Two dead in shooting near the Empire State Building

Post Reply New Topic

IIRC, NYPD police officers, once they graduate the academy, only get 2 days on the range every year as part of their firearms training. I believe the breakdown is 1 day practice, 1 day qualification. I'm not sure how much of that time is spent on use-of-force issues versus actual shooting time. Also factor in that most cops are not firearms enthusiasts, so these 2 days are probably the only time they ever actually shoot their guns in training/practice. This info may be out-of-date, however; I'm not sure if it's the current policy.

How many of the wounded were wounded by shots discharged from the police guns?

ruveyn

As of now looks like all of them.
Here's the video of the incident. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZj3htvFvRk

16 shots to kill one man, more then half of which missed.
Words fail me.

Apparently, all 9 persons injured were as a result of police gun fire (either bullets or fragments).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19380492

As far as how the police could have made such a mistake . .

Only thing I can think of is a rookie quarterback trying to force a ball in.

Or, when I won a poker tournament, giving me free admission to a much bigger tournament than I'm used to, and I played clunkily (on one big important call, and then kind of recovered on later hands).

(I've learned a lot of social skills playing poker. But money, I have roughly broken even, with a lot of upswings and downswings, both of which are statistically highly likely even with good play.)

Generally speaking, it's the fight-or-flight response of the sympathetic nervous system. Fine motor skills become impaired (important for proper trigger control, which, in turn, is important for marksmanship) because blood vessels in the extremities become constricted so blood is kept in the larger muscle groups of the arms and legs for fighting or running. Also, tunnel vision can result from an intense focus on the threat, making it difficult for the officers, possibly in this case, to see anything but the perceived threat (i.e., the man with a gun); it's quite possible they didn't even see the bystanders. There's also auditory exclusion, where their perception of sound is altered, so they may not have heard the bystanders, either. They likely didn't even hear the shots they fired. I'd be surprised if they even knew how many shots they fired.

These issues can be compensated for with proper training, but, as I mentioned above, most agencies don't provide their officers with sufficient in-service training once they've completed the academy. An article I read said they were 15-year veterans of the police department. That means, once they left the academy, they likely only spent 30 days on the range over their entire careers. This is assuming NYPD still follows the 2-day/year firearm qualification policy and they never served with any specialty units, like ESU, that get more training.

Plus it must have been terrifying for them, when they're only 8 feet away and the guy spins around and points a gun at them. Still, they're not too competent.

Police aren't necessarily marksmanship experts or even people who enjoy shooting guns as a hobby, so they may not be very good or practiced shots.

Where I grew up local law enforcement used a gun club's range that my dad would take me to. Their instructor was an outstanding shot, but most of the rest seemed below average, honestly. I suspect that that was because everyone else was at the range because they enjoyed target shooting and had more practice.

But, I gather that cops rarely use their guns, and it does seem better that police be experts in many other things before shooting (like psychology/talking people down, and outsmarting the bad guys).

That sounds about right; I find that it's a very common misconception that the police are experts in firearms, using them or otherwise. A guy I used to work for who did tactical training for police clients would straight out say that it was more dangerous to be near someone the police were shooting at than to actually be shot at by them, and having seen a lot of cops shoot I'd have to agree.

"I'm the only one in this room qualified to carry this Glock 40!" (Gun person joke, search the phrase on youtube sometime).

Why is it that when a person accidentally or otherwise shoots someone its a huge deal and they usually go to jail even if its an accident.

But when a cop
Corners an armed man in a crowded street instead of waiting for him to get somewhere quieter
Fire an entire magazine at a single stationary person surrounded by 10-20 other people
Miss more then half those shots on a STATIONARY target
Manage to hit a bystander with EVERY missed shot and through sheer dumb luck don't kill anyone
it's no big deal?

This is not acceptable.
Those cops should be fired and possibly charged with reckless endangerment and then some.

Cops should be held to the same or higher gun competence level as a civilian who is allowed to carry.
Never less.
If a cop can not hit a single stationary target under stress, their gun permit should be revoked.

Hmm, you've got some of it right, but there's still some bad info and misinformation in there.

Bullet spin is irrelevant to wounding power, it is only there to impart stability to the bullet and doesn't have any effect on the terminal ballistics.

Any bullet will have a larger exit wound than an entry wound, it's just physics. Shoot a glass window with a BB gun sometime and look at the impact spot, it will demonstrate the principle quite vividly.

Hydrostatic shock is a factor in any bullet traveling at supersonic speed, it's essentially a sonic boom inside the body, and can cause compressive injuries some distance from the actual wound channel. However, the idea that it can kill by sending shock-waves through the blood is an urban legend, hydraulic forces just don't work that way.

Some bullets are designed to tumble, the pre SS109 5.56mm round was one, as is the 5.45mm Soviet and the 5.7mm FN; in all cases it's a way of getting around the prohibition on hollow-point ammunition for military use. A bullet that travels straight through it's target is inefficient, it's actually too ballistically stable, and wastes most of it's energy, not to mention endangers bystanders by not stopping once it's reached it's target. Hollow points address this by expanding on impact, increasing their surface area and thus creating additional friction in order to increase the change that the bullet does not pass through it's target. Tumbling ammo achieves similar results by being designed as ballistically unstable, usually through the use of a hollow or light metal front cavity that renders the bullet base heavy, making it tend to yaw when it's stabilizing spin is disrupted. The tumblers also have the added advantage of not compromising their ability to penetrate armor and light cover, as hollow points do, which makes them more suitable for military use.



Ask Charles Whitman...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
Extra credit for reading about how he was stopped.

I was going to bring that up last night but got burnt out. Charles Whitman had a fairly large variety of semi-auto rifles to choose from. He had the money and there were no background checks or other restrictions, and WWII surplus stuff from all countries was unimaginably cheap (even with inflation considered) compared to today's prices. He was well trained on a variety of weapons as well, yet he chose what he did. He had the means to navigate the red tape and purchase a machine gun legally too, but he didn't do that either.

Pistol shooting ain't easy.

Takes dedication and hundreds of rounds a week to be called proficient in such.

The only people who do that are hobbyists and the acronym police/military groups.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-Qdx6vky0[/youtube]

^

I f*****g lost it when he wanted the dude to hand him the AR-15 and the kids are like "Put it down". I died even more when he insisted it was unloaded just like the Glock he shot himself with. Can't believe I never saw the full clip, I definitely missed out.

Gotta give it to him for being a good sport about it though. I would leave the room just to get the hell away from the awkwardness, never mind the hole in my foot.