NYC shooting

I was going to respond, then I saw your user name and decided not to be a puppet...

I'm sorry, shooting 9 people accidently while trying to shoot someone who hasn't fired a shot in your direction is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in Police work.

That makes no difference......the officers involved should be fired.

So you are saying that a man you are following, that already shot and killed someone, turns around with a gun pointed at you and you WOULDN'T fire?

In a crowd, at that range, some of those innocent bystanders could have been hit by a thru and thru that DID hit the target.  Not good, but to expect the police to just stand there is very unrealistic.

You cannot alway isolate a target like that away from collateral damage potential. No doubt he would have fired, they were right to prevent it.  And they were drawn upon.  The police didn't shoot him in the back whilst pursuing him or spray bullets randomly down the street.

I was simply clarifying.  

And yet, we have people advocating for open carry and conceal and carry in all places so that civilians can return fire in the event of a public shooter. 

W/R/T the police officers, I think if there was evidence that they had followed protocols both as far as the actual incident as well as training, it would be hard to hold them to blame. It might mean that training standards or rules of engagement need to be changed, in the same way that a negative outcome at the hospital forces us to re-examine our trainings and protocols.

First, please show me where people are advocating for open carry. I every open carry state, very very few people do. I personally have never seen a single person open carry here in Colorado in 20 years. I can open carry right now with out one singe requirment. To get my permit I actually have to qualify and take training.

What's wrong with that? Because when bullets ARE flying with the intent to kill people... then ya, we need to deescalate the situation and give the shooter a hug???

Bullets ARE flying, peoples lives ARE being taken.

So you had to qualify and and get training? Don't you think that the NYPD also had to get (and maintain) training? And yet, when TSHTF, in a live fire situation, civilians were injured. By the trained police officers. I'll happily counter your version of the leftie scenario with a rightie one - yes, the thing we need when someone pulls a weapon is to have 30 or 40 people start to return fire - because nothing bad can happen then, right?

I don't have a permit... but I can open carry right now any time I please. I choose not to, but there are no requirments.

You can play what if all day long... does not change the fact that as an American I have the right.  Some choose to excersize their right, some don't. It's called freedom of choice. Feel free to excersize your rights how ever you please.

How about when a crazy person starts shooting with a gun, innocent people are definitely going to get hurt vs when police or people carrying react and shoot back there is the possibility of people other than the gunman getting hurt.  Hmmmm  Definitely vs possibly.  I know what I am in favor of...

Police OR people (civilians) carrying? Yes, I know what I am in favor of as well...

See... isn't choice great.

Don't recall exactly, but either way, your safer with civilians shooting according to the stats.

The gunman had already killed one man . The gunman-killer now on the street has the gun in his hand. THE POLICE TELL THE KILLER TO DROP THE GUN and he refuses. The police had no other option but to shot him. Now brain  if the shoter lets one round off and you are around that area and one round hits you or a member of your family  and kills them , or kills the police officer. you would be writing the police did nothing to stop a madman. a bullet can travels a few blocks .we have  no idea what was in this killers head . But what  the police  did know he had aready killed one person.  The police took police action. As a former member the nypd ( over 20 years) i wound have done the same thing. Someone said to  me i go to  a range and i shot a 100 percent,yea in a control envionment .Have you ever been in a life or death situation regarding your life, or the life of others and a decision has to be made in 2-5 seconds, well i have .   If that cop is killed that day you could care less are you going to go to the police officers funeral.   What about the man that was killed are you heading off to nj for it. what about his kids are you going to send them a check until they get out of college or their life without a father.  I will not read your reply  nor will i read others .  i have no problem making this statement. " you have no idea what you are talking about.

There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics.

I would like to see the links to those claims, to see what those numbers supposedly mean. What is "innocent victims" mean? The shooter in NYC had shot an "innocent victim". The shooter in Aurora shot several "innocent victims". Like JMK said, it matters whether the cops are shooting at people willy-nilly, or civilians are taking "friendly fire" when the police are shooting at a specific target.

Or, frankly, whether "innocent" means bystanders or people not found guilty of a crime. (I recently saw someone who was smart enough to drop the knife they had when they overheard the policeman looking for them - if they had popped out with a knife, and the officer took it as a threat and shot them, it would have been a shooting of an "innocent person", yet a completely justified shooting given some of the other details I won't go into).

I think it also matters to consider how often either civilians or police are shooting at people as opposed to targets. I would assume (though I may well be wrong) that police shoot in the direction of humans far more often than civilians. Which seems to increase the likelihood of accidently shooting someone "innocent".

You have no idea of the irony in that statement.

While I think the statistics are accurate that CCW holders, when involved in an incident experience lower amounts of collateral damage than the police. One thing that is a major difference, the police are forced into the situation, it's their job to interject themselves even when it's not safe for them or the people around them. That's what they are paid to do and it is in their job description, it's not an option.

The CCW holder on the other hand has the option to stay in a more secure/safe position and has no obligation to interject himself. Most of the training that CCW holders have even teaches to say out of a confrontation if it's not necessary or if it in any way puts you or others in jeopardy, when it's an option.

I have to vote for context being everything.

A police officer is more likely to have no choice in engaging a shooter in a crowded environment.

Whereas a private citizen is more likely to be involved in avoiding being a victim or assisting a potential victim in a different situation.

Is a mugger or rapist going more likely to launch an attack on a private citizen in the crowded mall with witnesses. potential good Samaritans, and security cameras or the lone individual on an isolated walkway or running path or in their home?

jack62 - I have, to date, been to the funerals of 7 Police Officers (3 from my own department), including my partner. And yes, I've been there when the bullets started flying. I'm pretty sure I've got it right when I say that you can't justify shooting 9 civilians, you just can't.  You don't have to read my replay, or like it, but you CAN'T justify the shooting of 9 innocent bystanders.  "Police Action" doesn't include shooting unarmed civilians....never has, never will.

ETA - realizing you may not read my reply, let me ask you, what would have been a "fair" number of civilians shot in this case, or any other?  I'm sorry, it's a bad day for the Police and "Police Action".