As requested by moderator hso: Video of NYC ESB shooting 8/24/2012
- Thread starter paramedic70002
- Start date
- Status
SWAT1911
Member
"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."
6 took fragmentation from the bullets hitting concrete etc.
3 took direct gunshot wounds
"Gunning Down" is uncalled for
16 rounds fired total.
10 GSW's on Johnson
6 took fragmentation from the bullets hitting concrete etc.
3 took direct gunshot wounds
"Gunning Down" is uncalled for
16 rounds fired total.
10 GSW's on Johnson
It isn't like that was their only choice, to shoot one handed while moving. They panicked, and did several things badly, intead of focussing on the threat and shooting him. They lost valuable time in moving around instead of shooting. They lost the intitiative in moving around instead of shooting. They wasted the moment in shooting one handed on the move when they could have stood their ground and made good shots. If they moved, they could\should have moved into him if anything, to make their shots more certain, but many of us find it hard to believe they could miss so many times at that range, especially with the example of the guy in Texas a week or two ago (even if it was 50 yards instead of 165 yards). He gave them little choice but to shoot, but they did the shooting in an extremely poor fashion in so many ways.
I wouldn't say by much.
easyg
Member
These cops made the wrong decision.
They put more people in danger than the gunman did.
It's just like when cops create a high speed pursuit situation, endangering numerous lives, just to catch a speeder.
Sometimes, pursuit is not the best coarse of action.
They put more people in danger than the gunman did.
It's just like when cops create a high speed pursuit situation, endangering numerous lives, just to catch a speeder.
Sometimes, pursuit is not the best coarse of action.
Gato Montés
Member
This is what I don't understand. BG shoots former coworker, leaves, is pointed out by a witness to two police officers. The BG is not currently shooting anyone else, why did the police have to jump on him right then and there? Could they not keep a distance and follow him, all the while radioing fellow officers to his position; get something set up or wait for a better moment to strike?
Adamsstreet
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 17
Every police agency should practice like crazy, and have thier officers reload practice ammo to carry specs. Get good practice at a reduced cost, and a better understanding of what is in that holster.
You don't know they are "just a speeder" when the decision to pursue is made.
What these two cops *should* have done seems really clear looking at it here from the Internet...
Looks to me to be less marksmanship and more instinctive reaction. Shot count does seems excessive, but... I'm not going to pile on. I'm sure some could have reacted better, but until someone draws on me from 6 feet away on a crowded street,I really couldn't say with authority how easy it would be.
Looks to me to be less marksmanship and more instinctive reaction. Shot count does seems excessive, but... I'm not going to pile on. I'm sure some could have reacted better, but until someone draws on me from 6 feet away on a crowded street,I really couldn't say with authority how easy it would be.
We see reasonably good adherence to training by the NYPD officer on the left and poor adherence to training by the officer on the right shooting one handed while running.
I doubt if we'll ever know which bystander injuries were caused by which of the two officers (although any bullets recovered would be very telling), but I'd bet better than 2 to 1 odds the officer running and snapping shots like a kid playing cops and robber would be the more likely one to have caused the most wounds to the bystanders.
I doubt if we'll ever know which bystander injuries were caused by which of the two officers (although any bullets recovered would be very telling), but I'd bet better than 2 to 1 odds the officer running and snapping shots like a kid playing cops and robber would be the more likely one to have caused the most wounds to the bystanders.
MachIVshooter
Member
He was not an active shooter, and he only had two rounds left.
Agreed 100%.
The cop that was moving and shooting was shooting in a direction more toward the street. The cop by the planter was firing toward the sidewalk where the people were. The cops had no way of knowing how many rounds this guy had left to fire. The guy had already killed someone and had pulled his gun on two officers on a crowded Manhattan street. I can't fault the cops for stopping the threat. Bad situation and no easy answers.
Last edited:
Isn't the 20/20 vision of hindsight a great thing?
Please keep in mind that the officers had absolutely no way of knowing that.
nyrifleman
Member
Cops shoot with lower accuracy, on average, than gun owners defending themselves.
BUT REMEMBER: cops often shoot at targets that are fleeing and from further away than gun owners. Additionally, cops have a duty to shoot to stop an escaping criminal. Armed citizens are allowed to shoot only until the threat stops (and the criminal fleeing means the threat has stopped). And this is as it should be.
Yes, not all cops are the best shots in the world. But neither are all armed civilians. However, hating on cops for being incompetent because they have lower hit rate is extremely short-sighted and doesn't take into account the different circumstances.
BUT REMEMBER: cops often shoot at targets that are fleeing and from further away than gun owners. Additionally, cops have a duty to shoot to stop an escaping criminal. Armed citizens are allowed to shoot only until the threat stops (and the criminal fleeing means the threat has stopped). And this is as it should be.
Yes, not all cops are the best shots in the world. But neither are all armed civilians. However, hating on cops for being incompetent because they have lower hit rate is extremely short-sighted and doesn't take into account the different circumstances.
Iramo94
Member
:banghead:
Sorry to nit pick, but the Venn diagram for "being shot" and "doing well" is two disconnected circles.
The fact is that in addition to an innocent man being dead because of the original shooter, nine people are in the hospital today because of this. And all three shooters are to blame.
Last edited:
No innocent man is dead because of anything the police did.
Neither police officer is to blame in any way, shape, or form for an innocent man being dead.
Iramo94
Member
Previous post edited because of a stunning lack of understanding of grammar on my part.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
This changes the picture quite a bit. 10 for 16 is actually VERY good considering what we know about the situation, and about law enforcement training, officers, and guns.
Some points to reiterate:
1) Shooting while moving is not an impossible task. Rather, it is a VITAL SKILL. You must be able to draw and put hits on target WHILE moving off the line of force (getting out of the way of his bullets). It is not at all an unreasonable skill to practice. It is not unreasonable to expect success. It is not an unreasonable thing for the police to do and to do well.
It DOES take practice. Not just qualifying 2x a year. Not putting a box of ammo through the gun every couple of months. But it isn't rocket surgery either.
Not to bring up "games" except to illustrate the point -- go to any "practical" shooting match in the country and you will be REQUIRED to do this in at least half the stages. It is NOT secret-squirrel ninja stuff.
2) The very best of skills degrade about 75% under stress (like the threat of incoming fire).
3) Cops have/had no way to know how many rounds the shooter had in his gun, or on his person, and had no way of knowing what the shooter would do next. They HAD TO react as though he had 100 more rounds in that gun and his next plan was to kill every person on that street. Once that gun came out they had to put him down, IMMEDIATELY, period, with as much speed and assurance as they could bring to bear.
"Tackle him?" "Hit him with their nightsticks?" Please, get real.
4) The cops should have refrained? One innocent hit is too many? Not in the least! You have a guy who you MUST believe is about to go out in a mass-homicidal rage. You are faced with a risk-assessment: Hold back and allow him to kill (YOU and) many people with impunity while you stand idly by -- or -- take him down, knowing there's a possibility that you MIGHT wound, or even kill an innocent person (or nine)?
Think about it for a moment. Yes, harming an innocent person is terrible. Letting a killer slaughter some untold number with deliberate precision is MORE terrible, by far.
The cops had to engage. They hit him 10 times. TEN TIMES out of 16 shots. Based on what we know about lethal force encounters, that's pretty good!
They also hit 3 innocents with direct fire. That SUCKS. Really, that's awful. That should be a(nother) wake-up call for better training throughout the country. But they didn't kill anyone, and they did keep HIM from killing many more people (potentially).
Six others were hit by fragments and ricochets. This is going to sound mighty callous, but that's just life. It is not the fault of the cops, it is the direct fault of the KILLER they were stopping from harming the public.
All the wounded will be taken care of by the city, assuredly. They'll probably walk away with a nice parting gift, courtesy of the civil suits. I still feel very bad for their pain and suffering, which is real. But life is dangerous. They might have gotten hit by a bus, had something fall on them from a construction site, fallen in a man-hole, or had any number of other accidents happen to them that day. As it is they were injured as part of the collateral damage caused by a deranged person who'd just murdered someone and who pulled a gun on cops. Life is dangerous, and sometimes very bad things happen to people who don't deserve it. We (society) will help them get back on their feet, and after a fashion, thank them for their sacrifice.
That isn't FAIR. It just IS.
Last edited:
Plan2Live
Member
I am confused. 9 people were hit with bullets or bullet fragments from a FORTY-FIVE and they aren't all dead?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Should these cops be in jail or swinging from a rope because they wounded three others? (I am NOT counting the ricochets and fragments.)
Because we believe that we as citizens would be so pilloried?
No. They stepped up in a terrible situation and performed to the best of their abilities and training. They had a DUTY to act, and act in the manner that they did act. Their actions very well may have saved lives (we will never know).
They harmed some others inadvertently, and I'm sure they feel horrible about that. (And I'm sure the city will be going pretty far in making restitution for that.) But stopping a KILLER is a dangerous thing for all involved. Not quite as dangerous as letting him go on killing, though.
Would you or I be in jail for the injuries to others? Perhaps. We have no duty to act. NOT shooting at him would not have been a dereliction of duty for us.
There is a reason that officers are indemnified against personal liability for actions they take that follow agency training and policies. That reason is that not all problems have a "safe" solution that causes no harm to other people. Society recognizes this and gives our officers some protection, so that as long as they are acting as their department has trained them, the fact that their solutions are not PERFECT will not paralyze them from acting as they must to protect society and apprehend the law-breaker.
Remember: These officers were faced with a known KILLER, who pointed a gun at them on a city street. They didn't launch a hail of bullets into a schoolyard to stop someone from jaywalking. They fired something like 8 rounds each -- and they hit the KILLER ten times. Due (we must believe) to their actions, he did not kill another person. (He may have not killed again anyway, but there would have been no way to know that in the moment.)
Because we believe that we as citizens would be so pilloried?
No. They stepped up in a terrible situation and performed to the best of their abilities and training. They had a DUTY to act, and act in the manner that they did act. Their actions very well may have saved lives (we will never know).
They harmed some others inadvertently, and I'm sure they feel horrible about that. (And I'm sure the city will be going pretty far in making restitution for that.) But stopping a KILLER is a dangerous thing for all involved. Not quite as dangerous as letting him go on killing, though.
Would you or I be in jail for the injuries to others? Perhaps. We have no duty to act. NOT shooting at him would not have been a dereliction of duty for us.
There is a reason that officers are indemnified against personal liability for actions they take that follow agency training and policies. That reason is that not all problems have a "safe" solution that causes no harm to other people. Society recognizes this and gives our officers some protection, so that as long as they are acting as their department has trained them, the fact that their solutions are not PERFECT will not paralyze them from acting as they must to protect society and apprehend the law-breaker.
Remember: These officers were faced with a known KILLER, who pointed a gun at them on a city street. They didn't launch a hail of bullets into a schoolyard to stop someone from jaywalking. They fired something like 8 rounds each -- and they hit the KILLER ten times. Due (we must believe) to their actions, he did not kill another person. (He may have not killed again anyway, but there would have been no way to know that in the moment.)
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
You are confused. 9 people were hit by bullets or bullet fragments from the officers' 9mm Glocks.
Roughly 80% of gun shot victims survive being shot.
The only person shot with the killer's .45 did indeed die.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
What? No. The killer was a kook. He'd been fired from his job one year ago and worked himself up for a year to kill the man who'd fired him. And that's what he did.
No racial motive.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
