All 9 people injured in Friday's shooting near the Empire State Building were wounded by Police

Cops can't win here. If the gunman kills 7 the police were lame. If the police hit bystanders they are lame. What was the intent of the police? To bring down a shooter before he does more damage. What was the intent of the gunman? Hmm, let me guess.

2 men, 16 shots, seven hits, from close range. bravo for the marksmanship.

Sounds like a gang shooting.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I think it's disingenuous to say that just because guns did not play a preventative role in this case, or in Aurora, that there are not examples in which a gun prevented violence or saved lives.

For every example where a gun would not have been useful, there are just as many where a gun saved the day.

We must err on the side of our right to bare arms.

Jeez, talk about INCOMPETENCE from the NYPD! WAY TO GO FELLAS.

I've lived in NY for most of my life before moving down to the South and it is NO EXAGGERATION when I say that children in the South are MORE competent and SAFER with firearms than the boys in Blue in NY...

Since when were cops taught the "Spray and Pray" tactic?
I thought every shot was supposed to aimed to kill and not to be taken if there were innocent bystanders in the line of fire?
Or is this the wild wild west now where you randomly shoot over your shoulder and hope the bullet hits something.

That being said, I don't know the full story.
Perhaps their aim was really just that bad.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


The problem isn't the use force but the fallout from it. The entire point being that these are people trained to assess, justify and execute it. It occurred in broad daylight, in conditions far more favorable than a dark crowded theater full of smoke. When you contrast the two it becomes far easier to see which one had the most potential for disaster had people in that theater been armed. That isn't disingenuous, that is reality.

I don't fault the police for what happened, it is always easier to second guess these things after the fact. But it does make the point that an armed mob thinking they are the police, is inviting trouble.

reply to post by drivebricker


Yes...thank goodness they did kill the bad guy...saves us a coupla million on the trial...

reply to post by KeliOnyx


I think you have a good argument, and I think that mine and others are valid as well.

It's my opinion that in a case like that, we must uphold our rights to arm ourselves if needed and desired and not to let the occasional violent occurrence take that away.

Supplanting from a dupe thread that is now closed - thus the link I am replying to will likely 404 and this may seem out of place - but it addresses the people who insist 9mm rounds do not fragment.

reply to post by IsThisThingBugged


NYC isn't a cinder block. There are steel framed buildings, with steel trim. Even many of the sidewalks have steel adornments - garbage cans, bus stops, signs, etc.

Bullets ricochet. Bullets fragment. Steel makes them do so. Thus ricochet and fragmentation make perfect sense in a crowded Manhattan street.

~Heff

The cops were scared. As would any normal human being would be. The gunman turned and tried to fire and apparently the gun jammed. Had it not they could have been killed. That probably spooked them and they wanted to bring him down before he could fire on them or anyone else even if it meant firing off so many rounds. Officers don't go through shoot outs everyday and no amount of training is going to be able to predict how one responds when the situation hits. I've seen "big bad martial artists in the gym" crumble when faced with a threat outside of that environment. Give these guys a break and lets all just be happy no else died.

This must be some new tactic.
Wound all bystanders so the shooter will have no one to target.
I bet the shooter stood there stunned in awe thinking who's side are you on right before he was taken down.

Civilian "you shot me officer"
Officer "no i saved your life"

I'm a little disturbed by this development. Police are taught to be particularly aware of their environment when a firearm is involved. I'm surprised that this happened.

Maybe it's time for some remedial firearms training. This is a basic mistake that can be avoided.

That being said, I don't necessarily want to second-guess the officers. I wasn't on the ground there.

reply to post by DetectiveT


We are in deep do if the procedure is becoming that police is to fire 6 or eight rounds, or empty the weapon, every time they use their weapon. I think this is becoming the norm.

I am interested in who long these officers have been on the force.

reply to post by Hefficide


Sorry, I've got to disagree with you here. These are supposedly trained and professional LEOs. I dang well expect more from them in this situation (day light, open sidewalk, no cover) than seven complete misses and 9 wounded civilians when shooting from such close range.

Do you REALLY feel this is acceptable performance?

reply to post by roadgravel

In these kinds of firefights you will find a lot of rounds may not hit their targets. A two-shot may not do it in the heat of the moment.

Things were different in the old days. With a six-shot revolver you had to count your rounds and often an officer would run empty because he failed to do so, so officers were trained to reload after relatively few shots, four or five, to avoid holding a stone.

Also, remember that a perp will not always go down right away. They're pumped full of adrenaline and officers are taught to shoot until the guy is no longer a threat.

Originally posted by havokBesides I know tons of people who are better marksmen than LEO's.


Some people want you to believe that if other people were armed, they would have taken down the shooter with one clean shot and been the hero...I think this pretty much proves them wrong.

Pretty much any recreational shooter are better marksmen than these fidiot LEOs because you get very accurate when you are buying your own bullets.!!!!

Interesting twist...

Craig Matthews, 39, one of the two New York City Police Department officers who shot and helped take down the shooter at the Empire State Building yesterday, is currently involved in a lawsuit against the NYPD.

The New York Post reported today that Bronx cop, Craig Matthews, a 14-year veteran with the force who was on an anti-terror patrol yesterday, filed that lawsuit against the NYPD in February. Matthews claimed in the suit that his First Amendment rights were violated when, after exposing the quota system, his superiors subjected him to “harassment and retaliation.”

In the suit, Matthews said the system — which requires a minimum number of arrests from cops — “has pitted police officers against each other, straining professional relationships and diverting resources away from law-enforcement activities.”

A Manhattan federal judge dismissed Matthews’ lawsuit suit in April; but the New York Civil Liberties Union released yesterday that the case is on appeal and scheduled for argument in October.
...
The 2 officers fired on the shooter, killing Jeffrey Johnson.
...
“They wanted to make sure no kids were hit and were concerned about the other innocent people who were hit,” the source added of the aftermath of the gunfight.

www.examiner.com...

reply to post by VforVendettea

You cannot compare recreational shooters with law enforcement. The circumstances are completely different.

reply to post by Montana


I never said it was acceptable anything. The context of the 404'd thread was a statement that 9mm rounds cannot fragment.

This is addressed to anybody who wants to make that statement.

As far as the police performance in this situation? Reprehensible and indefensible.

~Heff

reply to post by aaaiii


The reports state they were a few feet away from the gun man. Still don't see the need for 16 shots.