fired, nine hits to the chest, four pass-throughs. Six claim they were hit by fragments, but this is NYC, where eight people with neck braces are carried off any bus that bumps a taxi.

but logically speaking, even though someone was hit by a concrete fragment, and it did not break the skin, they were still "shot" because the progresson of events was precipitated by shots from two rogue cops, so the commandoes will insist their perception of reality is the only valid reality and Nine Persons Were Shot!

 

[Terminator03]

The video I saw shows a killer escaping with a gun in his bag who then decided to force a confrontation by pulling his gun out and pointing it at two cops.
What's the link to the video you saw?

It has been asked before, but... Do you believe the guy would have randomly just stopped to pull his gun back out if he wasn't confronted/cornered by those cops? That is the point EVERYONE else is trying to make, yet you somehow fail to grasp that concept. It was a very poor tactical judgement to engage the suspect in such a high risk, public setting - period. The fact that he pointed his gun at them is irrelevant at that point since ANYONE who was in his position would have likely done the same if they had guns aimed at them.

 

[KBCraig]

It has been asked before, but... Do you believe the guy would have randomly just stopped to pull his gun back out if he wasn't confronted/cornered by those cops? That is the point EVERYONE else is trying to make, yet you somehow fail to grasp that concept. It was a very poor tactical judgement to engage the suspect in such a high risk, public setting - period. The fact that he pointed his gun at them is irrelevant at that point since ANYONE who was in his position would have likely done the same if they had guns aimed at them.

Exactly. Bad, unimaginative tactics. Or rather, no tactics at all, just a bullrush.

 

[xtry51]

The black rifle commandos will be disappointed by this news: only three people were shot. sixteen shots shots fired, nine hits to the chest, four pass-throughs. Six claim they were hit by fragments, but this is NYC, where eight people with neck braces are carried off any bus that bumps a taxi.

but logically speaking, even though someone was hit by a concrete fragment, and it did not break the skin, they were still "shot" because the progresson of events was precipitated by shots from two rogue cops, so the commandoes will insist their perception of reality is the only valid reality and Nine Persons Were Shot!

Black rifle commandos? Wow. How is it being a liberal troll?

 

[atilla]

The black rifle commandos will be disappointed by this news: only three people were shot. sixteen shots shots fired, nine hits to the chest, four pass-throughs. Six claim they were hit by fragments, but this is NYC, where eight people with neck braces are carried off any bus that bumps a taxi.

but logically speaking, even though someone was hit by a concrete fragment, and it did not break the skin, they were still "shot" because the progresson of events was precipitated by shots from two rogue cops, so the commandoes will insist their perception of reality is the only valid reality and Nine Persons Were Shot!

and somehow this is all still OK in your book? smoke weed everyday.

 

[Dench]

if the police have to negligently kill every person in the area to kill that perp, its ok with me.

as long as the police get home safe, to hell with anyone else.

oh, and F the troops, vote Romney 2012.

 

[bazfoo]

 

[namedpipes]

Put aside everything about LE for a second. If this WAS two legally armed citizens, would we as a 2A community parrot the language of media as '9 people shot' when the last report (that I can find) was that only 3 were shot, and the rest hit by fragments of something (bullets, concrete, etc?) The fact is, that on any city street, you would have to argue that NO ONE ever shoot (citizens or cops), because with the amount of concrete, and amount of people, unless you have 100% hit ratio and perfectly expanded rounds... something bad could happen.

I don't think that anything should happen to a citizen or cop that acts in good faith.

I do agree in general at least with your last statement.

OTOH, someone that pours gasoline on a fire to drown it out, might be acting in good faith, but should we pat him on the back and say "Job well done!" or at the very least, make them understand what they did wrong and strive to prevent them from doing it again?

As to whether the officers shoulda shot, I'm simply glad I've I've never had to make such a decision. I *know* my life as I know it will be over if I ever am faced with it, because I don't think the police/DA would acknowledge I had done the right thing.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

Especially if that someone was a firefighter.

What would be the 'water' equivalent to a man who just shot someone, and was still armed moving down a street? Not being sarcastic here, just following your analogy.

If you worked that analogy to its conclusion, you want the firefighters to follow the fire to see if it lights any more fires before stopping it?

Edit: My final point is simply that I think some folks are cutting off their nose, to spite their face. If you want to regurgitate that 9 people were 'shot' and get the sheep bleating exponentially, just to stick it to the police, I don't think it has a net positive effect on citizens carrying and lawfully defending themselves in public. Not unless you can guarantee the sheep that you'll NEVER miss, people will all go inside prior to shootings like the wild west movies, and bullets will put the brakes on before exiting people. If shooting in a city street/ urban environment is SO dangerous, are you arguing that they should not repeal ridiculous gun laws? Or just apply them equally to police?

 

[Deleted member 12999]

He shot someone dead, put his gun away, and was walking away, not threatening another soul.

Ok.

 

[xtry51]

What would be the 'water' equivalent to a man who just shot someone, and was still armed moving down a street? Not being sarcastic here, just following your analogy.

If you worked that analogy to its conclusion, you want the firefighters to follow the fire to see if it lights any more fires before stopping it?

Edit: My final point is simply that I think some folks are cutting off their nose, to spite their face. If you want to regurgitate that 9 people were 'shot' and get the sheep bleating exponentially, just to stick it to the police, I don't think it has a net positive effect on citizens carrying and lawfully defending themselves in public. Not unless you can guarantee the sheep that you'll NEVER miss, people will all go inside prior to shootings like the wild west movies, and bullets will put the brakes on before exiting people. If shooting in a city street/ urban environment is SO dangerous, are you arguing that they should not repeal ridiculous gun laws? Or just apply them equally to police?

Gun laws don't really have anything to do with forcing a confrontation in a crowded area. Though I am for repealing every gun law in existence.

My point is I find the cops should lose their jobs and be tried for the injuries of the bystanders. I would hold that same view for a citizen who instigated a confrontation and then injured 8 other people. The issue is the cops are getting a complete pass and people are apologizing for their actions when a normal citizens would be thrown in jail immediately and rightfully so.

This is a bad shoot because it didn't need to happen the way the police made it unfold.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

Then why carry guns? If the scenario by which we argue carrying them happens (a shooting), but the environment by nature is going to be hostile to shooting safely, are those laws not correct then?

 

[xtry51]

Then why carry guns? If the scenario by which we argue carrying them happens (a shooting), but the environment by nature is going to be hostile to shooting safely, are those laws not correct then?

If the guy had ambushed the cops, I wouldn't hold them responsible because they had not choice in the situation. The problem here is not that they fired their guns. The problem is they created the situation in a crowded area while unprepared to engage. The issue is not at all "they shouldn't be carrying guns". The issue is it's their job to reduce risk to the public, not increase it.

Why would you force an otherwise obviously retreating gunman to turn and face you in a crowded street, rather than just follow him, call it in and hopefully encounter a better less populated option while surrounding him?

What would have happened if he had been a very good marksmen and shot both cops dead? Now you have an escalated situation where no one called in the location and a BG who's possibly going to get away.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

I'm sure as the details come out, we'll know exactly what information they had at the time, including radio transmissions etc... then we can fully and clearly mmqb the scenario. Oh well, back to angry birds.

 

[xtry51]

I don't see how pointing out poor decision making and demanding police be held at minimum to the same standards as civilians is something that should be joked about as mmqb'ing. Nine people were injured because of this. When you make the decision to fire your gun you own the bullet that leaves it for better or worse.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

I don't see how pointing out poor decision making and demanding police be held at minimum to the same standards as civilians is something that should be joked about as mmqb'ing. Nine people were injured because of this. When you make the decision to fire your gun you own the bullet that leaves it for better or worse.

Its the textbook definition of it when you don't have a complete picture of the exact information they had available to them at the time, which I reasonably believe we do not.

Btw, angry birds has some sweet power upgrades. I think I got the .40 caliber bird!

 

[pdm]

Btw, angry birds has some sweet power upgrades. I think I got the .40 caliber bird!

Is that the one that blows up? Sweet.

 

[Terminator03]

If the guy had ambushed the cops, I wouldn't hold them responsible because they had not choice in the situation. The problem here is not that they fired their guns. The problem is they created the situation in a crowded area while unprepared to engage. The issue is not at all "they shouldn't be carrying guns". The issue is it's their job to reduce risk to the public, not increase it.

Why would you force an otherwise obviously retreating gunman to turn and face you in a crowded street, rather than just follow him, call it in and hopefully encounter a better less populated option while surrounding him?

What would have happened if he had been a very good marksmen and shot both cops dead? Now you have an escalated situation where no one called in the location and a BG who's possibly going to get away.

This is exactly what what I was saying as well. Chances are very good that the perp would have isolated himself, and used his own "exit strategy" had he not been cornered, which would have saved not only a few lives and numerous innocent injuries, but would have saved taxpayers millions in upcoming litigation costs as well. This guy did not fit the profile of a crazed gunman just looking to kill innocent people. He had 1 intended target, which he succeeded in taking out, but was obviously not looking for a shootout, or he would have brought a hell of a lot more than a single pistol with 2 small capacity mags. Hell, most of us on this board carry more ammo every day we go out of the house!

I do have to acknowledge one of 5-0's points though. It is a very slippery slope for us, as law abiding gun owners to want these cops strung up just because they chose (poorly) to open fire in the city. If it went that way with the sheep, it would most certainly have a negative effect on civilian gun owners, and their right to carry in an urban setting, which is where you are most likely to ever need to be armed in the first place. I would however like to see some form of punishment similar to what a civilian would face if they made a similar tactical error which left innocent people injured, or killed. These 2 cops will likely get paid administrative leave while the case is investigated, then possibly have to ride a desk for awhile when they return to work, but are shielded by the city from civil suits, or any other legal ramifications that any of us would face in similar situation. They should have just tossed a couple of fragmenting grenades toward the perp if they were going to do what they did because the outcome would have been the same.

 

[Terminator03]

I don't see how pointing out poor decision making and demanding police be held at minimum to the same standards as civilians is something that should be joked about as mmqb'ing. Nine people were injured because of this. When you make the decision to fire your gun you own the bullet that leaves it for better or worse.

Only if you are one of us without a badge. If you are an officer, you may get taken off your beat for awhile, but you still get paid, and the municipality absorbs the cost of the impending litigation. That is the main difference!

 

[xtry51]

I don't think we need any more information than the video showing two officers chasing a shooting suspect with their guns holstered. More information may come out, but none of it will explain away this gross ineptitude.

 

[jefftk]

Edit: My final point is simply that I think some folks are cutting off their nose, to spite their face. If you want to regurgitate that 9 people were 'shot' and get the sheep bleating exponentially, just to stick it to the police, I don't think it has a net positive effect on citizens carrying and lawfully defending themselves in public. Not unless you can guarantee the sheep that you'll NEVER miss, people will all go inside prior to shootings like the wild west movies, and bullets will put the brakes on before exiting people.

This is probably true.

Everyone loves to say "I told ya so". Here, everyone is saying "see, we told you that the average cop is no great marksman", but sadly that doesn't prove that the average citizen ccw-er is any better.

And its also a little annoying that the NYPD spokesperson basically said "Hey, these things happen, ya know?", and the media's response was apparently "oh, well if you say so". Yet, I think we can reasonably expect that if it was everyone's hypothetical situation of a citizen accidentally wounding a few people then you would see headlines and press conferences from the Brady campaign of "Blood in the streets!, see - we told ya so!"

 

[jefftk]

I don't remember if this was posted in this thread, but here is an interesting article about the NYPD's choice of firearm:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ay-have-contributed-to-the-terrible-shooting/

One of my friends is a NYPD police officer, and when he comes to shooting competitions he always uses his duty gear. I think that’s fantastic and more police officers should do likewise, but it always puts him at a disadvantage compared to other shooters. And the reason for that is the NYPD’s requirement for a 12 pound trigger pull weight.

 

[SteelShooter]

I don't remember if this was posted in this thread, but here is an interesting article about the NYPD's choice of firearm:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ay-have-contributed-to-the-terrible-shooting/

Well, that explains all the bad trigger discipline in all the NY cop shows.....