NY Cops shoot 9 people trying to kill bad guy. Reckless or not?

In My Humble Opinion
41

I understand that this is the doctrine they were following, and as someone who was trained differently (and I daresay, probably as someone who received more firearms training than the cops), I disagree with it, as is my right. Yes, you shoot for the center of mass, and you do it quickly. But you also do it in a controlled, disciplined fashion. You don’t fire a dozen shots - you fire two or three, and see what happens. If he’s still a threat, you fire again. Again, I’m not blaming the cops. I’m criticizing their rules of engagement and training methods.

Overkill is not always the best option. Besides the possibility of hitting friendlies, or of wasting ammo you may need later, a cop or soldier who is busying firing is not listening to his radio, and a cop or soldier who is focusing on one target has reduced situational awareness and may not become aware of additional threats. Also, a live (albeit wounded) target is more valuable than a dead one. But again, that’s just how I was taught.

42

I understand where you’re coming from, of course. My main concern is whether or not the cops aimed each shot. If you can fire 10 aimed shots in as many seconds, congrats, you’re a much better marksman than I. Last time I was on the range, it’d take me 10 seconds to fire off a 3 round burst, since I had to require my sight picture every time. Mind you, all 3 shots (usually) hit the spots I was aiming for on the target, which was admittedly polite enough to stand still in the open and not aim a gun at me.

Also, I don’t see anything wrong with critiquing how the cops reacted, as long as we understand the circumstances in which it happened. Is the best course of action to disarm the cops, as the Brits do? I don’t think that’s the best approach, at least in the US. Is the best course of action better and more firearms engagement training? I don’t think it would hurt to try.

43

I think this revelation says less about the skills and competence of the NYPD, and more about the wisdom of arming the populace to protect us from mass shooters.

This was a shooting in broad daylight with an obvious, single gunman, on a somewhat busy street, by 2 (at least moderately) trained NYPD officers. 9 people were hurt other than the target.

Shift the scenario to a dark, smoky, packed movie theater, increase the number of stop-the-crazed-gunman shooters from 2 to 20 or so, and I think it’s clear why that idea is a recipe for disaster.

44

I agree that all in all, the cops reacted fairly well. Was there room for improvement? Definitely. In a perfect world, every incident involving casualties should involve a review of training, doctrine and standing orders. As the SDMB is, of course, a perfect world, that’s what we’re doing now.

45

You mention how you have been trained. Ever use that training?

46

Loach is there any chance we can speak our opinions without thinly-veiled insults and challenges? I get that you alone understand the situation and your opinion is fact, but at least give us a chance eh? Maybe we’ll all learn something!

47

I know from other posts that Alessan has had military training. I don’t remember if he ever had to use it. No thinly-veiled insult there. Your post that I commented on earlier was complete bullshit from top to bottom. Again, no thinly-veiled insult there either.

48

Sure it was. Just not by one person.

49

Loach, tell me this: if you were writing the official report on the incident, would you state and sign off that the results were optimal? That there was no room for improvement?

50

I’m sure the cops did the best they could, but at the end of the day, this was an unmitigated fuckup. You don’t injure 9 people, and threaten the lives of probably dozens more, in order to stop one guy.

51

Sure there is. Otherwise they’d have used a nuke. 5 megatons would have instantly stopped crime throughout the city.

52

When I saw that Loach was posting in this thread, I was interested to come and read his take on this incident, because generally I find his posts to be interesting and informative, especially on law enforcement-related topics. I am hoping he makes such a post because I would like to read it.

53

Of course not. I don’t know of any situation that can’t be used as a learning experience. Again I ask, have you ever used your training? Not snarky, I would like to know. Training and real life are very different. You hope that training gives you the tools to react when the time comes. You never know until it happens.

Witnesses told them which way the man with the gun went. Unlike any normal person, they went running towards the danger instead of away from it. The man with the gun popped up in view less than 10 feet from the first officer. What would you have done? Yes you stop that one guy who already murdered someone. Its midtown Manhatten. There will always be people around. Its a dangerous situation that the muderer was responsible for. I don’t see how it could go down any other way.

54

(Thanks. :slight_smile: )

55

What would you like to know? Real life is not like the range. I’m a pretty good shot but even on the range I sometimes mess up my breathing or trigger pull and miss the target. In a situation like this the adrenaline is pumping like most have never felt. The heart is pounding. Vision narrows to a small tunnel with the rest greyed out. The officers involved probably didn’t even see anyone at that point except for the gunman. Everything gets hyper focused. In a crowded New York street it is dangerous. Missed shots, richochets, thru and thrus all could threaten others. But not as much as a murderer running around with a gun. Gun fights in the movies are not real. John McClane is not really on the NYPD. This is how humans react. To think otherwise is to be in the “shoot the gun outta his hand” crowd.

56

Well, basically you answered it with your prior post: Whether it’s realistic to expect little to no bystander damage in a situation like this. I admit that when I first read about this story it sounded like the cops had just started firing randomly in all directions, but on seeing the video and reading more details, it sounds like they did a pretty good job, and nobody except the gunman (and his original target) were seriously injured or killed. Not a bad outcome for what could have been a much, much worse day.

57

Just from the little bit you can see in the video the area actually looks less crowded than I would expect at that time of day.

58

Yes, I got that part.

So you’re saying things don’t seem the way they seem to seem to me? That police should not understand the risks of shooting sixteen times in a crowded area? That ten out of sixteen is a good result? That the police did not lose control in any way? That nobody is attracted to the police because of the power of a gun (and a badge)?

59

Interesting discussion.

Two things I wanted to add that haven’t been mentioned yet. One significant difference between use of force by police and by non-police concealed weapons’ holders is that the former enjoy qualified immunity from suit for their actions. The latter don’t. If I, as a non-cop, use a lawfully carried concealed pistol to stop someone posing an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to me, and I hit 9 bystanders with either missed bullets, ricochets, or fragments; at a minimum, I’m getting sued by the bystanders. I’ll probably lose. I may lose my house and the rest of my stuff and/or I’ll have to declare bankruptcy. If the D.A. feels that my actions were reckless, even if my use of deadly force was warranted, I’m going to jail. I further doubt that the exact same shooting—with the only fact pattern difference being the status of the shooter: LEO vs ordinary guy—is going have the question of recklessness evaluated in the same way by the D.A and the Grand Jury. (Assume that the ordinary guy is privileged to legally carry a concealed weapon in the above example. I know that’s pretty much impossible in NYC.)

All of this combines to keep me very cautious. Judging by the behavior of the man who stopped Loughner’s rampage in Arizona (a CHL holder who deliberately did not take a shot on Loughner, as he wasn’t sure of his backstop, and, IIRC, he wasn’t exactly sure who to shoot.), I’m not alone in that mindset. I don’t believe, realistically, that the same incentives are at work for police. No one is going to charge the two officers with a crime, and I’m curious to see if and how much NYC will pay in any civil litigation brought by the wounded bystanders. The police are incentivized to make sure that they all get off shift safe and unwounded. Which is what happened here.

The second thing is a link to a video of a trauma surgeon discussing the effects of handgun bullets vs. rifles. It looks like the talk is occurring within a professional medical seminar and the language is geared towards an audience of medical professionals. The video is long (35 minutes) but if you’ve an interest in the subject, I think you’ll find it interesting. (The title is a misnomer, though there is analysis of different wounding cavities from ballistic gel, as well as graphic E.R photos.)

The Cliff’s Notes from it is that handguns are very ineffective at immediately stopping a threat. The doctor in the video claims that 6 out of 7 people shot by a handgun live. Accordingly, to stop a threat with a handgun, it’s necessary to shoot the guy more than once. And even then, he might not be stopped. I thought this might explain to some people why the officers in NYC shot so many times. I’m frankly surprised they only shot 16 times, and I initially thought when I first read it, that it was a mistyping by the Post of 16 shots per officer. Their magazines hold that many (15+1, if they’re using the Glock 22 in .40 S&W, that I think they carry.) and in previous shootings involving NYPD, I’d read they emptied the magazine.

If you want to disincentivize the police from hitting innocent bystanders, then taking away their qualified immunity would be a start. Make them get malpractice insurance like every other professional. This ‘should’ cause the police to be more cautious in their use of deadly force. The tradeoff is that officer safety will be hindered, if, as in this shooting, the police are incentivized to delay their shot until the risk to bystanders is removed. The bad guys aren’t going to wait. How much to value the harm to bystanders vs the potential increase of risk of officer harm, is a question for the individual city to answer.

60

This doesn’t sound reckless at all. In fact it sounds much better than the initial “police accidentally shot 9 other people” version. I haven’t wached the video, but I read one article that said all the shooting happened in 8 seconds. In the article linked in the OP, it says there was no one immediately behind Johnson. Seriously, what are the cops supposed to do here? Johnson murdered someone in cold blood a few moments earlier. The cops approached him and he went for his gun. What were they supposed to do other than shoot him? Wait and see if he was going to pull out a white flag and wave it at them? Their job was to make sure he didn’t shoot anyone else, which he certainly could have done: he was armed, there were a couple of bullets left in the gun and an entire unused magazine in his bag, all of which confirms he was still a threat. It’s unfortunate that other people were injured, but it’s not as if it would have been better if Johnson had shot the cops or some people on the other side of the street.