bogie
Member
I can believe it. I've shot with cops.
The old farts aim. The high and tight bunch wants bigger magazines.
The old farts aim. The high and tight bunch wants bigger magazines.
More developments with groom shooting story
- Thread starter razorburn
- Start date
- Status
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
bogie, you will capitalize Old Farts and give us the respect we deserve. 
My experience with undercover cops I have known is that "confront" means flashing the badge and stating that they're cops. I also note that over the last century or so, those who reflexively flee from the cops commonly wind up in deep doo-doo.
While I don't subscribe to the notion, I know there are many people who believe that if you run from the cops, it's Open Season, no bag limit.
Art
My experience with undercover cops I have known is that "confront" means flashing the badge and stating that they're cops. I also note that over the last century or so, those who reflexively flee from the cops commonly wind up in deep doo-doo.
While I don't subscribe to the notion, I know there are many people who believe that if you run from the cops, it's Open Season, no bag limit.
Art
From the Associated Press this morning:
“The survivors were Joseph Guzman, 31, who was shot at least 11 times, and Trent Benefield, 23, who was hit three times… The officers' shots struck the men's car 21 times… In total, it is believed 50 bullets were fired,…It was the first time any of the officers, all of whom carried 9 mm handguns, had been involved in a shooting,..”
[Emphasis added. No comment.]
“The survivors were Joseph Guzman, 31, who was shot at least 11 times, and Trent Benefield, 23, who was hit three times… The officers' shots struck the men's car 21 times… In total, it is believed 50 bullets were fired,…It was the first time any of the officers, all of whom carried 9 mm handguns, had been involved in a shooting,..”
[Emphasis added. No comment.]
svtruth
Member
Morality aside
From a purely tactical point of view it would seem that shooting to slide lock would render you vulnerable while you reloaded.
Doesn't training cover not being drawn to fire just because a fellow officer does? What if he needs protection from another threat?
I'm not LEO, so these are genuine ??
From a purely tactical point of view it would seem that shooting to slide lock would render you vulnerable while you reloaded.
Doesn't training cover not being drawn to fire just because a fellow officer does? What if he needs protection from another threat?
I'm not LEO, so these are genuine ??
delta53
Member
Pop
I'm sure all the undercover cops were inside drinking soda pop. Any tests done on them?
I'm sure all the undercover cops were inside drinking soda pop. Any tests done on them?
crazed_ss
Member
What does that have to do with whether or not this was a good shoot?
Manedwolf
member
According to one news report, only 21 rounds actually hit the vehicle. So the REST of all those rounds were flying happily on through New York's urban-density neighborhoods, hm?
Great aim and trigger discipline, there. I'd expect that of sideways-hold gangbangers, but I thought cops were supposed to care about backstops and hitting the target, especially when it's as large as a vehicle in which the occupants ARE NOT SHOOTING BACK!
Guess not!
Someone else has that here, I see:
So there were 29 9mm rounds that entirely missed the car, happily flying on down the street.
Bet Noo Yawkers feel safer now!
Great aim and trigger discipline, there. I'd expect that of sideways-hold gangbangers, but I thought cops were supposed to care about backstops and hitting the target, especially when it's as large as a vehicle in which the occupants ARE NOT SHOOTING BACK!
Guess not!
Someone else has that here, I see:
So there were 29 9mm rounds that entirely missed the car, happily flying on down the street.
Bet Noo Yawkers feel safer now!
They were somewhat justified in the shooting since the driver was trying to run over an officer, but 50 rounds. I can see shooting until the vehicle's driver is dead or stops the car, but you cannot riddle the entire car with bullets. The driver deserved to get shot, not everyone in the car.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I'll take the blame for that. I first brought up the subject that I found it humorous that the "groom to be" already had 2 kids with the woman he was intending to marry, and questioned the morality of the "last night of freedom" at a strip club.
When speculating about things like this, which we are clearly doing since none of us have all the info, I question the innocence of the group in part because of their questionable behavior in general.
Does going to a strip club deserve shooting? Certainly not, but if we are going to speculate on behaviors of the cops, we can speculate on the behaviors of the victims. And they do seem to be victims here, but there seems to be some contribution to the mess by both sides.
I speculate, since we are all speculating, that the group was up to no good inside the strip club. The club was reported to be well known for prostitution and other criminal activity. Whether that should be a crime is not my position, but since it IS a crime there, the typical young urban male (and I'm not talking just black here, it's all of them of that age group) response is to be confrontational and "tough" acting and it's not surprising there would be some kind of run in and chest thumping and threats made like "I'll get my gun".
That usually ends up being not the best way to deal with Police, and I suspect there were things done by the group that caused the Police to believe a crime had been committed and at least someone in the group was armed.
Now, does any of that justify what happened? Probably not from what we know, but I always love to see these threads were everyone piles on the horrible authorities for their abuse of power without being fair in giving the victims SOME of the blame.
This thing escalated, in my speculative opinion, because BOTH sides screwed up in a big way.
In the end, however, it is the responsibility of Police to not screw up as bad, so there should be a reckoning here and I think there will be; just don't paint the victims as saints.
Sistema1927
Member
Sad.
Sad for the slain.
Sad for the wounded.
Sad for the families.
Sad for the cops.
Sad for the people of NYC.
Sad for two fatherless children.
Sad.
Sad for the slain.
Sad for the wounded.
Sad for the families.
Sad for the cops.
Sad for the people of NYC.
Sad for two fatherless children.
Sad.
FNHP35
Member
Sigh, it seems there are at least 4 separate issues in this shooting.
1) Amount of rounds fired. Ok, so 51 rounds or so were fired, we are taught, and mostly subscribe, to the notion of firing until the threat has ceased to exist. Under the stress of believing someone is out to hurt/kill you, firing fast is natural. If the sequence of events are correct the first Det fires after he gets hit, and the car rams the van again. That means he could have been firing the entire time the vehicle was backing up and moving forward and ramming the van. That's a long time in a gun fight. Emptying one magazine is not all that surprising and if the car had not stopped moving by the time he reloaded, he could have started in on his second one. The amount of rounds fired has no effect on the justification for the shooting. If the Officer reasonably perceived a threat to his life, or the life of a third person, the he should shoot till that threat has stopped. Whether that takes 1 round or if that takes 10,000 rounds, it doesn't matter.
2) The accuracy of the rounds fired. Unless it turns out there were alot of ricochets I am going to have to say that was fairly poor shooting. Shooting accurately is important in a gun fight. It seems, from initial reports, that the shots were not placed particularly well. They are responsible for each round they fired. While this is linked to the shooting, it really doesn't have an effect on the justification of the shooting.
3) Departmental Policy. As it has already been stated, Departmental Policy is not the same as the law. In fact, Departmental Policy can be broken and things be legal. There can be some pretty goofy policies in Police Departments. In some instances you end up breaking policy by doing the right thing. There are many policies that don't include that caveat NYC has about the deadly weapon not being the car. The Officers might get in trouble for violating the policy if they cannot show a good reason why they did so (if it turns out that they truly violated the policy).
4) Justification for the shoot. As Bartholomew has already stated, I can think of many, many legal ways this shooting could have happened. I can also see how this shoot could have not been a good one. From reading the basic storyline they've provided us so far it seems like a legitimate shoot. They, the people in the car, had escalated the situation, just in intentionally ramming a person, into a deadly force encounter (remember, deadly weapons aren't just guns and knifes, car's have been used before, and are quite effective, at killing people). They also (all of this is relying on the news media reports and police statements) made statements about getting a gun. We shall see how it'll turn out. I have a feeling NYC PD will sacrifice theses Officers even if it was a good shoot. It'll keep the Vultures off the Admin. folks.
Andrew
1) Amount of rounds fired. Ok, so 51 rounds or so were fired, we are taught, and mostly subscribe, to the notion of firing until the threat has ceased to exist. Under the stress of believing someone is out to hurt/kill you, firing fast is natural. If the sequence of events are correct the first Det fires after he gets hit, and the car rams the van again. That means he could have been firing the entire time the vehicle was backing up and moving forward and ramming the van. That's a long time in a gun fight. Emptying one magazine is not all that surprising and if the car had not stopped moving by the time he reloaded, he could have started in on his second one. The amount of rounds fired has no effect on the justification for the shooting. If the Officer reasonably perceived a threat to his life, or the life of a third person, the he should shoot till that threat has stopped. Whether that takes 1 round or if that takes 10,000 rounds, it doesn't matter.
2) The accuracy of the rounds fired. Unless it turns out there were alot of ricochets I am going to have to say that was fairly poor shooting. Shooting accurately is important in a gun fight. It seems, from initial reports, that the shots were not placed particularly well. They are responsible for each round they fired. While this is linked to the shooting, it really doesn't have an effect on the justification of the shooting.
3) Departmental Policy. As it has already been stated, Departmental Policy is not the same as the law. In fact, Departmental Policy can be broken and things be legal. There can be some pretty goofy policies in Police Departments. In some instances you end up breaking policy by doing the right thing. There are many policies that don't include that caveat NYC has about the deadly weapon not being the car. The Officers might get in trouble for violating the policy if they cannot show a good reason why they did so (if it turns out that they truly violated the policy).
4) Justification for the shoot. As Bartholomew has already stated, I can think of many, many legal ways this shooting could have happened. I can also see how this shoot could have not been a good one. From reading the basic storyline they've provided us so far it seems like a legitimate shoot. They, the people in the car, had escalated the situation, just in intentionally ramming a person, into a deadly force encounter (remember, deadly weapons aren't just guns and knifes, car's have been used before, and are quite effective, at killing people). They also (all of this is relying on the news media reports and police statements) made statements about getting a gun. We shall see how it'll turn out. I have a feeling NYC PD will sacrifice theses Officers even if it was a good shoot. It'll keep the Vultures off the Admin. folks.
Andrew
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
When my wife saw the news story, she commented that if a tough-looking someone dressed in street clothes followed her out of a bar to her vehicle, and then stepped in front of her vehicle to block her path as she tried to pull away, she'd assume they were a mugger or carjacker, and would probably keep going and make them get out of the way. That's what most of us would probably think. And if you posted in S&T about what to do if you are trying to pull out of a parking space in a bad neighborhood late at night, and a young, tough-looking male blocks your way, "lay on the horn and keep going" would probably be the dominant advice--not "stop, turn off the radio, and listen to what he's shouting to see if he's an undercover police officer instead of a carjacker."
It's not entirely clear whether the people in the car knew the person following them and cutting off their escape route was a police officer, or if they thought he was a criminal. But I can see how I or my wife could get shot, were we in a similar situation.
It's not entirely clear whether the people in the car knew the person following them and cutting off their escape route was a police officer, or if they thought he was a criminal. But I can see how I or my wife could get shot, were we in a similar situation.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Update--it appears that the occupants of the car did, indeed, believe they were about to be mugged or carjacked, if this news story is accurate:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/474965p-399546c.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/474965p-399546c.html
highlander 5
Member
these cops are a walking advertisement on why they should go back to revolvers. Semi auto pistol spray and pray
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
With aim that bad I don't think you could tell if they were shooting at the passengers or not. Most of the shots didn't even hit the freaking car!
TexasSIGman said:
highlander 5 said:
I guess it may be too early to tell if they were intentionally firing upon the passengers or phenomenally bad shots. I suspect it was a combination of both.
I once asked a cop at the range what he was shooting and he said "a Glock something." Now I know that weapons knowledge is just a small part of police work, but c'mon...
Law and department policy do not carry the same weight. E.G. The dept policy could say "no drinking, on or off duty." The law has no such restrictions. You can legally have a beer, but still be fired for breaking dept policy.
So, in other words, these guys could be legally justified, depending on NY state law, and still be fired for breaking dept policy.
So, in other words, these guys could be legally justified, depending on NY state law, and still be fired for breaking dept policy.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I get sick of hearing that excuse.
Landing the plane is only a small part of pilot work too......
Yep, lots of void where one would like facts in this incident.
I am somewhat appalled that 51 shots were fired and only 21 or so hit the vehicle. Maybe that 21 number does not include shots that hit passengers? That many shots ought to have left every occupant in the car deaddeaddead.
My response to a threat while driving in such a situation (urban, slow speeds, perhaps perceived threat) would be to get my velocity up and get the heck outta dodge.
What a mess. The addition of a some Sharpton to the mix does not help.
I am somewhat appalled that 51 shots were fired and only 21 or so hit the vehicle. Maybe that 21 number does not include shots that hit passengers? That many shots ought to have left every occupant in the car deaddeaddead.
My response to a threat while driving in such a situation (urban, slow speeds, perhaps perceived threat) would be to get my velocity up and get the heck outta dodge.
What a mess. The addition of a some Sharpton to the mix does not help.
In an earlier post I said:
When I first started reading this article and got to the report that one occupant of the car received 11 hits and lived, I hastened to the end to see if there was a report on the type of weapon(s) carried by the NYPD shooting up the neighborhood. Sure enough, 9s. Suspicions confirmed.
This may demonstrate one of the several considerations which led my service to swap the M9 carried by the other US military services (although not all their elements), for the Sig P229 .40. When my guys need a sidearm for real, the BGs will most likely be up close and personal and well-armed. If a BG takes 11 hits and lives, your nether regions are apt to be in a crack. While the USCG, along with the rest of the DHS, sadly did not go all the way to the beloved M1911 carried in my day, they now have a handgun much more likely to immobilize a BG with one well-placed hit.
A point I had intended making here may have been lost in the other quite valid observations raised by other commentators.
When I first started reading this article and got to the report that one occupant of the car received 11 hits and lived, I hastened to the end to see if there was a report on the type of weapon(s) carried by the NYPD shooting up the neighborhood. Sure enough, 9s. Suspicions confirmed.
This may demonstrate one of the several considerations which led my service to swap the M9 carried by the other US military services (although not all their elements), for the Sig P229 .40. When my guys need a sidearm for real, the BGs will most likely be up close and personal and well-armed. If a BG takes 11 hits and lives, your nether regions are apt to be in a crack. While the USCG, along with the rest of the DHS, sadly did not go all the way to the beloved M1911 carried in my day, they now have a handgun much more likely to immobilize a BG with one well-placed hit.
Beren
Moderator Emeritus
I'm not an LEO, so I don't know: does it take seven undercover officers to investigate a strip club?
JMusic
member
Say what you want, it was a mixed ethnic bunch of cops involved in this, all the facts are not out yet.
Jim
Jim
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
