Shooting in Times Square

Local-womanizer

vicwatson wrote: »

They murdered the guy

They quite clearly didn't. It sounds like they give the guy all the time in the world to put down his weapon, they took precautions for the innocent bystanders on the street, which the knife wielding guy didn't, and when he lunged at cops he was shot.

What were the police supposed to do? And the use of a baton is not viable here, you do not put yourself in a position to get stabbed or slashed if you can help it. A tazer was on the way, they tried to stop the guy from moving up the street and before the tazer arrived on scene he attacked.

If is not murder, the guy put himself in that position and paid the ultimate price. I would value any cop or civilian's life over his in a situation like this.

vicwatson

Local-womanizer wrote: »

They quite clearly didn't. It sounds like they give the guy all the time in the world to put down his weapon, they took precautions for the innocent bystanders on the street, which the knife wielding guy didn't, and when he lunged at cops he was shot.

What were the police supposed to do? And the use of a baton is not viable here, you do not put yourself in a position to get stabbed or slashed if you can help it. A tazer was on the way, they tried to stop the guy from moving up the street and before the tazer arrived on scene he attacked.

If is not murder, the guy put himself in that position and paid the ultimate price. I would value any cop or civilian's life over his in a situation like this.

They fired the shots, they murdered him. Simples.

gibraltar

vicwatson wrote: »

They murdered the guy

The NYPD have had more than a few questionable shootings but lets be realistic, the guy had plenty of chances to stop and surrender, instead (for a reason we will probably never know) he came towards police who he was aware had guns drawn and aimed at him.

Not murder, sadly its closer to suicide.

MadsL

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.

What do you make of the NYPD 12lb trigger pull (standard Glock 19 is 5.5lbs) do you think that has made NYPD have to 'spray and pray' with higher cap mags?

Local-womanizer

vicwatson wrote: »

They fired the shots, they murdered him. Simples.

So you have nothing to back it up with other than they fired the shots?

Grand so, sure take the guns off them, or even better give them wooden hand guns.

Thank god you are not a law-maker in this country.

Voodoomelon

MadsL wrote: »

What do you make of the NYPD 12lb trigger pull (standard Glock 19 is 5.5lbs) do you think that has made NYPD have to 'spray and pray' with higher cap mags?

Seems pretty crazy alright, I wouldn't blame anyone for not hitting the target under stress with a trigger like that. Mental altogether, a deliberate handicap to overcome cash-strapped training perhaps?

fasttalkerchat

gibraltar wrote: »

The NYPD have had more than a few questionable shootings but lets be realistic, the guy had plenty of chances to stop and surrender, instead (for a reason we will probably never know) he came towards police who he was aware had guns drawn and aimed at him.

Not murder, sadly its closer to suicide.

Wasn't he backing away from them? They weren't in any immediate danger. Id he came at anyone with a knife they could have pulled the trigger then. At this point he was a deranged and confused man with mental health issues.
Maybe he wanted "suicide by cop" we'll never know. Either way he was killed wrongfully.

MadsL

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Seems pretty crazy alright, I wouldn't blame anyone for not hitting the target under stress with a trigger like that. Mental altogether, a deliberate handicap to overcome cash-strapped training perhaps?

No idea. Covering themselves in the event of legal action from negligent discharge I expect. I have been told do not adjust a trigger pull from the stock weight if you ever plan to use it as a defensive weapon for legal reasons.

Grumpypants

Take off nuke him from space only way to be sure.

MadsL

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Wasn't he backing away from them? They weren't in any immediate danger.

Moving away from them and towards the public.

Id he came at anyone with a knife they could have pulled the trigger then.

Again, this isn't the movies. Cops cannot pick out a bad guy against background of a bunch of people and make the 'between the eyes' shot. Especially if he is moving.

And he did come at someone - the cops!!

At this point he was a deranged and confused man with mental health issues.
Maybe he wanted "suicide by cop" we'll never know. Either way he was killed wrongfully.

Out of interest if he just stabbed someone, would you feel the same?

The_Kew_Tour

I just cant understand how people can defend a man that had the potential to harm or kill dozens of people.

You can bet your bottom dollar most people on street were relived to see that man been taken out, even if that loon with camera thought otherwise.

fasttalkerchat

MadsL wrote: »

Moving away from them and towards the public.


Again, this isn't the movies. Cops cannot pick out a bad guy against background of a bunch of people and make the 'between the eyes' shot. Especially if he is moving.

And he did come at someone - the cops!!


Out of interest if he just stabbed someone, would you feel the same?

He hadn't harmed anyone. He did not pose an immediate threat to the police or anyone other than himself.

Why wouldn't they have fired one shot? Why the barrage of shots that ensured he could not survive?

Nodin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

He hadn't harmed anyone. He did not pose an immediate threat to the police or anyone other than himself.

Why wouldn't they have fired one shot? Why the barrage of shots that ensured he could not survive?

He looked very like an immediate threat to me. The barrage of shots was to ensure that he went down and stayed there.

Witcher

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Why wouldn't they have fired one shot? Why the barrage of shots that ensured he could not survive?

They fire until the target is down, one shot didn't put him down. People seem to think one bullet puts anyone down, as I stated in a previous post there was a similar video a while ago...the guy took 8 rounds and barely moved and only fell after the last 2.

fasttalkerchat

Nodin wrote: »

He looked very like an immediate threat to me. The barrage of shots was to ensure that he went down and stayed there.

He had been backing away for a few minutes. If he was armed with a gun I would have regarded him as an immediate threat but from that video it looks like he was a safe distance from everyone.

If they shot him once he would have rolled around screaming for his mommy until the men in the white suits came. I don't see how killing him was necessary in order to save any other human life.

fasttalkerchat

Blay wrote: »

They fire until the target is down, one shot didn't put him down. People seem to think one bullet puts anyone down, as I stated in a previous post there was a similar video a while ago...the guy took 8 rounds and barely moved and only fell after the last 2.

They emptied their magazines into him. They did not fire and wait 2 seconds to see if he would fall.

MadsL

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

He hadn't harmed anyone. He did not pose an immediate threat to the police or anyone other than himself.

Did you miss this?

According to the police, officers pepper-sprayed Kennedy six times but he held onto the knife throughout, wiping the spray off his face. Finally, he lunged at police and two officers shot him in the torso, police said.

Why wouldn't they have fired one shot? Why the barrage of shots that ensured he could not survive?

Because officers are trained to put the threat on the ground. I linked earlier to a case where 14 bullets were put into a guy who survived. He was holding a knife, he could have easily also had a gun in his belt/pocket.

MadsL

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

They emptied their magazines into him. They did not fire and wait 2 seconds to see if he would fall.

6 shots is not "emptying magazines" - stock G19 has 17 capacity.

Witcher

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

If they shot him once he would have rolled around screaming for his mommy until the men in the white suits came. I don't see how killing him was necessary in order to save any other human life.

As numerous people have said, police forces don't fire warning shots or shoot to maim..when they fire it is to put you down for good. He was given his chance to surrender.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

They emptied their magazines into him. They did not fire and wait 2 seconds to see if he would fall.

Each of those rounds comes with their own trigger pull...if he was going down they would have stopped firing....they fire in response to what they see at their foresight. Standing-fire, falling-stop.

garv123

People think its just american cops been trigger happy,

That fella hanging out the window in the UK not long after the derek bird incident raised the shotgun and he was immediately shot 6-8 times by the police snipers.

Derek bird himself was shot with a tazer twice and he still managed to shoot himself, (although who pulled the trigger on the shotgun was debatable)

Nodin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

He had been backing away for a few minutes. ............

...in and around civillians in a busy street. If he'd gotten into a crowded shop fuck knows what would have happened.

In addition, I have to point out that shooting people is not a simple case of pulling the trigger and a guaranteed outcome, whereby 1 shot will deliver 1 result, 2 another and so on.

fasttalkerchat

MadsL wrote: »

Did you miss this?

That story claims that he lunged at Police. If this is true it changes things totally. Its not how I saw things but maybe another video shows that he did lunge.

Big Nasty

I'm with MadsL on this one. IMO it was a justified killing.

Also, no matter how good a marksman you are these experiences are not in a controlled environment where you have the luxury of time to line up the perfect shoot. It's the officers duty to protect civilians and their fellow officers. You open fire at the biggest target, i.e. the torso. This crap about shooting him in the leg or shoulder is poppycock.

fasttalkerchat

Nodin wrote: »

...in and around civillians in a busy street. If he'd gotten into a crowded shop fuck knows what would have happened.

In addition, I have to point out that shooting people is not a simple case of pulling the trigger and a guaranteed outcome, whereby 1 shot will deliver 1 result, 2 another and so on.

12 shots means probable death. 1 shot and he may have lived. If they fired one shot and he died it would be a sad tragedy but the Police did all they could to avoid killing the guy.

Note that I have not seen evidence that he lunged at police with the knife as is now being reported, if this is true it makes the killing justified IMO.

MadsL

Funny thing about hindsight is that it is 20/20 vision.

If you are going to arm your cops then don't put them in harm's way and then expect that they ask "now will you stop" after every round. Equally, expect them to justify their actions.

Seriously, the amount of movie nonsense by people on this thread. If you fire, you put them on the ground, otherwise you are just risking bystanders and other officers.

I thought these officers showed great presence of mind and control to wait until they could fire and be sure of their target and what was beyond it.

gibraltar

vicwatson wrote: »

They fired the shots, they murdered him. Simples.

Please look up the word murder in a dictionary, you dont seem to have an understanding what it means.

Nodin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

12 shots means probable death. 1 shot and he may have lived. If they fired one shot and he died it would be a sad tragedy but the Police did all they could to avoid killing the guy..

He may have lived. He may have suffered either a slow bleeding injury or a flesh wound and gone on his stabby way, now knowing that he needed to either get to a hostage or a victim quick.

fasttalkerchat

Nodin wrote: »

He may have lived. He may have suffered either a slow bleeding injury or a flesh wound and gone on his stabby way, now knowing that he needed to either get to a hostage or a victim quick.

If he went for someone then kill him. Don't kill him when you could fire one shot to remove the threat while giving him a chance of living.


Again, I am assuming that he never attempted to harm anyone other than himself. - Further evidence may rule this out.

gibraltar

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

If he went for someone then kill him. Don't kill him when you could fire one shot to remove the threat while giving him a chance of living.


Again, I am assuming that he never attempted to harm anyone other than himself. - Further evidence may rule this out.

And if that one shot misses? also the number of shots fired and number of times hit dont tell the full story in any shooting. Luck is important too, have a read of this to see some extreme example,

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=1

MadsL

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

If he went for someone then kill him. Don't kill him when you could fire one shot to remove the threat while giving him a chance of living.

Could you explain to me why you would fire one shot and wait in direct opposition to the training and orders you have received. Let's say he was shot once in the arm - you were aiming at his hand (stupidly) or you missed. He's now scared/enraged/pumped up, he pulls out his gun and kills a bystander.

End of your police career and one dead citizen.

Do what you are trained to do, put him on the ground, assess the area for further threats and then give him first responder aid and get him immediate medical assistance. No-one else gets hurt.

Again, I am assuming that he never attempted to harm anyone other than himself. - Further evidence may rule this out.

They had tried to cuff him earlier and he broke free, then pulled out a knife.

Nodin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

If he went for someone then kill him. Don't kill him when you could fire one shot to remove the threat while giving him a chance of living.

.........

And of course you'll automatically have a clear shot as he lunges at somebody, dives into a car, shop.....

And for roughly the third time - this one shot nonsense presumes an accuracy and consistency of result with a pistol that does not in fact exist IRL.

fasttalkerchat

gibraltar wrote: »

And if that one shot misses? also the number of shots fired and number of times hit dont tell the full story in any shooting. Luck is important too, have a read of this to see some extreme example,

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=1

If that shot misses fire another one...

garv123

Do the witness reports not say he lunged at the police?

Does it say anywhere how many of the 12 shots hit the man? I only heard 8-9 shots in the video.

MadsL

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

If that shot misses fire another one...

Are you not listening?

Have you ever actually fired a handgun by the way? When you are firing your focus is a hard focus locked on your front sight - the background is blurry - you fire and immediately bring the pistol back into a sight picture - if your target is still there you immediately fire again or else you may not get chance to do so if your target fires back.

Police also train on double-taps so again the focus is on bang-bang, assess and fire again. If you stop to ask where did that last bullet go you are literally risking your life.

Big Nasty

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Again, I am assuming that he never attempted to harm anyone other than himself. - Further evidence may rule this out.

Either way he was still a threat and that threat had to be neutralised. The police had tried to cuff him, he resisted arrest. The police had pepper sprayed him, this didn't slow him down. He was wielding a knife in one of the busisest streets in the world with plenty of innocent bystanders.

They didn't have much choice.

fasttalkerchat

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Either way he was still a threat and that threat had to be neutralised. The police had tried to cuff him, he resisted arrest. The police had pepper sprayed him, this didn't slow him down. He was wielding a knife in one of the busisest streets in the world with plenty of innocent bystanders.

They didn't have much choice.

I agree that they didn't have much choice in terms of what weapon to use to disarm him but I can't bring myself to thinking that they had no choice but to kill him.

Nodin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I agree that they didn't have much choice in terms of what weapon to use to disarm him but I can't bring myself to thinking that they had no choice but to kill him.

To be blunt, thats because you don't understand the dynamics of it.

fasttalkerchat

MadsL wrote: »

Are you not listening?

Have you ever actually fired a handgun by the way? When you are firing your focus is a hard focus locked on your front sight - the background is blurry - you fire and immediately bring the pistol back into a sight picture - if your target is still there you immediately fire again or else you may not get chance to do so if your target fires back.

Police also train on double-taps so again the focus is on bang-bang, assess and fire again. If you stop to ask where did that last bullet go you are literally risking your life.

So they did not follow their own rules? They did not double tap and assess. If they had it is very likely that he would still be alive.
This is my issue with the case.

Witcher

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

So they did not follow their own rules? They did not double tap and assess. If they had it is very likely that he would still be alive.
This is my issue with the case.

He was obviously still standing...you don't need time to assess that...the guy was still upright in front of their foresight so they kept shooting.

Big Nasty

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

So they did not follow their own rules? They did not double tap and assess. If they had it is very likely that he would still be alive.
This is my issue with the case.

Do you think somebody wielding a knife in a threatening manner, resisting arrest and conitinuing to threaten after being pepper sprayed in the middle of a busy city deserves to be still alive? Insane or not - he obviously meant business.

fasttalkerchat

Nodin wrote: »

To be blunt, thats because you don't understand the dynamics of it.

I haven't shot someone or had any weapons training so no, I don't. I'm not saying that I would have handled it better or anything, I'm just saying that how I see it fewer shots = increased survival chance while still neutralising the threat.

Alan_Curry

The kill was justified; he was black.

fasttalkerchat

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Do you think somebody wielding a knife in a threatening manner, resisting arrest and conitinuing to threaten after being pepper sprayed in the middle of a busy city deserves to be still alive? Insane or not - he obviously meant business.

He needed help. He had a string of mental health issues (none violent). Of course I think he deserved to still be alive! Are we to take the attitude that all crazies deserve to die because they are dangerous?

MadsL

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I agree that they didn't have much choice in terms of what weapon to use to disarm him but I can't bring myself to thinking that they had no choice but to kill him.

You see there is your problem. Once he constituted a threat a chain of events took place that was trained and instinctive for NYPD officer, it was not up to them but rather following procedure.

The officers made a decision that he was a immediate threat to human life, what do you do in that situation, you follow your training. Eliminate the threat. Once the threat is no longer standing then you assess and see can you safely get him medical attention. You will notice that they did not 'execute' him - he was pronounced dead at Bellevue Hospital.

Your assumption is that the officers said "let's kill this guy" they didn't, they responsed appropriately to a threat in accordance with their training. The fact that he died was secondary to that.

garv123

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I haven't shot someone or had any weapons training so no, I don't. I'm not saying that I would have handled it better or anything, I'm just saying that how I see it fewer shots = increased survival chance while still neutralising the threat.

But everyone else with experience with handguns are telling you that fewer shots does not always neutralising the threat

KeithM89_old

Alan_Curry wrote: »

The kill was justified; he was black.

Banned.

fasttalkerchat

MadsL wrote: »

You see there is your problem. Once he constituted a threat a chain of events took place that was trained and instinctive for NYPD officer, it was not up to them but rather following procedure.

The officers made a decision that he was a immediate threat to human life, what do you do in that situation, you follow your training. Eliminate the threat. Once the threat is no longer standing then you assess and see can you safely get him medical attention. You will notice that they did not 'execute' him - he was pronounced dead at Bellevue Hospital.

Your assumption is that the officers said "let's kill this guy" they didn't, they responsed appropriately to a threat in accordance with their training. The fact that he died was secondary to that.

He was not an immediate threat unless he lunged at the officers. Assuming that this did not happen, their reason for using force is to get the knife off him and get the cuffs on. Using a baton is not viable since he has a knife and pepper spray didn't work, they don't have tazers. So they decide to use their guns.
Now here's where I differ from the 2 officers who fired...
I would have used a gun only to disarm the guy so that he could be arrested and they seem to have skipped that step and went straight to ending his life.

MadsL

The number of shots is irrelevant, whether you die from one or survive 20 is a matter of luck. All officers do is put the shots into the torso until the threat goes down. That is their training. The decision to fire is quite binary, the variables cannot be blamed of the officers. Is he threat, yes. Put him on the ground. Everything else is secondary.

edit:

I would have used a gun only to disarm the guy so that he could be arrested and they seem to have skipped that step and went straight to ending his life.

And you would have been disciplined for endangerment. How are you not getting police shooting protocol after it has been explained twenty times?

Nodin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I haven't shot someone or had any weapons training so no, I don't. I'm not saying that I would have handled it better or anything, I'm just saying that how I see it fewer shots = increased survival chance while still neutralising the threat.

And you've been told (and could check yourself) that "fewer shots" guarantees nothing and could in fact increase the risk to innocents. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

fasttalkerchat

garv123 wrote: »

But everyone else with experience with handguns are telling you that fewer shots does not always neutralising the threat

Not always, yes. There was a newspaper article that showed some cases where that was an exception. But in most cases it would have been sufficient.