Two dead and several wounded in NYC shooting outside Empire State Building

[TarJak]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/two-dead-after-shooting-outside-empire-state-building-20120824-24smb.html

From some reports sounds like some of the wounded were shot by police in the gunfight that ensued.

[Tribesman]

Look on the bright side, it was only a local going postal

[CCIP]

So here's an interesting twist to the story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19380492

Apparently ALL 9 other people who were shot and wounded were actually hit by police bullets and not the gunman.

I wonder what that says about the argument I frequently hear - "If only there was someone carrying at [shooting spree location], this wouldn't have happened". Guns in the hands of good guys sometimes also create problems as much as they solve them... (not saying the police shouldn't have fired on the guy, of course)

[Rockstar]

I wonder when the last time they reviewed their use of force policy? Doesn't bode well for the city or police, gonna be some serious lawsuits coming up.

[Jimbuna]

Not a good outcome for the Police but we all know who was responsible for bringing this about and it wasn't the Police.

[August]

I wonder what that says about the argument I frequently hear - "If only there was someone carrying at [shooting spree location], this wouldn't have happened". Guns in the hands of good guys sometimes also create problems as much as they solve them... (not saying the police shouldn't have fired on the guy, of course)

What is says is that restricting firearms to police only doesn't make bystanders any less likely to get shot during an altercation.

[Stealhead]

The cops either where the spray and pray type or they where using a long arm and the bullets hit the target and passed though him.

It said that the cops that fired where "counter terror" which means the guys that walk around with M-4 or G-36Ks a long arm and those guys are better trained than a beat cop at marksmanship(in theory).My assumption is that all or most of the rounds hit the gunman and went through him and then hit other people 5.56mm will pass though a body at close range.Even the GSG-9 in 1977 and the SAS raid on the Iranian embassy in London and the GIGN deal in 1994 and the Beslan incident in Russia in all of those some people did get hit by the raiders in a confined or veyr crowded situation there is only so much one can do you have to mitigate the threat and try not to hit anyone else it is a tight rope be to too careful and lots of people will get hurt too reckless it goes poorly as well.At Beslan a sniper had to shoot a girl in the leg to stop her from running back inside the school and to certain death.

[Rockstar]

No doubt the perp was the problem he started it the cops finished it, kudos to these officers it is a difficult and thankless job they have to perform. Unfortunately IMO lawsuits are bound to clean out part the city coffer. The police will learn and adapt as for everyone else involved only money, and lots of it, can assuage thier grief, pain and suffering and fix their life. Yep money.

[Stealhead]

I think it will depend on the lawsuits it will have to proven that the police acted in a negligent manner.

Seeing as there was a man who had just murdered a person walking down a public street with a gun the police did not have much choice.It seems that they told him to stop and he aimed the gun at them and they shot him.You have no way of knowing what the intent was but it is safe to say that the man would have killed anyone that got in his way.

What else could they have done? Stood there and let the man shot them because they do want in any way to hit a bystander? Which means that the gunman could kill them or shoot anyone else and then get another weapon.Should they just have allowed a person that just committed an act of violence a murder in public no less simply walk away?

It is possible that the city may just pay damages to the people that got wounded by the police bullets.That is the best way to deal with the situation.

[soopaman2]

One killed by the gunman. The rest wounded and or killed by cops.

I am a New Yorker...This fails to surprise me.

On to mayor Bloomberg.

When Rudy Giuliani (hero mayor of 9-11) wanted a 3rd term, Bloomy used his position to deny a 3rd term.
But when Bloomy wanted it, passed without a problem.


So what does Bloomy have to do with this?

EVERYTHING. He wants to legislate smoking, and tax soda, well his officers are taking the same extremist views as him. Including spewing out 14 shots on a crowded street.

I used to work a block away and that street is jammed that time of morning.

I am disgusted by the lack of weapons training in the officers, and have a feeling that these men were just happy to be able to discharge thier weapons, rather than caring for the hundreds of civilians in the area.

A reflection on Michael Bloomberg, Luckily he owns Bloomberg news, so he can at least spin the controversy away from him.

Man I wish I was a billionaire.:wah:

[Bilge_Rat]

Here is a video of the shootout:


http://youtu.be/EYWgrHwrlf8

As you can see, the officers had to make a split second decision after the suspect pulled his gun out and aimed it at them. The whole confrontation was over in 6 seconds.


you have to remember the NYPD is armed with semi-automatic pistols and trained to keep firing until the suspect is down. Even if some bullets miss, the theory is that enough will hit to neutralize the suspect.


In a situation like this, a police officer has to decide in a split second whether to shoot or not; he is unfamiliar with the location; there may be wind, dust or poor visibility; he may not be in the optimum firing position and/or moving (as here); the target may be moving and/or worse aiming a gun at them (again as here).

You also have to remember that a pistol is inherently difficult to aim. With a rifle, you can stabilize the weapon with both hands and shoulder and you have that long barrel as an aiming point. A pistol is only held in one hand and even with a two handed grip, it is easy to be slightly off and miss completely. With a semi-auto pistol, you also have to contend with the cumulative recoil of all these rounds being fired in quick succession, each one of which will throw off your aim slightly. Only getting 1/2 of the bullets in the target in these situations is not abnormal.

Did the officers react appropriately? As you can see in the video, 6 seconds elapsed from the time the suspect points his gun to the time he is down. However, as we all know lawyers will be second guessing what happened in those 6 seconds for years.

[Stealhead]

It all boils down to ones level of training with a pistol.Yes you do have much less stability with a pistol but this does not mean that they inherently inaccurate.A person that trains themselves properly to use a pistol under stress should be fairly accurate.

If you are not properly trained you could miss with any type of firearm even at that range.

The best split second handgun shooting that I have ever heard of was an Air Force Security Forces(SP) member some guy came on the base and killed some people inside the base hospital he then grabbed a woman and walked out side with her this SP just happened to be outside the location the gunman was walking out off and fired one bullet from an M9(Beretta M92) into the gunman's head game over.

I would say given the time span and situation one could only have done worse and missed more shots. According to the US military about 33% of rounds fired hit the intended target for sniper units the average is about 80%.

Also according to CNN: "Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the bystanders were not hit directly by police, but rather the officers' struck "flowerpots and other objects around, so ... their bullets fragmented and, in essence, that's what caused the wounds."

I love the armed civilian concept here though that is a laugh you can get a carry permit in a few hours they provide you with no realistic training and do not require you to qualify with your
weapon on a regular basis.In other words the person carrying could be a horrible shot be a panicky freak and that is just bad news.Sure there are some people that have carry permits that actually know what they are doing but you cant be sure. Realistically a conceal carry is best for a robbery or other situation where the suspect is forced to flee when they realize that their intended victim was packing heat or in a similar situation where merely the display of the firearm is enough to end the situation.

[Sailor Steve]

If you are not properly trained you could miss with any type of firearm even at that range.
How much training is considered "proper"?
00 - 02 Yds
Uniformed Members Of Service: 64
Number Of Shots Fired: 127
Number Of Hits: 65
Percentage Of Hits: 51
That's for shots fired by NYC police officers at a range of 2 yards or less...51%.

At 7 yards it's 44%
At 15 yards the hit rate was a whopping 7%.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/law-enforcement-military-homeland-security-discussion/27336-nypd-2005-firearms-discharge-report.html

[Dowly]

According to the US military about 33% of rounds fired hit the intended target[..]

Find, Fix, Finish. :03:

[nikimcbee]

We need Hanomag in here. I'd love to hear his thoughts on the matter.:hmmm:

[Tribesman]

How much training is considered "proper"?

You can see in those figures where the proper training comes into play with a 100% hit rate.:oops:
Its a bit confusing with the accidental discharge though, how can you hit your target if you didn't mean to shoot it in the first place?
Would that mean a miss counted as a hit and a hit counts as a miss?

[MH]

How much training is considered "proper"?

That's for shots fired by NYC police officers at a range of 2 yards or less...51%.

At 7 yards it's 44%
At 15 yards the hit rate was a whopping 7%.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/law-enforcement-military-homeland-security-discussion/27336-nypd-2005-firearms-discharge-report.html

As someone who did some training with pistols i say its very bad statistics...for training shooting in optimal conditions....static targets/shooting and so on....
Almost anyone can pass this with couple hours of exercise...and that is probably the idea.
As someone said here shooting pistols accurately is more demanding than long weapons.

[Ducimus]

You also have to remember that a pistol is inherently difficult to aim. With a rifle, you can stabilize the weapon with both hands and shoulder and you have that long barrel as an aiming point. A pistol is only held in one hand and even with a two handed grip, it is easy to be slightly off and miss completely. With a semi-auto pistol, you also have to contend with the cumulative recoil of all these rounds being fired in quick succession, each one of which will throw off your aim slightly. Only getting 1/2 of the bullets in the target in these situations is not abnormal.


It all boils down to ones level of training with a pistol.Yes you do have much less stability with a pistol but this does not mean that they inherently inaccurate.A person that trains themselves properly to use a pistol under stress should be fairly accurate.
...

I love the armed civilian concept here though that is a laugh you can get a carry permit in a few hours they provide you with no realistic training and do not require you to qualify with your
weapon on a regular basis.In other words the person carrying could be a horrible shot be a panicky freak and that is just bad news.Sure there are some people that have carry permits that actually know what they are doing but you cant be sure. Realistically a conceal carry is best for a robbery or other situation where the suspect is forced to flee when they realize that their intended victim was packing heat or in a similar situation where merely the display of the firearm is enough to end the situation.

Off the wall, random response:

My Wife and I go to the target range every week. Between the two of us, we burn 200 rounds of 9MM every sunday. So I guess you could say we get our practice in. A few things I have learned:
- Some days, your just off, and not on your game. Other days your doing really good.
- Shooting "cold" can sometimes be the most challenging in terms of scoring accurate hits or a good grouping.
- Regular target shooting does not reflect how well you will do in a stress situation. If you want to have the best idea of how well you'd do in a real situation without actually being in a situation is this:
1. Get a body target, and go to an indoor range.
2. Put that target on the track, and send it all the way down to 25 yards.
3. Put your gun down on the bench, just as you'd normally carry it.
4. Use the track controls, and it tell to bring the target back to 0 yards. (Shift + Home keys on the range i frequent)
5. Grab your gun off the bench and put as many rounds into the target as you can before it reach's you. (it moves at you fairly fast)

I don't know what the proper term for that, but the wife and I call that a "fast approach". You can be scoring bullsyes with normal target shooting, but on a "fast approach' you'll find your all over the place. In this situation, we grade ourselves on how many shots we got out of the mag, of those how many hit the sillouette, and how many misses. My best so far, after practice, is 15 rounds fired, 12 hits, and 3 misses. Can i replicate that? Not always. When i first tried this, that figure was reversed. 9, 12, or 15 rounds fired, with few hits, and mostly misses hitting the paper around the silloutte, or missing the paper entirely. Is this accurate training? I'm gonna say No, but it gives you a ballpark idea of how you'd really do if you had to use your handgun in a defensive situation.


Other thought: My wife and I are going to get our concealed carry permits in the next few months (Ie whenever we get off our asses and make time to go to the class and fill out all the paperwork). I'll be doing this, not to act as a "civillian sheepdog" as some people like to call it, but only as a means to protect myself, my wife, and any children we may have. It's better to have it and not needed it, then need it and not have it. Since we can get the permit, why the hell not? Even though it does come with a great responsiblity, one of which is to try and deescalate, and otherwise try and get yourself out of a situation before resorting to your sidearm. In any court, in any state, they should be asking, "did he do everything he could to remove himself before the action took place?". ( Except maybe Florida. :haha: )

[Platapus]

Yet another point to consider.

Paper does not shoot back. :yep:

[Tribesman]

Yet another point to consider.

Paper does not shoot back.
Noted in the posted NYPD figures.
shooting yourself.....best hit rate
shooting someone who is shooting back....worst hit rate

[Ducimus]

Yet another point to consider.

Paper does not shoot back. :yep:

Well Duh. :haha:

[MH]

How much training is considered "proper"?

That's for shots fired by NYC police officers at a range of 2 yards or less...51%.

At 7 yards it's 44%
At 15 yards the hit rate was a whopping 7%.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/law-enforcement-military-homeland-security-discussion/27336-nypd-2005-firearms-discharge-report.html

OK i have red the link...it is statistic under real condition which probably is average for police force in every country...or worse.
What is required here is a lot of reflex shooting training to improve this The result is very much up to individual talent because pistol shooting is sort of like martial art.
One can not expect every policeman to be like that...it would be difficult to maintain sizeable force.

[Penguin]

Another point is that according to Steve's statistics, many shootings involved dogs = a quirky moving, small target. This might explain the bad hit rate even at shortest distances, as the stats go for all shootings.

It would also interested to know how NYC cops train. The usual police firing ranges in my state are "classic" ones: non-moving paper targets at different distances.
There is one quite sophisticated police range in a neighbor city, where the cops train with the help of a blue box, where their collegues play the bad guys and civilians in front of a cam and are pasted into the range. A little odd that they shoot at their own co-workers, but the overall training looks very true to reality.



Paper does not shoot back. :yep:

I tend to disagree: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE-ZmwATS8E :O:

[Stealhead]

Everyone is forgetting one key factor the stress of a real life situation and the unpredictable movement factor of a real threat.

A person can be a crack shooter at a gun range but might be a horrible shot in a life or death situation.Even well trained soldiers can miss and for many reasons.I think
you could maybe do a crap load of calisthenics work up a heart rate something to get your blood flowing something to be making your breathing more labored anything to make
shooting as uncomfortable as possible that would be a better way to simulate the stress.

Many police have a special training program that simulates the types of firearm use situations a cop might encounter if a small PD in Florida has this training I am sure that the largest one in the country does as well.

I suppose the best training would be the reflexive shooting training.

All I can say is until you have been 10 feet away from a man with a gun and had to contended with shooting him and also trying not to hit anyone on one of the most crowded city streets in the country then you can have something to say.

You have a little to say if you have ever actually had to draw and fire on an attacking person period.I am betting that no one here has this experience.The closest I have come is shooting a boar and he did not know I was there until a 7.62x54mm bullet from a 91/30 went though his heart.I have done that many times sometimes with a different caliber.

[Ducimus]

Everyone is forgetting one key factor the stress of a real life situation and the unpredictable movement factor of a real threat.

A person can be a crack shooter at a gun range but might be a horrible shot in a life or death situation.Even well trained soldiers can miss and for many reasons..

In my other post I was actually agreeing with you. Doing as I described, is actually an eye opener. A body sized target is huge. You'd think, "how can i miss that?". Well, you can, and you do, with the target is running right at you, even as big as it is. The only stress in that scenario is trying to be fast and accurate, which isn't much, but it's enough to make you realize that how you do against a stationary target, and how you do at a moving target under even a small amount of pressure, even one running right at you, is vastly different.

edit:
As an aside, it occurs to me, everyone in this thread is an "expert". (I don't claim exemption) Also, I think JIT training is a bunch of BS. Something I'm sure Stealhead knows about being prior Air Force. The more you practice, the better you get. I garuntee, if you have to use your firearm, you'll do a lot better with it if you practice regularly , then if you hadn't. Of course how much better is all relative to the individual.

[Bilge_Rat]

edit:
As an aside, it occurs to me, everyone in this thread is an "expert".

..and that is a surprise?...:D

[MH]

edit:
As an aside, it occurs to me, everyone in this thread is an "expert". (I don't claim exemption) Also, I think JIT training is a bunch of BS. Something I'm sure Stealhead knows about being prior Air Force. The more you practice, the better you get. I garuntee, if you have to use your firearm, you'll do a lot better with it if you practice regularly , then if you hadn't. Of course how much better is all relative to the individual.

When you practice you need to practice in certain ways that simulate real life conditions and have nailed them in the primal brain.
Shooting at the range is better than nothing though.

No im not an expert or gun junkie:doh:.....but did some shooting.

BW

By looking at the cops statistics just imagine how it would be with every average Mr smith that feels like having gun....bullets flying everywhere...

[Jimbuna]

We need Hanomag in here. I'd love to hear his thoughts on the matter.:hmmm:

Agreed...it's possible Mike may have been in a similar situation before.

[CCIP]

Well, I'm glad this has provoked the type of debate I was hoping for! I don't think there's an easy answer here at all, and I wouldn't dare blame the cops. It's just that it's very important for people to know that these are life-and-death decisions made very, very quickly, and that guns are extremely deadly any time they're pointed in the general direction of people. My original point here was simply that they are not always the problem-solvers that some people take them for, and that this is an attitude that sometimes concerns me. Even people specifically trained for these situations make tragic mistakes, and that's a big deal. I think that's something that every responsible gun owner needs to take to heart.

[Ducimus]

When you practice you need to practice in certain ways that simulate real life conditions

That's why there are practical/tactical shooting ranges, that simulate urban environments. Unfortunately, not everyone has access to one. I think it would be A LOT of fun going to a range like that every week. I'd never go to a normal shooting range again.

and have nailed them in the primal brain.

Muscle memory for the win.


Shooting at the range is better than nothing though.


Yup.


It's just that it's very important for people to know that these are life-and-death decisions made very, very quickly, and that guns are extremely deadly any time they're pointed in the general direction of people. My original point here was simply that they are not always the problem-solvers that some people take them for, and that this is an attitude that sometimes concerns me. Even people specifically trained for these situations make tragic mistakes, and that's a big deal. I think that's something that every responsible gun owner needs to take to heart.

Oh, guns ARE problem solvers. The fact of the matter is, some people are a waste of oxygen, and when they threaten other peoples lives, it is a problem that needs to be solved. However, that solution to that particular problem is typically, a last resort, and the majority of gun owners take there firearms seriously, and responsibly. In case you haven't heard, there's 4 basic rules to remember. I uploaded these just for you. :O:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=677&pictureid=5864http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=677&pictureid=5865
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=677&pictureid=5866http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=677&pictureid=5867

It is basic rule number 4 the cops didn't quite have time to concern themselves with.

[Nippelspanner]

Easy for us to judge this situation, isnt it? :stare:

[CCIP]

Oh I'm well aware of the rules, don't take me for a total gun skeptic - unlike some people, I actually took the effort to get myself trained and practiced in the use of firearms (in the US), and at firing ranges I've indeed met that majority of responsible, all-around-good gun owners, who have their weapons for perfectly good reasons. I just think that this is a good reminder for Rule 4, and a good reminder of what guns actually do in a messy situation vs. what some people think guns do in a messy situation.

[Sailor Steve]

Rule 1 is a good take on a real problem. When you're cleaning a gun, or just checking it out, always assume it's loaded. Checking it is the first thing you should do. The opposite is also true: If you need to use the gun always assume it isn't loaded. This will prevent the other kind of bad surprise.

The real first rule should be: Always check the gun. No one else can do it for you.

[1480]

We are as a majority terrible shots. I was at training recently and we were informed that FBI stats has us at 33% 5 yards or less. At least in the unfortunate situations I had been placed in, tunnel vision really fubars everything. We are trained to react, its the offenders actions that dictate our response. Even when the good guys win, we lose later on down the road. BUT that victory, going home the same way you went to work is priceless.