It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

All 9 people injured in Friday's shooting near the Empire State Building were wounded by Police

page: 7
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
It doesn't really matter, it just proves that the more guns and more bullets flying is not better for innocent bystanders.

For the people who say that an event like Aurora would have been prevented if there were more armed people in that theater, this just proves that they are wrong.


I've made this (unpopular) point before (made all the worse by having the temerity to be non-American too). Whilst there will be some really tuned-in, mentally and physically 'together' civilians armed with guns, the majority of Americans will just be armed clowns making any situation worse, whether it's a shooting in a cinema or a post-government collapse 'every man for themselves' apocalypse.




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
But, I thought having more guns at a scene of a shooting would keep people safe???


That is entirely dependent on the circumstances; however, statistically it is true that when more people are allowed to legally carry a handgun violent crime goes down. This is supported by data gathered after the Heller decision that found the D.C. ban on handgun ownership unconstitutional same result in Chicago.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
These are trained police officers...and even they can't control their gunfire in broad daylight.


I guess "trained" is a rather subjective term. No reason in hell they needed to fire that many rounds. Two shots each - center mass should have been sufficient. A handgun is not a suppressive fire weapon. Find target, aim, and fire preferably twice then repeat if necessary. Not fire until magazine is empty in the general direction of the bad guy.

The bottom line is that the "police" in this instance like so many are today were way more concerned with protecting themselves and getting the bad guy that they disregarded the risk to the general public for their actions.

They reacted out of panic rather than muscle memory using good techniques. I can assure you that if they were Soldiers in a CQB shoot house scenario they’d have failed that evolution. Poor targeting (3 bystanders shot), poor trigger discipline (16 rounds fired), poor muzzle control (ricochets and fragmentation wounds in multiple bystanders).

Perhaps they should take some of that money they spent on the wiz bang computer life invasion system they got in NYC and spend it on good old fashioned range time.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Can you imagine if 5-10 people were armed in Aurora inside a smokey dark movie theater???


A handgun is not a suppressive fire weapon - one only pulls the trigger when he has a shot. I am a CCW holder, I had mine at the Batman premier here. I always have mine - However, I can assure you it won't take me 16 rounds to effectively engage 1 target from 3-5 meters or less. I know that 17 years of being in Special Forces I have more training than any of those "police men". Yet were I to travel to NY I can't carry my weapon.



Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Some people want you to believe that if other people were armed, they would have taken down the shooter with one clean shot and been the hero...I think this pretty much proves them wrong.


It is possible someone could have if they just happened to be in a good position when the drama started. However, if out of place with no shot a gun might as well be an accessory.

Again, I think you will find the average CCW permit holder is probably a better shot than a uniformed cop. Now SWAT or something is going to be better -sure but the average cop only goes to the range a couple times a year. I know I can outshoot all the Sheriffs and local Police because we go to the same ranges. Plus the average age of our Sheriff’s department is 55 and the City Police is 60. The city police force (there are 5 of them with the Chief) is a retiree’s/or second job around here – pays 25k a year at best. The Sherriff’s make 30-35 I think so they are younger.

I fire every Saturday using a scenario that requires quick draw accurate targeting finding cover and
changing magazines.

You cannot draw a conclusion that someone armed in the theater could not have stopped the shooting from the actions of a couple of dufus NYC cops engaging a perp on the street in broad daylight - way too many variables. I wouldn't have taken the shot unless I knew I could make it. I might try and maneuver for position if I could but then again most likely I'd just cover my wife and kid not knowing the situation. I'll risk my life for them in a heartbeat. Others - not so much.








edit on 26/8/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
If one has never been in a street gunfight, they have absolutely no right to criticize the police who are standing in the line of fire returning fire. Yes, police are trained. No one is trained to stand and receive fire and fire back. I have been there.

By that logic, unless you have been POTUS you cannot criticize the POTUS. Unless you direct action films you cannot criticize a bad action movie, etc... Your logic seems flawed.


Originally posted by Nite_wing
If there were armed citizens there, they may have been able to shoot the criminal from a different direction or angle. It happens more than you read about in the anti-gun press. NY has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. No wonder there weren't any armed CCW civilians

Maybe, equally likely is that the cops would shoot at any civilian who draws a weapon in that situation (I mean they shot that guy for having a gun in his hand, why would they stop and wait to see if it was a law abiding CCW or the shooters accomplice).



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 

Don't presume to know what was going on in the heads of those officers. You weren't there.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I'd say that means the NYPD needs more time on the shooting range.
They are out of practice or something. That's some pretty lousy shooting ...



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I have worn the badge. I have carried a gun. I have been in gunfights.
I presume you have not. It's easy to sit back and be an armchair quarterback when you have never been in the game.

Do you think they should have gone and had a donut and let him shoot the civilians in the area? He had already killed one. Go out to the range if you are not afraid to put a gun in your hand. See how difficult it is to hit a target. Then imagine doing it under stress. No, I don't think you have the courage to even hold a gun. It is a tool. You think you could do better? Try it. What is your solution? More training? Yeah, cops under fire at the range.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elton

Originally posted by Nite_wing
If one has never been in a street gunfight, they have absolutely no right to criticize the police who are standing in the line of fire returning fire. Yes, police are trained. No one is trained to stand and receive fire and fire back. I have been there.

By that logic, unless you have been POTUS you cannot criticize the POTUS. Unless you direct action films you cannot criticize a bad action movie, etc... Your logic seems flawed.


Originally posted by Nite_wing
If there were armed citizens there, they may have been able to shoot the criminal from a different direction or angle. It happens more than you read about in the anti-gun press. NY has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. No wonder there weren't any armed CCW civilians

Maybe, equally likely is that the cops would shoot at any civilian who draws a weapon in that situation (I mean they shot that guy for having a gun in his hand, why would they stop and wait to see if it was a law abiding CCW or the shooters accomplice).


I have been on a golf course. I have played basketball. I drank beer. Yup, I think I am fully qualified to judge this POTUS.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


You seem to be missing the point completely. Not once have I criticized the police in this situation...they did their job, they got the bad guy. Yes, people were injured in the process...but crowed streets in NYC and guns being fired...it is a dangerous and chaotic situation.

My point isn't that the cops did wrong or are bad...my point is that even they had a hard time controlling their gunfire...so why does anyone think an average joe carrying a gun would do any better???


SM2

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
i watched the video, there are a couple of things not being adressed.

1. In the video it appears as if though the incident happened at a range of about 10 feet. If you can not hit with near 100% accuracy at 10 feet, then you should be a desk jockey, plain and simple. Do not give me the stress crap, they are trained specifically for that scenario. Their marksmanship is just plain horrible.

2. it has been reported one cop fired 9, the other fired 7 shots, 3 hit the suspect. that leaves 13 other shots fired. Now, looking at the video, only ONE officer had line of sight on the suspect, the other was facing 90 degrees away from the suspect.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I'd say that means the NYPD needs more time on the shooting range.
They are out of practice or something. That's some pretty lousy shooting ...
Agreed,
I'd say these officers should be pulled off the street for a while and sent back to training camp.
Rather pathetic,.
Something else a bit off topic,. I have seen more and more cops that are disgustingly Obese..
HEY OFFICERS,, GET YOUR HEADS OUTTA THE FEED BAG



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I have worn the badge. I have carried a gun. I have been in gunfights.
I presume you have not. It's easy to sit back and be an armchair quarterback when you have never been in the game.

Do you think they should have gone and had a donut and let him shoot the civilians in the area? He had already killed one. Go out to the range if you are not afraid to put a gun in your hand. See how difficult it is to hit a target. Then imagine doing it under stress. No, I don't think you have the courage to even hold a gun. It is a tool. You think you could do better? Try it. What is your solution? More training? Yeah, cops under fire at the range.




"He already killed one."
Yeah, the one he planned on killing. He did not plan on shooting 9 other people obviously or he would have kept firing. The cops did more damage after the fact that needed not be done. They were not shooting at him to protect other citizens. Read the report.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
If someone pulls a firearm on police in a big city, they are going to get shoot to death. I cannot find fault with officers defending them selves nor any other person doing the same.

I am starting to feel that the response is becoming overboard. But, that seems to be the modern method. Imagine had there been 4 or 5 officers there.

Suspicious activity, leave the area. Numerous officers, leave also.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaaiii
reply to post by Golf66
 

Don't presume to know what was going on in the heads of those officers. You weren't there.


I don't have to presume to know that they are both poor marksmen and afraid; I can see the results - they reacted in fear repeatedly pulling the trigger in the general direction of their target rather than calmly aiming and firing center mass.

I see it all the time in combat in the military in firefights. In SF we trained the Afghani police and military for a long time, we train them to draw and shoot two controlled shots center mass. Aim and fire really easy. Trigger control is essential.

Yet what happens the first time they get in a firefight? Point and empty the magazine. Why, because they are scared #less. It's actually quite funny to watch as they all empty their magazines at the same time and then the firing dies off and the silence hits them. They get a weird look on their faces.

I have more trigger time than any of "New York's finest". Fairly obvious to me they reacted out of fear rather than had a controlled disciplined engagement. Its probably their first one…

You cen tell who is aiming at something and who is just pulling the trigger hoping for the best.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SM2
i watched the video, there are a couple of things not being adressed.

1. In the video it appears as if though the incident happened at a range of about 10 feet. If you can not hit with near 100% accuracy at 10 feet, then you should be a desk jocope. key, plain and simple. Do not give me the stress crap, they are trained specifically for that scenario. Their marksmanship is just plain horrible.

2. it has been reported one cop fired 9, the other fired 7 shots, 3 hit the suspect. that leaves 13 other shots fired. Now, looking at the video, only ONE officer had line of sight on the suspect, the other was facing 90 degrees away from the suspect.


These two "cops" are poor examples of "New York's Finest".

I certainly hope. they are atypical or I fear for the people of NYC not at the hands of criminal but the police.

If you can't hit center mass from 3-5 meters on a constant bases time to reconsider professions IMO. That's headshot range for CQB. One to the head two to the chest....



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I"m not a big cop fan but if the only people who had been shot here were the original victim and the perpetrator,I'd say nice shooting guys enjoy your time off. But, that's not what happened. Two cops shot the bad guy pointing a gun at them, which is no doubt an acceptable use of deadly force, and eight people in the area, which is extremely bad. It shows an incredible lack of training, marksmanship, and concern for those that they are sworn to protect. Not only have they victimized those wounded by the reckless shooting but also anyone who pays taxes to the city of New York as the taxpayer will pay compensation to those wounded in the shooting.

One of the first things anyone should learn about firearms is that the person pulling the trigger is responsible for where that round ends up. Also ricochets and fragmentation after hitting hard objects aren't uncommon and can end up in unexpected places. There may be times when you could legally fire a weapon due to a threat but shouldn't due to the possibility of injuring others. It is possible for a bullet to pass through it's intended target and cause harm to others as well.

The way you mitigate these risks are equipment and more importantly training. Use rounds that are less likely to pass through a target like hollow points, and train effectively. I've never seen anything that truly replicates the pucker factor of a a real firefight.Shooting paper targets on an air conditioned range, though important in marksmanship and developing good habits and technique it isn't enough.Stressors like timed shooting, physical exertion to get the heart rate up before shooting, or situational life like training are the best most can do to help mitigate the difference between practice and life or death.

What should happen to the police who did this? What would happen to a civilian who did the same?

I'd like to reference a thread from a couple of months ago.

Customer Shoots two Robbers

Two shootings with an armed perpetrator(s) and lots of people in the area with incredibly different outcomes. One is a civilian shooting and one a police shooting. Both are very close range with lots of people around. Why does a 71yr old civilian outperform two police with many hundreds of hours of training. If the civilian in Florida had hit eight bystanders what would happen to him? He'd have been at least personally civilly liable for any injuries and claims sought by those injured if not charged with a crime involving criminal negligence. The New York police have their union, department, and city to shield them from any claims by those injured by their negligence, and criminal charges are highly unlikely.

Anyway those are my disjointed thoughts on this Sunday morning about the New York shooting. You could sense the glee with which those in the MSM were about to have in another high profile shooting, until we found out all but two were wounded by cops.If it had to happen anywhree I'm glad it was New York. I'm sure Bloomy hit the roof when he found out it wasn't one of those damn civilian done handguns that did most of the carnage but the states hired guns. The people injured by the NYPD don't deserve what happened to them but Bloomy deserves the grief his police should be getting.
edit on 26-8-2012 by jefwane because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
In other words, the cops were the real shooters, who caused the most widespread damage. And the original suspect was just a man bent on exacting justice and executing judgment on one individual, whom he successfully targeted and judged without any collateral damage at all. Then he just defended himself, again making sure not to hit any bystanders, just targeting those who were shooting at him.


edit on 26-8-2012 by GreatOwl because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
If everyone would have been armed, none of this would have happened.

Etc.




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Nite_wing
 

...so why does anyone think an average joe carrying a gun would do any better???


The "average joe" doesn't have a blue wall, zealous leaders and leftist liberals to defend them.
Therefore they take their responsibility MUCH more seriously...



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jefwane
One of the first things anyone should learn about firearms is that the person pulling the trigger is responsible for where that round ends up. Also ricochets and fragmentation after hitting hard objects aren't uncommon and can end up in unexpected places. There may be times when you could legally fire a weapon due to a threat but shouldn't due to the possibility of injuring others. It is possible for a bullet to pass through it's intended target and cause harm to others as well.


It wouls be interesting to find out what specific round is issued to NYPD patrol officers and if that was the round used in these officer's weapons...

Also, someone noted earlier that NYPD carries 9mm. Is this accurate?
That particular round has a substantial over-penetration probability, and would seem to be rather inappropriate for substantially crowded public areas such as those that continue to proliferate the NYC landscape...
edit on 8/26/2012 by GoOfYFoOt because: added to post



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Cops can't win here. If the gunman kills 7 the police were lame. If the police hit bystanders they are lame. What was the intent of the police? To bring down a shooter before he does more damage. What was the intent of the gunman? Hmm, let me guess.


Lol, what tripe.

If the police had considered the other people around this would never have happened. It just shows the mentality of these individuals.

IMO they do not deserve the title of policemen or even officers. They are nothing more than hired thugs or mercenaries.




top topics



 
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join