Should the NYPD Even Be Issued Firearms?
The nine civilians shot by the NYPD in a shootout with a man who had just murdered his boss are not happy with the gunfire of the officers in packed city streets:
Robert Asika was among those wounded, shot in the elbow from a distance of around eight feet by one of the two police officers who confronted Johnson. He accused police of “shooting randomly,” and said he saw at least two others hit by police bullets.
“If you’re gonna aim try and aim perfectly. If you wanna aim at the target, you got to know what you’re doing because it’s the street,” Asika said. “I could have been dead right now. I could have been dead.”
Witnesses and officials are now saying that the shooter, Jeffrey Johnson, never fired at police. He pointed his weapon and never fired a shot. If true, then all nine people wounded can be confirmed to have been shot by the two police officers.
In the comments of another post on this subject at my blog, a claim was made that the NYPD does not issue Tasers to beat officers. If this is true—and it appears to be true with only 600 issued (2010) in a force of 34,500 officers—it is a major failing of the New York Police Department, as even rural small-town police forces issue Tasers to all officers as a matter of course.
A better choice for crowded city streets? An X26 Taser as used my many police departments, but not by NYPD's more than 30,000 beat cops.
I think they should be issued Star Trek phasers with them locked on the “stun” setting.
Sound ridiculous?
Of course it does.
How about using those “sonic” weapons they used in David Lynch’s version of Dune? Or, those wands they used in Harry Potter?
– whistles? Halt! I say! I say Halt!
Another pencil-neck pussy gun hater.Should the cops let the Bad Guy shoot them, or should they have killed him before he could do so? Did they choose the firefight site; or did the BG? Did the civilians evade; or airhead it into the field of fire?
You play the cop, please! How do you, in the split second the BG wheels and goes for his gun: move evasively, look for civilians behind the BG, look for civilians between you and the BG, decide whether it is legal to shoot or not, decide whether there is any viable alternative to shooting, draw and fire your handgun? It ain’t as simple as the ignorant would have it to be. The crooks use guns; not tasers. If the crook doesn’t taze, the cop gets killed.
When was the last time Bob Owens pinned on the tin target and strolled the dark alleys of a major metropolis without a firearm?
Just because an absolutely incompetent,corrupt, evil-loving Obama administration thinks its funny to send our Border Patrol out to fight automatic weapons with bean bags- and die while doing so, doesn’t mean that it is right to do so. In fact, if Obama is behind it, whatever “it” is, it is most certainly wrong to do so. Shame on you, Owens, you should know much better.
Don’t taze me, bro!
” in a force of 34,5000 officers”
I thinks you gots an extra zero.
“A” extra zero.
Wat’s wrong wit your troat?
Doncha say duh good English?
Ya takes duh boy. He moves to Manhattan. He fugets how to talk right.
It’s downright embarrassin’.
Dats rite.
Based on the collateral wounded, the tasers in the hands of these “officers”, wound have subdued more than the wounded. How many officers were wounded in the foot?
NYPD; The gang that can’t shoot straight. They’re as pathetic as Bloomberg.
Is there some union agreement that keeps these public servants off the practice range?
How can they miss that often when that close? I mean seriously?
The problem with a taser is, it only fires one shot, and if they cannot get half their shots on target at 8 feet, how are they going to use one at 15 or 20 feet? They will be missing 90% of the time with no second shot. If there ever was a group with a need for high capacity magazines, the NYPD sounds like it.
Do they make tasers with high capacity magazines or in the shotgun format?
I legally carry a handgun in the State of Tennessee, to qualify to do so one must fire 18 rounds at 9 feet(3yards) then 18 rounds at 21 feet (7yards) and 18 rounds at 45 feet (15 yards) you must hit the target which is a silhouette of 24″ x 36″ at least 33 out of 48 rounds meaning you can miss the target 15 out of 48 shots! I hit 48 out of 48 and at center mass with a couple of head shots just for fun, heck it’s only a piece of paper!
At 8′ I can hit the desired target with little effort with any of my firearms, that is basically point blank range of course I practice frequently and use quality ammunition plus shoot in competition matches so I spend a great deal of time with weapons and the use thereof.
That being said hitting bystanders when you have a target only 8 feet away should require a new thinking on those officers qualification to use the weapons they carry daily. I wouldn’t want to be on the range next to one of those mentioned in this article!
Steve makes a good point. When did these officers last qualify on the range? What were their scores? Yes, six of the wounded civilians were wounded by “fragments” or “richochets”, but three were hit directly by the officers. They fired 16 rounds at point blank range but only 9 hit the suspect? That’s nothing to be proud of, oh stupid mayor Bloomberg; that’s a problem crying for a solution. Bob Owen may be spot on. Until your beat officers become better markspersons, better equip them with something less accidentally lethal. Not gonna happen you say? Another reason to avoid visiting NYC.
Lots of metropolitan cops are not “gun” people. They aren’t firearms geeks, they don’t compete in IDPA or USPSA or any of the action sports that involve guns. They don’t really like guns, and although they are trained to a certain standard, that standard is not very high. There are exceptions, of course, like some of the SWAT guys, but generally cops aren’t much more competent than average citizens. They shoot for qualification once a year and don’t fiddle with the gun much in between.
And when someone is involved in an actual gun fight he does not “rise to the occasion”, he defaults to his level of training. Don’t be too hard on these guys, they had just come from the scene of a murder, were pursuing the murderer, and probably thought they were about to die. The adrenaline dump alone would screw up their marksmanship. They did hit their target, after all. And created 9 new millionaires (after the lawsuits are settled) for the City of New York.
They appear to have shot 9 innocent bystanders. I think it’s appropriate to express a tad bit of concern.
Maybe the should go back to giving the cops six-shot revolvers. That way they might have only shot two or three innocent people.
If you are going to be armed and employ lethal force, you have an obligation to be competent with your weapons. Not liking guns does not absolve you of that responsibility, ever.
If they cannot bring themselves to do that, then they need to find another career path.
I am a civilian in a police department. A number of years ago there was a shoot out at an apartment building where 3 officers fired about 45 rounds at the bad guy. One of the officers had an interesting statement afterwords. He said he had emptied his two 15 round magazines and relized with only one magazine left he had better start aiming.
When our department switched from revolvers to semi autos one of the old time officers predicted this effect and I thought him a bit silly. I learned better.
Our officers have a very tough job. At any given time there is one officer for every 6,000 citizens on the street. My point is the same as others have posted, there is just not as much training as is needed because there isn’t the money to do the training and replace the officers that would be taken off the street to do the more intensive training needed.
Generally cops are much LESS competent than the average gun nut.
I have heard (from people in a good position to observer many PDs across the nation) that, at best, about 10% of cops care about shooting well. The rest do the bare minimum to stay “qualified”, and as has been mentioned, that’s a pretty low standard.
NYPD is one of the worst. Their figure is likely in the low single digits.
I remember installing a cellular phone (back when they were CAR phones) for a Downy, CA, motorpickle officer. He had a side business (residential alarm systems) that made him more than his cop job, but he stayed on the force because he enjoyed it. (READ: It stroked his ego.)
You could see yourself in the shine on his tall motorcycle boots.
His sidearm (a 1911) had rust on it.
I asked him what ammo he carried in it. “I dunno. One of the guys at the station handloads it for me.”
That sort of apathy and ignorance is typical.
I once asked a Berkeley officer who was a friend of mine if he wanted to come with our group to the public range. He demurred saying he only shoots when he’s paid to. A few officers are excellent shots but, for many of them, carrying the gun and qualifying with it is a part of the job they just put up with. Having taken both civilian and police firearms training I have to say that the civilian training was an order of magnitude better than police, and the shooting qualification standards for officers are a bare minimum. I just have to chuckle and shake my head whenever I hear an anti-gunner say that only police should have guns because they are trained professionals as opposed to civilians. There was an incident in San Francisco a while back where a bank robber with a hand grenade was confronted in the bank by multiple SFPD officers. When he threw the grenade (a fake one, it turned out) the officers opened fire. Not sure what the point of shooting him after he threw it was, but they unloaded almost 100 rounds and managed to connect with only one of them. It hit the suspect in the ankle.
Newsflash, Michael.
So is everyone else who works there.
Cops are civilians.
Actually Cops are swore officers not civilians. Police department have civilian employee like in records or dispatch.
No, cops are civilians. They are NOT part of the military.
They are under the CIVIL authority.
They are civilians.
In my time in law enforcement,(LA City and County, from 1955-1997), 42 years, we referred to two distinct classes of people as “cops”, ie, sworn members of a law enforcement agency and “civilians”, ie, anyone else. Experientially cops help cops and few others do.A cop is on duty to deal with felonies 24-7.If he is a good cop he does everything he can do to protect the civilian group assigned to him. If he is a coward, stupid, lazy, greedy, ignorant, amoral, and some are some or all of the above, he should quit and become a congressman or a president.
You were wrong.
Cops are civilians.
The increasing militarization of our civilian law enforcement agencies is a huge threat to liberty.
There’s a lot of difference between firing on a range and firing in combat. Many peoples’ marksmanship goes to hell; the number of misses at seven feet is astounding. That having been said, range time improves your combat performance. The problem is, most cops visit the range once a year to qualify and that’s all.
I’ve heard stories that NYPD cops disparage accuracy, and harass cops who can actually shoot. NYC has a pretty strong anti gun culture, and it’s apparently alive and well at the NYPD. They’re afraid of their own guns.
Finally, there is the problem with some cops who are complete a’oles, who don’t give a damn about the public.
We had a perfect storm of police failures in NY. I say, go to the Barney Fife solution.
Information thus far is that the officers fired 14 rounds, and hit the bad guy 7 times — not a great result, but much better than statistical analyses of hit rates in most police shootings. Many of the bystanders were said to be hit by bullet fragments or ricochets, rather than by faultily aimed shots.
The proposal to disarm the police is worthy of Mayor Bloomberg — after all, it’s illegal to carry a gun in New York City, so murderers will obviously not be armed either, right?
These officers faced a demonstrated killer armed with a .45 caliber handgun, and were looking at the big hole in its muzzle. That they did not run for cover, but stood their ground, is a tribute to their courage, and had they been armed with Tasers, they would likely have made a different choice. Tasers don’t always work, and you get just one shot. One shot traded from a 45 can be chickaboo.
I’ve seen no info on what caliber handguns they were carrying, but likely they are 9mm, which are far less effective in rapidly stopping an attack, usually requiring multiple hits. Consequently, there is a tendency for cops armed with 9mm to keep pulling the trigger again and again, so-called “spray and pray”. The solution here is better armament, as well as better and more intensive training in realistic simulated combat situations. And maybe an understanding that had the bad guy started shooting, he would likely have wounded bystanders behind the cops as well, with much more effective bullets.
Very correct. I would add that police chiefs are schizophrenic about arming their officers properly. That’s because their is a political component to their being hired by the cities. More officers should have small high capacity machine pistols like Uzis, modeled after the so-called ‘grease gun’, short WWII .45 caliber full or selective fire weapon. Also, the standard police service weapon should be the .45 cal, not the pop gun 9 mm.
There should be a sniper van, a special vehicle that can mobilize instantly, be on the scene, with special ports and communication for snipers surgically pick off a perp who is among innocents. There just is not enough creative, out of the box, thinking about tactics due to PC police chiefs.
Why didn’t these officers have shotguns at the ready? Do they have laser sights on their guns?
Time to get some real people who have lifelong experience and affinity for firearms onboard for input and review.
Exactly. That is NOT “Tazer time”.
It’s deadly force time.
It’s shoot him and shoot him again time.
But their marksmanship was lousy.
My dear friend,
Have you seen what an NYPD officer looks like, these days?
Fifty years of affirmative action has given us a force of people, were they not officers, would NEVER be given a permit, individually.
It is best described as a League of Nations, with sexual preference thrown in. I think that they probably don’t encourage actual target practice, as it is both costly AND dangerous.
For the guys who run the range.
Not to mention the sexual and racial harassment charges against the instructors.
How can they miss? Well, easy the NYPD requires their officers pistols to be Dual Action Only with a 12 pound trigger pull for every shot. Not the 10 pound stock initial shot with 5-6 lb trigger pull for follow on shots.
They aren’t willing to pay the money required to either train officers to be proficient with weapons with a set-up that’s opitimized to prevent accidental discharges over accuracy; Or to train officers with a set up optimized for accuracy (i.e. ~5-6 pound trigger pull) but with a higher risk of negligent discharges for poorly trained personnel.
From their own firearms discharge report published in November 2011,page 45:
All NYPD service pistols are “double
action only” (DAO), meaning they have a
two‐stage trigger pull for each round fired
(unlike single‐action weapons, which can be
“cocked,” resulting in a one‐stage trigger
pull, which is smoother and easier). Additionally,
all NYPD weapons are also modified
to have a heavier‐than‐stock 12‐lb trigger
pull; this diminishes the likelihood of unintentional
discharges but also affects aiming.
None of you are apparently aware of the One hit for 6 shots rule and what adreniline does to accuracy. Hitting a target at the range and Combat Shooting have nothing in common except the fact that you are using a gun. Get some real self-defense training.
I’m sorry – it sounds like your idea is that when a suspect aims his semi-automatic pistol at a cop, the cop should respond with his…tazer? And if his tazer doesn’t have the desired effect, he should do what? Reach for his backup tazer?
I think there’s a reason cops carry pistols instead of tazers. Unless I’m mistaken, their ammo is meant to stop inside the target so as not to go through and injure bystanders. But the keys to effective firearm use are marksmanship and discipline. If the police lack those qualities, there will be “collateral damage.”
“..their ammo is meant to stop inside the target so as not to go through and injure bystanders.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Tell that to the six “ricochet and fragment” victims. Best laid stupid plans go for naught.
I don’t know for sure, but I doubt NYPD officers carry hollow points. They probably carry standard (cheap) ball ammunition.
NYPD is armed with 9mm Glocks. Their duty ammo is Speer 124 grain Gold Dot hollow point +P ammunition.
Now it seems that the Baltimore Police Comissioner’s remarks about 2 shooting “randomly” in that theatre shooting in Denver….reflects his valid knowledge of these matters. These remarks were in answer to claims that a licenced CC would have interdicted the attack.
Wrongo, boyo. He expressed that opinion in order to hold on to his political job because he HAS to give lip service to gun control. In reality no one can know what might have changed the Aurora outcome if the theater chain management weren’t avid gun control nutwads. Best guess the body count would have been quite a bit less and the enforcement/prosecution cost would have been seriously reduced, but that’s only a guess.
A properly aimed flashlight could have stopped the Aurora shooter, but we live in a victim culture where most people are apt to flee instead of fight.
Fact:
About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person
About 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.
I’d like to know the source of your “facts.”
The FBI, dude. It’s been an acknowldeged fact for decades.
Thanks, Tom. But can you direct me to a publication or website? I’d like to check out the data and the operational definitions for myself. I not trying to be hostile; I’d just like to see the information.
“Acknowledged facts” are not very reliable, even though they may fit a political agenda nicely.
http://www.actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml
You can read the whole thing or just scroll down to Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police
I don’t doubt your statement, but I would love to know your source.
It’s almost certainly from Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control.
Ouch.
I suppose some of that is that cops will generally be aiming to kill and be at least modestly competent at it, while civilians of any stripe may be taking single shots to intimidate, or may simply miss a lot more.
Sadly the numbers are too easy to believe, whatever the exact causes.
Of course as a suspect the idea is not to give a cop any reason to consider shooting, but even that does not always work. No doubt it’s hard being a cop, but those are pretty tough numbers.
No, it is more because cops are often late on the scene and sometimes can’t or don’t correctly identify the aggressor vs. the defender or the innocent. A civilian shooting to save his own life from an attacker seldom experiences ambiguity about which is which.
No, cops are not trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to shoot to stop the threat. That means shooting until the threat is stopped.
Handguns are not very powerful. Sometimes a person is killed with one shot from a .22. More often, multiple shots are needed to stop someone.
This is the problem. The vast majority are NOT modestly competent. Most are not competent at all.
More range time and better marksmanship proficiency requirements might be the better answer. The problem with substituting a taser for a gun is that the officer has to get close enough to use the taser and when he’s up against a guy with a .45 I don’t particularly like the police officers chances.
True, but 8-10 feet as reported sounds workable. If the cops were a team one should have been Tasered up, the other armed with his Glock. But they would have had to be allowed to do that by department protocol and as far as NYPD is concerned the dept. in general might have guts but the upper echelons aren’t very big in the smarts department.
Look at the video of the shooting. The closest officer moves to cover behind a planter and then is perfectly stationary as he shoots. The perp is also standing still. Even taking the adrenaline dump into consideration, at eight feet, the officer should have been able to place ALL of his shots center of mass. Police are supposed to be trained to shoot under stress! The second officer is further away and moving as he is shooting, making it much more difficult to hit.
What I see is a lack of adequate firearms training by the NYPD.
Where did you get that idea?
In the vast majority of police departments, police are trained to shoot holes in a stationary paper target at a known range, with NO pressure, NO meaningful time limits, and the penalty for failure is to have to repeat the exercise.
I got that idea from the police officers I have worked with, state, local, and federal.
You don’t know very many, then.
BTW, federal cops are a different ballgame.
Yeah Mark v, its obvious that your more knowledgable and smarter than everyone else here on this comment thread.
Moreso than some, at least.
None of you are apparently aware of the One hit for 6 shots rule and what adreniline does to accuracy. Hitting a target at the range and Combat Shooting have nothing in common except the fact that you are using a gun. Get some real self-defense training.
If you’ve never fired a handgun in a life or death situation you have no business commenting on the actions of these officers…..
We have a winner!
If you have never made an omelet, you can’t criticize the quality of a restaurant.
I disagree with you just a tad there axhead.
And you see no difference in the two situations?
If it was a private citizen that had sprayed and prayed to take down the killer what would Bloomie and the other anti-gunners be saying?
The innocent bystanders shot by the cops have every business to comment on the competence of the officers involved. If was one of these people, at minimum, I would expect the city to cover the “out of pocket” medical expenses that are not covered by my health insurance. If there was any permanent markings on my body as a result of the shooting, even if non-medical, I would expect the city to cover the cost of the plastic surgery to repair such.
One of the news articles said that Bloomberg himself visited one of the injured, but that NYPD had yet to offer any apology to the injured. I saw the video of the incident. The bystanders were never threatened or in any danger by the perp himself. This is clearly a case of police over-reaction.
We have a right to safety from the actions of law enforcement. If law enforcement official cannot perform their duties without threatening the well-being of those having nothing to do with the crime itself, then those people should resign and allow more competent people to replace them.
The settlements are going to be more than that. Much more.
They should be. “Accidents” happen, but not this many by competent people.
Cops don’t apologize. They issue a press release saying that the officers followed the correct procedures for the situation and have been cleared of any responsibility.
No.
When responding to a known shooter, and said shooter pulls out a weapon, the ONLY proper course of action is to shoot him until he is no longer able to present a threat.
If, as a result of this action, the shooter assumes room temperature, that’s a bonus.
But, that means shooting the shooter, NOT everybody standing around!
Marksmanship is the problem here, NOT over-reaction.
BS! I’ve heard some variation of that line from every cop or his union that I ever dealt with in an excess force case. Sorry, cops don’t get to judge themselves because if they do, they’ll always have done the right thing and if you don’t thinks so, it is only because you’re mere civilian who wasn’t facing not going home that day. Civilian management not only has a right but a duty to comment on, criticize if necessary, and discipline, dismiss, or even prosecute these officers.
We don’t know all the facts but we do know that at ten feet or so, these guys fired a lot of rounds that didn’t hit the guy they were aiming at, though I suppose some of the casualties could be from overpenetration. Cops don’t get much range time unless they just take it on themselves and do it privately. And it isn’t unheard of for cops to go to the range on their own and then try to get overtime pay for the time, which leads to some employers ording them not to do “cop stuff” while off duty. For the government to give them range time, it almost invariably requires paying someone overtime, an expensive proposition with cops, or leaving a billet unfilled while the officer is at the range, potentially a dangerous proposition for the citizenry and other cops and a liability for the government.
Yes, it’s expensive: do it anyway. The military and civilian augmentations to the military have strict standards for qualification and requalification. If you fail your qualification exams, you can retake them, but there’s a limit to the number of times they let you retake them. If you keep failing, they eventually deem you incompetent and fire you. Also, you can’t do anything that you don’t have the qualifications for. So I say, put them on the rifle range and require them to hit the targets with 90% accuracy, initial qualifications shall be held upon graduating from the police academy, with requals every two years thereafter. Fail once and you are forbidden to carry a gun on patrol until you pass. Fail twice and your career suffers. Fail three times and you’re fired.
Good training involves more than just hitting a paper target. They make robotic targets for the army that pop up, and you have to hit them in real time. Even some video game type simulator might have helped these guys. It isn’t just a question of aim; it’s a question of getting the right target at the exact right time.
I doubt more than a handful of PDs in the whole Country have any decent shoot-no shoot training in a simulator or on a course, and that’s the training they need most, especially in a crowded urban environment. Here both the Alaska State Troopers and the Anchorage PD are pretty much cost no object police forces yet there has been a firestorm of controversy over the several officer involved shootings, and frankly some of them are more than a little iffy.
I did a lot of excess force cases in my time but fortunately never had the first chair in a dismissal arbitration over a shooting. We had a big nasty one back when I was a relative newbie in the eighties, but it was so nasty and controversial my politically appointed boss took the slot – not altogether altruistically because he wanted the glory if he won, but he’d have taken the knock if he lost and spared the rest of us the BS about how “the State didn’t send its best people.” We had another one right before I retired but the Officer took the German Choice in exchange for the State not prosecuting and the State paid the victim’s family a LOT of money.
They’re not easy! Even relatively well-trained officers really aren’t experienced with shoot-no-shoot decisions. A cop can go a twenty year career and not hear a shot fired in anger and lots do. I really think that the original SWAT concept was a good one in which the beat cop’s job was to defend himself and others if absolutely necessary but if containing the situation and waiting for the SWAT team was an option, it was the right option. No police force in the Country can afford to give a whole force of $100K/yr. cops the training time that an Army or Marine infantryman gets, and even they get it wrong sometimes.
Understood, but this wasn’t a shoot-no shoot decision like the case of that poor guy with the cellphone. The ‘shoot’ decision here was a given; the issue is the cops, having with complete justification escalated to deadly force, thereupon missing the target.
Understand your point but requalifications should be at least every six months. Four would be better in a high crime city like NY or Chi. The problem is these are both union departments and the union agreements would never stand for that in a million years, so kiss common sense good bye.
Generally, unions wouldn’t oppose additional training requirements and requalification requirements so long as you paid them for the training. The stickler would be what happened to an officer that failed the requalification drill. They’d fight you tooth and nail over anything that put discipline on the officer’s record or which cost him any time on the beach. The cop mindset is at the moment of hire calculating the precise moment of retirement and not letting ANYTHING interfere with retiring at that moment with the highest possible accrued benefits, so anything that costs a cop paid time or reduced wages means a war with the union.
The training and qualification requirements aren’t really even bargainable subjects under most collective bargaining laws, but the effect on the employee of any imposed requirements are bargainable. In this case, discipline or discharge for failure to qualify is a mandatory subject of bargaining under pretty much any bargaining law so the parties can persist to impasse. I don’t know what impasse resolution process NY has, likely interest arbitration. I know I’d have been comfortable going before a West Coast arbitrator with a proposal that the State be allowed to discipline or discharge an officer who couldn’t shoot. The devilish part would be settling on just what constituted a reasonable test and what levels of discipline would be appropriate. You could get something in the agreement though if you had evidence of bad shoots and public outcry.
Part of the problem here is that NY isn’t a high-crime city like Chi anymore. It hasn’t been since Giuliani, although it’s trending back in that direction under Mayor Nanny. It’s not surprising that cops, especially mid-town cops, don’t have a lot of on-the-job shooting experience.
I’ve never been a cop, but I did work as a security officer contracted to the Federal Protective Service. We had to qualify once a year, on a police course of fire. That included ranges of three to 25 yards, reloads, weak and strong hand, and shooting from both sides of barricades, all of which was timed fire. We had four chances to qualify. Four failures meant goodbye job, and we were union.
Let’s turn that around:
If you’ve never been shot by police officers accidentally, you have no business commenting on the complaints of these people . . .
No wait, better yet:
If you’re a police officer who has never been shot accidentally by a civilian, you have no business commenting on the complaints of these people who are being kept deliberately disarmed for your benefit . . .
There, that’s better.
If you haven’t unloaded your full magazine in order to use up the old ammo to make way for the hollow point ammo now on order you have no business wondering why the officers are in such an overkill mood.
I have been there.
and they need training,
Hey, why not just issue ‘bean bag’ guns to the street officers so they can be gunned down like Agent Brian Terry? To suggest that front line police officers rely on tasers in deadly force situations, especially in an environment such as New York City, suggests not only a complete ignorance of the threat these brave officers encounter every day, but also would surely result in a dramatic increase in LEO fatalities.
We do not have all of the facts regarding this specific incident and many are jumping to uninformed conclusions just as we did following the theater massacre in Colorado. I suppose the desire to be ‘first’ precludes the responsibility to acquire factual documentation regarding the chronology of the force continuum. This suggestion to restrict officers from responding to deadly force with deadly force is very uncharacteristic of the responsible journalism I have come to expect from PJMedia. Someone points a gun at a police officer (or anyone for that matter) and you, Mr. Owens, suggest responding with a taser? Really?
Obviously it was a chaotic, fluid situation and the responding officers may or may not have performed appropriately; we do not know at this time. Professional crime scene technicians will reconstruct the scene and at the conclusion of that process we will have an accurate picture from which we may conduct an appropriate critique of the responding officers’ reactions.
However, even if in the end result it is determined that the officers reacted poorly and possibly inappropriately, we must never entertain the possibility of restricting our brave first responders to such foolish ideas as using tasers to confront deadly weapons. The end result will be a mass exodus from the ranks of law enforcement or a refusal by law enforcement officers to confront armed subjects. Hmmmm, I wonder how high violent crime statistics might jump?
I have never heard of so many citizens being wounded by police officers. I would like to see the officers firearms training records: what did they score in marksmanship, what is the department’s standard on ‘combat shooting’, what types of scenarios are utilized in firearms training, has the budget reduced firearms training in general? I feel that those are all legitimate questions that should be asked. These officers were faced with an extremely difficult situation and responded the best they knew how. Until you have been in the same situation, please refrain from criticism at least until all of the facts have been determined.
Ultimately, the question should be, “What is the alternative?” Should we disarm our officers and give any armed criminal cart blanche to conduct mayhem as they please? Of course not. Sadly, this has become a new and terrifying trend in our society. We should expect more of these terrible incidents in the future.
This is way off base. If you view the video, you will clearly see that the bystanders were never threatened by the actions of the gunman. This was in no way any kind of hostage situation. Therefor, those bystanders had every right to expect the police to resolve the incident without risking the well-being of bystanders.
You miss the point; the gunman drew down on the cops, an action pretty much guaranteed to get you killed anywhere in America. The issue isn’t whether deadly force was justified; it was. The issue is the efficacy of that deadly force that resulted in so much collateral injury.
It seems to me that this may be a case of “suicide by cop”. I first saw this described in one of Joseph Wambaugh’s books but I gather it is actually fairly common. Someone goes off the rails and decides he wants to die but can’t bring himself to do the deed himself so he sets up a situation where the cops will be forced to shoot him. Since these events typically end with the civilian dead, it is difficult to determine his motivations with any certainty.
Might well have been an officer assisted suicide, but it just as easily could have been “shot while stupid.” Brandishing a weapon in the field of vision of a cop will get you shot at, maybe even hit. I have some probles with that sort of force policy, brandishing in self-defense, brandishing on one’s own property, etc., but brandishing towards the cops in a public area is pretty much a guaranteed and I think appropriate way to get yourself killed.
You forget one point. This was not a hostage situation. They were never hostages. The gunman never threatened the bystanders at all. Its not like a plane hijacking where the passengers are hostages and a SEAL team cannot take down the plane without some risk to the hostages. The bystanders had no involvement in this at all. Therefor it is utterly unacceptable that their safety should ever have been risked by the police.
You fail to comprehend this point.
So, to your feeble mind the cops should have just stood there while a guy pointed a .45 at them? Well, next time somebody pulls a gun on you, you stand there an analyze the situation awhile, better yet, whip out your smart phone and blog about it and get a consensus opinion on what to do.
I have lots of problems with cops’ equipment and attitude these days and lots of problems with force policies that allow deadly force to secure compliance. I have no problem at all with a force policy that countenances deadly force for brandishing a weapon in public.
Right on target, Art.
Some of your points are valid. I’ve raised a few similar questions. But chiding the commenters here for “jumping the gun” is disingenuous at best, and possibly dishonest. Bloomberg and several other spokesperson have already had a say. Rather poorly done, I thought. It’s now time for the citizens to express themselves. If you can’t stand it, that’s tough. This is what freedom is all about.
I stand by everything I say. I am entirely correct. I hope the bystanders sue the cops and the city. I want the cops and the city to go down for this. I will be very happy to see this happen.
Anyone who think the cops responded properly is obviously sick in the head.
Or maybe, has a much better understanding of such things than you do.
That’s not a very high standard to reach.
Use the Bloomberg guidelines
obviously the police need to bisarmed…that way the criminals have no reason to use guns either
Your idea has appeal but … I’m in agreement with “axhead”.
I am a police officer and firearms instructor in a suburban department next to a large city in the midwest. If one of my officers pulled out a taser in response to a suspect drawing a handgun, I would beat the tar out of him, if her survived the encounter. Police are taught to use one level of force higher than what a suspect is using. A taser is a step or two lower than the gun of the suspect, (lethal > less lethal) This rule has been established through years and years encounters with armed suspects. To argue to use a Taser in this situation is based on complete ignorance of the subject. The author has definately identified a problem, but his solution is completely wrong. I get the swipe at the anti 2nd amendment fools in New York, but that has nothing to do with the real issued of lack of training for the department.
There certainly appears to be serious firearms training deficiencies in the NYPD, but the author proposes that the officer, when faced with an armed subject: a)determine factually whether or not the weapon is ‘real’, b)determine whether or not the weapon is loaded, and c) determine whether or not the subject intends to engage the officer. If the answers to a, b and c are ‘yes’- taze him (or her). Absolutely ridiculous…..and dangerous.
Ok, you stand in front of the muzzle of a .45 being held by someone who has just killed someone. Now determine all those things, oh and do it in less time than it will take that person to pull the trigger. Let us know how that works out for you.
Note to self, never reply to posts at 4:00 AM. Good post by the way,
Amen to that brother, Amen.
Good points. And you are right about taking badmitten racquet to a baseball bat fight.
My concern is that these police officers damned well better practice with these guns. If they’re not firing several thousand rounds a year, they can not possibly be proficient. So, how much ammo does NYC purchase for each police officer?
It is one thing to shoot endless rounds into paper targets to pass a test. It is quite another thing to shoot absolutely appropriately and accurately when someone is drawing on you or attempting to shoot you.
What is trained at the range is not how to shoot holes in paper targets, it is the mechanics of draw, acquire target, aim, and squeeze. If those mechanics were trained to the point of habit, there would likely have been fewer, if any, IB casualties from police fire. The one time I had to use a firearm for real, those habits were so ingrained that I didn’t even think about them and only examined my actions in hindsight. If a lowly worker-bee redneck like myself can be flawless in an emergency situation, so can the police. They just need to train the proper habits.
So, if only partial training is possible, then there should be no training at all? Perfection or nothing?
Someone able to consistently hit the 10 ring on a paper target may or may not be able to hit someone shooting at him. Someone who cannot hit the paper more than on out of 10 shots, has a much lower chance of hitting someone shooting at him.
Unless (according to the leftoid gun grabbers) the shooter is a criminal, in which case he can hit someone hiding behind a concrete wall a thousand yards away. With a .380ACP. Lorcan. On purpose.
Erm, the reason repeated training sessions is so that you act mechanically, without the emotion involved. Yes, in firefights shart happens, that is why you train for shart.
I’m not a police officer or firearms instructor but I do possess common sense. When confronted with a threat armed with a gun, no one in their right mind is going to draw a taser if they have a firearm available.
Tasers are not the answer gun control is the solution, as in being able to hit what your aiming at. The other thing needed is cops being held accountable for their actions, shooting innocent people is unacceptable these two cowboy should not be allowed to ever cary firearms again.
The other problem from cops using tasers is they use them far to often. They seem to think of it as the go to tool of choice no matter what the situation, be it a 9 year old or a 90 year old.
Wasn’t it NYC cops that tasered a naked man on a third story ledge plunging him to his death on the sidewalk below?
Bork, you are spot on.
What is needed is to improve the marksmanship of the NYPD across the board. Poor accuracy is notorious in most police forces
There’s a lot more wrong here than just poor marksmanship. They managed to unload 16 rounds from short range, and hit 9 bystanders? How do you do that?
They thought they were on a movie set for the making of “The Three Stooges meet the keystone Cops”?
Be fair, now. Six wounds were from ricochets or fragments. That can happen in an urban shootout. But three hits were from direct shots. Combination of inexperience and Adrenalin? Probably.
Tasers are a diversion. I want to know the training requirements of the officers, and their current scores, both for speed and accuracy. What are their instructions on the use of deadly force? They shot sixteen rounds at a vertical full body mass target, from eight feet, and hit ten times. Thus six rounds were shot into a grouped urban crowd. It is a miracle that innocents were not killed or seriously injured.
When a shooter pulls a .45 on a cop, the shooter deserves instant death, No less-than-lethal weapon is a valid weapon, when life, or death is defined in split seconds. But in lethal combat, you respond as you are trained. How good, with the correct weapon, were they? If they were told that a guy had just murdered someone, why were their guns holstered, as they approached the shooter? If their boss had ordered this response, can he explain the wide groups as they “slapped leather” drew fast and shot in a combat situation? One, or both should have had a double grip, targeted on center of body mass, assessing the changing back ground, as they ran toward death. Their boss, or his boss, or the mayor, whoever defined the rules of engagement, may be the reason people lie in hospitals, or possibly morgues.
NYPD needs to answer hard questions, but not about tasers. And every one should know that if you pull on a cop, you die. It is reality.
I disagree. I think that if cops demonstrate they can’t be trusted with guns, they need to be restricted to tazers, and if it means more dead cops, so be it. The police boast about putting their lives on the line to protect the public, so I expect them to actually do it. That means that police hold their fire when in doubt, and especially so if the police are the aggressors. If the police can’t handle that, then they need to find a new line of work.
It was NYC finest (but finest what) who in Sept 2008 thought it was a good idea to taser a naked man on a ledge in Brooklyn. By the way it was caught on video and is posted on youtube for those who dought it really happened.
I wonder if high-capacity autoloaders are part of the problem: they can tempt one to “spray and pray”. Maybe the cops in question should be assigned revolvers, the six-round limit imposing some needed fire discipline. Otherwise, they could be issued a round of ammunition at the beginning of each shift with instructions to use it sparingly. I’m waiting for the no-buck-stops-here “mistakes were made” CYA statement from the authorities.
Owens, You are being stupid. NO cop is going to choose the taser to confront an armed shooter on the run. They’re going to mow the MFer down like a rabid coyote. That these officers confronted the perp the way they did and then freaked out and sprayed just tells us that NY cops are poorly trained paycheck collectors of low moral standards. NY should beg Jiuliani to come back and name his price.
More people were shot and wounded by NYPD with guns in the month of August than were injured by a Big Gulp soda.
Maybe it’s time to outlaw the idiot mayor Bloombberg who thinks NYC is his personal feifdom.
I’m still not sure if Mr. Owens is being Swiftian in his Modest Proposal, but here are my answers to the questions raised in the article and comments:
1) Should NYPD be issued tazers INSTEAD OF firearms? Absolutely no.
2) ” ” ” ” IN ADDITION TO firearms? Probably yes.
3) Should they get much, much more rigorous firearms training and continuous certification requirements? Yes. Patrolmen should be trained to be proficient gunfighters. Apparently the NYPD continuous qualification rule is 50 rounds every six months. I’m not even that much of a shooter, and I shoot about ten times that amount. Cops should be training a LOT more than corporate lawyers in this area.
Also: Should cops move away from 9mm high capacity handguns, in favor of .40 S&W or .45 ACP, so they can take down bad guys quicker with fewer rounds fired? Yes.
I think this is being a tad harsh re: the police officers involved in this situation.
Combat/incident shooting is extremely difficult, and NYC during rush hour…c’mon. If the police *didn’t* react, the outcry would have been deafening, and the Bad Guys would have received a data point for their next terrorist act. Tasers aren’t “the” answer – check the facts regarding their effectiveness in real-life situations.
Instead, perhaps the question that needs to be asked is: could this situation have ended more poorly if NYC’s gun laws were eliminated? I doubt the result would have been worse had some of the passersby had been armed.
The Bartelist
Na na. Bloomberg can’t hear you. Bloomberg can’t hear you. Bloomberg can’t hear you. Bloomberg can’t hear you. Bloomberg can’t hear you. Bloomberg can’t hear you. Na na na!
Perhaps these two cops would be better-suited to the Las Vegas police force?
Only if LVMP anticipates extra help the next time they murder another veteran.
If any badge licker has a problem with the previous sentence, one thing: Las Vegas cops had the COSTCO video of their finest murdering CPT Scott for 60 HOURS before declaring the video “unusable.” LVMP has not released the video and the physical equipment used to record the video for public review, of course.
There are many instances of police shooting unarmed suspects in SoCal. Vegas Veteran killers in LVPD know they simply have to say , “He was reaching for his waistband” and that will get them off. The investigations always end up with the excuse that the cop was following his approved procedures, etc.
Automatics? Tasers? Crikey! They could hardly do less damage if they had have used grenades. Something seriously screwed up here. Citizens have a right to depend on the fact that police won’t mow them down because of their inability to shoot straight. This is like a Fearless Fosdick episode.
Fearless Fosdick? Wow, someone’s really dating himself. And so am I, I guess.
Heh. What can I say?
Wow.
BOTH of you are REALLY old!
It is hard to believe that they shot so many civilians.
If they raise the cop standards too high there will not be enough women and the lesbian avengers will pay a visit to Bloomberg’s office that will make him very uncomfortable.
Bingo!
We have a winner!
OK, somebody has got to say it and I don’t see that anyone else has.
Did the NYC cops have their hair dyed red?
Hard to tell they had their heads so far up their backsides, you cant tell through the brown tinge.
I have to disagree with the criticism of Kelly’s NYPD. 16 shots 9 hits. better than a 50& hit rate. I might suggest that Kelly and Blommie ask Big Sis for some of the bizillions of ammo she has stashed for target practice.
In order. A Tazer is stupid. NYPD needs to move to a higher caliber pistol and more range training. Most PD in Texas are to .40′s or .45′s. The video I saw showed one cop backing up and shooting one handed at a rapid pace – not very accurate. The other seemed to have a good stance. It is common sense that the first duty of a cop is to protect himself. A pistol with knock down capability – even to a vested person – with a minimum of shots will reduce the bystander problem. Having a clean take down with a 9 mm high capacity in a crowd like NYC is not possible.
If the NYPD patrol officers can’t hit reliably and consistently with a 9mm, which has relatively low recoil impulse, I for one don’t want them changing up to a .40 or .45, both of which “kick” harder. One reason NYPD stayed with the .38 Special for so long in spite of its poor reputation as a “stopper” was that qualifying scores with the more powerful .357 Magnum were consistently lower, due to greater recoil and muzzle flip. Lower scores on the range= increased chance of a miss on the street. If someone cannot shoot accurately and quickly, a higher-caliber weapon is not the answer.
As for one-handed shooting, “point shooting” with one hand and the gun held below eye level or at eye level and full arm extension is actually an advanced technique, not basic handgun training, never mind Hollywood. In the situation (range under five yards) point shooting with one hand is the correct response, but only if you’ve been properly trained. Doing it without the proper instruction and a great deal of practice results in what happened in New York.
(I speak as someone who has trained police officers in proper use of the sidearm, among other things.)
Finally, the fact that the suspect drew his weapon but did not fire it at all is interesting. There may be several reasons;
1. He may have not loaded it, or not loaded it properly. Automatic pistols require the chamber to be loaded, in addition to the magazine, usually by pulling the slide back and releasing it over a loaded magazine. (You’d be surprised how many people don’t know that.)
2. He may have had it fully loaded, but either not cocked the hammer first (on a single-action auto) or had the safety engaged. Many people who only know guns from TV or movies don’t realize that on (for instance) a Colt 1911 type auto, unless the hammer is cocked, it won’t fire. (Yes, I’ve seen this dumb boot trick on the range, for real, with police recruits.) They also may not understand that the thumb safety has to be released, and the grip safety firmly pressed in by the palm of the hand, to fire it. (I’ve seen those two blunders, as well.)
3. Finally, he may not have intended to shoot. Considering that the suspect was in financial trouble and had domestic problems, a “suicide by cop” cannot be ruled out.
The officers’ response was correct in procedure. The immediate action, however, was badly botched.
The solution is training. Proper training. Considering who decides how training is done, mainly for budgetary reasons, in this case the buck stops at the Police Commissioner’s desk. And Mayor Bloomberg’s.
clear ether
eon
3. Finally, he may not have intended to shoot. Considering that the suspect was in financial trouble and had domestic problems, a “suicide by cop” cannot be ruled out.
OTOH he may have killed the guy he came to kill and had not really thought beyond that. In which case I admit that pointing his gun at the officers even without pulling the trigger, was probably a poor idea. I guess the film does show him pulling his gun out when confronted, already a bad idea. But all the tv detectives would stand and shout at him first rather than pull the trigger, especially in a crowded area. While it may have been within policy to shoot first and shout later, one has to wonder about it somewhat.
“1. He may have not loaded it, or not loaded it properly. Automatic pistols require the chamber to be loaded, in addition to the magazine, usually by pulling the slide back and releasing it over a loaded magazine. (You’d be surprised how many people don’t know that.)”
The reports indicate that the perp shot his victim five times; his .45 was recovered with one in the mag and one in the pipe.
If ONLY that sidewalk would have been a gun free zone, then the murderer would have never had a handgun to begin with as all murderers comply with gun control laws.
I read a lot of second guessing here. He pointed a .45 at two cops and they have to react now not later. Maybe NYPD can look at their training and take advantage of cost-effective simulators. Simulators have increased marksmanship in the military quite a bit. The two cops didn’t have time to ruminate on the precise method of engagement, they just had to survive.
Technically speaking, all of NYC is officially a “gun-free zone”, and has been for over a century. It doesn’t seem to help.
When a gun comes out, the correct response is to shoot. You (the officer) don’t wait to see if it’s actually loaded. (All firearms are assumed to always be loaded- Safety Rule Number One.)
The common law (and police regulation) position is that when a suspect draws a firearm, that itself constitutes a threat of deadly force, and is to be responded to proportionately.
In plain English, that means, “If you pull a gun on a cop, or threaten ‘any other person’ with it in his vision and/or hearing, he is legally entitled to shoot you. Whether or not you survive it is your problem, not his.”
Police officers are not given deadly weapons to complement their uniforms.
As for “shooting simulators”, when they come up with one that can hypnotize the trainee into not knowing it’s a simulation, let me know. As far as I’m concerned, based on experience, they all fall victim to the Kobayashi Maru Fallacy. (See J.J. Abrams’ version of Star Trek for a thorough fisking of that one.)
clear ether
eon
If bean-bag guns are good enough for our boarder patrol agents against AKs then manybe the NYPD should be using bean-bag guns.
Just a thought.
Could the clown who wrote this very foolish article please now return to his regular duties on the “Left Liberal Bleeding Heart Gazette” where he properly belongs. I write as an ex Marine Infantry Instructor and 20 year veteran of Detroit PD.
Owens is very far from liberal. Stop excusing the lack of marksmanship by the NYPD. I could give a rat how long you drew a government paycheck. 9 innocent civilians were wounded to bring 1 bad guy down. You’d get a general court if you pulled than in a war zone, and deserve it.
Oh, the “Detroit” PD. Why didn’t you say so earlier? The mountain has now spoken. All rise and face Windsor!
You don’t bring a tazer to a gunfight. NYPD training standards, as well as hiring standards, are LOW. But the police did stand their ground against the killer. When you start slinging lead sometimes other people may get hurt in the exchange.
Had two MPs hit nine bystanders in an otherwise good shoot they would be on their way an article 32 hearing and a court martial. The issue isn’t whether this was a good shoot, it was the competancy of the execution. Shooting nine bystanders is an indiyement of NYPD training. These two officers should be made into examples. Instead they will be given medals.
At first glance it certainly doesn’t speak well of NYPD, but their union reps will protect them from too harsh repercussions.
this.
last time I had a 44 pointed in my eye I (MP USAREUR Hanau) had to deal with the fact the aggressor had a fractured skull and the apartment had 3 broken wall studs.
yet I had to justify it.
To me, it sounds like a case of police not receiving adequate education in a basic law of physics: Bullets bounce.
I am not surprised at the general publics and other “authorities” lack of real knowledge when making comments on police shooting situations. What we still do not have is all of the relevant facts and circumstances in this shooting. (Recommend: Force Science website to start).
We do know that Jeffery Johnson confronted his old boss and shot him fatally several times about a block away from the Empire State Building, then proceeded away from the original crime scene to the Empire State Building where he was confronted by two New York City Police Officers. A construction worker who witnessed Johnson’s shooting his old boss, followed him and presumably relayed Johnson’s description and direction of travel to police dispatchers who in turn relayed that information to converging police in the field.
The officers are given Johnson’s description and they think they have spotted him. While deciding this information, the officer’s heart rate increases quickly in natural “fight or flight” reaction. They have just been told he is a shooting suspect. As the officers verbally confront Johnson, he removes a pistol from his place of concealment.
As the threat is recognized, the officers know that their reaction time will ALWAYS be slower than Johnson’s actions. It is now very likely one or both of the police officers will be shot. Statistically most police involved shootings take place at a distance of less than 21 feet. Johnson is much closer!
In order to gain an advantage, the officers also draw their own firearms. Split-second decisions are being made. As Johnson’s weapon comes up pointed toward the officers, they have only the choice to fire or die.
Due to their increased heart rate and other physiological factors, their fine motor skills are adversely affected. Tunnel vision takes over the officer’s view and the background tends to disappear.
The police officers fire but Johnson does not fall. He still presents a perceived deadly threat. The officers continue to shoot at Johnson until he falls, until he does not present a threat.
A modern semi-automatic pistol can fire its entire magazine of 15 cartridges in about a second and a half. The officers are more controlled than this because of the way events unfolded. Johnson drops, the threat is subdued. Now the officers have to continue to check Johnson. It also becomes clear other people-bystanders-have been hit. At this point everything is confused-no one knows what has happened.
There is a rush of emotions, and a rush to tend to the injured, the job, responding units, questions, other threats?
Based on what we know from the media and my experiences in police work-this appears to be a justified shooting. The officers were courageous in the face of a deadly incident. Now comes the fallout, the Monday morning quarterback. How come the officers couldn’t do their jobs perfectly-like on television?
Bystanders were struck-presumably by police bullets. It seems very fortunate that none appear seriously injured-maimed, so to speak. The City of New York will settle these claims-rightfully so. Hopefully, the injured will understand in light of the circumstances and not seek unjust enrichment at the expense of others.
On another matter, the author is correct in inquiring about equipping the NYPD with Tasers. The device may not have been deployed or effective in this particular situation, but there are many others where its use is invaluable.
It should be a regular part of any police officer repertoire of use of force devices. The reason it is not utilized in the NYPD is simply due to its cost to the department’s bottom line budget.
The Tasers unit cost is approximately $800-$1,200, plus holsters, plus cartridges, plus training, plus training cartridges, plus instructor training costs, plus periodic recertification training, etc…for 34,500 street cops. That’s about 35 million dollars just to get started!
Day to day police operations become sort of a gamble because decisions come down to buying something to improve officer safety versus firing some officers because your budget has been cut-or it doesn’t keep up with demands from the public, or other factors.
In any event-it is unlikely the Taser could or should have been deployed given the extreme time constraints of this shooting incident. It is hoped that officials involved will learn from this incident and that the public will become better informed as to what police (law enforcement) in America really face instead of relying on the nightly fiction on TV.
Bystanders were struck-presumably by police bullets. It seems very fortunate that none appear seriously injured-maimed, so to speak. The City of New York will settle these claims-rightfully so. Hopefully, the injured will understand in light of the circumstances and not seek unjust enrichment at the expense of others.
If I were one of these bystanders that was hit, I would want to sue for as much as I could possibly get from the city. I would go for millions of dollars if my attorney thought it was doable. I get injured as innocent bystander, there is no such thing as “unjust” enrichment, nor is there any “understanding” to be done on my part.
Its called “jackpot” justice.
There is no such thing as an “unjust” enrichment in this case.
“There is no such thing as an “unjust” enrichment in this case.”
The problem NYC faces is that it will go before juries composed of people just as stupid and emotional as you. This appears to be a good shoot badly executed. So first, there will be some administrative determination as to how and why there was so much collateral injury. If that investigation concludes that the officers performed within the scope of their duties and training, the employer will defend them as well as itself in any subsequent proceedings. If the officers were found to have acted outside the scope of their duties, the employer will refuse to defend them but will still be liable for their actions. I don’t know the intricacies of NYC’s personnel policies and labor agreements, but both the decision as to whether the officers acted within the scope and the decision whether or not to indemnify them are likely subject to administrative appeal, union grievance/arbitration procedures, and court review. These are preliminary matters that have to be settled before the plaintiffs and their liars, excuse me, lawyers can sue the city and the officers.
At this point the city faces the delimna that all governments and large businesses face in the US injustice system: twelve morons with drivers’ licenses are just waiting to give the plaintiff scads of other people’s money. Jury voir dire is conducted for the sole purpose of finding the morons in the pool and putting them on the jury. The jury will be composed mostly of public employees and the un- and under-employed because only they have the time to sit for a long trial. Both groups are noted for their hostility towards government and anyone with money.
These people are certainly entitled to actual damages for their medical costs, lost time, etc., and it is unlikely that the employer will resist any reasonable settlement offer or award on the actual damages side. Where it becomes fiendish is in the pain and suffering, intentional infliction, loss of consortium, future disablility, and all the other forms of tort claims that can be sought under actuals, and here there be millions and millions and millions. How many millions to be determined by those twelve morons with drivers’ licenses in a contest to determine which party has the best and most charming liar representing it. Unfortunately, you spoke the truth when you called it “jackpot justice.”
Most governments aren’t susceptible to punitive damages claims, but NYC is one of the groovier places so it might be one that is. In which case people as stupid and emotional as you will be happy to give the plaintiffs many millions more in punitives. Now that’s a real jackpot; better than winning the Powerball.
Does NY only limit jury selection to the driver’s license database? CA uses utility billings, voter rolls, property records, tax return info etc. etc. along with DL’s.
American cults want to do what the British ones did. Disarming police helps the illusion that government doesn’t have inhuman powers over citizens, although it would be more honest if they carried bazookas.
Of course this plan is inarguable. They will stage any deceit to make it happen- the Sikhs, FRC shooting, whatever.
Right. The police could’ve just taken him down with silly-string and glitter…
No, of course not.
However, the police certainly could have wounded fewer people than the prep did.
Perhaps the answer is to force the NYPD patrolmen to go back to their old .38 caliber six-shooters? Maybe they have too many bullets at their disposal in their standard issue 9-mm semi-automatics and would do better with a gun that fires fewer bullets? Since the vast majority of New York City police officers never fire their guns at a suspect during their entire careers, maybe having too much firepower in an easy-to-fire gun is a liability in a crowded urban setting? Seems like they are trying to put too much ammunition down on a target with a gun that has too much firepower and too many bullets. A standard six-shooter revolver would force them to slow down, aim more carefully, and force them to fire fewer bullets. Massive gunfights with street criminals are very, very, rare in New York City. Give the heavier weapons to the detectives and those working undercover who need the added firepower of a semi-automatic. But for your average street cop walking the streets of Manhattan, the old .38 had more than enough firepower to maintain order in the city.
Ok, I did my tour in the Army and I have some familiarity with firearms but none with Tasers. So, questions:
Would a taser be as effective in late January as it might be in late August? How many layers of clothing can it effectively penentrate?
Also, what about equipping the police weapons with laser sights? If it turns out that the lasers wouldn’t be bright enough in daylight, would it be possible to engineer one that is bright enough even if it drains its battery in less than a minute or so? Or even better, it senses the surrounding light level and adjusts its power level to match.
Seems to me the ideal weapon for such close quarters is a short barreled assault rifle with a laser designator: it takes all the guess work out of the target acquisition phase with iron sights when the uniformed officer’s pulse rate is hitting one-forty. One 223 to the chest should do nicely, dropping him like a sack of concrete, but we don’t want the cops looking too military and aggressive: an assault rifle might upset the tourists.
Actually, tourists from other countries would often not be remotely intimidated by seeing police with submachine guns and similar weapons.
I’ve seen police in Germany (Frankfort Airport) and Italy (near the Vatican) carrying such weapons and it only raised my eyebrows because I’d never seen such weapons used by police here. I’ve seen news footage from other countries showing similar weapons carried there.
Or did you mean tourists from other parts of America? In that case, you’re probably right.
To use an appropriate phrase ‘The actions by the two Policemen was INCOMPETENT OVERKILL”
To use an appropriate phrase ‘The actions by the two Policemen was INCOMPETENT OVERKILL”
Too many rounds were fired in too short a time with too little accuracy. Sounds like the Police went in to PANIC MODE and overreacted.
In Los Angeles approximately 50% of fatal shootings by police the suspect was unarmed. The shooting officer then categorized the victims most often as “reaching in his waistband.” (For what?)
At least in NYC the police were shooting at someone with a gun who meant harm.
“The shooting officer then categorized the victims most often as “reaching in his waistband.” (For what?)”
Gee, I dunno, ID maybe? No, wait, how about A GUN!
Snarky, obviously you understand that many of the police shootings are unnecessary and so the police use the waistband excuse. My point was that nobody without a weapon would make a move indicating they were reaching for a gun when the cop has him in their sights. There is no need to shoot unarmed people – almost always kids who were simply running from the police and it happens too often.
Mr Owens bases his analysis on a single incident. This report (P. 43) with data from 1971 through 2010 shows that NYPD officers actually fired more shots when equipped with revolvers: 2,133 in 1971, peaking at 2,510 in 1972, then declining to 368 in 2010. The number of shooting incidents went from 810 in 1971, peaked at 994 in 1972, and declined to 92 in 2010. The NYPD did not begin issuing semi-automatics on a large scale until 1994. The historical data do not support his conclusions.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/afdr_20111116.pdf
How about some remedial training and better candidate selection for NYPD…. A new Mayor wouldn’t hurt either! You don’t bring a taser to a gun fight, that suggestion is stupid! Anyone heard how many of the nine NY citizens were Liberal Democrats???? LOL, just wondering!
Please stop attacking the best police force in the world.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/training_nypd/firearm_tatics.shtml
“The Firearms and Tactics Section Mission:
Develop skills required for the safe and proficient use of firearms
Provide entry level training for newly hired officers
Instruct and re-qualify all uniformed members of the service with firearms
Develop strategies and tactical training to minimize firearms use
Improve firearms safety
The Firearms and Tactics Section conducts the following programs:
Recruit 13 Day Basic and Tactical Firearms Training Program
Semi Annual Firearms Re-Qualification Cycle for approximately 35,000 In–Service Officers
FATS–Training : Firearms simulator scenario based training
Special Weapons Training conducted for Special Operations Division and Highway Patrol
Advanced Tactical Firearms Course for plainclothes personnel
Tactical Pistol Firearms Course for Patrol, Transit and Housing Officers performing patrol related duties
Scenario based training using Simunitions marking cartridges – “force on force” training
Less Lethal Devices Training on Conducted Energy Devices
Less Lethal Device Training on Pepper Spray, Polycarbonate Shield and Velcro Restraining Straps
Tactical Review Sessions for all Uniformed Members of the Service who have discharged their firearm in the line of duty.”
All of those courses would be pretty impressive if we knew that all police in the city were getting such training. But others who seem to be familiar with the NYC police have said, most NYPD officers don’t get all of that training, not even close.
You can’t assess the situation based on what training is available: you have to consider what training is actually GIVEN.
Well, The best Police force in the world somehow managed to shoot 9 innocent civilians that day in spite of all that training. Which training is mostly confined to building better Muslim relations, Gay compassion and a blind eye to any other event or agenda.
As is common, the replies are often better than the article. But several unstated judgments should be brought forward.
The policemen involved seem to have done their duty. The link states that an after shooting review will be made, as it should, but apparently they did the best they could do.
However, as several more knowledgeable than I, have stated, the essential facts have not been disclosed. How much funding, over time, has gone into use of weapon training? These cops were middle aged, what has been spent to keep their volatile skills sharp? How does the training cash flow compare to other expenditures within city government, e.g. the mayor’s PR staff? How does shooting skills play in promotion determination?
Whether armed with a bow and arrow, a heavy machine gun, or a service side arm, an untrained cop is a danger to any community. How does that community, not the cop, fund his/her needed skills? The entire world knows mayor Bloomberg’s views on guns owned by civilians. Does he support his guys, who need training? After a life time reading the press, I can not remember any coverage on this national issue: in an instantaneous urban gun fight, how good are our police? How many rounds are needed to stop a static full frontal target at close range?
My take, speaking from the voice of inexperience is this.
1. The NYPD did the right thing in opening fire on the perp. I am, again, inexperienced, but every self-defense article I have read says you don’t point a gun at a police officer. Ever. If you’re a citizen defending himself, and the police show up on the scene later, you put your gun on the ground and raise your hands.
The police are as human as anyone, and they can’t read minds. They don’t know what Joe Blow is going to do at any given moment. They don’t know if that aggressive suspect is reaching into his waistband to pull a gun or adjust his trousers.
They have a duty to serve and protect, but that doesn’t mean they have a duty to be gunned down because they want to be sure they are in danger before they open fire. Citizens can shoot to defend themselves if they reasonably believe their lives are in danger. The shooter pulled a gun and pointed it at the cops. That was enough to make his shooting justifiable.
2. there’s a lot of talk about stopping power. 9 v 40 v 45. A heart-area shot from a 9mm will stop someone as cleanly as a 40 or 45 will. Criminals don’t have special rules saying they fold after being shot with a 45 but stand up and keep shooting after getting shot in the heart with a 9mm. There have been disastrous cases of people getting shot multiple times and still fight, but these have occurred with every caliber. I remember reading an account where a North Vietnamese soldier was hit with an M-79 round and kept standing and shooting for several seconds. Caliber is not the issue, accuracy is. Hitting a person in the right place with a centerfire hollowpoint, with the right caliber, will normally stop the fight.
3. Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. Handguns are not precision weapons, and they are not meant to be. Training and experience in their use will make them accurate, and effective, but that training takes range time. A lot of it. The variables, even with a 2-handed hold with a pistol, make it essential to know the gun and develop the muscle memory of a proper grip, sight alignment, and trigger control. As others have said here, people fall back on their training when they’re stressed and their adrenaline is pumping. When your training and body is conditioned to shoot accurately, you will fall back on that. Will you shoot as well as you do at the range? Probably not. Will you shoot well? Yes. Again, pistols are not precision weapons. Training with them will make you an accurate shooter, and it’s your training that you fall back on in a stressful situation.
Locally we had a suicidal man in a car surrounded by officers. There was a gunshot just a single gunshot from the car and four officers unloaded their Glocks magazines into the car. The man shot himself, the officers shot him and the car after he was already dead with multiple rounds.
It was similar to a scene out of pale rider where the boss’s gunmen all shoot that one guy holding a bottle, except of course the man had already shot himself.
Who teaches these Officer’s fire discipline and designated shooters? Is every lawman a bloodthirsty killer just waiting to gun Joe Citizen down? is this Chicago values trickling down? Will this become commonplace with citizens and veterans shot down worse than you would shoot a dog with a fusillade of shots fired in every direction with mass collateral damage.
My theory and it’s just a theory, is that with the affirmative action hiring policies of Bloomberg and Kelly it would be extremely difficult to train the lower percentile in proper firearms handling. So they just issue semi auto pistols with and on and off button.
Do the NY cops really need guns to protect citizens from the threats posed by trans-fats, second hand smoke, table salt and sugary soft drinks?
The relevant fact is this, the NYPD has so many unqualified officers on their standard issue Glocks that the qualification tests are no longer scored.
That’s right, all you need to qualify is show up. No one is keeping score and if you don’t know how or can’t reload a magazine no problem because no one is looking at that either.
It should also be noted that the NYPD and the PBA are the most vociferous opponents to NYC’s citizens being legally armed. Except for political and social cronies of City Hall the rest of us can forget about it.
No mayor in modern memory has won without the endorsement of the PBA or their political jib was alien to the Second Amendment to begin with.
I would rather be at risk of probable injury from stray rounds fired by police or other intervenors than at risk of death from aimed rounds fired with intent to kill by a criminal.
The suggestion that police should rely on tasers in place of guns is absurd.
Tasers can be defeated by heavy clothing, and are often ineffective against targets who are charged up on adrenaline, liquor, or drugs, or just very fit or insensitive to pain.
If an armed maniac is killing people, he must be stopped as quickly as possible. Tasers don’t do that. Guns do.
Instead of relying on the NYPD to protect me, I prefer living in states that have shall issue concealed carry permits. As a native New Yorker, that is the reason I live in Texas, and will never live in NY again.
Wow this country is in severe trouble. People talking like experts who have no idea about the real world. No one here has ever had a gun pointed at them and stood still in the line of fire never mind shoot at someone. The cops should have let the perp go so he could kill again, he did have a whole briefcase full of ammo. I don’t think he was carrying all that to shot one person.
You could not be more incorrect, Anonymous. I have had a gun pointed at me twice as a police officer – I shot both subjects, one was fatal, the other survived. I would wager that there are numerous veteran officers perusing this site as I am in no way unique. I am even more homogenous as a multiple combat deployment veteran of the War on Terror…as an airborne infantryman; I have a closet full of faces that continue to haunt me, as do tens of thousands of other American veterans.
So would you have shot or waited to be shot and your not the only one here who shot someone so don’t toot your horn like an expert
Liberal retards
The problem is that the nypd issues firearms with NY2 12lb triggers, which decreases the accuracy of the firearm in combat encounters
You beat me to it. My carry gun has a 5lb trigger, my competition gun is about 3lbs. Accurate fire from a pistol with a 12lb trigger isn’t impossible, but it is difficult. And here we are again, back to training. I’m sure the NYPD has some terrific marksmen on staff who can shoot that cast iron trigger like pros, but most of their officers aren’t going to be those guys. And they are equipped with that ridiculous trigger because of NDs (negligent discharges) that occurred after the NYPD went to Glocks some time ago. Again, a training issue.
So, maybe more and better training? Don’t know, the training budget is awfully attractive to bean counters looking to save money, because sub-par training doesn’t show up in the bottom line. After a high profile public relations disaster…maybe. This little kerfluffle hardly even counts, only the perp died, and the citizens are going to be given million dollar tourniquets so they (probably) won’t squawk. Stay tuned…
while the trigger issue is true, the real problem is the arrogant,bullying attitude of cops today. From a psychological standpoint this leads right into cops inability to be trained to use a weapon competently, and then doing it on the street.
It’s hard to train know-it-all bullies.
It must be nice to live in a fantasy world where you can completely ignore reality and pretend that bad people don’t exist, that bad people don’t kill, rob, rape, murder, torture for their own personal reasoning.
because this is the only kind of world where one could blame the police when a bad guy does something wrong instead of the bad guy.
If those NYPD Cops hadn’t acted and the killer walked 1 more block and killed others, the very same people criticising these cops for shooting would be criticising the cops for not stopping him where they did.
Posted by TJ:
“because this is the only kind of world where one could blame the police when a bad guy does something wrong instead of the bad guy.”
Nobody’s blaming the cops for the murder, but the aftermath of their encounter with the murderer has excited comment. I believe several posters here have expressed sympathy for the cops involved. But, along with the inevitable Monday morning quarterbacking, there is a legitimate issue to be discussed. The author of the piece implies (perhaps tongue in cheek) that NYPD officers be issued tasers instead of firearms. That’s pretty silly. I think they need more effective marksmanship training and have commented on the somewhat gun-phobic culture that is common in large metro police forces. I also mentioned the stiff (12lbs!!!) trigger mandated by the City. Other posters have expressed other opinions. Yes, there have also been some harsh words for the officers involved. Don’t take it so hard, just revel in all that freedom of speech.
Two points. First you’all greatly underestimate the effects of adrenaline in a life and death situation. The FBI did a study and found that most shoot outs happen at less then 10 feet and 90% of the shots miss. I can’t find that study but here is an article on 5 famous shootouts;
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2011/05/5-gunfights-that-changed-law-enforcement.aspx
My favorite story is about 2 DEA agents and a Texas Ranger that tried to raid a drug buy. There were 4 drug dealers there. All 7 people were armed with hi-capacity semi-automatic weapons. The gun fight took place in a 10×12 room. Over 100 shots were fired, Nobody was hit.
My second point is that freedom has a price. Anyone that thinks freedom is free hasn’t been paying attention. One of those prices is the amount of handgun deaths. The 2nd amendment cost about 30,000 lives a year I think. That is a deal. Tyranny is much more expensive. Automobiles cost about 50,000 lives a year. Cigarettes over a million.
At least all those innocent bystanders are getting value for their lives.
Haji can’t shoot.
This is a quote of the Rand Corps evaluation of the NYPD’s Firearms training from 2007:
“NYPD officers are required to requalify on their firearms twice a year. While
the requalification course meets the standards required by New York and is consistent
with national norms, shooting at paper targets on a known-distance range does not
demonstrate that the officer has mastered his or her firearm and is ready for a shooting
confrontation on the streets. While the NYPD has several advanced ranges that better
prepare officers for confrontations that may involve firearms, the size of the department
and logistical considerations prevent them from being used as part of the semiannual
requalification program for the vast majority of officers”
Please feel free to read it in it’s entirety and ponder how many of it’s suggestions were actually instituted
I’m not a cop. Never been in the military. Never had to draw a weapon, aim and fire accurately on a crowded city street in just a couple seconds. Those two NY cops have my sympathy.
I own a handgun and take it to a nearby range two or three times each month. It isn’t that easy to consistently hit a stationary paper bulls eye that can’t shoot back – even when you’re standing still, concentrating, aiming carefully and slowly squeezing the trigger.
Should the NYPD Even Be Issued Firearms?
NO! Not if Bloomberg modifies the trigger pull from 8# to 13#. The guns are just too hard to bring back on target!!!
Well, technically it’s 12lbs. But the difficulty of firing accurately with that trigger pull may be part of the basis for any lawsuits.
From their own firearms discharge report published in November 2011,page 45:
All NYPD service pistols are “double
action only” (DAO), meaning they have a
two‐stage trigger pull for each round fired
(unlike single‐action weapons, which can be
“cocked,” resulting in a one‐stage trigger
pull, which is smoother and easier). Additionally,
all NYPD weapons are also modified
to have a heavier‐than‐stock 12‐lb trigger
pull; this diminishes the likelihood of unintentional
discharges but also affects aiming.
I suggest modifying all the guns to 5# pulls for better target reacquisition. By the way, pray and spray is no way to go through life.
I am a well-trained shooter, although I am not LE. I trained alongside a close friend who IS LE. We are both Armorer’s and I am a gunsmith. We took the same advanced handgun courses. He took even more and is now a firearms instructor -one of the very best. We practice, practice, practice!
It takes at least 1,000 (ONE-THOUSAND) perfect repetitions of any ONE draw or draw and fire sequence to slowly come up to any real speed combined with accuracy. ONE THOUSAND TIMES!!! -and then you must keep on practicing REGULARLY! In most LE agencies, this does not happen!
This is MY opinion:
IF the situation was as it was reported, the use of lethal force was not merely justifiable. It was REQUIRED! On the Force Continuum that LE use to deal with threats, one uses equal or slightly greater force than that with which one is confronted to STOP THE THREAT. A Taser is not even a consideration here, the same as “you don’t take a knife to a gunfight!” That whole notion to a trained shooter is absurd!
The problem here is a training issue. Clearly, the people who did the shooting have NOT been trained correctly and SHOULD NOT be carrying a firearm AT ALL!!! Just because a man carries a badge does NOT mean he can shoot. I can promise you I have seen damning evidence of this on the range MANY times!
I use a draw that is called “The Four-Count Presentation.” Google it so you can picture it accurately.
The officers could and SHOULD have been able to shoot this man from position two OR position four IF they had been trained to do so. This argument about the weight of the NY trigger not allowing one to “get back on target” after the first round is fired is irrelevant to THIS conversation. No more than two rounds were needed -one from each police pistol.
Why? The number ONE most important consideration when shooting to STOP THE THREAT is shot-placement! Two well-placed rounds would have killed the bad guy instantly!
At position 2, you have drawn the handgun up under your arm and rotated it forward. Using body-indexing and correct shooting form, this is a viable shooting position for a relatively close attacker. This is considered “aimed” fire even though it is not “sighted” fire. Practicing this technique the aforementioned number of times and then regularly thereafter, a man that carries a handgun should be able to shoot an attacker in the head VERY quickly every single time at close range -say within 3 yards.
At position 4, which has the handgun in the hands of both, fully-extended arms; AGAIN, the police officers should have practiced this shot enough times at this fairly close range NEVER to have missed the perpetrator a single time within combat distance (7 yards or 21 feet) at extraordinarily high speed! 25 yards would normally be no trouble at ALL for a well-trained shooter to put two rounds to the chest and one round to the head -not for a man trained properly to do so! Most people that carry a gun rarely use it, rarely train with it in simulated real-world scenarios -most don’t really TRAIN at all after their initial training!
The ONLY reasons the bad guy was not killed IMMEDIATELY are 1), He failed to fire upon the officers’ appearance; and 2), the officers were NOT trained to deal with the situation in which they found themselves. This is OFTEN the case!
The whole “NY Trigger” on Glocks in NYC is normally a matter for another day; but it has some relevance here.
In the end, it was a decision that was originally dismissed by Glock as a bad idea to solve a TRAINING ISSUE -not a handgun issue. “Prepping the trigger” on a revolver was standard-form for NYC and is still advised even by the NRA, I am told. That’s nuts! If you take a man trained that way and it’s the only handgun he’s ever used, and say, “Now you’re carrying this automatic;” one can expect the pistol to go bang when it wouldn’t have if they’d be RETRAINED.
I have been told and retold by Glock employees that the city REFUSED to alter the training and Glock made the required change when they found out just how many units NYC intended to buy!
While it is highly improbable that anyone would be anyone willing to stand up and testify to the accuracy of this statement, it doesn’t really matter. It is easily proven that future training was not significantly altered so that future LE members would not make this mistake; and it would be easily proven that LE members in NYC who transitioned from revolvers to heavy-triggered Glocks were NOT retrained to keep their fingers indexed alongside the frame and out of the trigger-guard until ready-to-fire.
If they were, they weren’t really TRAINED. Remember: At least ONE-THOUSAND repetitions to make it a perfect, automatic action that you don’t have to think about doing! When your heart is racing, your “thinking” goes out the window, along with things like fine motor skills. You fall back on your training; and if you haven’t been trained to deal with THAT situation? Well, you just fall!
So, this is yet another situation where men in suits made bad decisions based entirely on MONEY and NOT the welfare of the people -either the LE officers or the citizens.
Glocks all over the country ship with a connector that gives them a 5 lb trigger, which is more than enough for a carry gun. Their long-slide models come stock with a 3.5 lb connector, as these pistols are more for the range and competition and are not ideally suited for carry guns, due to their much longer barrel and slide.
If the politicians in NYC knew ANYTHING about shooting and CARED what happens, they would actually TRAIN their entire police force correctly and REQUIRE them to expend “x” amount of ammunition (which the department should provide) in practice with their carry guns REGULARLY. Then, crimes like this might not turn into tragedies like this!
If anyone tells you anything else, they either don’t know what they are talking about or they just don’t care.
Either way it’s plainly obvious that the author has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to use of force and firearms training and use. But this is what police have to contend with,people without any firearm knowledge and magical thinking, believing they can Monday morning quarter back split second decisions and way on issues they have no working knowledge in
Absolutely agreed!
WRONG, re “Johnson was only 8-10 feet away from officers when he pulled his .45 pistol. The range of the X26 Taser issued to many police officers is up to 35 feet. If the NYPD officers on the scene had used Tasers, they could have subdued Johnson without killing him. More importantly, they would not have shot nine citizens.”
The author of the above statement clearly has no police or lethal force training or experience. You NEVER bring a taser to a gun fight. Ever. You presume that the NYPD officers could have somehow intuited that the suspect was going to only draw but not fire his pistol. There is ABSOLUTELY no way for them to have known that. There have been police officers killed when they mistakenly deployed tasers against armed suspects who then shot them to death. Gun beats taser. Tasers are an incredibly effective tool at times, when used in the appropriate situation, and can and have prevented further escalation of use of force, including lethal. But when a suspect turns and draws and points a pistol at you at close range, one he has just used to execute a person, you shoot him. Period. To do anything else could be fatally foolish.
Sorry, Mr. Owens, but your article is simply wrong. Your proposal would likely lead to increases in police and civilian deaths as criminals increasingly realize that they will only be met by “less lethal” force.
Furthermore, the many criticisms of your obvious lack of combat experience ring true. These situations never go as planned, ever. NYPD officers are to be commended every time they put on the uniform, and the target that goes with it.
If anything can be taken from this, it is that arguments that citizens cannot be trusted with the same arms as police are false – we are all equally human; Additionally, the NYPD may have management and training issue, especially considering who runs the city. Finally, stop blaming police and law abiding citizens for criminal acts. That’s for the liberals to do.
Between 1971 and 1995 I arrested, at gun point, more armed suspects than I can readily remember. During that period I never found it necessary to shoot any of them even though I was prepared and willing and would have been legally justified in doing so. I don’t believe I was able to do that through dumb luck and by the grace of God.
In each of those encounters I worked with an edge. I picked the time and place that would give me the advantage and managed to convince each suspect that he would die if he failed to follow my instructions. Most of the time the suspect never knew of my presence until I jacked a round into a shot gun or I gave him an order to put his weapon down, step away from it and lie down. I already had the drop on the suspect either with a shotgun or with my service pistol, he was in the open, and I had at least partial cover. It worked for me.
I’ve read several news stories and op-eds as well as the comments that have been printed with them and have yet to see any discussion as to the tactics the two NYPD officers employed in their approach to the armed suspect. I’m wondering if they could have kept the suspect in sight and followed him until they could have confronted him in an area that contained fewer or no bystanders. I’m wondering why they approached the suspect with their pistols holstered rather than in a ready condition with their trigger fingers indexing the trigger guards. It would appear that a little time and planning could have paid dividends and would have resulted in less or no collateral damage, and possibly a live, disarmed suspect to take to trial. “Act in haste, repent at leisure.”
[W3]