As requested by moderator hso: Video of NYC ESB shooting 8/24/2012

[Warp]

if that was anyone else aside from a cop they would end up in jail for hitting bystanders ...i dont care what the reason the officers use, there is no excuse to endangering the life of innocent bystanders with the sort of reckless gunplay they they exhibited.
if you feel its acceptable for police to completely disregard a civilians right to life for the sake of killing the badguy, then i assume you would feel the same if it were any of us pulling our carry gun and we end up hitting afew people who were just "in the way"

Do you believe they should have fired, or not?

 

[12131]

Coop, don't you mean the Policemen..... won't.

No, Coop said it exactly what he meant, and I agree with his sentiment.

 

[Deanimator]

Do you believe they should have fired, or not?

I believe that I should be able to drive to the grocery store.

I DON'T believe that I should be able to go 90mph in a 35mph zone and drive on the sidewalk.

Those cops own EVERY bullet they fired, just as I would had I been in the same position.

A justified shooting of an assailant doesn't justify negligent or reckless shooting of innocent bystanders.

The cops are legally responsible for every bullet they fired, PERIOD.

 

[cvoharley]

I have no idea how law enforcement is trained in NY. I do know in SC I am trained to fire with one hand (both strong and weak) should the occasion ever arise that I need to. My training course of fire also includes firing from behind a barricade. It is also strongly reinforced constantly that every shot must hit it's intended target and that any missed shot on target could potentially injure an innocent person. These things are repetitively drilled into our heads so that if the unfortunate situation ever happens, we will rely on instinct. It would appear, from looking only at the footage, that both officers were try to put distance and cover between themselves and the shooter.

 

[JFtheGR8]

If I knew I was pursuing an armed criminal my firearm would already be drawn. It doesn't look like they were ready.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[Owen Sparks]

Suppose a commoner had acted in self-defense and hit nine bystanders?

 

[BADUNAME30]

No, Coop said it exactly what he meant, and I agree with his sentiment.

I thot maybe he meant they won't..meanin they'll hafta live with it.

 

[BADUNAME30]

I have no idea how law enforcement is trained in NY. I do know in SC I am trained to fire with one hand (both strong and weak) should the occasion ever arise that I need to. My training course of fire also includes firing from behind a barricade. It is also strongly reinforced constantly that every shot must hit it's intended target and that any missed shot on target could potentially injure an innocent person. These things are repetitively drilled into our heads so that if the unfortunate situation ever happens, we will rely on instinct. It would appear, from looking only at the footage, that both offices were try to put distance and cover between themselves and the shooter.

cvoharley, are you Officers trained to continue firing until the percieved threat is eliminated?

 

[Warp]

I believe that I should be able to drive to the grocery store.

I DON'T believe that I should be able to go 90mph in a 35mph zone and drive on the sidewalk.

Those cops own EVERY bullet they fired, just as I would had I been in the same position.

A justified shooting of an assailant doesn't justify negligent or reckless shooting of innocent bystanders.

The cops are legally responsible for every bullet they fired, PERIOD.

That's a long answer for a yes/no question.

I'm going to take this as a "yes", they should have fired.

What do you believe makes it "negligent"? How were they negligent?

 

[MachIVshooter]

What do you believe makes it "negligent"? How were they negligent?

Really? You don't see how hitting 9 innocent bystanders is negligent (though I prefer the term reckless)?

 

[X-Rap]

Video isn't working on my computer but I have a few observations from the commentary.
1 It seems that the wild west that was predicted by the antis is happening in some of the most citizen restricted city's in America.
2 We withdrew from Iraq in part because the Iraqi gov wanted to hold our soldiers to the same standards we are demanding here.
3 The illusion that even a cop on every corner will make us safe is hopefully clear now. (we need to take a good hard look at what this illusion costs us)
4 One person with very little criminal intent can cause a lot of mayhem. (doesn't mean this isn't a big deal but imagine a concerted effort by a number of fanatical (you fill in the blank)
5 Gun fights in crowds have lots of losers.

 

[Deanimator]

What do you believe makes it "negligent"? How were they negligent?

Were the bystanders an immediate and credible threat to the life and limb of the cops?

If yes, then shooting the bystanders was not negligent.

If no, then shooting the bystanders was negligent.

Were the bystanders an immediate and credible threat to the life and limb of the cops? A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

 

[WinThePennant]

Is it just me, or is it wrong to expect cops to take a bullet instead of sending rounds down a crowded street just because there's a BG with a gun? Their lives are no more important than anyone else's, and they should be held to the same standard as a regular joe with a concealed carry permit.

I can tell you right now that I would NEVER shoot rounds at a BG without knowing for certain that I had a clear shot. For crying out loud, you can see the innocents scrambling for cover BEFORE shots were fired.

To be honest, I find the performance of these LEOs to be completely indefensible. They should be removed from duty.

 

[Warp]

Is it just me, or is it wrong to expect cops to take a bullet instead of sending rounds down a crowded street just because there's a BG with a gun? Their lives are no more important than anyone else's, and they should be held to the same standard as a regular joe with a concealed carry permit.

I can't fault that general idea, BUT, IF the guy is going to start shooting people having the officers go down isn't going to help out everybody else.

However, that doesn't really seem to be the case here. The guy was trying to escape and it became a shootout when the officers chased him down and confronted him in that crowd.

 

[X-Rap]

I will add
6 Get ready, even if you can't carry a gun be ready to act if the bullets start to fly, I don't know if there will be any accountability for this or not but as a child of the world you had better think about what you will do if you and people you care about are ever in the middle of something like this.

 

[Warp]

I will add
6 Get ready, even if you can't carry a gun be ready to act if the bullets start to fly, I don't know if there will be any accountability for this or not but as a child of the world you had better think about what you will do if you and people you care about are ever in the middle of something like this.

If I were in the bystander's position I'd do the same thing. The same thing Neo was told to do if he encountered an Agent the first time in the Matrix. "Run. Run like hell".

These bystanders had a few seconds to react before shots were flying. I'd run/get behind one of those big planters.

 

[cvoharley]

cvoharley, are you Officers trained to continue firing until the percieved threat is eliminated?

Engage, fire, reassess

Engage: verbal commands then sight acquisition

Fire: Tap, Tap. Scan.

Reassess: Scan situation again. Reengage as necessary.

It sounds simple, however even under the pressure of just training your blood pressure elevates and adrenaline begins to flow.

The short answer to your question is yes. You fire until there is no longer a "perceived threat". The word "eliminate" would imply excessive use of force.
Tap, tap, scan. Repeat as necessary.

 

[Trent]

Guy drew a gun, pointed it at them, advanced, cops panicked.

Can the above statement be disputed by their actions?

Running sideways while shooting one handed DOES NOT WORK. (Yeah, I've tried shooting while walking slowly TOWARDS the target and I can't hit diddly squat with TWO hands)

They panicked, they forgot how to engage properly, and sent shots wide.

I can't say I wouldn't panic - and not faulting them for it - haven't been put to the test. However, training should temper SOME of that and training should reinforce the habits that form the most basic principle of marksmanship.

To hit what you want to hit, you have to have a good platform.

They had no stance, they had no stable foundation to shoot from, they had NO AIM.

When you are 6 feet from a bad guy that has a gun drawn and pointed at you, on an open sidewalk, I'm sorry, but COVER is a moot point, to be frank. Stabilize and fire.

Not run and fire wildly with one hand.

I feel bad for the police, I really do, but this ... this documents exactly how NOT TO DO IT.

 

[allaroundhunter]

I am not going to armchair quarterback this one, I will only say that I hope that I am never placed in a situation where I have to defend myself with a firearm....much less defend myself in a crowded environment. It gives a new meaning to being caught between a rock and a hard place....a lose-lose situation if you will.

 

[Warp]

Cover is always worth having, and there was some available right there.

Moving while shooting is the kind of thing that LEOs ought to train at. We should too, although it's harder for us given the rules of many ranges. If you can't hit anything walking slowly forward straight at the target while shooting with two hands, you really ought to train some more. JMO

Also, realize we're talking about a range of about 6-8 feet for a lot of the rounds in this case.

 

[Hypnogator]

Is it just me, or is it wrong to expect cops to take a bullet instead of sending rounds down a crowded street just because there's a BG with a gun?

Aside from the issue of the jeopardy to the officers' lives, how many people behind the officers would be injured or killed if the perp opens fire on the officers (which he was apparently about to do). I have been in that exact situation, back in the day, when I was shot at and unable to shoot back because there were too many bystanders in the immediate vicinity of the perp. I, however, had a brick wall behind me and a conveniently large, solid Mercedes to dive behind.

Something nobody thinks about until someone points it out: What happens if you don't shoot? Will the perp not shoot at you to avoid injuring bystanders? In what universe? In fact, (s)he may deliberately shoot bystanders to create confusion and facilitate an escape.

The fact that so many bystanders became victims of inaccurate police shooting is truly unfortunate, but I would be willing to bet that all here who decry the poor marksmanship have never even been shot at, much less have had to return fire in a life-threatening situation.

 

[Trent]

Poor marksmanship at 6-8 feet.

Just a month ago there was an old man who shot a bad guy at 165 feet with a revolver, scored 5 for 5 hits, WHILE UNDER FIRE FROM A RIFLE. All the while saving a cop's life.

Sorry man, I'm not buying poor marksmanship as an excuse at 6 to 8 feet.

They had a *50 percent* hit rate on bystanders man.

 

[X-Rap]

A while back a young poster was poked a little fun at (good naturedly of course) when he mistook the Mozambique drill for the Mogadishu drill. After seeing the picture of the busy street and the woman in pink (post 16) I think there may indeed need to be a Mogadishu drill invented.
These crowds poke a lot of holes in our best laid plans, I think it's best to avoid them at all costs.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Is it just me, or is it wrong to expect cops to take a bullet instead of sending rounds down a crowded street just because there's a BG with a gun? Their lives are no more important than anyone else's, and they should be held to the same standard as a regular joe with a concealed carry permit.

I can tell you right now that I would NEVER shoot rounds at a BG without knowing for certain that I had a clear shot. For crying out loud, you can see the innocents scrambling for cover BEFORE shots were fired.

To be honest, I find the performance of these LEOs to be completely indefensible. They should be removed from duty.

FINALLY! Someone said it.

Police are there to protect and serve the public. IMO they should absolutely be expected to refrain from engagement if that engagement involves gunning down NINE bystanders.

Protecting the public is absolutely of a higher priority than "making it home an the end of a shift" and if its not its my opinion that that officer needs to take up a different line of employment.

For crying out loud NINE bystanders were shot! Apparently the us army in an active war zone takes greater precautions against "collateral damage" than the NYPD does today.

These police would have been more effective if they'd clubbed the guy with their nightsticks and forgotten about their sidearm

 

[2DREZQ]

Those poor cops had NO WAY of knowing WHAT the guy was going to do next. Yes, the one-handed thing looks pretty poor, but suppose the BG decided to start shooting 360 degrees? Focused on the cops, and them focused on him increased the risk for people in the 15-degree pie slice behind each party to the shooting, but virtually eliminated the risk to bystanders in the other 330 degrees from being shot by the BG. Let's remember one thing: After the initial murder, NOBODY BUT THE MURDERER DIED! Absent permanent disability from their injuries, the injured parties are going to do well, I suspect.

The cops made some mistakes, and I bet NOBODY is being harder on them than they are on themselves. As for me; my prayers are with those two cops.
This was a bad day to be a cop in NYC and I hope the NYPD takes all the lessons learned here to heart.