NYC getting sued for collateral damage

This could actually work against CCW- "If highly trained police miss a lot, then obviously the much less trained ccw holder will be even worse....."

Just playing devil's advocate....

However if NYPD follows the new state law, they won't have near as many rounds to miss with......

I know I saw a statistic that CCW's have better hit percentage than LEO in documented shootings. If some one could find that number that would be nice to know again.

I remember reading about that. Nine of 16 rounds fired hit innocent bystanders instead of the target. That's pretty inexcusable.

It seems around here (Especially Chicago proper), the vast majority of LEOs are not very proficient with firearms and don't care to be. Not sure how LE nationwide is, but just an observation.

Sue away. After NY state passed their new gun law, I don't look too favorably on NYC or the state in general relative to liability.

Soon Bloomberg will have all the cops unarmed, carring "Billy" clubs and wearing "Bobby" helmets just like UK. Next step... returning to the monarchy.

IMO, unless they can prove the police violated policy, the city/police are immune from such suits.

just saying that stat is probably meaningless without controlling for distance

Click to expand...

I see what your saying. In my opinion it isn't meaningless though. It does however show that CCW doesnt equate to OK corral shoot outs like the anti's like to point out will happen. And in the instance the OP is talking about to me showed possible lack of self control on the part of the police. This is coming from someone who wasn't there and so on.

The Empire State building is another example. And like you said, it's not meant to bash LEO's just remind folks that they aren't super humans that can have access to the only firearms EVER.

This could actually work against CCW- "If highly trained police miss a lot, then obviously the much less trained ccw holder will be even worse....."

Click to expand...

Sadly, this argument will be largely effective on people who know little about guns. But there are two things to remember (and which I'm sure the media will never report):

1) not all cops are good shots. I know, I'm a cop, and every year I see officers who can barely manage to qualify. They only have to do it once a year (on our department at least, and I think the NYPD is the same), and may not visit the range at all the rest of the time. Training is useful, and cops get good training, for the most part, but that training has to be reinforced by practice, and a lot of officers don't get much.

2) Ultra-heavy trigger pulls. The NYPD mandates a 12 pound trigger for their officer's Glocks. They used to be content with an 8 pound one. Now it's 12. They took Kahr pistols off their approved backup/off duty list because Kahr couldn't modify the guns to make the trigger heavy enough to suit them. Some departments do this for fear of liability, and they look at a super-heavy trigger as a safety device to prevent ADs. Problem is, ss Larry Vickers points out (http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/trigger-pull-weight/), such monster triggers make it much harder for an average shooter to shoot the weapon accurately. I would not be surprised at all if a reduced ability to shoot accurately on the part of these officers didn't contribute to the wounding of so many bystanders.

Yeah I realize that, but the fact remains that most antis I talk to will talk about how cops are "highly trained" and encouraged to qualify as marksman (which is apparently very hard, to those who don't know much about guns) and practice all the time. So that's why they should have guns, and your average citizen shouldn't.

Click to expand...

I've seen and heard plenty of that. The real kicker is that NYC cops are apparently held as "some of the most highly trained police in the world!" I usually start laughing at that point, I'm really not sure how they reached that conclusion.

As a matter of fact I wouldn't be surprised if NYC cops and other cops in libby areas had to put up with top down pressure against gun training, since likely you are never supposed to use your weapon as a cop, all confrontations being solvable with hugs and unicorns and such.

IMO, unless they can prove the police violated policy, the city/police are immune from such suits.

Click to expand...

Policy is probably still to know your target and what's behind it.
Unless they care that little about their citizens.

1) not all cops are good shots. I know, I'm a cop, and every year I see officers who can barely manage to qualify. They only have to do it once a year (on our department at least, and I think the NYPD is the same), and may not visit the range at all the rest of the time. Training is useful, and cops get good training, for the most part, but that training has to be reinforced by practice, and a lot of officers don't get much.

Click to expand...

this is one thing I have used against an anti. She was saying that cops get plenty of training in the use of guns, I reminded her that the gun is just one part of what they do and many cops will never even draw their gun in violence. NYPD get only 2 days of firearms training and then only qaul once a year, that is nowhere near enough. CCW'ers on the other hand are more prone to practice with their firearms. From personal experience I know many of my friends with CCW practice monthly, drawing, aiming and shooting on the move or behind cover. I would be willing to bet that most CCW's are BETTER trained than many cops.

cops kill the BG but wound several bystanders

Click to expand...

Since when is 8 "several"

It seems around here (Especially Chicago proper), the vast majority of LEOs are not very proficient with firearms and don't care to be. Not sure how LE nationwide is, but just an observation.

Click to expand...

Why would cops in firearms-adverse climes have any desire to be profient? It's not like they became great warriors the instant they put on the badge; they still have the same beliefs, fears, squeemishness, and prejudices of ordinary citizens. Police are ordinary citizens, who have been given authority to keep order.

This whole notion that police are "special" by virtue of their position is the real problem; without it, Bloomberg et. al. couldn't justify disarming commoners and not his "army" and goon squad.

It does however show that CCW doesnt equate to OK corral shoot outs like the anti's like to point out will happen.

Click to expand...

Let's not forget that OK Corral was a botched law-enforcement operation . Come to think of it, so was every other famous shootout I can conjure at the moment . By contrast, legit CCW events are typically non-issues since the attacker and maybe the first person he went for end up dead and the whole thing stays "small scale" and drops off the front page.

From the article: "Her attorney said police had "failed to train the officers for this type of situation."
Why isn't she suing for "You _______'s shot me (and 7 others) you ______'s!!" . 9 out of 16 isn't too bad, really, considering that one of the cops was looking away while shooting, and the other was crab-walking while lettin' loose gangsta style with his piece sideways (that's what it looked like to me, anyway). I've read somewhere that police typically have a 30% hit ratio, so this may not be as bad as it could have been. Do we know yet what they were shooting (i.e. large caliber slugs or heavy-trigger Glocks) or if any of the hits went through? (I thought for sure we'd be told all collateral hits were through and through ). I'd also demand an explanation as to why the police confronted the guy verbally from behind instead of tackling/tazing him (the video shows the shooter was unawares until turning abruptly as they approached from behind and yelled) since there were dense crowds all around him.

TCB

I used to shoot against several cops, both locals and feds, and most were not great shots. What I discovered was that the really good shooters were shooters before they became leos. Those that had taken up shooting after joining law enforcement were not great marksman due to the VERY limited amount of ammunition and practice time that was afforded to them by their department. Some were given as little as 50rds a year as their ammunition budget and had very limited range time. Most only practiced when they had to qualify and then not at all until it was qualification time again. I used to tell several, while in competition with them, that if I ever called for help to please leave their guns in the car and let me do the shooting. It was good for a laugh and a little edge in the bullseye comp when they got to thinking about it while shooting the next stage.

If I am correct, and I cannot currently verify if this is true, the police may have to use the standard 12 pound triggers that the rest of the nanny state of New York must use.

This, of course, is a dangerous law that ignorant people created. A 12 pound trigger pull makes it virtually impossible to fire a pistol without some measure of muzzle movement.

Strong trigger pulls in the 6-8 pound range can and do pull a down and to the left of the intended acquired target. Imagine a 12 pound trigger and all the adrenaline one would be experiencing in a street shootout!

A 12 pound trigger would essentially make the weapon prone to taking the muzzle off target, and more likely to shoot bystanders, even in the most experienced shooter's hand. :banghead:

How do I know all this about insane trigger pulls? I'm in the nanny state of Massachusetts where all Smith and Wesson pistols must come with a 10-12 pound trigger pull. Some Massachusetts compliant Walther PPS pistols have clocked in around 15 pounds!

The only solution is to get a trigger job, which is still legal in Massachusetts to do. I am unsure if that's legal to do in New York.

Since when is 8 "several"



If you had 8 guys beating the crap out of you, I bet you'd think that 8 is several.

Also from the article:
""We have on tape the perpetrator pulled his gun out and tried to shoot at the cops," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in August. It is not clear if the shooter actually fired at authorities."
It's actually quite obvious from the video that no shots were returned by the shooter (or instigated) and that he was on his way to falling down as half the shots were expended (justifiably, but still). If only Bloomer defended the righteous self-defense actions of the common folk as ardently as his men.

If you had 8 guys beating the crap out of you, I bet you'd think that 8 is several.

Click to expand...

Nah, I'd call it "more than one by a bunch" . I'm frankly amazed this is the only lawsuit, and that it's not a class action (and that it took this long). I have to assume that the others have been assauged privately, the case is still ongoing (somehow), or the NYPD is truly an unreachable monster free to commit the worst kind of reckless behavior.

"I have my own army in the NYPD - the seventh largest army in the world"
-Bloomberg

The main curiosity in this story is that there's only been one law suit filed.

A 12 pound trigger would essentially make the weapon prone to shooting bystanders, even in the most experienced shooter's hand.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The 1911 I carried as a patrol officer had a trigger sitting right at 4.25 pounds. The thing that kept me from AD'ing was proper training.

Technological fixes for training problems are almost always non-optimal and create unintended consequences.

this is one thing I have used against an anti. She was saying that cops get plenty of training in the use of guns, I reminded her that the gun is just one part of what they do and many cops will never even draw their gun in violence. NYPD get only 2 days of firearms training and then only qaul once a year, that is nowhere near enough. CCW'ers on the other hand are more prone to practice with their firearms. From personal experience I know many of my friends with CCW practice monthly, drawing, aiming and shooting on the move or behind cover. I would be willing to bet that most CCW's are BETTER trained than many cops.

Click to expand...

Mixing statistics on one side and anecdotes and speculation on the other isn't a great way to win an argument.

Does anyone have any actual statistics on how many rounds/month or hours/month the average citizen with a CCW fires or spends in training? My general sense among people I know who carry concealed is that the vast majority fall into one of three categories:

A) Those who never go to the range to train with the weapons they carry (especially among those who are infrequent carriers)

B) If they do go to the range, it is infrequent (< quarterly) and

C) Even if they do go to the range and shoot more frequently, they lack formal training and the rounds they fire aren't particularly productive expenditures of training time, money, and other resources.

There are absolutely CCW'ers who spend the time and money to acquire well developed skill sets. In one of the Vickers classes I've taken along the way there was a guy who six months prior had zero firearm experience at all but after somebody he knew had been the victim of a violent crime decided he should be armed and, if he was going to be armed, should know what he is doing. On the other hand, the two guys in line behind me when I got my first CCW permit were discussing firearms and while I was certainly no ninja myself, they demonstrated a level of firearms ignorance that in and of itself has made me a fan of those states where CCW requires completion of a training course and demonstration of minimum safety standards and accuracy.

LEOs are at least held to some standard of professional competence with firearms, though that varies by agencies and departments. I'm thinking it probably doesn't have to be noted that anywhere that requires testing for CCW holds LEOs to a higher standard of proficiency to certify them to operate under color of authority. This doesn't mean that some shooters don't exceed those standards through personal motivation, but assuming most do is pretty untenable without actual facts or proof to support it.

that could be because ccw are defending themselves and confrontations start at arms length vs cops which arrive at the scene and start shooting from a distance.

just saying that stat is probably meaningless without controlling for distance

Click to expand...

It's not meaningless at all. Not shooting for points; distance is irrelevant. The fact remains that CCW holders statistically present less risk to bystanders than LEOs.

Deus Machina said:

Policy is probably still to know your target and what's behind it.
Unless they care that little about their citizens.

Click to expand...

Governments generally have immunity from lawsuits in the course of their duties as long as they don't KNOWINGLY break the law or should have known they were endangering people/property. The law assumes that accidents can happen, but they are immune if it was an unforeseeable accident. As long as the their is no PROOF the police violated policy or reason to believe they did not act in good faith. They don't have to KNOW with 100% certainty what's behind their target. You have to PROVE what the police knew and violated policy. If it's possible they didn't see people behind the target, or ricochets they did not predict, then they maintain their immunity.

We give them a gun, badge and "qualified immunity".

It does however show that CCW doesnt equate to OK corral shoot outs like the anti's like to point out will happen.

Click to expand...

Ah, at that little dust-up neither side hit any inocent bystanders...

Just saying...