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

reply to post by Golf66

Altogether - they suck at their jobs... You are free to disagree?

Have you ever been to that location? if you know how many people are in that area please tell us how you would handle it without injuring bystander?

If you never been there your opinion means nothing.... You are free to disagree...

Originally posted by maxella1
Have you ever been to that location? if you know how many people are in that area please tell us how you would handle it without injuring bystander?

1) It doesn't matter where you are engaging it matters that you hit what you are aiming at.
2) One doesn't shoot need 7-9 rounds from 10 feet to hit a man sized target.
If so then one needs to find another line of work.
3) Aim, squeeze it’s really that simple. Trigger control not rapid panicked fire.
4) Also, instead of placing the perp between oneself and the crowd place oneself between the bystanders and the target.

Rapid firing of 7-9 rounds one cannot have a good sight picture or control over recoil which is why the two cops hit 3 bystanders and injured more with their indiscriminate shooting.

Don't have a clear sight picture then don't shoot - it’s really simple. These guys where just shooting. Anymore than a double tap and you have zero control of where the bullets are going. Obviously as anyone can see the result.

Originally posted by maxella1
If you never been there your opinion means nothing.... You are free to disagree...

Lol I had never been to Panama, Somalia, Iraq, or Afghanistan either before I went but I certainly didn't shoot one bystander for every target I hit. Actually, I have never hit anyone by mistake because I don't spray and pray. I aim and squeeze. Marksmanship is a basic Soldier skill.

Originally posted by Golf66

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?

edit on 26/8/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)

Absolutely none, that is why I am not judging anyone. I find it entertaining that your time spent in special ops. hasn't prepared you for the reality that a police officer isn't a special ops. member and isn't anywhere close to your level of training, preparedness, and combat experience. Did that just not occur to you or did you just assume that they trained all police officers to the level of a special operations member? I am not trying to be cute here, I am wondering.

If you want to have a discussion about the amount of training and qualifying/requalifying that should be required of our police offers, then that's another thing. I will most likely agree 100% with you in that regard. Just don't mistake what we are talking about here.

It's obvious that mistakes were made, otherwise we wouldn't have 9 civilians wounded. I am just really astounded, especially with your "spec ops." back ground that you would think a couple of New York beat cops would be as well trained as you are.

Out of curiousity have you ever made a mistake in combat?

reply to post by sputniksteve


I'm pretty sure that he said this: "Marksmanship is a basic Soldier skill. "
Which should be translated to, "Marksmanship is a basic Officer skill. "
Or it ought to be!

Also, I'm sure he didn't start out as Spec. Ops. And if one chooses a career that entails the possibilty of confronting enemy combatants; ie. bad guys with guns, they should be prepared to react to situations that may involve innocents. As in, the busy, busy streets of NYC...

Originally posted by Golf66

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?

edit on 26/8/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)

A thought occurred to me. If I was a professional baseball player that had played for the Kansas City Royals watching a tape of a highschool baseball game; Would you think it fair of me to go posting things on the internet about a kid in the game that missed a couple fly balls and tripped at second base, telling everyone what I would have done differently and that the kid should be cut from the team because compared to me he is terrible? And don't forget the kid can't defend himself from my accusations either.

Would you think that situation was fair? Don't give me an apples to oranges reply either, because the context doesn't matter. It is your actions that I am judging you on, not the conversation itself.

reply to post by Golf66

Lol I had never been to Panama, Somalia, Iraq, or Afghanistan either before I went but I certainly didn't shoot one bystander for every target I hit. Actually, I have never hit anyone by mistake because I don't spray and pray. I aim and squeeze. Marksmanship is a basic Soldier skill.

I respect your experience, and I agree with you that marksmanship is a basic soldier skill. But these are not soldiers and midtown is not Afghanistan. adrenaline rush is a problem because they don't have firefights everyday.

There are a lot of people on the sidewalks in that area. Do you think they should have waited for a clear shot? What if he keeps shooting people while the cops wait for a clear shot?

reply to post by sputniksteve


So the answer is giving police weapons with high capacity and just saying do your best, and if possible, don't shoot bystanders.

reply to post by roadgravel


Jesus, I certainly hope not. I surely don't suggest that, are you under the impression that I somehow have? All I said is that everyone in this thread that is Monday morning quarterbacking these Officers actions are delusional. I am all for a discussion about whether or not Americas police officers are trained and qualified enough for the job, my opinion is no they are not.

However I am not and have never been a police officer. I wasn't there the morning of the shooting. I tend not to judge people that I can't relate to on a forum where they don't have the chance to defend themselves. If all of the above things are O.K. in your book then by all means keep judging. I just hope you never make a mistake after this point, especially one available for criticism from the eligible population of the United States and anyone else out of the 6.7 billion left in the world.

I bet you would have a different take on things in that situation.

reply to post by sputniksteve


It seems to me that you are just arguing for argument's sake...

I have read the same posts as you have and I don't, at all, see the stance that your perceive from them.

I believe that it is simply a case of logistics and funding, that keeps law emforcement agencies from requiring higher weapons proficiency from it's Officers. Heck, most cops rarely, if ever, even have to draw their sidearms, in the line of duty. So, it would seem likely, that the expense and the potential loss of good recruits, due to not being able to satisfy a more stringent qualification, precludes most departments from enacting such guidelines.
It's probably cheaper just to fight or settle a lawsuit, when and if something like this happens, than to ensure that it's force is sufficiently prepared.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Absolutely none, that is why I am not judging anyone. I find it entertaining that your time spent in special ops. hasn't prepared you for the reality that a police officer isn't a special ops. member and isn't anywhere close to your level of training, preparedness, and combat experience. Did that just not occur to you or did you just assume that they trained all police officers to the level of a special operations member? I am not trying to be cute here, I am wondering.

Trigger discipline and muzzle control are not advanced concepts in shooting. I think they teach them in the hunter’s safety course. If you don't have a good sight picture don't pull the trigger. It’s a basic marksmanship skill. I know cops are not trained well which is why they shouldn’t be firing into or around a crowd unless perhaps the alternative would be worse.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
It's obvious that mistakes were made, otherwise we wouldn't have 9 civilians wounded. I am just really astounded, especially with your "spec ops." back ground that you would think a couple of New York beat cops would be as well trained as you are.

I don't expect them to be - I only expect that they:

1) Don't panic
2) Don't pull the trigger unless they have a clear sight picture like any kid learns the first time he shoots a rifle.

I expect them to be at least proficient enough to hit a man sized target from 10 feet away without missing. That is basic pistol course level proficiency and has zero to do with anything complicated or "special".

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Out of curiosity have you ever made a mistake in combat?

Not of a point and shoot nature, no and most certainly not from 10 feet away.... I find it amazing that if they were Soldiers and the bystanders were Iraqis the same people would likely be calling for their heads.

That they are cops makes it ok? What would they have risked if they didn't shoot until they had a more clear shot? Also, I insist they put themselves between the perp and the crowd - that should be second nature to step between the perp and the bystanders. Clearly to me they were more worried about themselves.

I expect no more or less from these cops than I would any basic infantryman and if I were investigating an engagement like this in wartime and couple of infantrymen fired 16 shots at an insurgent and they only hit 3 times from 10 feet away while they wounded/hit 9 other people I'd say they had poor trigger discipline and marksmanship skills and want them retrained before they are sent back out. That is all I think should happen to these cops. That and they seriously rethink their career choices since they panicked.

Now if they were operators I’d want them reprimanded formally and likely removed from their teams or sent to staff where they can’t get someone killed. Definitely a higher standard.

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


Then you obviously either can't comprehend what I am saying, or are not really reading the words for what they are. There is nothing to read into, I just think it is pretty immature and egotistical for IT specialists and Bank Tellers to be sitting here critiquing the actions of Police Officers in a public shooting.

I think it is funny those tellers and IT guys are talking about how they would have remained calm and done this or that. Those same people that have never been in a situation where other peoples lives depended on whether or not they shot a man that might be possibly decide to shoot at them or another civilian, might pull out a bomb, might shoot himself, might eat a sandwich...you get my point I hope.

Its easy to say what you would have done when you already know the outcome of the match and the moves your opponent made. It's dilusional to think that any of it matters though.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by sputniksteve

 

It seems to me that you are just arguing for argument's sake...

I have read the same posts as you have and I don't, at all, see the stance that your perceive from them.

I believe that it is simply a case of logistics and funding, that keeps law emforcement agencies from requiring higher weapons proficiency from it's Officers. Heck, most cops rarely, if ever, even have to draw their sidearms, in the line of duty. So, it would seem likely, that the expense and the potential loss of good recruits, due to not being able to satisfy a more stringent qualification, precludes most departments from enacting such guidelines.
It's probably cheaper just to fight or settle a lawsuit, when and if something like this happens, than to ensure that it's force is sufficiently prepared.

I can see it already...

ATS Thread title: NYPD preparing for martial law, train cops for combat like the military.

Originally posted by maxella1

 

What if he keeps shooting people while the cops wait for a clear shot?

Unfortunately, there are no what-ifs. Since it has already transpired.
There is only;
What did the cops know, before they approached the suspect?
What did they encounter when they approached him?
What was the result of their applied training to handle the given circumstances?

He never fired a shot! They overreacted due to panic. They did not assess the situation, devise the proper course of action, and then engage the target. They just engaged the target!

reply to post by Golf66

That they are cops makes it ok? What would they have risked if they didn't shoot until they had a more clear shot? Also, I insist they put themselves between the perp and the crowd - that should be second nature to step between the perp and the bystanders. Clearly to me they were more worried about themselves.

Bystanders and people in cars are all over the place, It would take some time before the people would realize what was happening. Meanwhile the cops should not shoot until they get a clear shot?

What would you be saying if the perp emptied his clip and shot 9 bystanders before the cops had a clear shot?

My point is that I am surprised of how it played out. So many complain that average citizens have firearms and are going to react poorly and hurt others. The police have done the same, it would seem. If not, why worry about armed citizens.

I am just surprised how the situation played out. I now feel that the training for many officers that we hear about isn't all that great. Of course, training isn't a replacement for actual incidents. Maybe this was the first shooting for these officers.

We are lucky people did not get injured worse. Could be their skill prevented it. Seems more like luck.

reply to post by sputniksteve


I completely agree with you, that the tellers and IT guys that are judging these guys, are out of line.
But, GOLF66 and I are explaining things to the thread, from the context of experience.
I did read the words, and my comprehension of them are from a position of knowledge about engaging a target with a firearm.
Perhaps, rather than lumping us in with the tellers and IT guys, you should apply the knowledge that we have acquiesced to the discussion at hand, instead of fervently defending your less knowledgeable position.

Originally posted by maxella1
I respect your experience, and I agree with you that marksmanship is a basic soldier skill. But these are not soldiers and midtown is not Afghanistan. adrenaline rush is a problem because they don't have firefights everyday.

Basic marksmanship is a beat cop skill. If you can't hit what you are aiming at from 10 feet time to hang up the badge. Also, if you think rapid firing 7-9 rounds is the way to engage a target in a crowded area again - hang it up. I was taught to never pull the trigger unless you had a good sight picture. If you are on shot 3 of 7 rapid fire rounds you have zero sight picture just a blur.

These guys are not 18 year old kids either one has 14 years on the force he should know when to shoot and when not to by now. I expect them to make up for their lack of training with their years of judgment.

Originally posted by maxella1
There are a lot of people on the sidewalks in that area. Do you think they should have waited for a clear shot? What if he keeps shooting people while the cops wait for a clear shot?

Absolutely, I expect them to not pull the trigger unless they have a clear shot and then only once twice - if they have the ability to double tap effectively. I think I addressed earlier that shooting into a crowd should only be done if the alternative is worse. Say like if I see a suicide bomber in a crowd of people - I'll shoot (and risk) a bystander because if she detonates the result will be a lot worse. Otherwise I won't unless I'm sure I can make the shot.

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

He never fired a shot! They overreacted due to panic. They did not assess the situation, devise the proper course of action, and then engage the target. They just engaged the target!

Sure they panicked, squeezed the trigger and missed too many times.

But how do you know that they didn't assess the situation before engaging the target?

In a crowded place like the midtown in NYC if you have nutjob shooting people the more you wait the more people he could be shooting...

reply to post by roadgravel

We are lucky people did not get injured worse. Could be their skill prevented it. Seems more like luck.

So you think those cops were there just by a coincidence? They didn't respond to a call of shots fired?

Not luck at all, it was duty to protect the people. and they willfully risked their lives to do it.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by sputniksteve

 

I completely agree with you, that the tellers and IT guys that are judging these guys, are out of line.
But, GOLF66 and I are explaining things to the thread, from the context of experience.
I did read the words, and my comprehension of them are from a position of knowledge about engaging a target with a firearm.
Perhaps, rather than lumping us in with the tellers and IT guys, you should apply the knowledge that we have acquiesced to the discussion at hand, instead of fervently defending your less knowledgeable position.

This is ATS. Just saying people can claim anything and often do. And as some have, none of us were in their shoes so it is all just speculation.