New York cops shoot at unarmed coloured chap 50 times.

#42
CT the bit my last post was as a question to someone puting up the trigger weights for the glock. Which I don't really see as relevant, when compared to the amount of rounds fire. After all it doesn't matter if you have a hair trigger or not, if you are intent on firing more than 1 round.

If NYPD are trained to "shoot to stop" why was that number of rounds required? Two in the centre of mass and one in the head would surely do the job.
 
#43
Oh, heaven forbid that we should use an extra $4 worth of the taxpayer's ammunition when shooting someone.
The point is that 50 rounds is quite clearly excessive, when one or two rounds into the engine block should have been sufficient. All those rounds flying around and ricocheting off everything in sight are going to be extremely dangerous for anyone in the vicinity.

Presumably the decision was taken to open fire because the guy in the car was putting lives at risk. Surely firing 50 rounds in panic just puts more lives in danger?
 
#44
Life can be good in America, Life can be good in America....

Providing bullets aren't flying fcuking everywhere!!!!
 
#45
I know what you're thinking, did I fire 6 shots or 585? Well do you feel lucky punk?

 
#46
CF:

There was one dead, perhaps, he got the 3 rounds, you mentioned.

One should also keep in mind, that you are firing at a moving vehicle, in the dark, in a very confusing situation, where you have seconds to decide to fire and what to shoot at.

All the of the occupants of the car, are not desired targets unless, they are firing a firearm at you. IMHO, the only person to be fired at, is the driver, if one feels that he is using the vehicle as a deadly weapon and is trying to kill you with it. My guess, the driver was the one killed.

BTW: The tread title is really misleading and inflammatory in nature. No one person was shot 50 times! :roll:
 
#48
LineDoggie said:
1 or 2 9mm rounds in the engine block, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA ohh thats rich since when did the 9mm Parabellum become this vaunted Manstopper?
I see RFUK mentioned that! :roll:

RFUK, no pistol round is going to that, even the .357 or .44 Magnums. The 9MM for sure isn't going to do it.

Perhaps, if your lucky a 12 Gauge shotgun slug might do this. :roll:
 
#49
Ouch! Had they watched Bonnie and Clyde too many times? :?

Clearly not good for the dead man, his family, and race relations in Noo Yawk.

I heard that, on some exercise in the States, a detachment from my old TA unit were drunk and disorderly. One of them got into an argument with an off-duty or plainclothes cop (can't remember exactly how the story goes) who pulled a pistol. He was punched and knocked out by one of the other lads. I don't recall exactly what happened to them, I vaguely recall they may have been charged and fined. This was after a thorough and detailed pre-det briefing on the "idiosyncracies" of American culture.

On the same det, my friend found himself having rather dirty and frequent sex with a young American lady who offered to set him up with a fake US passport and a vague offer of organised crime related employment. he passed up this opportunity, not sure if he regrets it or not! (assuming, of course, it was genuine). That was after the "bar-room regular lying on the floor with a gunshot wound to the head, UK cultural ambassadors ask if the karaoke is still on" incident.
 
#50
The Lord Flasheart said:
The thing with using sufficient force ie the smallest number of rounds to achieve the job means the chances of collateral damage is reduced.
I agree with the concept. But you don't have the luxury of shooting a double-tap and then waiting to see if the wound is mortal. You start shooting, and you keep shooting until the threat is visibly gone. In the case of someone sitting in a car, that probably means that the car stops moving, or he's slumped over the wheel.

(As it was, he was only hit twice)

Where did the other 40 odd rounds go??? Pretty shocking from supposedly trained armed coppers.
Well, 20 of them went into two other men. Snap-shooting gunfights are notorious for inaccuracy.

Sorry to sound flippant, but I do not believe chucking a couple of mags into someone is justifyable if he has already been brought down.
That's the big 'if'. It is probably a lot easier to tell that the guy coming at you across open ground has been brought down because he's.. well.. down. At night, in a moving vehicle, with presumably shattered windscreen obscuring vision, things get a little more difficult.

It's called professional restraint.
To what benefit? "I have professionally shot you with a mere two rounds. As opposed to that unelegant, uncouth chap over there who shot your buddy with a half-magazine!" Professional restraint is when you decide that using lethal force may not be required right now, whereas someone else might be a little quicker to come to the decision to shoot in the first place.

There's an old saw in the US. "If it's worth shooting once, it's worth shooting again"

Might have been a wheel gun and therefore six reloads, in which case thats just showing off.
You mean this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3fgduPdH_Y
Would take him about ten seconds.

one or two rounds into the engine block should have been sufficient
You don't work for Sarah Brady, do you? I think that constitutes as slight misrepresentation of the power of 9mm rounds.

There is also the fact, that NYPD are not supposed to fire on cars, being used as weapons, according to what the NY Mayor, said at a news conference today. I don't quite understand this, as if someone tried to run me over on purpose with a car I would shoot him, and be alright with my Departments policy. The car becomes a deadly weapon.
I noticed that as well, but I wonder if people aren't being a bit selective in their quotes? Pretty much most 'rules of engagement' will have a caveat saying that 'nothing in these rules shall prohibit a person from firing in defense of life.' In any case, that merely refers to department policy, not criminal law.

NTM
 
#51
California_Tanker said:
Well, 20 of them went into two other men. Snap-shooting gunfights are notorious for inaccuracy.
Maybe back in the 1870's but a gunfight would suggest a two way range. There is currently no evidence that there was a return of fire.


It's called professional restraint.
To what benefit? "I have professionally shot you with a mere two rounds. As opposed to that unelegant, uncouth chap over there who shot your buddy with a half-magazine!" Professional restraint is when you decide that using lethal force may not be required right now, whereas someone else might be a little quicker to come to the decision to shoot in the first place.
Professionalism is something soldiers and police should have by default, terrorists and criminals do not. Are the NYPD not trained in the art of well aimed shots? As has been said as well, its poor drills whacking all your rounds down the range in a Lebanese unload if none or few of your rounds hit the intended target and you run out of ammunition.

There's an old saw in the US. "If it's worth shooting once, it's worth shooting again"
It's one of the many points where our countries are completely different....thankfully.

The British way is "Watch and shoot, watch and shoot" or more recently "One well aimed shot saves me going to court".

Until the full story comes out (wether it will or not is a different matter), we will not know the full situation.
 
#53
The Lord Flasheart said:
Maybe back in the 1870's but a gunfight would suggest a two way range. There is currently no evidence that there was a return of fire.
Fine. "Incident involving the discharge of firearms." I submit that in any situation where a cop is shooting, he believes that his life is at risk: The stress level is going to be pretty similar if the weapon involved is a sixgun or a car because the stakes are the same.

It's called professional restraint.
The British way is "Watch and shoot, watch and shoot" or more recently "One well aimed shot saves me going to court".
I am willing to theorise that 'Watch and shoot' is going to get thrown out the window the first time a peeler is killed because he took a shot, paused to see what the effect was on the target and evaluate the need for a second shot, while the bad guy doped up on PCP or whatever fails to obligingly realise he should die now, and continues his knife attack.

As for 'saves me going to court', I think it's a sad reflection that a cop should be worried about potential legal liability in an issue where his life is at stake. Don't we have that argument about soldiers (Both US and UK) being reluctant to engage the enemy on such grounds?

NTM
 
#54
the_matelot said:
American cops tend to over-react anyway.

I myself have been in the position where a yank cop in Virginia Beach drew his pistol on me because my oppo was having a p1ss in an alleyway and I was standing on the pavement waiting for him.

Was there really any need to do that??????

But questions need to be asked about why a cop fired 31 rounds at a group of unarmed people, irrespective of their alleged background history.

I think I possibly had a close brush with the same character in 1978. I was in Virginia Beach on a night out. My mate was pissed with his head hanging out of the back window of a parked hire car. He'd vomitted down the side of the car. He said he remembered the feeling of cold metal and woke up to find a yank piece of filth tapping his pistol on the side of his face. Why he had to use a gun to wake him up, I don't know. I guess he got a nice rush of power from being in total control of a drunken, useless, paralytic matelot.
 
#55
#57
The Lord Flasheart said:
California_Tanker said:
the_matelot said:
And there is your problem.

That seems to be a trend with the US Military as well....
Oh, heaven forbid that we should use an extra $4 worth of the taxpayer's ammunition when shooting someone.

NTM

It's called professional restraint. It's why soldiers and armed policemen practice on the range.
A little AFV and aircraft recognition doesn't hurt either...
 
#58
California_Tanker said:
Fine. "Incident involving the discharge of firearms." I submit that in any situation where a cop is shooting, he believes that his life is at risk: The stress level is going to be pretty similar if the weapon involved is a sixgun or a car because the stakes are the same.
Again, I refer you to sound training and not a gung ho shoot first attitude.

The British way is "Watch and shoot, watch and shoot" or more recently "One well aimed shot saves me going to court".
I am willing to theorise that 'Watch and shoot' is going to get thrown out the window the first time a peeler is killed because he took a shot, paused to see what the effect was on the target and evaluate the need for a second shot, while the bad guy doped up on PCP or whatever fails to obligingly realise he should die now, and continues his knife attack.
The pro word being 'Watch' prior to shooting as opposed to shooting first then evaluate then shooting again. Is this not why coppers do the decision making range course? You know, the one with the cardboard cut out of the mummy with toddler etc. If their first priority was to find cover prior to unloading a couple of mags, it also gives them that precious few seconds to think in a semi rational manner. Again, we can relate it to basic soldiering...dash, down, crawl, OBSERVE, sights, FIRE. I tend to think some people across the pond do it in reverse.

As for 'saves me going to court', I think it's a sad reflection that a cop should be worried about potential legal liability in an issue where his life is at stake. Don't we have that argument about soldiers (Both US and UK) being reluctant to engage the enemy on such grounds?

NTM
Unfortunately, all too common now and that is the one thing that will get people killed. If their decision making process is based on a court room and not the situation at hand, it will take away 'instinctive training'.
 
#59
The Lord Flasheart said:
Again, we can relate it to basic soldiering...dash, down, crawl, OBSERVE, sights, FIRE. I tend to think some people across the pond do it in reverse.
No longer DDCOSF it's RTR now. For the benefit of spams that is:

Return fire
Take cover
Return Appropriate Fire

The old DDCOSF doesn't translate well to OBUA type ops.
 
#60
call_me_jack said:
The Lord Flasheart said:
Again, we can relate it to basic soldiering...dash, down, crawl, OBSERVE, sights, FIRE. I tend to think some people across the pond do it in reverse.
No longer DDCOSF it's RTR now. For the benefit of spams that is:

Return fire
Take cover
Return Appropriate Fire

The old DDCOSF doesn't translate well to OBUA type ops.
Fair one. I've been out of the Inf for quite a few years now. ;) The principal I was going for is still extant though.


(We used 'front rank kneel, rear rank fire!')
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top