Empire State shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
But, somehow this is a national news case. Silly.

ColoradoKevin, I agree its silly, media attention because of recent shootings, but we may be glad it IS a national news case; if we're lucky, Bloomberg just opened mouth/inserted foot before he knew the facts and will be exposed as having exploited the situation for his own agenda to a wider public. Like others, for the sake of the officers involved, I hope that they didn't injure any civilians, but if this guy had an 8 round magazine and killed his ex-boss without reloading, he certainly didn't hit all of the other 8 wounded except for the small chance that more than one of his rounds injured two separate civilians. And I'm still hoping the gun was stolen or otherwise obtained illegally by this guy.

Sorry, it's not High Road, but I'm not a Bloomberg fan.
 
Wow...the article I linked said he was 58, your quoted article (link please) says "fifty-six". How's that for details gone awry?

Colorado, competent shooters might be able to overcome the trigger pull, but you have to agree that it becomes more difficult to place accurate shots on target, especially quickly. But I do agree with your sentiment - training is the big issue (on both NDs and accuracy), not the pull weight.

If the gun was purchased illegally, that gun is very unlikely to make headlines. The press seems to want us to believe that illegally purchased firearms don't exist - all firearms are purchased legally, and therefore the law encourages these people to own guns. Even if bought illegally in NYC, they'll claim some sort of loophole allowed him to get it and the law needs to be changed.

I guess what I take from this, although honestly I already knew it:
1) Cops need more range time.
2) Banning guns doesn't prevent gun violence (both city-wide and building specific).
 
I saw last night a report on mob town usa.. Chicago.. it was said that all the shootings are to be attributed to some South American drug czar. Quite the turnaround from regular old "too many guns!" (you can't get a gun there) and or whatall.
It'll be interesting what "they" say next.
 
If I'm not mistaken; The Empire state building is a "Gun-free" zone, i recall someone being arrested not too long ago for trying to check in their Concealed weapon.

So You're telling me a "GUN-FREE" zone didn't stop a criminal from shooting people, But instead disarmed law abiding citizens? Say it ain't so!

So what. The shooting wasn't inside. The shooting was by a disgruntled employee who targeted another current employee.

New York (CNN) -- A disgruntled former worker sparked chaos in front of the Empire State Building on Friday when he shot and killed a co-worker and engaged in a gunbattle with police, leaving at least eight others wounded, authorities said.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/justice/new-york-empire-state/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

So it was a murder on the street of NYC in front of the former workplace of the shooter and the workplace of the murdered victim that took place in the presence of cops who opened fire and exchanged shots with the guy. It would not mattered had this been at an NRA convention, it is nearly impossible to stop such a murder. There is no indication thusfar that the guy targeted anyone else not shooting at him.

Bloomberg should be concerned given such issues at the 84:14 ratio of a previous NYPD shooting.

Bloomberg doesn't seem to indicate he was trying to shoot others 'bystanders.'

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said some victims may have been shot accidentally by responding police officers, who killed the suspect. The victims were either wounded or grazed and are not likely to die, he said.

A surveillance videotape "clearly shows the guy had the gun out and was trying to shoot the police officers," Bloomberg said. "It happened very quickly . . . Thank God no one else was seriously injured."

Of course, the important thing was that the police commissioner was right there to supervise the responding officers. :rolleyes:

NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly said police were about 5 feet away when the suspect, Jeffrey Johnson, 58, pulled the gun and pointed it at two responding police officers. Kelly said preliminary indications were 14 shots were fired by police and three shots were fired by the suspect.

Kelly said Johnson, described as a disgruntled former employee, had worked as a designer of women's accessories at Hazan Imports Corp., at 10 W. 33rd St., where he had been laid off about a year ago. Police identified the victim as a 41-year-old former co-worker. Kelly said the victim and the suspect "had been accusing each other of harassment." He did not provide specifics.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/...-building-was-disgruntled-ex-worker-1.3924799

The suspect apparently fired 3, THREE shots. It does not sound like he was targeting anyone but his intended victim and the cops trying to stop him. Her certainly didn't shoot 8 people with 3 shots and the cops didn't shoot him 14 times. Note that after shooting his intended victim, the shooter was attempting to escape when he was followed, cops alerted, and they tried to stop him. The shooter was not on a spree and was not spraying the crowd. It was a murder.
 
Skribs said:
Personally, I'm mostly concerned with the accuracy of the cops on this one.
Not to overlook the tragic wounding of innocent people here but have you ever been in a shootout or had a gun pointed at you? Statistically speaking accuracy goes out the window for the most part. Furthermore have you been to NYC on a typical business day? It would be pretty difficult to not hit someone else. Who said the police missed the guy? Maybe the bullets went through him into someone behind him.
 
Who said the police missed the guy? Maybe the bullets went through him into someone behind him.
Then that's still a tactical fail on the police's part. If you believe all of the rounds fired by the police hit their target then I've got a bridge in that area to sell you.
Interesting contrast: goblin had max of 9 rounds on tap (assuming he reloaded after the original shooting). The two cops had ~28 rounds on tap without a reload. You notice that the media isn't talking about exactly how many rounds the police fired versus the bad guy.
I smell lawsuits. And more lawsuits. And I hear the subtle rustle of rapid butt-covering.
 
All this can change as more comes out...

This was not a mass shooting as some outlets have reported.

This was a one against one murder, followed by a suicide by cop with collateral damage.

Johnson had spendt the last year every morning dressing up in a suit, going to McDs and buying breakfast, going back to his apartment and staying in the rest of the day. Apparently brooding over his grudge against Ercolino.

Apparently he only fired the three shots at Ercolino, and when confronted by two armed police raised his gun and did not fire.

The two police fired a total of fourteen rounds at Johnson, three hit him, and eight other people got gunshot wounds. A ninth apparently had a non-gunshot injury. The reports I read had two police among the wounded, apparently not the two shooters.

Kelly and Bloomberg admitted the collateral damage from police shots up front. Strange to see them do something sensible for a change.
 
I can't wait to see how Bloomie puts spin on this.

He will probably focus on the lone shooter who killed 1 person, and made the NYPD shoot.
I am very curious how he will justify all of this collateral damage from his police force.
I don't see ow he can justify any of this.

Regardless of his crime, the NYPD had no need to have multiple officers firing into a crowded area.

For God's sake, would they not train for situations like this, given their population density?
 
"A cop on every corner", as has been seen, is not really magich.
How much do those "cost" that city anyway, a couple hundred thousand dollars each per year?
 
Should have cordoned the shooter off. Evac'd as many people as possible. Brought in SWAT. End of story.

Going "high noon guns blazin'" in a crowded environment.. man. Wouldn't want to have made that call.

I can't wait til Bloomburg puts a spin on it either:

"SEE PEOPLE - GUNS ARE SO EVIL NOT EVEN THE POLICE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE THEM!"
 
Apple a Day said:
Then that's still a tactical fail on the police's part.
Please enlighten me on the tactic you would have used... not shoot? The only one I blame is the nutjob who started the shooting not the officers who risked their life because someone decided to kill a former co-worker and they were the ones to respond. It sucks that it happened at all but in New York City where there is always someone around makes it all the more deadly. Thank God noone else was killed.
Apple a Day said:
If you believe all of the rounds fired by the police hit their target then I've got a bridge in that area to sell you.
Like I said in my original post when a gun is pointed at you and it's life or death unfortunately accuracy goes out the window.
 
Nneely, as much as you want to defend the training of the police, the fact is most of them don't even practice, they simply qualify with their guns X times per year (or once every X years) and that's that. After all, they're not SWAT, so why do they need to know how to take that perfect shot?
 
This is what happens whe you give in to the ACLU in the 60's and overweight, untrained, undersized and under height people, become police officers. There is no ongoing training for the majority of them. The only time their gun leaves the holster is once or twice a year to qualify. If not for that, they could put in their 20 and never fire a shot.The year or two after I took the test they changed it, we had to hurdle a 10 ft wall, lift a 70 lb weight over your head, do 10 pull ups, 25-50 push ups, a running broad jump, 50 sit ups, and a few I forgot,within 15 or 20 minutes, all of a sudden that all stopped, because woman and small weak men could not pass the test, there was also a height and weight requirement, I think it was 5'10", for men, and vision test. All went bye bye, so dwarfs and people light on their feet could pass.
I don't know about most guys, but when I call a cop, I want someone who can actually help. The few instances I called them when I had my business in NY,after the old gaurd had left, I got 102 lb woman, and 400 lb fat men who could ever find their gun if they had to.I would bet that none of thse cops, today, had ever shot at a real person before, unless there was maybe one old timer left. How you could fire into a crowd like that is just plain dumb, unless you have a clear shot and a backstop. They are lucky they didn't shoot each other.
They are already saying it's the same as an automatic weapon, as you just keep pulling the trigger. I really can't listen to this crap anymore. Bloomberg won't be happy until he disarms everyone.He reminds me of the announcer in the "Hunger games".
 
Trent said:
Should have cordoned the shooter off. Evac'd as many people as possible. Brought in SWAT. End of story.

Going "high noon guns blazin'" in a crowded environment.. man. Wouldn't want to have made that call.
What if they "cordoned" the area and the gunman continued to kill everyone in sight while the police did nothing? With an active shooter you have to respond to the threat immediately. You don't have time to sit down and think while innocent people are being killed.
 
What if they "cordoned" the area and the gunman continued to kill everyone in sight while the police did nothing? With an active shooter you have to respond to the threat immediately. You don't have time to sit down and think while innocent people are being killed.

The police have no legal obligation to protect innocent citizens. Every action could be blamed on the gunman.
 
Skribs said:
Nneely, as much as you want to defend the training of the police, the fact is most of them don't even practice, they simply qualify with their guns X times per year (or once every X years) and that's that. After all, they're not SWAT, so why do they need to know how to take that perfect shot?
I'm not going to turn this into an arguing match but as a police officer I know what goes into qualifying and how much training is involved. What perfect shot are you talking about? Show me one "SWAT" member that can take down an armed shooter in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the world during a business day with a gun pointed at him and account for that bullet possibly passing through him and hitting something behind him. You react to what happens, like I said before you don't have time to sit down and think about what to do next over a cup of tea.
 
What if they "cordoned" the area and the gunman continued to kill everyone in sight while the police did nothing? With an active shooter you have to respond to the threat immediately. You don't have time to sit down and think while innocent people are being killed.

He wasn't actively shooting anyone. He shot his target and was leaving. Wasn't randomly shooting anyone.

When confronted by cops he reportedly raised his weapon - classic suicide by cop gesture - and they unloaded on him like the grand finale of a Dirty Harry movie. And at least 8 of 14 rounds they fired went in to the crowd behind him.

Tunnel vision. They didn't stop and think about what was behind the guy.

Can't wait until the security video that captured the whole thing makes the light of day. We'll see for sure, then.
 
I'm not going to turn this into an arguing match but as a police officer I know what goes into qualifying and how much training is involved. What perfect shot are you talking about? Show me one "SWAT" member that can take down an armed shooter in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the world during a business day with a gun pointed at him and account for that bullet possibly passing through him and hitting something behind him. You react to what happens, like I said before you don't have time to sit down and think about what to do next over a cup of tea.

How sure are you that your department's training regiment is the same as everywhere else?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top