77 rounds, 1 BG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Firing 77 bullets, cops wounded an ex-con
Click to expand...
So that's how they do it in NYC, eh? I'm wondering if these LEOs might need to train a tot more. They fired 77 times, and wounded him?

Cedrick Rooks began spraying bullets outside the Taft Houses shortly before 1a.m. and was still waving his .32-caliber gun
Click to expand...
Well no wonder ... the perp was spraying bullets and waving his .32-caliber gun! Unfortunately, the story never tells the reader what the BG was spraying onto the bullets. Paint? Oil? Perfume? Vampire's blood?
 
Not that that miss rate is acceptable, but I wonder how many people on these boards would really perform in a true gunfight, when someone is shooting back at you. Sure, you can hit the X ring all the time when you are calm at the range, but could you really be that perfect when the firing started?
 
but I wonder how many people on these boards would really perform in a true gunfight, when someone is shooting back at you. Sure, you can hit the X ring all the time when you are calm at the range, but could you really be that perfect when the firing started?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that anyone who has a few IPSC or IDPA matches under their belt would have plugged the guy in the first 2 or 3 shots, if not sooner. There is nothing calm about that type of shooting, during my last match I was drenched in sweat and my heart was pounding after what was a minute of shooting, total. ;)
 
I'm guessing that anyone who has a few IPSC or IDPA matches under their belt would have plugged the guy in the first 2 or 3 shots, if not sooner.
Click to expand...
Ok. I'll give this the benefit of the doubt and assume that you compete with the same piece you'd carry day to day. Does IPSC truely prepare you to shoot back while being shot at? Does the pressure of not placing well in a match equal the pressure of maybe being made dead?


Not that that miss rate is acceptable, but I wonder how many people on these boards would really perform in a true gunfight
Click to expand...
I have zero doubt that I'd perform horribly. But I get my paycheck training on how a certain software system works. Part of what LEOs are payed to do, is to train on gunfighting under pressure.

Does it irk anyone besides me when news media use the word "cop?"
Click to expand...
Yes. It does irk somebody besides you.
 
Yep, that is how it works. The good guys fire rounds in a very controlled manner, with full regard for their surroundings, bystanders, and fellow cops. The bad guys are lucky to understand what end the bullet comes out of the gun. So you get things like the 77 shots fired here or like Lubbock SWAT that started entry on a suicidal man's home with the sniper shooting his own man in the head and front and rear teams making entry and firing something like 400 rounds, egressing from the home and calling in for more ammo to be brought to the scene. The suicidal guy did get wounded, in the leg, while hiding. Basically, he was hit by a stray round. He never fired a shot. Lubbock SWAT never had a target and fired some 400 rounds.
 
i agree with Janitor.

IPSC and IDPA do NOT even remotely simulate someone shooting back at you. its surprising to see how many people are so sure they would outshoot someone else in a deadly force situation? especially if they haven't been in one themselves.

while 77 shots may sound like alot, the story says a total of 7 officers were involved in the shooting, which averages 11 rounds per officer.

that's not too bad i dont think. 11 rounds for a gun battle that probably was about 1-2 minutes, equals about 1 round fired every 5.45 to 10.9 seconds.

that certainly doesn't count as 'spray-and-pray' does it? :confused:
 
NYPD officials said the captain could not immediately respond to the shooting because a frightened civilian had jumped into his car, possibly thinking it was a livery cab. The captain went to the shooting scene after getting the civilian out of his car, officials said.
Click to expand...
Does anyone else have a sort of Keystone Kops vision upon reading this paragraph?

As for the 77 rounds, I wouldn't have done any better (probably worse), but as noted by others, that's not my job.

-twency
 
Ah, so many of you have much more faith in the highly trained police officers who probably only fired their weapons once a year because they have to qualify with them than any of the millions of casual or competitive shooters in this country who fire their weapons on a monthly if not weekly basis? Why even bother training marksmanship or combat shooting if its not going to help you if you actually face the real thing some day? Or maybe my logic is completely flawed?

Firing 76 wild shots in a crowded city doesn't sound anything like competent shooting to me, but what do I know? :rolleyes:
 
Does anyone know the layout of the scene? Does anyone know if the suspect was shooting under cover? Does anyone know if the suspect was moving? Does anyone know the lighting conditions? Does anyone know the distance that the police were shooting? There are many of factors that we just do not know to make an educated judgment on the competence of the police officers involved in the shooting.
 
For the last figures I saw the NYPD hit their target 10% of the time .When the carried wheelguns it was 20% !!! Training !!! ..... 'Cops' has been an acceptable term for police , at least in NYC for a long time , though sometimes it's used in a negative connotation.
 
There is nothing in this world, short of an actual gunfight that can adequately prepare you for a gunfight. IDPA teaches basics of shooting, trigger control, target aquisition, moving while shooting, reloading, etc.
Simunitions, paintball, etc. can give you some negative feedback when hit, and can teach you a little about soft cover, hitting a moving target, etc.

Knowing that you have to kill or be killed and staring down the barrel of a loaded gun with someone hell bent on destroying you - that cannot be simulated. It changes everything.

JM
 
The media rarely gets the facts straight. They like to play on the emotional aspects of the story, rather than the facts. That's why you see terms like, " began spraying bullets...still waving his .32-caliber gun" and "He allegedly shot five to seven times at the cops before his gun jammed.". They don't take the time to get the facts straight. I don't know how one would spray seven rounds, and the .32 is designed to lock open after the seventh round, indicating it's empty.

As far as the layout of the scene, the media rarely covers this because it's not necessary when playing upon people's emotions. Most sheeple are not as detail oriented about firearms as we THR guys and therefore don't care how it happened, just that it did. :banghead:
 
Johnnymenudo

+1

And how many people think NYPD, or any city PD, regularly puts its officers through that level or kind of training?

Cause that's exactly the number of people who are wrong.

I'm not trying to slam anyone, but how do you explain the totally untrained individuals, good and bad, who come out on top in gunfights? Who actually hit with their first few rounds? How do you explain troops who haven't yet been in combat but certainly haven't received tens of thousands of rounds of simunitions training who still pull off successes in firefights?

Training, any training, should help. To say that you have to have actually "seen the elephant" to do predictably better in a gunfight than the average guy who's walked a beat for a couple years is specious reasoning.
 
Are we assuming that out of 77 police rounds fired only one hit the suspect? Aside from not having any details of the scene, we also don't know how many of the 77 police rounds missed and how many hit.
 
The media rarely gets the facts straight. They like to play on the emotional aspects of the story, rather than the facts.
Click to expand...
Does it irk anyone besides me when news media use the word "cop?"
Click to expand...

Guys, this isn't "the media", it's the New York Daily News, a tabloid birdcage-liner of a "newspaper" that uses irreverent headlines and sensationalism to sell papers. Their "style," is to write in colloquial language.

I doubt the Times will be referring to police officer as "cops" any time soon.

Are we assuming that out of 77 police rounds fired only one hit the suspect? Aside from not having any details of the scene, we also don't know how many of the 77 police rounds missed and how many hit.
Click to expand...

If you read the article, it says that the suspect "was hit in the hip, neck and shoulder...."

Don't be so critical. That's at least three hits, probably, for a hit rate of almost 4%. :)
 
See? The "New York Trigger" really does make people safer! He was only hit three times, wasn't he?! :neener:

Seriously though, I wonder how the pull-weight of the NYTrigger affected their ability to hit the target whilst under stress? Assuming that most of the six LEOs were using Glocks, that is...
Does anyone know the trigger pull-weights of the other NYPD issue sidearms?
 
I guess maybe I'm one of the few who doesn't have lowered expectations of the NYPD, maybe it also has to do with my combined resentment of the city government of NY City where the sheeple aren't allowed to own guns but somehow the cops are a better class of people and can carry them. Maybe if the New Yorks 'finest' haven't shot innocent people reaching for their wallet or brutally sodomized one of their inmates in the past, I would have a much higher regard for NYPD.

I can't disagree with those who say there is more to the gunfight than what is doen at the range, but I have a hard time associating the word 'competence' with the New York Police. Its just a case where my predjudice clouds my outlook.
 
Guys, this isn't "the media", it's the New York Daily News, a tabloid birdcage-liner of a "newspaper" that uses irreverent headlines and sensationalism to sell papers. Their "style," is to write in colloquial language.
Click to expand...

I'll bet the Daily News has had to fire fewer employees for plagiarism than the Times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top