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

Originally posted by intrepid
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.

No one is disputing they were justified in their use of deadly force. At least not me. Shoot him down - I could care less.

My issue is that they are poorly trained marksmen and clearly reacted out of fear rather than in a calculated and rehearsed way. That is where the danger is...to the rest of the public. If you don't have a clear shot then maneuver for one then take it. Don't just start pulling the trigger.

If the NYPD were an Army it would be one of the best funded ones in the world...they can't afford proper marksmanship training?

I hope these guys at least get some kind of warning or remedial training.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
If everyone would have been armed, none of this would have happened.

Etc.

Could be worse. In a typical bar room fight, where everyone is armed with fists and feet, any accidental blow brings in a new body to the fight, and pretty soon, all the bystanders start throwing blows back and forth at those who accidentally hit them etc.. So, when all are armed with guns, there could be a lot of collerateral damage, if those bystanders aren't sharpshooters themselves.

I guess the real solution is to require everyone to carry a gun, and to get trained on how to shoot, and they must meet some minimum standard at target practice, so all can shoot straight.

If the police had some more practice, they could hit their target without the bullets catching those nine bystanders in the way.

Maybe there's just not enough crime in New York to justify more training time for the officers on the target range.

The problem here is then a complete lack of crime in the area. So, people get lax.

I figure that's the real reason the U.S. starts all these wars, it's just to keep the military in tip-top shape, so when the time comes to defend the nation, we don't have a lot of fat cats used to sitting on their butts and doing nothing all day long.

War is peace.

Originally posted by Golf66
If you don't have a clear shot then maneuver for one then take it.

That statement caused me to watch the video several more times...

I notice that the leading officer upon seeing the BG's weapon moves to his right, behind the large planter, draws and fires. By moving towards the road, he becomes parallel to the perp, exposing the entire length of the sidewalk beyond his intended target, to potential gunfire.

The second officer moved away from the road, changing his angle of attack as well, but only to vehicles and buildings, beyond the target, which would offer some type of protection.

I can't say that either made these decisions, with the public in mind. But the first officer did seem to use the planter as cover, initially.

It would be beneficial to this discussion to know where each by-stander was positioned when they were struck.

Also, to add to the topic, it was reported that NYPD brass admitted that the perp, DID NOT fire a shot, so there was NO "return fire"! Just reaction to the man with what appeared to be a gun in his hand.

Too bad the construction worker who initially gave chase, wasn't CCW. He could have made this whole conversation invalid...

reply to post by drivebricker


This shows how afraid the police officers were. I read they put more than several bullets in the shooter. Smart people drop to the ground at the first shot.

I saw an article stating that one of the officers had 14 years, seems he would have had quite a bit of training. Doesn't mean he has ever fired his weapon in this type of situation though.

Don't think I have ever seen so many armchair police officers in one thread. Ya'll appear to have unwordly self control and concentration. Saying you wouldn't be afraid of a man holding a gun that had just shot someone and would instead try and tase them is priceless.

I think it is a good discussion, both "sides" have great points that need to be brought up. However I hope everyone isn't taking themselves as serious as they appear to be.

reply to post by stotzersk

Yes, that's what you want in a police officer ~ someone who will duck and cover.

I have a name for you and it ain't nice.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


"Men and women that constantly are honing their skill and judgement with a firearm." I actually know a few cops personally. Trust me when I say, they in effect, have no special training whatsoever. They are trained in basic gun handling and target practice. They need to "qualify" every few years by showing they can actually hit a target a "reasonable" number of times. This is all the same thing as any weekend "plinker" would be doing. Generally they are not taught any combat shooting at all. Any training they may have in this regard would be by example, or lecture. You need to have live fire practice, under stress to see what it is like. This enables one to react without the panic mode fire as fast as you can effect. Also known as spray and pray. Perfect example is this shooting. They were very close. Optimum range is around 21 feet. They were that or even closer. Fired 16 shots, rapidly, and hit the suspect 6 times. I personally find it hard to fathom they didn't hit someone directly. But then there is always luck I suppose...

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Don't think I have ever seen so many armchair police officers in one thread. Ya'll appear to have unwordly self control and concentration. Saying you wouldn't be afraid of a man holding a gun that had just shot someone and would instead try and tase them is priceless.

I think it is a good discussion, both "sides" have great points that need to be brought up. However I hope everyone isn't taking themselves as serious as they appear to be.

Seriously ? have you forgotten the fact that police officers , and especially ARMED police officers , are supposed to be highly trained.

Now ........... some one aint doing their job right , there is no excuse for what these animals have done.

reply to post by Fondue


Yeah so lets just ..... forget about it then

2nd

Originally posted by SpaceCadet69

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Don't think I have ever seen so many armchair police officers in one thread. Ya'll appear to have unwordly self control and concentration. Saying you wouldn't be afraid of a man holding a gun that had just shot someone and would instead try and tase them is priceless.

I think it is a good discussion, both "sides" have great points that need to be brought up. However I hope everyone isn't taking themselves as serious as they appear to be.

Seriously ? have you forgotten the fact that police officers , and especially ARMED police officers , are supposed to be highly trained.

Now ........... some one aint doing their job right , there is no excuse for what these animals have done.

What does that have to do with armchair police officers on the internet telling everyone what those officers should have done?

What do you think those "animals" thought?

(officer)- "OOOOh yer now I finally get the chance to shoot some innocent bystanders but I will be able to explain it away because I will claim I was just shooting at the man that just shot another person"?

I value your opinion on the subject, I value your ability to call them "animals". But I also value my opinion that your opinion makes you an ignorant. I think there is a lot of unreasonable going on in here.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


I am an American CCW holder. I do carry a handgun frequently. Having said that, I don't necessarily disagree with your statement. But, the theater shooting is a bad example. The premises did not allow weapons, legal or otherwise. So it was one of those famous "gun free" zones, otherwise known as a killing field. Had I been there and armed, (would do so only if legal) shooting would have been very low on my list of things to do. Dark, too many people running every which way, smoke or tear gas released prior to his opening fire. All the ingredients for an unintended victim shooting. Besides, I know my limitations, and I know body armor when I see it. Not sure I could have made the "money shot" anyway...

reply to post by SpaceCadet69


Just sayin what I know to be true. The general public assumes police are highly trained with guns. This is not really true. There are some, SWAT teams, and special details in large cities perhaps. But the rank and file, not so much. What is seen on TV is great entertainment, Jesse Stone, TJ Hooker, Hawaii 5-0 et al. Real life is not so neatly done...

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
I notice that the leading officer upon seeing the BG's weapon moves to his right, behind the large planter, draws and fires. By moving towards the road, he becomes parallel to the perp, exposing the entire length of the sidewalk beyond his intended target, to potential gunfire.

The second officer moved away from the road, changing his angle of attack as well, but only to vehicles and buildings, beyond the target, which would offer some type of protection.

I can't say that either made these decisions, with the public in mind. But the first officer did seem to use the planter as cover, initially.

Indeed that is what I saw I saw the first officer take a position that was at least semi-covered (though not much) for his own protection then as the perp moved in the same direction as the pedestrians he opened fire which put the perp between the officer and the fleeing pedestrians. The second officer is just stupid IMO.

What I would expect a peace officer to do would be to put himself between the crowd and the perp rather than the other way around. If I were on a street in Afghanistan say in the market area and there were bystanders between me and an armed insurgent I'd take a position between them and wave the pedestrians away while I engaged. I mean I got protective gear and they don’t besides – that’s my friggin job, not to protect myself.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
Also, to add to the topic, it was reported that NYPD brass admitted that the perp, DID NOT fire a shot, so there was NO "return fire"! Just reaction to the man with what appeared to be a gun in his hand.

Personally, that doesn't bother me if they gave him the command (or even not) and dropped him - don't pull a weapon on a peace officer IMO.

These two “officers” especially the second one have no business on the force IMO. They are poorly trained.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Don't think I have ever seen so many armchair police officers in one thread. Ya'll appear to have unwordly self control and concentration. Saying you wouldn't be afraid of a man holding a gun that had just shot someone and would instead try and tase them is priceless.

The definition of courage isn't the absence of fear but the ability to remain calm and drive on in spite of it.

One should be afraid of an armed gunman; the difference is a peace officer should be able to:

1) Not panic like these two obviously did.

2) Make some effort to protect the bystanders even if that places the officer in more danger.
That is why they get paid the big bucks to do a risky job and have vests and guns and stuff.

I would not have tazed him but I sure would have put myself between him and fleeing crowd. That would have meant firing with the cars in the street as a backstop instead of the pedestrians. At least the people in cars have a little cover. While it may not stop the 9mm depending on what type round they were shooting it would have been better than nothing.

If the city is going to deny almost everyone the right to defend themselves with their restrictive gun laws the least they could do is train the officers to do it for them and properly.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
However I hope everyone isn't taking themselves as serious as they appear to be.

Police work is serious business – they get paid to protect and serve and I don’t mean “protecting their own ass” either. I mean protecting society.

reply to post by Fondue


And you`re saying that the average cop doesnt know that it`s a bad idea to shoot into a crowd of people ?

Where`s the argument here ? what the hell is going on ?

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by stotzersk

 

Yes, that's what you want in a police officer ~ someone who will duck and cover.

I have a name for you and it ain't nice.

Wise men live to tell the tale the next day, and to pin the badge of "hero" on the dead.


See, there are only two kinds of people in this world, heroes and wise men.

reply to post by Golf66


I sure wish we lived in the world that you claim we live in. Infallible police and all. Obviously you are infallible with the expectations you have of the people around you. Unless that is you are just an armchair police officer like the rest.

Amazing what the hindsight does for the internet specialist. Makes them experts at everything. I hope you claim to be an officer yourself, that would make your expectations and critiques even more ridiculous, having known the truth and all.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
I hope you claim to be an officer yourself, that would make your expectations and critiques even more ridiculous, having known the truth and all.

Got it - you think its fine that a couple of cops open up with multutple rounds from 10 feet away and hit the perp almost 1/4 as much as they hit bystanders.

My experience comes from the military not law enforcement but being a Special Forces Officer in a province in Afghanistan is a lot like law enforcement work. I speak from the experience of having been in numerous firefights and engagements and being something of an expert at CQB tactics and techniques.

You are free to take or leave my opinion. I stand by my assessments of their training. In 24 years of military service I've seen plenty of engagements and it’s easy to tell when someone is utterly panicked.

These two officers panicked that is clear for anyone to see.

As for the facts - they demonstrated poor trigger discipline and target acquisition. That is clear and evident by the number of bystanders wounded. Three of their 16 shots hit bystanders - how many hit the perp?

That and the video shows them taking a counter intuitive stance relative to the people they are sworn to protect by allowing the perp to get in between them and the crowd making the crowd in their line of fire.

Altogether - they suck at their jobs... You are free to disagree. What experience do you have in combat or hostile engagements just curious?

reply to post by drivebricker


Just the same ole thang.

Drones kill 50 innocent civilians for every one "terrorist".

Maybe i should burn my entire house down to get rid of these pesky mosquitoes!

Originally posted by Kandinsky
1 killer dead and 9 bystanders injured in broad daylight on a crowded street?

Those cops did a good job imo.

Of course, they could have stood still shouting 'Freeze' and run the chance of the gunman emptying his clips into the crowd...

Then we'd be reading a different thread about how bad police are instead of reading this thread about how bad police are. I wonder what scenario would help those police escape a thread about bad they were? If they'd disarmed the man maybe we could have run up a thread that they put people's lives at risk?

Exactly !

Funny how people hate the police but have no problem calling them if they need help...
I totally agree with you that the cops did a good job by taking out a crazy guy who wanted to kill people.

I'm just wondering how should they handle this type of incident without being blamed for something?