911 call shows chaos before NYC shooting

[Annie]

Thsi doesnt exist.
You shoot to stop. That you need to shoot at all necessitates that deadly force is justified, and if the person being shot dies as a function of the deadly force, his death was justified.

I'm not saying that was the case here, just that there is no 'shoot to wound'.

Correct. Police and I think service members are taught to shoot to kill-not by headshots, but by the big middle-Chest and abdomen.

 

[Shogun]

5-7 feet and they couldn't tell he was brandishing a hairbrush?

it was probably dark. I'd be more shocked that they couldn't hit their target from that close. 7 feet and only 8 from 20 shots fired hit? Time for some QT on the firing range.


Keep in mind, they also thought he had a gun by testimony of his own words. He was told to stop and didn't. There were other weapons involved. The cops couldn't predict this. If he did have a gun and shot a bystander then the cops would be eating crow then too. It's unfortunate, and shitty cops do happen, but I don't think this is the case here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That couldn't possibly be known, though. One shot to his knee, and he could just drop down in agony and never even attempt to continue his perceived assault.

This will get a lot of police officers killed.

 

[Diuretic]

8 for 20? At what range?

So much for the argument that only the police have the training and skill necessary to safely and effectively carry guns.

Have you had to point a gun at a person who was similarly armed?

 

[Diuretic]

Pretty close to Gunny's ratio guess. What I noticed is that so many limbs were hit, police are taught to shoot to kill. Ankle? What was up with that?

Ankle was a miss, should have been in the central body mass but no doubt the adrenaline dump kicked in.

 

[Diuretic]

My question is, why did they have to slaughter the kid? Why couldn't they have fired and injured him. Disabled him, stopped him from approaching? It just doesn't make sense. We're always making excuses for the police, but at the end of the day more and more unarmed Black men are killed every year by "law enforcement." Why are we still here?

You can't shoot to wound, especially in an urban environment. Police are trained to put the bullets into the central body mass to stop the person. There's no intent to kill the person but of course several bullets in the central abdomen is going to do that more often than wound.

 

[Gunny]

5-7 feet and they couldn't tell he was brandishing a hairbrush?

Just as bad or worse, I was assuming they were shooting at a much greater distance than 5-7'. And they STILL shot his ankle?

Take their guns away until they know how to use them. These guys are as big a menace as the criminals themselves.

 

[Gunny]

One kid running at multiple cops, with something in his hand that isn't even positively identified, and they fire 20 bullets into him?

Whatever happened to non-fatally wounding your suspect so you can apprehend them?

That must be a civilian thing. I was taught that if I brandished my weapon, I'd better be willing to use it and that when I used it I shoot to kill. At 5-7' it'd take 2 shots max to drop that kid.

But then, I can identify a hairbrush at 5-7' feet.

 

[Gunny]

Have you had to point a gun at a person who was similarly armed?

Similarly armed with a hairbrush? Don't know. They have yet to identify the make and model of said assault weapon.

 

[Diuretic]

Similarly armed with a hairbrush? Don't know. They have yet to identify the make and model of said assault weapon.

Ooookay, I walked into that one

I think I'd probably "bristle" if one was aimed at me. But then my hair trigger would come into play....

Oh no....I just couldn't help myself, stop me before I pun again

 

[Diuretic]

Just as bad or worse, I was assuming they were shooting at a much greater distance than 5-7'. And they STILL shot his ankle?

Take their guns away until they know how to use them. These guys are as big a menace as the criminals themselves.

That's what happens though, if you can find one lying around there's a great book by Calibre Press (mine was purlioned) can't think of the name (helpful aren't I?) which covers police and shooting. There is a chapter about cock-ups. The terrible story of the cop who came under fire and tried to return fire but found his revolver had gummed up because he failed to practise with it and failed to maintain it. He was killed. Or the cop who was killed because he did under pressure in a real shooting when he reached down to pick up the brass from his revolver after he opened the chamber and punched the whatyamacallit thing that pushes out the casings. Now it's train as you play, leave the damn things on the range floor.

Anyway, most cops can't hit a damn thing over about ten feet anyway.

 

[Annie]

That's what happens though, if you can find one lying around there's a great book by Calibre Press (mine was purlioned) can't think of the name (helpful aren't I?) which covers police and shooting. There is a chapter about cock-ups. The terrible story of the cop who came under fire and tried to return fire but found his revolver had gummed up because he failed to practise with it and failed to maintain it. He was killed. Or the cop who was killed because he did under pressure in a real shooting when he reached down to pick up the brass from his revolver after he opened the chamber and punched the whatyamacallit thing that pushes out the casings. Now it's train as you play, leave the damn things on the range floor.

Anyway, most cops can't hit a damn thing over about ten feet anyway.

Agreed. Fire all the policemen.

 

[Diuretic]

Agreed. Fire all the policemen.

That would be self-defeating. Anyway it's why I favoured a shotgun when I worked in the outback (not that I ever used it). But seriously, unless a cop is the type who deliberately goes out to practice shooting, esp combat style, and just relies on departmental schedule shooting practice, they're not going to develop the sort of shooting skills really needed. Just as well most cops never fire a shot in anger.

 

[Ninja]

8 for 20? At what range?

So much for the argument that only the police have the training and skill necessary to safely and effectively carry guns.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mhIJOVD8hwY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mhIJOVD8hwY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[M14 Shooter]

Have you had to point a gun at a person who was similarly armed?

Irrelevant to my statement.

Whenever the topic of arming civilians comes up, the anti-gun crowd eventually stakes out the position that its OK for the police carry and use guns because they have been sufficiently trained to do so.

As I said:
So much for that.

 

[Paulie]

But then, I can identify a hairbrush at 5-7' feet.

EXACTLY.

Also, what about tasers? These things are promoted so heavily these days. And what about rubber bullets? I mean, in a situation where you know you're only going to be facing one person, a KID nonetheless, you would think the policy would be to use any type of non-lethal force. It's not like it's a hostage situation in a bank, with multiple robbers, or whatever.

It's a fucking KID. Throw on the kevlar, pump him up full of rubber bullets and knock his stupid ass onto the ground in pain.

I'm tired of this shit in this country. Multiple cops do not need to take 20 lethal shots at one god damn kid.

 

[Shogun]

I respect your passion but I, for one, will formally disagree.

Like I've said.. there ARE occurances of shitty cops but this isn't one of them.

in my opinion.

carry on.

 

[Diuretic]

Irrelevant to my statement.

Whenever the topic of arming civilians comes up, the anti-gun crowd eventually stakes out the position that its OK for the police carry and use guns because they have been sufficiently trained to do so.

As I said:
So much for that.

Some police are, some police aren't, no denying that.

But I would take issue with the "anti-gun crowd" in this because where I live people who want a firearms licence must undergo safety training and operational training. As well there are a multitude of reasons why a citizen may wish to own and use a firearm, the argument that if the police have them then no-one else "needs" them is weak.

But I have to take issue with your comment. It's one thing being on the range (even a Hogan's Alley), it's another thing pointing your weapon at another human being knowing you may have to shoot them. If we're lucky the adrenaline dumps comes later, if it happens at the time, as I'm sure you know, it can play merry hell with your ability to operate the weapon properly.

 

[Diuretic]

EXACTLY.

Also, what about tasers? These things are promoted so heavily these days. And what about rubber bullets? I mean, in a situation where you know you're only going to be facing one person, a KID nonetheless, you would think the policy would be to use any type of non-lethal force. It's not like it's a hostage situation in a bank, with multiple robbers, or whatever.

It's a fucking KID. Throw on the kevlar, pump him up full of rubber bullets and knock his stupid ass onto the ground in pain.

I'm tired of this shit in this country. Multiple cops do not need to take 20 lethal shots at one god damn kid.

On the taser - if a cop thinks someone has a gun then a taser isn't even going to enter the equation, it's firearm or run like blazes.

Kid - age is irrelevant.

Kevlar - for years cops have been trained to get over "Tombstone courage" while wearing kevlar ballistic vests, fact is that it's no guarantee, cops wearing vests have been killed.

The pile-on - valid. This does need to be examined closely.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But I would take issue with the "anti-gun crowd" in this because where I live people who want a firearms licence must undergo safety training and operational training. As well there are a multitude of reasons why a citizen may wish to own and use a firearm, the argument that if the police have them then no-one else "needs" them is weak.

The issue generally arises when the subject of people carryng guns comes up, especially in places where its acceptable for armed guards/police to have guns, but not civilians.

The difference, they say, is that "the police are trained to use guns".

If we're lucky the adrenaline dumps comes later, if it happens at the time, as I'm sure you know, it can play merry hell with your ability to operate the weapon properly.

This effect is mitigated (though not eliminated) by proper training.