August 25, 2012

At the Empire State Building yesterday, the 9 bystanders who got shot were all shot by the police.

"Officers fired a total of 16 rounds; one officer shot nine while another one shot seven."
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the bystanders were not hit directly by police, but rather the officers' struck "flowerpots and other objects around, so ... their bullets fragmented and, in essence, that's what caused the wounds."
ADDED: More evidence of the need for gun control!

75 comments:

edutcher said...

I take it this means we're safer with the killers than the cops. Kind of take the wind out of Bloomie's sails.

Wonder what a random sample of CCW guys' marksmanship would look like in comparison.

Kev said...

(the other kev)

Bloomberg oddly silent.

Kev said...

(the other kev)

And BTW, remember when some idiots on 35th Street thought the dunce would be a credible third-party candidate for President? I wouldn't put money on him beating Todd Akin.

Methadras said...

There are cops that couldn't hit the side of a barn with their weapon from 5 feet away. There are videos of officers in close firearms combat that popped all their rounds and couldn't hit the suspect.

Martha said...

As Mayor Bloomberg said just yesterday: Guns don't kill people. People do.

Especially trigger happy NYC cops who seem to shoot and kill with impunity.

Marshal said...

Martha said...
As Mayor Bloomberg said just yesterday: Guns don't kill people. People do.

Especially trigger happy NYC cops who seem to shoot and kill with impunity.


According to the article the suspect pulled a gun when the police chased him down. Are you claiming that is a lie or that all shootings by police are evidence of their "trigger-happy" nature?

Senator Blutarsky said...

A couple weeks ago the NY police shot a knife wielding man 12 times to stop him:

http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2012/aug/12/police-shoot-kill-man-near-nyc-times-square/

I understand that police officers sometimes need to shoot people. I do not understand the seeming need to empty their clip every time.

bagoh20 said...

My opinion about the police has degraded precipitously over the last few years as I've learned of how dangerous they are to innocent citizens.

It started with reality cop shows on TV showing them doing little else than chasing down low hanging fruit like drug crimes, which it now seems is 90% of why they exist. Then my personal experience of rarely seeing a squad car not being driven by a cop on a cell phone, completely unaware of what's going on around him. Then learning of the absurd employment benefits and their cost to the rest of us.

Most angering is the tactics now employed which for some reason seem to be designed to protect the police from any danger with no regard for the people they are paid to protect and the assumption of innocence that is the law. The slightest chance of danger seem to result in a barrage of bullets killing innocent people, pets, destroying the peace of homes, families and neighborhoods. Using tactics like busting down doors with swat teams based on some criminal's word, killing the dog, terrorizing children and families, and arresting people, or killing them, just to stop someone from selling some pot.

When your work is more dangerous to the public than the criminals you are after, then some rethinking is needed.

A mistaken home assault, or misunderstanding by the police on the street is now just about the most serious danger a citizen has any real chance of experiencing in his own community. I don't know the actual statistics, but that's how it feels, if you pay attention to how often these things are happening, and how badly they often go when that easily could have been avoided with changes to policy and mindset. "Serve and Protect". IMHO.

jr565 said...

Martha wrote:
As Mayor Bloomberg said just yesterday: Guns don't kill people. People do.

Especially trigger happy NYC cops who seem to shoot and kill with impunity.


Let's remember that the cops didn't kill anyone except the suspect (though they did wound an awful lot of people)
As to them being trigger happy, that doesn't necessarily apply here considering the guy they were shooting at had just murdered someone and was trying to get away. Trigger happy is more fitting when the guy they are confronting isn't actulaly carrying a gun and they shoot him 45 times.

Though I do wonder why so many people were shot other than the suspect. Are they that bad as marksman?

ndspinelli said...

The NYC Risk Management folks better set aside some heavy reserves for the upcoming litigation.

Chef Mojo said...

Bagho20 @ 10:48:

+5. Very well put.

Martha said...

The police killed Jeffrey Johnson in a barrage of bullets--16 shots were fired by the police. Johnson did not fire a shot.

Bit of an overkill -- 9 innocent people were hit by police bullets.

Like the high speed chases police so often engage in--without regard for innocents' well being.

Tim said...

The average police officer shooting effectiveness is at the level of 17% proficiency

" However, there seems to be a consensus among practitioners and researchers alike that police marksmanship in real-life (scene of a crime) situations is less than desirable, something along the order of one hit for every six shots (Morrison 2002). This means that in gunfighting with actual criminals, the average police officer effectiveness is at the level of 17% proficiency. This is much less, as you will have noticed, than the 84% proficiency level required for qualification in police training. It also illustrates the problem, that real-life situations are so vastly different from training situations."

rhhardin said...

It sounds like a normal wrong-address SWAT raid.

EDH said...

I was struck by how gracefully and dramatically the well-dressed Johnson went down after being shot.

Xpatish said...

I know that it's supposed to be a hoary urban legend, but I grew up "knowing" that Huey Long's body guards killed him whilst emptying their revolvers at the cuckolded doctor.

-XC

Xpatish said...

I know that it's supposed to be a hoary urban legend, but I grew up "knowing" that Huey Long's body guards killed him whilst emptying their revolvers at the cuckolded doctor.

-XC

Martha said...

One of those injured by police told the Guardian that officers appeared to fire "randomly" as they confronted Jeffrey Johnson, 58, minutes after a workplace dispute escalated into a chaotic shootout in one of the busiest parts of Manhattan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/24/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-response?CMP=twt_gu

Who was the greater threat to bystanders? Johnson who shot one targeted former co-worker OR the NYC police who discharged their guns 16 times on a crowded NYC street.

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
God, An Original A-hole said...

You sheeple ought to stop complaining.

Our American values dictate that the police should swoop down on crime-- especially gun crime, and especially at a landmark building that is also a tourist attraction-- with unrelenting force.

We value unrestrained violence.

Should the police officers have restrained themselves? Think about what would happen if they did... the police would be wimps, pussies, weaklings... and America wouldn't sleep any better at night.

As for the nine injured people, tough shit, proles! The possibility of being in the crossfire is the price you pay for living in modern America. Just like the possibility of having your house SWAT'd at 5am so some marijuana might, or might not, be found... your dog shot, your children terrorized. These people shouldn't get a dime in a potential lawsuit. The police were just doing what America told them to.

Andy R. said...

fuck the police

MayBee said...

Amen, Bagoh.
Not to mention how much they've allowed themselves to be used as revenue-generators.
I'm lucky that I lived in a safe area, but the sheriffs around me spent a great deal of time pulling drivers over and ticketing them for such crimes as rolling stops, getting into the left hand lane too soon, and driving 71 in a 65 mph zone.
Each ticket would cost several hundred dollars, and to keep points off your drivers license (and increasing your insurance premiums) you have to shell out more money for "traffic school".

I don't know how low income people do it.

MayBee said...

At least none of those 9 people had ordered a large soda that morning.

Hagar said...

The Guardian is the British NYT.

I think I heard on the TV news that most of the bystanders' wounds were caused by ricochets. This tends to be another unintended consequence of the Left's unreasoned horror of hollow-point bullets resulting in the police and military being prohibited from using anything but full metal jacket bullets.
Hollow-points are designed to do more damage when they hit their intended target, but they do not shatter as and ricochet all over the place as much as full metal jacket ammunition does, and is thus actually safer for "innocent bystanders" (in MSM parlance).

dbp said...

It seems like there has been a lot more bystander shooting ever since police went from 6-shot .38 special or .357 mag to 9mm para.

I think the main reason is that when you have only 6 shots, there is a lot more incentive to aim carefully.

Palladian said...

fuck the police

Don't you wish, honey.

John said...

Train the police and if they are untrainable - let them write tickets for those rolling stops, improper lane changes and minor speeding violations. Oh, and the mayor needs to be given a workable definition of heroic police action.

The Crack Emcee said...

More evidence of the need for gun training!

FIFY

Republican said...

Just watched video of cops shooting Johnson.

Cops say Johnson never fired a shot at them.

They appear to be at almost point-blank range to him, before shooting him.

Doesn't look like it takes them 16 shots to shoot him at point-blank range.

Looks like they fired several shots at him before he went down.

Did they hit him more than once?

Where did the other shots go, if 10 rounds hit something?

HOW did 9 other ppl get hit with bullets when it looks like the police are at almost point-blank range?

Cedarford said...

There does seem to be a trend with "The Heroes" to get as many shots off downrange as fast as possible, rather than aim and drop the target with a double tap. Spray the rounds, and pray.

They got in the shits years back for blazing away with their Glocks and putting 31 rounds into an unarmed illegal Somali named Diallo when they confronted him and some old fat cop fell back on his ass and inadvertent sent off a round...triggering the "Heroes" of that incident's one-way firefight.

My guess is if the 2 Heroes of NYC's finest have been armed with full auto submachine guns they would have ripped out 140-150 bullets into the crowd.
So be thankful they only had 15 round mag Glocks, I guess.

Republican said...

Reports say Johnson walked into the business and shot his former coworker. So: The shooting wasn't on the street as earlier reported.

If he never fired a shot outside the building, what the hell were the police shooting at w/16 shots?

They were almost on top of him when he went down.

From all reports (except police versions) it sounds as if the police were recklessly shooting.

Scott said...

You guys complain too much. It only took them 16 shots. Remember, it took the NYPD 41 shots to take down Amadou Diallo, and he wasn't even armed. Indeed, none of the innocent bystanders the police shot actually died. So statistically they're getting better.

Alex said...

Isn't one of the big lefty arguments that guns are much better in the hands of cops?

Levi Starks said...

As to the accuracy of the police, they are at distinct disadvantage as compared the ordinary citizen, this is this because in NYC "police issue" glocks are required to have trigger spring which heavier, to reduce the possibility of accidental discharge, but it also makes them less accurate.

Hagar said...

It says the bystanders were hit by ricochets, shattered bullet fragments, and chips off the concrete planters, etc., so they were not "shot" by the police.

Aridog said...

Cedarford said...

... aim and drop the target with a double tap.

Oh, please.

Oso Negro said...

It is not a matter of gun control, but rather fire control. There is also a whiff of moby on this thread.

EMD said...

It says the bystanders were hit by ricochets, shattered bullet fragments, and chips off the concrete planters, etc., so they were not "shot" by the police.

No, but their reckless abandon caused the wounds anyways.

Cedarford said...

Aridog said...
Cedarford said...

... aim and drop the target with a double tap.

Oh, please
==================
Oh please! .....Not!
The volume of cop bullets send out in these sort of incidents is up dramatically.
From this to 41 shots fired at an unarmed Diallou to 236 rounds that were fired at an unarmed black drunk driver in St Louis a few years back.

Time to go back to training cops to aim, take a few well placed shots - rather than act like some 15-year old Taliban recruit with a full auto AK47 told to "spray and pray".

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

rhhardin,

It sounds like a normal wrong-address SWAT raid.

And that you can type "a normal wrong-address SWAT raid" and be confident that everyone reading you knows exactly what you're talking about is a mite scary, isn't it?

Rabel said...

The video is available on Drudge.

The lefty cop nearest the shooter who ran into the scene from the right did just about everything wrong. He's very lucky he didn't get shot by the shooter or the other cop.

Maybe it was reverse profiling gone wrong. Guy in a suit with a briefcase didn't seem a threat.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Hagar,

The Guardian is the British NYT.

Nah. The Independent is the British NYT. The Guardian is maybe the British WaPo.

The definitive rundown of the British papers (though, alas, the Independent isn't in it) is here..

Jason said...

"double tap?" you ever been in a gunfight, silly man?

At that range... Less than 10 feet, it's not an exercise in marksmanship. Anyone who "aims" loses. When someone is trying to draw on you from that close, it's a matter of drilling more than aiming.

An imperfect shot at that range FIRST is better than the perfect shot you never have a chance to fire.

You MUST preempt and disrupt the enemy's shot.

And then, you keep shooting. At that range, even a wounded or dying man can easily kill you. When there's no cover to hide behind, your best shield is a wall of bullets.

At ranges sub 20 feet, anyone who thinks you can get cute is a. Idiot.

John said...

I think it fair to say these police shot recklessly. Coming up behind their target they could have closed the distance to allow physical restraint without drawing weapons. As that did not happen, it is understandable (but not politically correct) that they fired until the target went down. Book learning will teach that. Watching the surveilance video we see one officer hopping back and forth, taking some cover behind the planter and tree while firing. The second officer makes a fast retreat back and to his left while firing. Given neither took a proper stance before firing the result was indeed, "spray and pray". Obviously in the heat of the moment neither took time to check the background before starting the barrage of gun fire. These are training issues that relate more to tactics than simple range shooting provides.

As for the ammo used, has anyone seen reported the type ammo NYPD is using now? In 1998 NYPD announced the switch from full metal jacket to hollow point. By 2003, Al Sharpton was lamenting to the press that NYPD had adopted use of 'killer bullets' - hollow points. And for what it is worth, hollow points will ricochet off concrete. Frangible bullets while a bit more expensive will shatter to near dust when hitting nearly almost anything except soft tissue.

Eustace Chilke said...

@bagoh20
As you may be aware, the police have no duty to either serve or protect anyone. The Supreme Court has said so. They're not even obliged to act to prevent a crime that they know is about to happen.

Yes, they're dangerous. Expect them to become more dangerous. Addiction to power is the strongest motive for evil. Even the cheap rush of pushing mundanes around as a member of an untouchable boy's club.

Aridog said...

@Cedarford ...

Whot? You assert the volume of shots fired is increasing, but cite decreases from 236 to 41 to 16 in this incident.

None of that matters, but your assertion that a clean "double tap" was possible in that incident, as shown on the video posted, is humorously amusing.


Kirk Parker said...

Hagar,

Your comment is full of misinformation. Hollow-points are not prohibited to the police, not in NYC (and not even in New Jersey, who does ban anyone else from using them.)

And regarding your second point, you are confusing hollow-points with frangible ammo, which no law enforcement agency would (or should) ever use for general carry. And because many hollow-point designs include scores in the nose of the bullet, to further enhance expansion, they're actually more subject to fragmenting than are FMJ rounds.

Unknown said...

The New York Times web site has video of the shooting for those who wish to watch it before offering their opinions. They also have some photographs including a photo of the former coworker lieing dead on the sidewalk in a pool of his own blood.

The New York City police are actually trained pretty well compared to other police departments. They tend to hit who they are shooting at a little less than 50% of the time compared to the national average where police hit the person they are shooting at a little less than 20% of the time.

Something else to remember is that when George Wallace was shot (with lead bullets from a .38 special) several other people were wounded. All of those other people were hit by bullets that had passed through the body of Wallace. Unless frangible bullets like the kind that Sky Marshals carry on airplanes are used, the bullets that hit someone are likely to go all the way through a body and hit whatever is behind it.

jr565 said...

I think Jason answered my question about why they did such a poor job with aiming at their target.
IT's not a matter of trainig it's a matter of closeness to the target.
People, stop yer bitching.

Carnifex said...

I'm going to insert my foot in my mouth here...but my nephew just took his qualifiers Thursday for a weapon(he's training to be a cop). They gave him a gun he had never shot before, it had a 12 lb. trigger pull weight, and he was required to shoot it as a double action. One of these actions, let alone all three combined is going to fuck up your accuracy.

Then you add in the adrenaline rush of a life or death situation?! Is it any wonder that not only do they miss a lot, but that they shoot a lot also? I'm gonna' give the police a semi-pass on the marksmanship. 12 lb. trigger pulls are ridiculous.

As an aside, my .45's pull weight is 8 oz. It's also been tuned and accurized. I have literally shot birds on the wing with it, and targets (clay pigeons) at 50 yds.

John said...

jr565: "IT's not a matter of trainig it's a matter of closeness to the target."

Actually, it is both. It is generally harder - requires more time and practice - to learn how to point and shoot rather than aim and shoot. Some take to it naturally, others not so much. More relevant (in my opinion) is that both officers were moving while shooting. Annie Oakley they are not.

Kirk Parker said...

jr565,

I think you're misunderstanding Jason--he's not saying closeness to the target is an excuse for missing (he'd be an idiot to say that!) Rather, he's disagreeing with C4 about the wisdom of taking time for precision (a) in a split-second situation where (b) you're up so close that precision aiming isn't quite as necessary.

No, there is simply no excuse for injuring 9 bystanders when engaging a target at such close range as these officers did.

Kirk Parker said...

Contrast the officers' performance with this man who intervened in an attempted armed robbery.

Aridog said...

Reference to Carniflex's comment....

Whoa, your .45 ACP has a single action trigger pull of 8 ounces? Now that is what I'd call precision "touchy" and not for the average shooter, military, civilian, or police.

Best I've had is a hair under 1 lb pull on a accurized Ithaca M1911 wad-cutter gun, and just under 2 lbs on my current hard ball gun.

The very fact that Glock had to provide double action only pistols, with a yee gawd awful 12 lb+ pull, for many jurisdictions is the result of the crap inherent in "striker fired" (half cocked all the time) pistols in the first place. The original 5 pounders had AD's up the wazoo...one especially cute by a DEA trainer on viral video in fact.

My daughter's "Tuperware Gun" has a standard 5 lb striker fired pull. It's a piece of crap, but I humor her....even if it takes 3 times as long to strip down and clean as my M1911's. One of these days I'll get her to use a grown up gun. :-0

Sorun said...

Joe Friday used to fire his tiny revolver from the hip, and he only needed one shot. That's my data point.

Lindsey Meadows said...

NYC has a very low murder rate...and if all the guns were off the streets, it would improve further.

Kirk Parker said...

Lindsey,

"NYC has an average murder rate, and if all the guns were kept out of criminals' hands, it would improve further."

FIFY.

Kirk Parker said...

And by "average" I mean three times the murder rate of Honolulu, twice the rate of Seattle, Portland OR, or Denver; but way below Chicago, Baltimore, DC, or New Orleans.

Sorun said...

Maybe she was comparing NYC to gun-friendly cities like Chicago, DC, and Baltimore.

jr565 said...

Lindsey wrote:
NYC has a very low murder rate...and if all the guns were off the streets, it would improve further.

And if I had a million dollars I'd be a millionaire. But saying something should happen doens't mean it will happen. It is very easy for criminals to get guns, especilaly if they don't follow proper procedure. Which they don't. So even with all the gun laws in the world, it wont stop a criminal from getting a gun. Not to say that there shouldnt' be laws, only that you saying they should get all the guns off the street is like saying we should get rid of poverty. Good luck with that.

jr565 said...

Ok so I watched the video, and frankly I can't fault the cops. IT looks like one of them was trying to sneak up on him to arrest him, and he turned and drew really quickly at point blank range on the cops, who were practically within arms reach of the perp. As such they are not going to have a lot of time amiing and are forced to shoot while dodging the gun he is pointing at them at point blank range.
I'm shocked that he didn't get any bullets off.

Hagar said...

First point: I am way behind the times and was not aware the cops had won this argument.

2nd point: More scrambled than that. I had even forgot that I have read about the disintegrating bullets.
What I was, or should have been, thinking about was roundnose FMJ bullets glancing off plateglass windows or polished granite in the urban environment and continuing on without fracturing or losing much energy from impact malformation.

Paul said...

"ADDED: More evidence of the need for gun control!"

Well we really DO!! At lest the cops need to control their guns better.

Say Mr. Bloomberg, if you would JUST SPEND MONEY TRAINING THE COPS TO SHOOT BETTER you would actually save money!!! Yes SAVE money(but then it's 'only' taxpayers money right, not REAL money, like your own.)

How would teaching 30,000 cops in NYC to shoot better save money? Simple math. 9 wounded people = 9 multi-million dollar lawsuits, that's how.

Hagar said...

Anyway, as far as I can tell from these reports, the bystanders here suffered minor wounds from bullet fragments and flying stone chips; not major injuries from whole bullets fired wild.

Hagar said...

Years ago, my cousin kept a .45 ACP1911 on top of the refrigerator in his North Lake Shore Drive apartment with 3/8" wallboard partitions, and I told him he had better make sure to hit the baddie or he surely would get his neighbor in the next apartment or two over.

William said...

The bare facts don't make the cops look good. But marksmanship is not enhanced while in a state of mortal terror. The cops were in a situation that few of us would want to experience. Perhaps they did not do their job with maximum precision, but they did their job. Give them credit for that. They didn't phone for back up or wait for the most propitious time to act.

Hagar said...

Correction: Police says three people were hit by whole bullets, the rest by fragments "of some sort."

Kirk Parker said...

Hagar,

"First point: I am way behind the times and was not aware the cops had won this argument."

Yes, it was won quite a while ago; but I was reacting more to (what I thought was) your implication--not just that some departments might have required their officers to carry FMJ by policy, but rather that there was some legal prohibition in place. I'm not aware of any state where law enforcement was ever legally prohibited from carrying hollow-point ammo.

n.n said...

If it moves shoot it. If it keeps moving tax it.

Lindsey Meadows said...

Kirk Parker said...
"NYC has an average murder rate, and if all the guns were kept out of criminals' hands, it would improve further."

Yes it would but can we remember that up until the suspect shot his former co-worker, he was a law abiding citizen who owned a gun. He only became a criminal the split second he fired the gun.

So how do you patrol that situation? How do you stop that?




Curious George said...

"Andy R. said...
fuck the police"

and the Indian chief, construction worker, soldier, biker, and cowboy.

Curious George said...

"jr565 said...
Ok so I watched the video, and frankly I can't fault the cops. IT looks like one of them was trying to sneak up on him to arrest him, and he turned and drew really quickly at point blank range on the cops, who were practically within arms reach of the perp. As such they are not going to have a lot of time amiing and are forced to shoot while dodging the gun he is pointing at them at point blank range.
I'm shocked that he didn't get any bullets off."

I'm guessing he didn't want to get any rounds off. He just wanted "suicide by cop".

Unknown said...

Lindsey Meadows

"Yes it would but can we remember that up until the suspect shot his former co-worker, he was a law abiding citizen who owned a gun. He only became a criminal the split second he fired the gun.

So how do you patrol that situation? How do you stop that?"

Well, obviously we need an all encompassing police state that maintains tight observation on every move by every person. Perhaps telescreens in every room would help. We should also encourage citizens towards greater love of Big Brother and away from thought crime.

It is illegal to posses a handgun in New York City without a valid New York City concealed carry permit. A New York State concealed pistol permit is not valid in New York City -- only a New York City permit. Those permits are routinely denied to everybody except celebrities and politically connected individuals. Ordinary citizens with clean records can fight the permit denial in the courts which is a process that ordinarily costs from $5000 to $10000 in legal fees. That makes me doubt very much that Mr.Johnson had a valid New York City pistol permit. Since it was already against the law for Mr.Johnson to have a pistol in New York City, what would you recommend to enforce the law more effectively? Metal detectors and strip searches at every entrance to Manhattan? House to house searches for all residences? Random stop and frisk for people on the sidewalks?

Kirk Parker said...

Lindsay,

" How do you stop that? "

You don't--if by "stop" you mean with perfect results. If you want to live in a police state, feel free--but I strongly object to your trying to turn this country into one! Goodness knows We've got enough issues to worry about in the privacy and security arenas; the last think we need is to give exclusive rights to adequate self-defense tools to the government experts.

bbkingfish said...

Hagar said...

"Hollow-points are designed to do more damage when they hit their intended target, but they do not shatter as and ricochet all over the place as much as full metal jacket ammunition does, and is thus actually safer for "innocent bystanders" (in MSM parlance)."

I don't think so.

They(HPBs) do more damage when they hit their intended target?

They don't fragment, so they're safer for innocent bystanders?

What an absolute load!

What you are saying here is the six bystanders who suffered superficial wounds would have been safer.

The three who suffered direct hits from wild shots would have suffered "more damage," maybe been blown away! You are saying they would have been better off skipping the trip to the hospital and going directly to the morgue.