Shooting at Empire State Building

[IndyDave1776]

The closest I've been to real life was a fire arms training simulator (F. A. T. S. machine) in the air force. Being law enforcement, we used it to learn how to react to situations. It was a pretty cool set up, huge screen that played the scenario, and a Beretta that was air powered to simulate recoil. Your shots showed on screen in the form of red dots.

Anyway, my first scenario was a routine traffic stop on a truck. As I'm walking up to the truck, a guy pops up from the bed with a shotgun. In a matter of seconds, I drew my firearm, dropped to a crouch, got a nice two hand grip, and shot five rounds, and the scenario was over. I killed the **** out of the tailgate and not one round hit the bad guy.

That's as close as I've come to real life, so I'm not saying they did horrible. I still think its funny that Bloomberg has to eat his words.

Did they borrow this for filming the training facility in 'Men in Black'? It sounds like the same setup.

 

[thumperdogg]

I have made it a point to say thank you to ALL LEO's in many of my posts! I have also made it a point that I do not mean any disrespect either. I am stating my opinions on things, and that is all it is. Did I say that I am better at things than they are? No, I didn't.

I do find it sad that these guys are being called heroes. They showed no concern with public safety in this shootout. Do I expect them to put civilians lives above their own? I wouldn't, but I didn't sign up to be a cop, or take a vow like they do.

When you are forced into a situation like this, only you can make the best decision for yourself, but cop or civilian, you will have to answer for your actions.

 

[thumperdogg]

You sure seem to have it all figured out, or at least you've identified what you perceive as errors in judgement and ability. What you haven't provided are any intelligent solutions. Just how long should the police allow an armed man who just committed a murder to continue walking the streets in a city of 8 million people before they intervene? How many isolated spots are there in NY city for the police to use to take him down?

I'll tell you what. You purchase a box of Simunition ammo. I'll provide the Simunition pistols.[STRIKE] We'll go out and recreate this scenario and I'll play the bad guy.[/STRIKE] On second thought, screw that. We'll go through some scenarios where you don't know what to expect since these officers didn't either. No protective wear other than eye protection. We'll see if your "movie" reality exists when you're the one facing down the barrel of a gun and trying to return fire without missing. We'll post the results here for all to see.

I find it hard to believe that I would pull out my gun and do a mag dump into the perp and the entire crowd of people around him. I don't think that I would have approached him by just running up on him like that either. You know he has a gun, he just killed a guy, and you run up on him and expect him to not pull out a gun? At least come up on him drawn with your sights trained on him.

I am sorry, but if you are a public servant and you can't handle being under scrutiny of the public, then maybe this job is not for you!

 

[Tactical Dave]

The odds of bystanders not getting hit in that scenario are astronomical.... It's NYC people! People all over the place.

Personally I'd rather take one in the arm by a cop trying to stop the bg then the bg shooting me.

Everyone wants to be an arm chair qb and I can say you ask anyone that has been shot at and everything hits the fan. I had a bullet fly over me when I was a kid and scared the crap out of me. One thing that I hate the most is people who think they would have done better. Only people that should talk are those that used to or get shot at for a living....

I know I would drop rounds untill he DROPED, if people get hit that is unfortunate but if I would have not done anything people would have been hit anyway.

 

[thumperdogg]

I do have one more thing to say...

Had this been a different scenario, in which a armed civilian would have gunned down the perp and injured the 9 people, the script would have been a little different.

Instead of Bloomberg calling him a hero, he would have said he was a wreck-less vigilante, and proves civilians don't need to carry guns. Had this vigilante not have shot and killed the perp, there would have been one dead and none injured. Just leave it to the police, they have been specially trained and know how to handle situations such as this.

 

[thumperdogg]

The odds of bystanders not getting hit in that scenario are astronomical.... It's NYC people! People all over the place.

Personally I'd rather take one in the arm by a cop trying to stop the bg then the bg shooting me.

It seems as if the BG was taking into consideration of innocent bystanders. Why else did he not fire? He drew way before the cops.

Not saying he was a good guy at all here. He was a murderer.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It seems to me that a debate/argument is not necessary here. From phylodog I will take the truth that sorry training yields sorry results. I will take from thumperdogg that it is pathetic that a criminal had more respect for the safety of the general public than did the police. I will take the general consensus that spraying lead in the general direction of the target, especially on a crowded street is not acceptable.

My conclusion is that had the police taken aimed shots at a reasonable rate of fire (one-shot stops are entirely possible) rather than jacking the trigger back and forth as fast as possible, the majority of the collateral damage should have been easily diminished with the caveat that it is not guaranteed given the density of occupancy of the area.

I will also concur with thumperdogg that the mayor and media alike would have been having a conniption and not a moment of commendation had the same thing been done by persons other than police, leading to the question of why it is selectively acceptable, especially when one of the principal arguments for NYC's gun laws is the danger of untrained persons being armed. In any other vocation, professionals are expected to perform at a much higher level, not be excused for sorry, sorry performance because they are professionals.

 

[Tactical Dave]

It seems as if the BG was taking into consideration of innocent bystanders. Why else did he not fire? He drew way before the cops.

Not saying he was a good guy at all here. He was a murderer.

Cops knew he already killed one guy... Saw a gun.....



Not like we are talking about a drunk cop who crashed into people...

Let's all remember we base out opinions off some video and pics and what the biased media says... There is a big difference between all that and what was going on in people's minds as it was happening.

 

[Tactical Dave]

It seems to me that a debate/argument is not necessary here. From phylodog I will take the truth that sorry training yields sorry results. I will take from thumperdogg that it is pathetic that a criminal had more respect for the safety of the general public than did the police. I will take the general consensus that spraying lead in the general direction of the target, especially on a crowded street is not acceptable.

My conclusion is that had the police taken aimed shots at a reasonable rate of fire (one-shot stops are entirely possible) rather than jacking the trigger back and forth as fast as possible, the majority of the collateral damage should have been easily diminished with the caveat that it is not guaranteed given the density of occupancy of the area.

Then the next guy says they should have used less then lethal... Let's remember it is NYC. They are allways on edge with the terrorism stuff.... Not an excuse but it's is not like it is po dunk USA.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Then the next guy says they should have used less then lethal... Let's remember it is NYC. They are allways on edge with the terrorism stuff.... Not an excuse but it's is not like it is po dunk USA.

I will agree that there is no limit to what you will hear once the armchair quarterbacks get down to business, but still, one would hope that anyone claiming the mantle of professional would go to the trouble of actually aiming rather than spraying, and would also consider that you only have to kill someone so dead (i.e., emptying one's magazine at close range should not be necessary).

 

[phylodog]

My conclusion is that had the police taken aimed shots at a reasonable rate of fire (one-shot stops are [STRIKE]entirely possible[/STRIKE]unlikely with a handgun and no police agency or trainer worth a squirt of **** trains anyone for a one shot stop with a handgun) rather than jacking the trigger back and forth as fast as possible, the majority of the collateral damage should have been easily diminished with the caveat that it is not guaranteed given the density of occupancy of the area.

I will also concur with thumperdogg that the mayor and media alike would have been having a conniption and not a moment of commendation had the same thing been done by persons other than police, leading to the question of why it is selectively acceptable, especially when one of the principal arguments for NYC's gun laws is the danger of untrained persons being armed. In any other vocation, professionals are expected to perform at a much higher level, not be excused for sorry, sorry performance because they are professionals.

I would be disappointed if the officers in that video were from my agency because I know they've been trained better than that. No one on my agency has been trained to fire one round and pause to see if the suspect will bleed out before deciding to fire another.

It didn't appear to me as if the officers knew who the suspect was when he pulled his gun. There appeared to be an "OH ****" moment there which is typical. Had the officers been running down the street with their pistols out we'd have a thread about how irresponsible that is.

I'm not calling these guys heroes. I'm not approving of their decisions. The difference is I'm not claiming that I'd have done a better job because I wasn't there.

The police should be held to a higher standard. They should also be afforded the training to perform at that level. I'd bet good money these guys receive little if any training after the academy. There are responsibilities on both sides.

 

[Tactical Dave]

I will agree that there is no limit to what you will hear once the armchair quarterbacks get down to business, but still, one would hope that anyone claiming the mantle of professional would go to the trouble of actually aiming rather than spraying, and would also consider that you only have to kill someone so dead (i.e., emptying one's magazine at close range should not be necessary).

I was surprised at the number of rounds fired and did feel it seemed a bit high but again I was not there and can't say if I would have been any better... You never know till it happens to you.

The lawsuits will in my best hulk hogan voice "run wild" but if the cops would not have fired quickly and a lot and picked their shots then for all we know the bg may have opened up on people in the area and people would. R upset that the cops did not unload.....

It was goi g to be loose loose for the cops regardless.

 

[netsecurity]

If a civilian grazed that many people while taking down a murderer he'd be crucified by the anti-gunners. They might even go after the officers. To me they did what they had to do, and it turned out well, since the shooter didn't kill anyone else. I only question why they shot so many times, but I suppose it is much more difficult to tell if you've hit a human target initially (especially one in layered clothing) than one would expect, so I will not second guess anything they did whatsoever.

It certainly demonstrates that police are not so well trained that they can magically avoid collateral damage.

 

[NYFelon]

Kind of what I figured. How long should the police wait to take down a person who has just shot and killed someone and is still armed in that area?

I can't answer your question objectively, I have never been in that situation. However, IMHO, they should remove the threat by whatever means necessary as soon as the opportunity presents itself. Also, let me interject a critique: The NYPD are, as a rule. trigger happy. See the cases of Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, et al for supporting evidence of my position. I'm not second guessing these officers, per se, just that NYPD officers seem to like to squeeze off as many rounds as possible whenever they are justified in discharging their firearms in the course of their duty. Do I think they did wrong? No, I actually don't. However I think they were overzealous, and in that zeal caused collateral damage.

Now a question if I may, having never been in that position, how hard is it to exercise restraint and let off two rounds CoM, then pause? Honestly, how many men can absorb two medium caliber handgun rounds at practically point blank range, center of mass, and remain standing?

 

[Indy317]

I watched the video, and it is typical of what can happen in the real world. It doesn't matter what type of training one gets. Paper targets, Simunition, etc., all training is essentially acting. There is no real bad guy, there is minimal threat to life in most shooting training. Paper targets don't shoot back real lead bullets and Simunition can only draw minor blood, leave scars, and likely put an eye out if you don't wear eye protection. That is the worst case scenario.

In real world situations, the thought processes are totally different. The situation could result in your death. You can have someone go through training every week, and in the 10th year of their career they get into a gun battle and miss every shot while emptying their magazine. There is no way to predict how any individual LEO will react in these situations till it happens.

The next issue is that of how cops are constantly under the microscope. I do think there are some cops who have let "What ifs..." get into their thinking process because they don't want to get suspended, investigated for civil rights violations, etc.. Look at the whole Brandon Johnson incident here in Indy. After the trial at the merit board hearing, there was a lot of details that came out that weren't originally available. You also combine that with a portion of the populace, especially in NYC, that demands the least physical contact to all suspects...even killers. The best way this should have been handled, based on simple physics, would have been to walk right up behind the guy and shoot him in the back of the head. No warning of "POLICE, STOP!" or "POLICE, SHOW YOUR HANDS!" One step down from a head shot with no warning would have been shooting center body mass in the back. Our policing style hasn't been based on physics though, emotion has played a part in forming what society at large expects from officers and laws/rules in place.

Indiana gives officers a pass for not giving a warning: "(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used." I'm not sure if NY law gives such a pass. Maybe those officers, by law, had to identify themselves and give the shooter the chance to surrender?

So now this comes to the last part, what do we as a society expect LEOs to do if their hands are tied (ie: Mandatory warnings before deadly force is used), or if the officer's individual fear retaliation for "shooting someone in the back!" even if justified under state law? In a place as dense and full of pedestrians as NYC, should we tell society that if they want and expect x, y, and z for suspects, then officers won't be reasonably able to confront and attempt to stop all suspected shooters do to fear of street level shootouts. Some will say the officers should go hands-on, and that really saddens me. Already on another website, people said officers wear vests, so they should have just rushed the guy and grabbed him. No. This isn't a thief, it is a killer with a gun. Confrontation of such individuals should be at gun point, not with guns in holsters. If those officers had their guns holstered, that is a failure of training and really just basic common sense. Everyone talks about how they had the element of surprise...what? They honestly believe this guy thought no one would ever call the cops, that no off-duty officer or plain cloths officer would do anything after he just shot a guy in the head?

Society at-large determines how the police respond. If NYC doesn't want street level shootouts, then they need to realize shooters will be getting away in some cases because cops won't feel comfortable confronting and following such people. So they shouldn't get upset at LEOs if the shooter ends up killing someone else in a future time. All these armchair quarterbacks and not one would ever, ever apply to work as an LEO, especially in NYC.

 

[phylodog]

let me interject a critique: The NYPD are, as a rule. trigger happy.

It is pretty common to see an NYPD officer involved in a shooting where they emptied their magazine. It is also common to see that if several officers were on the scene all of them emptied their magazines. This is not recklessness or a blood thirst on the part of the officers, they have not been trained properly not to do this.

It doesn't matter what type of training one gets. Paper targets, Simunition, etc., all training is essentially acting.

Couldn't possibly disagree more. Training does matter. If you look at LE statistics on survival rates, number & accuracy of rounds fired and compare that to the training received a very clear pattern will emerge. Training is critical to success. You can prepare someone to handle a situation much better than they would handle it without the training.

What training will not do is allow someone to predict how they will react when faced with a life or death situation. Mental preparation is an important and frequently overlooked part of dealing with a deadly encounter. Some people seemingly walk through it unfazed and others freeze up.

 

[churchmouse]

After watching the video several more times, reading everyone's opinion and responses to others opinion I have to remain as previously stated. They knew who he was, what he had done and were in pursuit. They were totally aware of what he was capable of. They ran up on him in a straight line side by side. No flanking our trying to draw his attention and get a decent line of fire. I still feel some of the wounded were from over penetration from those pesky high velocity 9MM ordo the NYCP use 40"S...not sure.
Could they have gotten a good sight line on him without so much collateral damage, maybe not but they dropped all tactical advantage in their pursuit and lost the possibility of a physical take down which did present itself as they approached but they pulled up short.
This is just an opinion from viewing the clip as to what could have been done. Would I have done this....hard to say. This was a mess from any angle.
Still amazed at Mom leaving the child to fend for herself.....Just amazing.


Back to training. It is not acting but mind and muscle memory development.

 

[TheReaper]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/n...s-caused-by-the-police.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

"We recovered whole bullets from two of the victims,” Mr. Kelly said at an event in Harlem. "Actually, we think a total of the three out of the nine bystanders were struck with bullets, the rest were struck with fragments of some sort.”

 

[NYFelon]

It is pretty common to see an NYPD officer involved in a shooting where they emptied their magazine. It is also common to see that if several officers were on the scene all of them emptied their magazines. This is not recklessness or a blood thirst on the part of the officers, they have not been trained properly not to do this.

I don't necessarily agree that it's not recklessness. I think it is recklessness, but without malice, and intent means a lot. Regardless of what their job is - to protect the public - they are at that moment first and foremost protecting their lives. I get that part, I really do. Putting on a uniform doesn't make them automated machines that can make nanosecond decisions after processing all possible gambits. They're people. I get that. I think you are probably right that it's a training issue. No matter what it is, Being a policeman, bicycle rider, or mathematician, training and practice makes all performance better.

If it's not too much trouble, could you please answer the question I posed. If you feel your answer is not apprpriate for full public disclosure, feel free to PM.

Thanks.

 

[Indy317]

What training will not do is allow someone to predict how they will react when faced with a life or death situation. Mental preparation is an important and frequently overlooked part of dealing with a deadly encounter. Some people seemingly walk through it unfazed and others freeze up.

This is the point I was getting at with my comment on training. Training helps, but no amount of training will overcome the fight or flight factor. I think some training might be able to influence this, as a person who has shot many, many rounds might feel more comfortable with going into a situation, but mental preparation is usually unknown until the situation just happens.