Shooting in Times Square

fasttalkerchat

Yakult wrote: »

So cops kill some lunatic who was dangerous and a risk to public safety, yet people are juat given out about the cops? How bad is it really? This fool knew what the consequences would be and I dont think its any harm with one less psycho off the streets.

The same people would give out that the cops didnt kill this man before he stabbed some body, but when they do you still give out.

Why bother with mental hospitals then? Just execute the lot?

Feathers

The Telegraph wrote:

Asked about the decision to shoot rather than stun Mr Kennedy, the commissioner said that none of the officers on seen [sic] had a stun gun and added: "There was an officer on the way there with a Taser. They were en route, but unfortunately the situation developed too quickly for them to arrive at the scene,"

…

It later transpired that Mr Kennedy … was arrested in 2008 after he produced a screwdriver and threatened motorists in New York City.

— Source

New York Times wrote:

At least seven of those bullets hit Mr. Kennedy, including three shots to the chest, the police said.

…

The two officers in that car jumped out and ordered Mr. Kennedy to drop his weapon, a nearly foot-long kitchen knife with a six-inch blade.

When he moved within three feet of the officers, still holding the knife, the police said, they let loose a burst of bullets.

— Source

Doesn't seem as excessive if they're saying 12 includes ones that didn't hit him, only 3 confirmed to the chest, and they only opened fire when he was within 3 feet of them — basically he was within an arm's reach!

fasttalkerchat

MadsL wrote: »

So you would stop shooting? After you have taken the decision to drop him by firing in the first place, why would you change that decision after you hit him four times? Is that really what you were trained to do by the IDF?

Bear in mind these cops have to deal with guys on PCP, meth, crack etc which have a somewhat 'dulling' effect on pain.

Deciding to use their guns to put him to the ground is not the same as killing the guy. If they couldn't talk him down I understand shooting him in the leg. Why they would then decide to go ahead and kill him rather than giving him another bullet in the legs is beyond me! I can't help thinking this happened because they got carried away and emptied their magazines on him.

If you listen to the sound from that video clip it would support my belief.

The_Kew_Tour

The Cops saved people lives. This man was going to do harm.

If he had gone on to stab somebody you be first to take swipe at the cops.

One less nutter to worry about.

Local-womanizer

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Deciding to use their guns to put him to the ground is not the same as killing the guy. If they couldn't talk him down I understand shooting him in the leg. Why they would then decide to go ahead and kill him rather than giving him another bullet in the legs is beyond me! I can't help thinking this happened because they got carried away and emptied their magazines on him.

If you listen to the sound from that video clip it would support my belief.

Bs, the only reason they hit him in the legs was not because they were aiming there purposely. A situation in which someone comes at you with a knife will result in you missing your intended target, in this case the chest.

MadsL

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Deciding to use their guns to put him to the ground is not the same as killing the guy. If they couldn't talk him down I understand shooting him in the leg. Why they would then decide to go ahead and kill him rather than giving him another bullet in the legs is beyond me! I can't help thinking this happened because they got carried away and emptied their magazines on him.

If you listen to the sound from that video clip it would support my belief.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/08/12/nyregion/TIMESSQUARE-3.html

This picture makes it pretty clear why they wouldn't aim for the legs. Miss the leg and you have richochets hitting passersby.

Dockington

Seems like taser could have been used to stop him but maybe cops didnt have them at hand.

Not exactly the smartest move lunging at armed police with a knife.

m.j.w

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/08/12/nyregion/TIMESSQUARE-3.html

This picture makes it pretty clear why they wouldn't aim for the legs. Miss the leg and you have richochets hitting passersby.

In that case do you not agree with me that firing 12 shots with so many civillians around is reckless? Thats my point!

Witcher

m.j.w wrote: »

In that case do you not agree with me that firing 12 shots with so many civillians around is reckless? Thats my point!

One shot in that environment is excessive but they did what they had to do.

Feathers

m.j.w wrote: »

In that case do you not agree with me that firing 12 shots with so many civillians around is reckless? Thats my point!

NY Times wrote:

Nobody other than Mr. Kennedy was in danger of being shot, Mr. Browne said. He said that no police officers or civilians were in the line of fire when the two officers shot their 9-millimeter pistols from close range.

By that point, the police had backed Mr. Kennedy up to the entrance of an office building on Seventh Avenue near 37th Street and had hemmed him in with a patrol car parked perpendicular to the sidewalk, Mr. Browne said

— Source

Mr Browne in the quote is the NYPD spokesman.

My name is URL

Blay wrote: »

Lol all the marksmen showing up now 'Why didn't they shoot him in the leg?' What bs:pac:

Pity the marksmen didn't show up there

Feathers wrote: »

Doesn't seem as excessive if they're saying 12 includes ones that didn't hit him, only 3 confirmed to the chest, and they only opened fire when he was within 3 feet of them — basically he was within an arm's reach!

12 shots fired on a crowded street and only 3 hits from a distance of a few feet... that's worse than actually fcuking shooting him 12 times.

m.j.w

Blay wrote: »

One shot in that environment is excessive but they did what they had to do.

Where do you draw the line then? if they are fired 10 shots each at him is that doing what they had to do?

fasttalkerchat

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Bs, the only reason they hit him in the legs was not because they were aiming there purposely. A situation in which someone comes at you with a knife will result in you missing your intended target, in this case the chest.

That's what I thought. 12 shots fired in succession aimed at the chest. They were trying to kill him.

The_Kew_Tour

Of course they were trying to kill him!!!

Witcher

m.j.w wrote: »

Where do you draw the line then? if they are fired 10 shots each at him is that doing what they had to do?

If the person is still standing then yes...they're trained to put a target down for good when they engage it..if it took 12 rounds then its not excessive.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's what I thought. 12 shots fired in succession aimed at the chest. They were trying to kill him.

Well they weren't trying to tickle him with the bullets were they?

suicide_circus

Dead Man Walking wrote: »

I dunno. they said he was smoking it, so was probably through a glass pipe bong which i think makes it 4 times stronger and could account for why they had to be sure he was down

Yeah i've often sustained a full mags worth of rounds from an uzi after smoking a bong and walked away with little more that a flesh wound.

The_Kew_Tour

saw this on twitter

RTÉ News ‏@rtenews
Multiple people, including law enforcement officers, shot after gunman opens fire near university in Texas

brandon_flowers

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

A man wielding a knife was shot in by police officers in times square

http://news.sky.com/story/972040/times-square-shooting-tourists-film-police

As you can see from the video there are at least a dozen officers armed pursuing the man on foot slowly. Some may argue What they did was wrong others may argue they were right. From the looks of things they were trying to get the man into an area where they could apprehend him by weight of numbers when he lunged at them.

what bothers me most is this little snippet of Quotation from a witness

"If they're going to kill him, I want to take some pictures, I want to record it."

Should have shot the camera man as well, useless.

Local-womanizer

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's what I thought. 12 shots fired in succession aimed at the chest. They were trying to kill him.

No, they are trained to aim for the biggest target, the torso. any force, be it military or police in the world that carry firearms are trained to do the same.

Feathers

My name is URL wrote: »

12 shots fired on a crowded street and only 3 hits from a distance of a few feet... that's worse than actually fcuking shooting him 12 times.

As above, backed into the entrance of an office block with no other people in the line of fire. And not three hits, three confirmed to the chest, but yes, potentially 5 misses.

minidazzler

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's what I thought. 12 shots fired in succession aimed at the chest. They were trying to kill him.

No no, you're mistaken, they were trying to tickle him.

MadsL

m.j.w wrote: »

In that case do you not agree with me that firing 12 shots with so many civillians around is reckless? Thats my point!

Depends on what was behind him when they fired, come on.
This video seems to show him against a building when they fired.

http://youtu.be/YXc8yyAQ6bo

At least seven of those bullets hit Mr. Kennedy, including three shots to the chest, the police said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/nyregion/police-fired-12-shots-in-killing-near-times-square.html?_r=1

DjFlin

If someone lunges at me with a knife, I'm shooting until I'm out of ammo. I cant imagine it would even be out of choice, just an instinctive reaction.

I suppose police officers are probably trained not to lose control at moments like that though.

Voodoomelon

MadsL wrote: »

Now up that caliber to something like a .40 or .45 ACP that cops use and it gets much harder. Add in stress and pressure and that 5 inch grouping that looks good in the range is almost impossible to achieve.

Not only do NYPD not carry Glock 17s (not that you said they did), none of the on-duty issue sidearms are .40 or .45.

The three choices are the Glock 19, S&W 5946 and the Sig P226. All chambered in 9mm. 9mm is the round of choice for Police forces, primarily due to capacity. There are numerous reports of officers emptying full magazines under stress and hitting everything but the target.

Magazine capacity outweighs caliber every time for duty pistols.

In regards what happened in here, he was lucky to be allowed get as far as he did. He was a constantly no more than seconds away from injuring either a civilian or Police officer and as soon as he was an imminent danger he was taken down with as many rounds as it took.

Even if someone had a taser, you have to shoot the victim within about 30 feet. A single miss when he lunged forwards (very likely under stress) and you would have no time to switch weapon and he'd be on top of you.

Considering the amount of chances he had to surrender, he pretty much dug his own grave.

Siuin

What a waste. What a terrible waste.












All those bullets

vicwatson

MadsL wrote: »

I've just peppersprayed this dude 6 times and he's still walking around with a knife. Here's a stick, off you go.

There's at least 10 cops in the video for christs sake, if they can't take him with batons or a tazer then....

It was excessive force, end of.

Bang bang you're dead 50 bullets in your head

Witcher

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Even if someone had a taser, you have to shoot the victim within about 30 feet. A single miss when he lunged forwards (very likely under stress) and you would have no time to switch weapon and he'd be on top of you.

+1

Tasers aren't the all powerful answer people think they are, there was a similar video up here a few months ago and the guy was tasered and didnt even flinch and it actually provoked him to attack a police officer and he was shot dead.

garv123

Love how people with gun experience from films suggest shoot him in the leg or arm...

He never stopped moving, If you went for the arm or shoulder and he moved and missed the bullet would stay going till it hit something in the background which could have been another person.

The man lunged at police and they fired at centre mass which is what they are trained to do.


The man also lunged at them and the shots were fired all in 2 seconds so its not as if they shot him on the ground. Again from films people think someone will go down straight away running at you with one shot. Complete bull****.

The_Kew_Tour

vicwatson wrote: »

There's at least 10 cops in the video for christs sake, if they can't take him with batons or a tazer then....

It was excessive force, end of.

Bang bang you're dead 50 bullets in your head

excessive force, for a excessive crazed dangerous human being. The Cops did the right thing.

They potentially save numerous people lives.

minidazzler

vicwatson wrote: »

There's at least 10 cops in the video for christs sake, if they can't take him with batons or a tazer then....

It was excessive force, end of.

Bang bang you're dead 50 bullets in your head

And risk getting stabbed? He pulled the knife, his life was immediately worth less than theirs.

fasttalkerchat

minidazzler wrote: »

No no, you're mistaken, they were trying to tickle him.

Trying to kill as opposed to trying to disarm him.

vicwatson

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

excessive force, for a excessive crazed dangerous human being. The Cops did the right thing.

They potentially save numerous people lives.

They murdered the guy

Witcher

vicwatson wrote: »

They murdered the guy

Ok people case closed..the judgement has been handed down.

MadsL

vicwatson wrote: »

There's at least 10 cops in the video for christs sake, if they can't take him with batons or a tazer then....

It was excessive force, end of.

Bang bang you're dead 50 bullets in your head

You get the guy cornered ready to take him down with tazer and rush him, before the other eight cops can get in position - he lunges at your partner with the knife. What exactly are you meant to do here?

tayto lover

Exactly. I remember the time of Abbeylara and the poor man who was shot. The policemen who shot him had a terrible time with all the criticism but the man was armed and had fired shots at them and then attempted to get up to where the public and media were. Imagine what would have been said if they had not shot him and he ended up getting to where everyone was and shooting a few of them. It's easy to give opinions in hindsight from the comfort of your livingroom.

Nodin

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Why can't they go for the legs ffs and bring him down that way? Didn't they all get marksman training?

......

Arteries in the thighs. He'd be dead in under 2 minutes.

If he'd gotten into a shop he could have either taken a hostage or killed somebody. He had the chance to drop the knife. He was either off his head or doing the "suicide by cop" thing. A justified use of force.

fiacha

later12 wrote: »

Torso could be anything from the groin to the gullet.

I thought it was the shoulder, to be more specific?

Only in the movies.

Plenty of cop dashcam videos out there showing attackers being shot once but still fighting. Therefore you shoot until the threat is no longer a threat.

Horrible to witness, but the cops did what they were trained to do. If they didn't, and he went on to injure a cop or bystander they'd be criticized for it aswell. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I feel bad for everyone involved, including the witnesses.

The_Kew_Tour

vicwatson wrote: »

They murdered the guy

No.

Its called saving innocent people lives.

garv123

What kind of bullets do cops use there? Is it FMJ or hollowpoints? Presume not hunting rounds like soft-point of ballistic tipped.

o1s1n

garv123 wrote: »

What kind of bullets do cops use there? Is it FMJ or hollowpoints? Presume not hunting rounds like soft-point of ballistic tipped.

Thinly veiled 'I know the difference between bullets' post

garv123

o1s1n wrote: »

Thinly veiled 'I know the difference between bullets' post

Its kinda essential when you own firearms :P

Most people dont know the difference between a shotgun or rifle though, but are experts when it comes to taking someone with a knife down without shooting him in the torso.

ShamoBuc

Fella running around Times Square with a huge knife lunging at the cops/ general public- I've no real sympathy for him.

El Horseboxo

m.j.w wrote: »

12 rounds to take down one man. I think thats a but much to be fair. Im sure there would be alot of different opinions if one of those 12 rounds hit a civilian. By all means take him down and if he dies he dies but it would not take 12 rounds to do it. They could have fired half that!

Without going into their decision to actually use lethal force the 12 bullets can easily be accounted for. The decision to draw your weapon is supposed to mean you are perceiving a threat to your life or others, particularly civilians. Each of the officers could have came to this conclusion simultaneously. Both in their own strategic positions with their eyes on the threat. It's not like one says shall we shoot him and the other says sure why not and they both take out their weapons and start firing. The threat could escalate and both draw at the same time or one could take the lead and the other follows. And it's not synchronized shooting either. We're not trained to stop and consult each other during a threat. It would happen too quick for that. Nor is it i just took 3 shoots, now it's your turn. Most departments will train to double tap. 2 shots in close proximity to each other. That would have been 4 shots in less than a second if both fired at the same time. The guy had been pepper sprayed a few times and was still standing. Adrenaline was obviously flowing. Or there could have been drugs in his system. If after your initial salvo the threat still exists which is very possible as i mentioned earlier. (People can still be standing after 6 bullets to the chest.) You fire more until you have judged it to be over. Usually involving the suspect on the ground. It sounds excessive but when analyzed it can be explained.

Cork24

And Thank GOD i live in a Country where Cops dont Carry Guns

pontia

they would clear the trash out of dublin city center fairly handy,fly them over

Voodoomelon

garv123 wrote: »

What kind of bullets do cops use there? Is it FMJ or hollowpoints? Presume not hunting rounds like soft-point of ballistic tipped.

I think most forces use hollow points, much like the UK police.

MadsL

Standard issue for NYPD used to be a .38 revolver, on the basis that if you had a misfire one more round was ready to go. A misfire or failure to eject in a semi-auto means you have to rack the slide and take your sights off your target.

Now 12 shots if they were 9mm is not uncommon. Most commonly carried calibers in US PDs are 9mm, .40 and .45. Some think that NYPD standardised on 9mm because of female offices who could not handle higher felt recoil.

Blog here about an incident where NYPD fired 84 shots and only hit 14 times.
Basically questions the effectiveness of 9mm as a Law Enforcement round

Cork24 wrote: »

And Thank GOD i live in a Country where Cops dont Carry Guns

Why, are you planning to wave a knife around in a crowded area?.

Best leave Ireland so;

Although a primarily unarmed force, certain units of the Gardaí, such as detective units, the regional support units, and the Emergency Response Unit are commissioned to carry firearms. The original stock of Smith & Wesson Model 10 revolvers are in the process of being replaced by the Sig Sauer P226 and Walther P99c semi-automatic pistols. Regional Support Units are equipped with Heckler & Koch MP7 sub-machine guns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_S%C3%ADoch%C3%A1na#Armed_Garda.C3.AD

El Horseboxo

garv123 wrote: »

What kind of bullets do cops use there? Is it FMJ or hollowpoints? Presume not hunting rounds like soft-point of ballistic tipped.

HP or JHP. Federal hydra shocks or Speer gold dots are the two brands i've seen most officers carry. Mostly 40's.

Voodoomelon

MadsL wrote: »

Standard issue for NYPD used to be a .38 revolver, on the basis that if you had a misfire one more round was ready to go. A misfire or failure to eject in a semi-auto means you have to rack the slide and take your sights off your target.

Now 12 shots if they were 9mm is not uncommon. Most commonly carried calibers in US PDs are 9mm, .40 and .45. Some think that NYPD standardised on 9mm because of female offices who could not handle higher felt recoil.

Blog here about an incident where NYPD fired 84 shots and only hit 14 times.
Basically questions the effectiveness of 9mm as a Law Enforcement round



Why, are you planning to wave a knife around in a crowded area?.

Best leave Ireland so;



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_S%C3%ADoch%C3%A1na#Armed_Garda.C3.AD

I'm not an expert on shooting, but have a big interest in the technical side of firearms and ammunition and from what i've read over the years, the whole .45 'manstopper' thing is very much overplayed.

In situations like today, its just as effective/ineffective as any other round, except they would have had only 2 rounds left each, as opposed to 9. In all the concealed carry/tactical response videos/literature i've seen, most go for capacity over larger caliber every time.

Larger calibers make sense if the shooter is heavily trained and can put rounds on target every time, but most can't and it makes sense to stick with 9mm in enforcement circles.

Witcher

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I'm not an expert on shooting, but have a big interest in the technical side of firearms and ammunition and from what i've read over the years, the whole .45 'manstopper' thing is very much overplayed.

In situations like today, its just as effective/ineffective as any other round, except they would have had only 2 rounds left each, as opposed to 9. In all the concealed carry/tactical response videos/literature i've seen, most go for capacity over larger caliber every time.

Larger calibers make sense if the shooter is heavily trained and can put rounds on target every time, but most can't and it makes sense to stick with 9mm in enforcement circles.

I think that's why S&W developed the .40cal, bit harder hitting than a 9mm but more capacity than a .45.