View Full Version : Cops fire 84 shots at robbery suspect, hit him once: police
titsonritz
09-05-15, 09:59
1 x 100 / 85 = 1.19% Some pretty crappy shooting guys.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cops-fire-84-shots-at-robbery-suspect-hit-him-once-police/ar-AAdWWsv
A gun-toting Brooklyn bandit dodged more than 80 police bullets early Friday in a wild street shootout that began with a botched armed robbery and ended with his arrest, officials said.
Oft-apprehended Jerrol Harris, 27, was busted around 1:10 a.m. when a single bullet — out of 84 fired at him — pierced his calf to end a blocks-long police pursuit through Bushwick, cops said.
<snip>
Full article removed per:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?59678-NOTICE!-DO-NOT-RE-POST-ARTICLES-amp-PICS-THAT-YOU-DO-NOT-OWN!
That's a lot of rounds fired, but I would like to know more about the incident before being critical of the police involved. A running fight is not like shooting on a static range.
Ever shot a Glock with that stupid NY trigger? Makes it tough to hit the broad side of a barn - from inside the barn.
SomeOtherGuy
09-05-15, 10:20
What is there to say?
Seems like NYPD has a number of these incidents - remember the Empire State Building street incident a year ago?
It's not totally a surprise for a city and state where legal handgun ownership is extremely difficult, and few if any of the good guys grow up around guns and having a chance to learn how to shoot. Obviously it also shows a lack of training and standards, because even starting with people who have no background (like in the UK) with enough training you could still get to a high skill level.
That's a lot of rounds fired, but I would like to know more about the incident before being critical of the police involved. A running fight is not like shooting on a static range.
Running through town firing that many low probability shots is stupid.
Defend who you want, but that's irresponsible and had a non-leo done that in self defense, every off target bullet would have a legal repercussions.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
09-05-15, 10:41
Ahhh, the criticism from people who have CLEARLY never been in a gunfight of any sort. Things don't happen like they do at your indoor range guys, sorry. Cover, concealment, range, number of shooters, speed of pursuit, length of foot pursuit, visibility conditions, etc all come into play.
titsonritz
09-05-15, 11:58
Ahhh, the criticism from people who have CLEARLY never been in a gunfight of any sort. Things don't happen like they do at your indoor range guys, sorry. Cover, concealment, range, number of shooters, speed of pursuit, length of foot pursuit, visibility conditions, etc all come into play.
You've got to admit that is a lot of lead being thrown around in the streets with an exceptionally poor hit ratio and NYPD seems to do it pretty regularly. I've never shot a Glock with their lame trigger setup but I'm sure that doesn't help matters. In any event there are plenty of cops that know how to shoot well. Case in point:
http://bearingarms.com/austin-mounted-police-officer-dropped-homegrown-terrorist-312-feet-one-shot/
Ahhh, the criticism from people who have CLEARLY never been in a gunfight of any sort. Things don't happen like they do at your indoor range guys, sorry. Cover, concealment, range, number of shooters, speed of pursuit, length of foot pursuit, visibility conditions, etc all come into play.
I have. In a very extreme and dynamic situation. So I'll use my experience to echo what others are saying. Don't spray the city with rounds that aren't hitting! If you can't think clearly and make good decisions in extreme situations, then you have no business doing it as a profession. NYPD has a SERIOUS problem with its firearm standards. I don't give a shit what the logistical challenges are for a department that big, they need to figure it out. The consequences for failure are way too high not to put more emphasis on it.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
You also might want to consider the difficulty in ensuring that 33,000 officers have a modicum of marksmanship ability to begin with, much less maintain that ability.
You also might want to consider the difficulty in ensuring that 33,000 officers have a modicum of marksmanship ability to begin with, much less maintain that ability.
They still need to get it done regardless. A start would be to ditch the shit trigger. That thing is downright lethal to all the wrong people.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
diving dave
09-05-15, 12:24
Thats alot of lead flying, and alot of liability. However, having been there myself , its easy to say WTF....I was involved in a shooting in 2001, fired 3 rounds from a G21 at a dirtbag who cranked off 6 rounds at me.(Shot the hell out of my cruiser, but nothing connected with me;)) Anyway distance was only about 10 ft and 2 of my rounds totally missed...And I consider myself a "gun guy". With the adrenaline pumping, its not so easy. I dont even remember seeing my sights.
titsonritz
09-05-15, 12:26
They still need to get it done regardless. A start would be to ditch the shit trigger. That thing is downright lethal to all the wrong people.
"Let's give our cops a trigger that is hard to pull, it will reduce accident discharges, they just won't be able to hit shit when they need to." Great thought process, typical admin/lawyer bullshit with opposite results and unintended consequences.
"Let's give our cops a trigger that is hard to pull, it will reduce accident discharges, they just won't be able to hit shit when they need to." Great thought process, typical admin/lawyer bullshit with opposite results and unintended consequences.
Agreed. As much as I think that in many of these situations the cops need to stop firing and rethink there approach, the true blame lies with the department heads and admin.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
titsonritz
09-05-15, 12:29
Thats alot of lead flying, and alot of liability. However, having been there myself , its easy to say WTF....I was involved in a shooting in 2001, fired 3 rounds from a G21 at a dirtbag who cranked off 6 rounds at me.(Shot the hell out of my cruiser, but nothing connected with me;)) Anyway distance was only about 10 ft and 2 of my rounds totally missed...And I consider myself a "gun guy". With the adrenaline pumping, its not so easy. I dont even remember seeing my sights.
It is a well know fact adrenaline takes a toll on hit ratio but hey man 33% is a hell of lot better than 1.19%, a hell of lot better.
They still need to get it done regardless. A start would be to ditch the shit trigger. That thing is downright lethal to all the wrong people.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
Yep, agreed on the trigger.
What has always kind of tripped my trigger about big city versus little city/rural cop thing is that, in my experience, the latter generally know more about the law and general tactics, than the former. For example, on the NYPD 'stop talk and frisk' thing that was in the news a while back, very few of the NYPD officers, or retired NYPD officers, active on forums could discuss (or seemed inclined to discuss) the Constitutional issues. Seems to me if you were a righteous, professional cop, you wouldn't be taking action that violates the rights of citizens.
But that is just my experience.
MountainRaven
09-05-15, 12:59
Maybe NYPD needs to trade their pistols in for semi-auto-only pistol-caliber carbines.
That being said, even in Heat (a fictional movie, but one often beloved of gun guys) the good guys fired hundreds of rounds - mostly with long guns - and hit their targets, what, three times?
Ahhh, the criticism from people who have CLEARLY never been in a gunfight of any sort. Things don't happen like they do at your indoor range guys, sorry. Cover, concealment, range, number of shooters, speed of pursuit, length of foot pursuit, visibility conditions, etc all come into play.
I would have just thrown my nightstick at his legs and tripped him to the ground. Cuffed and stuffed in 5 minutes. You just have to practice. Sometimes I put in 4 or more hours throwing my nightstick at the heavy bag so I'll be prepared for action.
I am not defending the officers involved in this situation and I won't criticize them without sufficient information about the incident. Can anyone provide specifics about the background behind the suspect when the shots were fired? I cannot.
Training and budget considerations are always an issue with LEO agencies. If their department had a yearly budget to purchase 7 to 8 million rounds and the materials necessary to maintain at least minimal proficiency, there is no guarantee an officer is going to hit a suspect, especially if the suspect is firing at them. Firing discipline is important, but if you wait for the perfect shot you'll never shoot.
I'll maintain a neutral position on this incident until more information is available.
Maybe NYPD needs to trade their pistols in for semi-auto-only pistol-caliber carbines.
That being said, even in Heat (a fictional movie, but one often beloved of gun guys) the good guys fired hundreds of rounds - mostly with long guns - and hit their targets, what, three times?
Actually they hit most of the cops. Different scenario though. The full auto suppress and maneuver methods used in heat are a military based tactic used more for being able to move under fire more so than for eliminating the enemy. One of the best attributes of full auto is the ability to keep constant pressure on the target so it stays pinned. If it moves it dies, if it stays put you can move much more freely (for what end is entirely situation dependent). The purpose of a firearm for law enforcement is to eliminate a lethal threat. LEO'S need to focus on as high of a hit percentage as possible, the extreme reduction of collateral damage, and high lethality. In order for LE to stop the threat effectively, they need to focus heavily on killing /stopping the threat as quickly as possible. Civilians have far more in common with LE than military in terms of SD rules and requirements.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
Actually they hit most of the cops. Different scenario though. The full auto suppress and maneuver methods used in heat are a military based tactic used more for being able to move under fire more so than for eliminating the enemy. One of the best attributes of full auto is the ability to keep constant pressure on the target so it stays pinned. If it moves it dies, if it stays put you can move much more freely (for what end is entirely situation dependent). The purpose of a firearm for law enforcement is to eliminate a lethal threat. LEO'S need to focus on as high of a hit percentage as possible, the extreme reduction of collateral damage, and high lethality. In order for LE to stop the threat effectively, they need to focus heavily on killing /stopping the threat as quickly as possible. Civilians have far more in common with LE than military in terms of SD rules and requirements.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
You hit the nail on the head sir. With a good selection process and a good training budget being able to achieve this goal is attainable.
MountainRaven
09-05-15, 13:31
Actually they hit most of the cops. Different scenario though. The full auto suppress and maneuver methods used in heat are a military based tactic used more for being able to move under fire more so than for eliminating the enemy. One of the best attributes of full auto is the ability to keep constant pressure on the target so it stays pinned. If it moves it dies, if it stays put you can move much more freely (for what end is entirely situation dependent). The purpose of a firearm for law enforcement is to eliminate a lethal threat. LEO'S need to focus on as high of a hit percentage as possible, the extreme reduction of collateral damage, and high lethality. In order for LE to stop the threat effectively, they need to focus heavily on killing /stopping the threat as quickly as possible. Civilians have far more in common with LE than military in terms of SD rules and requirements.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
I think you're confused as to who the good guys in that movie are.
I think you're confused as to who the good guys in that movie are.
I miss read your post. I thought you were referring to the theifs. The police were getting effective hits with reserved semi auto fire
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
While I agree there is more NYPD could do in the marksmanship arena, they have 33,000 or so officers to maintain. Just like not everyone in the infantry qualifies Expert, not every officer is going to clean the quals. Add the stress of a real gunfight, the hit ratio will go down further.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the hit percentage for LE of the North Hollywood shootout? It might be interesting for comparison purposes.
If you consider the bullet to kill ratio in recent wars 84 to 1 looks good!
titsonritz
09-05-15, 16:01
If you consider the bullet to kill ratio in recent wars 84 to 1 looks good!
Agreed, but a war zone vs. a city street is the old proverbial apple to orange comparison.
titsonritz
09-05-15, 16:15
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the hit percentage for LE of the North Hollywood shootout? It might be interesting for comparison purposes.
I was wondering the same thing. Where do you start? It would be pretty hard to figure out since several scored hits were ineffective.
Both robbers were killed, eleven police officers and seven civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the approximately 1,750 rounds of ammunition fired by the robbers and police. The two men had fired approximately 1,100 rounds, while approximately 650 rounds were fired by police.
If you took number of those dead or wounded and assigned one hit each (which you know is very low) 2+11+7=20
20 x 100 / 1750 = 1.14% meaning better than the OP incident. Take it for what it is worth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
I was wondering the same thing. Where do you start? It would be pretty hard to figure out since several scored hits were ineffective.
Both robbers were killed, eleven police officers and seven civilians were injured, and numerous vehicles and other property were damaged or destroyed by the approximately 1,750 rounds of ammunition fired by the robbers and police. The two men had fired approximately 1,100 rounds, while approximately 650 rounds were fired by police.
If you took number of those dead or wounded and assigned one hit each (which you know is very low) 2+11+7=20
20 x 100 / 1750 = 1.14% meaning better than the OP incident. Take it for what it is worth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
Like you said, ineffectual hits due to the armor. I have to believe that regardless of training, shooting back at armoured full auto suppressive fire is another world than a shooting with your average criminal with a pistol. Idiots with rifles do warrant a different response.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
Shoot till the threat is stopped. Who cares if you aim! Sooner or later one of the rounds will hit!
According to the linked article; there were two encounters with the armed robbery suspect.
First, four uniformed patrol Officers engage suspect and fire 52 rounds.
52/4= Average of 13 shots per Officer fired with no rounds connecting.
Second, two uniformed Officers fire 32 rounds and connect with 1 peripheral hit to an extremity (leg). No indication if the hit was direct or a ricochet.
That is very poor marksmanship and the Command staff qouted in the article would be singing a different song if those errant rounds connected with a local resident or innocent bystander in the area.
Bottom-line, we are all responsible for every round fired, irregardless if you have a badge or not. Can't make the shot, no clear background, unsure of distance or angle to target, then don't shoot.
Those NYPD Officers need some marksmanship training.
Related articles:
http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/117909-Study-reveals-important-truths-hidden-in-the-details-of-officer-involved-shootings/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?pagewanted=all
12# trigger, little to no training, I am not surprised.
From what I understand speaking with several NYPD officers, there is virtually no firearm training done post academy. Few of them want to spend their own money for training and ammo and assume they will never be in a gun fight since NYC has tough gun laws. I shit you not dude's two NYPD officers told me they don't ever expect to me in a gun fight because of NYC's laws. My jaw almost dropped.
platoonDaddy
09-05-15, 19:19
Do they have NY1 or NY2 triggers?
Running through town firing that many low probability shots is stupid.
Defend who you want, but that's irresponsible and had a non-leo done that in self defense, every off target bullet would have a legal repercussions.
They're responsible for every round they fire. Who said otherwise?
Ahhh, the criticism from people who have CLEARLY never been in a gunfight of any sort. Things don't happen like they do at your indoor range guys, sorry. Cover, concealment, range, number of shooters, speed of pursuit, length of foot pursuit, visibility conditions, etc all come into play.
Was it all pistol rounds fired? How many officers fired?
I would have just thrown my nightstick at his legs and tripped him to the ground. Cuffed and stuffed in 5 minutes. You just have to practice. Sometimes I put in 4 or more hours throwing my nightstick at the heavy bag so I'll be prepared for action.
TJ Hooker!
A 104 yard 1 handed pistol shot holding the reins of two horses; resulting in a one shot stop is not a result of training. That's luck.
I think they are running ny2s. It was determined the ny1 still wasn't stiff enough. At least that's what Smyrna says. They asked for the ny2 because the ny1 still wasn't hard enough to pull.
They could add a "+" connector to the ny2. You'd just about need a friend to help fire it then.
I admit to never being in a running gun battle. But I also know that the live or die stress drops quite a bit of skill right off the table. As I recall, it's around 40% or so.
So yes, they suck at shooting.
I would think you'd reach a point that you know you aren't hitting anything, and lay off the trigger some.
Before that many rounds are gone.
And the "they got 33,000 people to train, so you can't expect good training".
What???
So, ****k it, just give them a badge, some cuffs, a gun, and a pile of ammo. They can wing it.
Seems they're real lucky they didn't kill anybody else. I wonder how it would fly if they told some dead child's parents that "sorry, we can't properly train the officers, since we have so many".
I realize people in gunfights miss, more than many realize. But this certainly seems way past that. And, it seems to happen with this dept regularly.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
09-05-15, 22:50
I thought that one of the NY triggers was developed for NYPD and the other for the staties.
State qualification twice a year doesn't train you to win a gunfight. (Usually under 50 rnds, no movement, use of cover, etc)
Unless an Officer is a "gun guy" (Or SWAT, which is usually gun-guys) and shoots on his own this qualification is typically the only trigger time they get. (Plus some electronic simulations once in a while if it's a bigger dept)
Add to that a 12lb trigger and well...most of them aren't going to shoot well and either be hesitant to engage or shoot way too soon and too much.
Interesting how police admin took away the DA/SA auto's with there longer, heavier DA first shot (and don't have to pull trigger to field strip) and what did they do? Put 8 and 12 lb triggers in Glocks so every trigger pull sucks.
I've fired the 12 lb Glock trigger and it's terrible. It actually made my finger pad hurt in a couple magazines. A DAO Beretta M92 has a far better trigger..
Moose-Knuckle
09-06-15, 02:04
I would like to read NYPD's SOPs for fire superiority and suppressive fire . . . I kid, I kid. :jester:
platoonDaddy
09-06-15, 08:06
Back a few years ago, I purchased a LEO Trade-in G21 that had the 8 pound pull and it wasn't bad.
Did a research this am on what pull NYPD has and if this article is correct it is 12 pounds.
Cut and pasted:
The NYPD definitely has a training problem, but the problem runs much more deeply. In fact, this is an abject lesson in the damage socialism causes, specifically, when socialist do-gooders try to help people, they virtually always cause enormous harm.
http://bearingarms.com/nypd-a-dangerous-philosophy/
Shoot till the threat is stopped. Who cares if you aim! Sooner or later one of the rounds will hit!
Isn't that pretty much how we got the 223 round? [emoji3]
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
Well, according to the glock armorer instructors at Smyrna, the ny1 came from a request of NYPD that the glock trigger be harder to pull. I believe it was a requirement by NYPD that the dept was not going to buy and issue glocks without a harder trigger pull.
The ny1 spring was born.
They hen came back and said this still wasn't hard enough, and further explained that they wanted a trigger that approximated the pull of a double action revolver, being used double action. This, they felt was what the required pull was for safety.
The ny2 was born.
Still comes down to trying to fix a software issue with hardware. Doesn't work, and these events keep coming up and proving it.
Sent from my C6916 using Tapatalk
titsonritz
09-06-15, 11:51
The NY1 wasn't a hard enough pull so they go to a NY2, perhaps a NY3 will fix the issue say about 50lbs.
You've got to admit that is a lot of lead being thrown around in the streets with an exceptionally poor hit ratio and NYPD seems to do it pretty regularly. I've never shot a Glock with their lame trigger setup but I'm sure that doesn't help matters. In any event there are plenty of cops that know how to shoot well. Case in point:
http://bearingarms.com/austin-mounted-police-officer-dropped-homegrown-terrorist-312-feet-one-shot/
My first blue label Glock came with a ny2 trigger, felt like shooting a really dirty staple gun.
The NY1 wasn't a hard enough pull so they go to a NY2, perhaps a NY3 will fix the issue say about 50lbs.
May as well not even issue firearms at that point and save the money for more ammo they can just throw at bad guys by hand.
You also might want to consider the difficulty in ensuring that 33,000 officers have a modicum of marksmanship ability to begin with, much less maintain that ability.
If guns are too big of a logistical hurdle, give 'em pepper spray, tasers, and a ticket book.
MountainRaven
09-06-15, 15:57
If guns are too big of a logistical hurdle, give 'em pepper spray, tasers, and a ticket book.
I was about to say: Do the British thing. Have some specialized armed police (who are trained to a level where negligent discharges are unlikely, thus defeating the original purpose of the heavy triggers or such that the weight of the triggers does not present as much of an issue - and most of the time that they get called out, they're going to be carrying long guns anyway) and have most cops armed with less lethals.
Voodoo_Man
09-06-15, 16:38
This is as much of a training issue as it is an equipment issue. You have top brass making decisions on equipment theyve never used in an environment theyll never be jn or in many examples never experienced then not allowing for enough training with the particular piece of equipment.
Then these same top brass have the room to blame the officer for a "bad shoot" when they cant hit shit with what they are given.
Catch 22 for the officers.
I was about to say: Do the British thing. Have some specialized armed police (who are trained to a level where negligent discharges are unlikely, thus defeating the original purpose of the heavy triggers or such that the weight of the triggers does not present as much of an issue - and most of the time that they get called out, they're going to be carrying long guns anyway) and have most cops armed with less lethals.
The Brits are not as armed a society as we are. Considering that we now have 37 shall-issue states and 4 constitutional carry states, that course of action would not be prudent.
This is as much of a training issue as it is an equipment issue. You have top brass making decisions on equipment theyve never used in an environment theyll never be jn or in many examples never experienced then not allowing for enough training with the particular piece of equipment.
Then these same top brass have the room to blame the officer for a "bad shoot" when they cant hit shit with what they are given.
Catch 22 for the officers.
Any LEOs I know who can shoot worth a damn not on a tac team spent their own time and dime getting there. When the brass in some areas tend to be anti gun themselves, you end up with LEOs with a dead minimum of training with firearms. I have never spent time on a two way range so I don't tend to arm chair their shooting skills, but we all know with additional and ongoing training their hit % would improve which decreases the risks to them and those around them, and that's an obvious plus to everyone but the criminals they're shooting at.
If guns are too big of a logistical hurdle, give 'em pepper spray, tasers, and a ticket book.
You also might want to consider the difficulty in ensuring that 33,000 officers have a modicum of marksmanship ability to begin with, much less maintain that ability.
I was merely stating that it would be impossible to turn all 33,000 cops into gunfighters, notwithstanding the fact that many of those cops don't want to be gunfighters.
We have had folks from back east, New York City in one particular case, who got their first driver's license in order to take the police job. Talk about a hoot on the EVO course.
Same deal, many of the native New Yorkers would not have a history on gun handling from hunting or other experiences.
Such an environment breeds susceptibility to believing everything you are told by blowhard senior officers and an 'our way is the only way' mentality.
Change in such organizations is often slow and painful.
And be sure, somewhere in the bureaucracy their is an actuary who has done the math to determine which course is less costly: spending the money to train to minimum standard and paying the expected lawsuits; or training to the highest standard and paying a reduced number of lawsuits. Because almost every time lethal force is used there will be some type of litigation.
Voodoo_Man
09-06-15, 18:04
Any LEOs I know who can shoot worth a damn not on a tac team spent their own time and dime getting there. When the brass in some areas tend to be anti gun themselves, you end up with LEOs with a dead minimum of training with firearms. I have never spent time on a two way range so I don't tend to arm chair their shooting skills, but we all know with additional and ongoing training their hit % would improve which decreases the risks to them and those around them, and that's an obvious plus to everyone but the criminals they're shooting at.
The other obvious issue is that there are some top brass paper-pushers that don't want the patrol officers or any officer to actually kill anyone, so they are hesitant to provide such training since there is almost always a wrongful death suit and it is always cheaper to settle out of court than to go into court.
It always come down to money and not lives when it comes to considerations by the top brass of large departments. An officer is just a number to them, data on a piece of paper.
titsonritz
09-06-15, 18:58
So instead the wrongful death suit comes from an innocent bystander being wrongfully killed, makes sense. :lol:
Voodoo_Man
09-06-15, 19:32
So instead the wrongful death suit comes from an innocent bystander being wrongfully killed, makes sense. :lol:
Easier to blame the officer's actions than pay out.
MountainRaven
09-06-15, 21:24
The Brits are not as armed a society as we are. Considering that we now have 37 shall-issue states and 4 constitutional carry states, that course of action would not be prudent.
Well, there is no society as armed as we are.
And our society has never had to deal with people - civilians, terrorists - setting up mortars in Washington DC to shell Congress and the White House.
Are you suggesting that police in this country are less safe because of how many guns we have? Are you suggesting that they are less safe because of how many people can - and do - lawfully carry them concealed?
Considering the abysmal marksmanship of the NYPD and the apparent institutional inertia against training their officers adequately - or even trusting them to not shoot themselves - and given that it is a generally agreed upon principle that someone who carries a firearm without training or with insufficient training or with the incorrect mindset - all of which appear to be regularly exhibited by the officers of the NYPD - that one is a greater threat to oneself and one's friends and family and that, therefore, everyone including these officers would be safer with these officers disarmed rather than armed.
Are you suggesting that police in this country are less safe because of how many guns we have? Are you suggesting that they are less safe because of how many people can - and do - lawfully carry them concealed?
I merely suggested that to expect unarmed police to police an armed society doesn't seem to make much sense.
The vast majority of officers are staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment and the citizen's right to go armed to protect themselves. However, considering that many of the folks involved in shoot outs with the police were legal gun owners right up to the moment they got into the shoot out with the police the idea of disarming the police is ludicrous to say the least.
MountainRaven
09-07-15, 01:59
I merely suggested that to expect unarmed police to police an armed society doesn't seem to make much sense.
The vast majority of officers are staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment and the citizen's right to go armed to protect themselves. However, considering that many of the folks involved in shoot outs with the police were legal gun owners right up to the moment they got into the shoot out with the police the idea of disarming the police is ludicrous to say the least.
You believe this all holds true for New York City?
Averageman
09-07-15, 07:18
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/06/austin-cop-sure-shot-stopped-crazed-gunman/
Holding the reins of two horses with one hand, Austin Police Sgt. Adam Johnson raised his service pistol and fired a bullseye into the target some 312 feet away.
Down went Larry McQuilliams, and so ended his rampage through the streets of the Texas capital, where he’d fired more than 100 rounds from his AK-47 and .22-caliber rifles at buildings. The shot, from Johnson’s Smith & Wesson M&P .40 pistol, hit McQuilliams square in the chest and made the 15-year-veteran the toast of gun enthusiasts around the country.
Maybe this guy can take them to school?
I'm shocked that NYPD Police Commish Frank Reagan hasn't personally looked into this and made the necessary changes post haste to correct this abysmal performance of his rank and file. Hopefully he'll have the NYPD squared away by Sept. 25th. I look forward to seeing what corrective action will be implemented by then or shortly there after. Be strong Frank, be strong!
You believe this all holds true for New York City?
I believe that NYPD needs to train their police officers better (the same could be said for almost any agency).
I believe that most 'big city' police officers are exposed to more danger than their brethren in smaller jurisdictions.
I believe that even considering NY's draconian gun laws firearms are readily available, especially to the criminal element who anticipate using firearms to further their criminal activity.
I believe that the presence of armed police is a deterrent to violent crime, although, obviously, armed police do not deter all violent crime.
I believe that based on that anyone who would espouse disarming the NYPD is not using basic logic in their thought process.
I also believe if there were NO guns a lot fewer people would be murdered each year, but, damn, that ship has already sailed.
I also believe that a life without freedom and the risk that freedom entails is not worthwhile.
I also believe in true love and Jesus, having experienced both.
Good enough?
12 lbs trigger and no ammo or time to practice. IMO it's the city's fault, these officers are set up for failure.
I'm more surprised they managed to hit him once than that they missed 83 times.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/06/austin-cop-sure-shot-stopped-crazed-gunman/
Holding the reins of two horses with one hand, Austin Police Sgt. Adam Johnson raised his service pistol and fired a bullseye into the target some 312 feet away.
Down went Larry McQuilliams, and so ended his rampage through the streets of the Texas capital, where he’d fired more than 100 rounds from his AK-47 and .22-caliber rifles at buildings. The shot, from Johnson’s Smith & Wesson M&P .40 pistol, hit McQuilliams square in the chest and made the 15-year-veteran the toast of gun enthusiasts around the country.
Maybe this guy can take them to school?
Please tell me the time is wrong at 0232
"Johnson, who works with the Mounted Patrol Unit, was about to get off duty and stabling the horses when he heard shots and returned fire at 2:33 a.m."
I also believe if there were NO guns a lot fewer people would be murdered each year, but, damn, that ship has already sailed.
We are not going to agree on this...
I don't know where you grew up, but in "the hood" where I grew up, I would have been killed on several occasions had I not had the means to stop bigger, stronger and more numerous attackers.
You don't think more people were murdered by bigger stronger foes back in the days before firearms came a long and gave the "weak" a means to fight back against bigger, stronger attackers?
We are not going to agree on this...
I don't know where you grew up, but in "the hood" where I grew up, I would have been killed on several occasions had I not had the means to stop bigger, stronger and more numerous attackers.
You don't think more people were murdered by bigger stronger foes back in the days before firearms came a long and gave the "weak" a means to fight back against bigger, stronger attackers?
Okay, let's take this in context. As I sit typing this I have a gun. Within 20 feet are about two dozen other guns, maybe more, I need to count. I like guns, I like shooting, I make my living teaching folks to shoot.
Regardless of all that, and your experiences, the fact is that guns make killing more efficient. You think Adam Lanza could have killed a whole class of kindergartners without a gun? Harris and Klebold? Any of the mass shooters?
Regardless of whether we have guns or not, folks will always try to kill other folks and often they will succeed in their efforts. The point is that the numbers would be less without firearms.
So big deal, we are a nation of gun owners, we will always be a nation of gun owners. That genie is out of the bottle, we aren't going back in time. More restrictive gun control is not the answer. As I said, freedom is not without risk.
More later, I'm going to coffee, with a gun.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.