www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:Yes, the injury of bystanders was a tragic accident in that case, albeit not one that indicates wrongdoing by the police. However, it is dishonest to say that because such an accident occurred that the police shoot more non-suspect civilians than criminals do.

It's really only an indication of how poorly trained for combat most police are in the US. Sad, really.

I wouldnt say the police being unready for combat is tragic, I'd say the fact they need to be ready for combat is tragic.

Teaos wrote:I wouldnt say the police being unready for combat is tragic, I'd say the fact they need to be ready for combat is tragic.

Absolutely. We don't live in an ideal world, unfortunately. We should all be ready to defend ourselves and others. I know others will disagree, but life isn't as fair as it could be.

I personally don't equate taking down a single determined but untrained gunman with an actual combat situation. If the 5-0 (other than S.W.A.T.) needed to be trained for actual para-style combat, they'd carry SA shotties and SMG's or PDW's rather than pistols and pepper. NJ State Police, for example, train with the Grandmaster of my son's dojang, who has developed his own style based on taekwondo, hapkido, qi gong, kuk sul won do, iaido, geom do, and some Japanese weapon styles; subsequent to developing this style and founding his dojangs, he has consulted with/taught Delta Force, Green Berets, and various movie productions aside from the state po-po. Unfortunately, local PD's don't have the resources to provide this to their beat cops, and are usually limited by resources to qualifying their cops on their duty sidearms plus a smattering of high-threat situation thinking instruction.

Additionally, in a case like the mentioned one, there is the impetus to stop the gunman immediately - because nobody knew while he was shooting whether he would stop or not - which impetus naturally precludes taking the time to move to a solution at which no bystanders would be in any deflection angle; nor was there a way to ask the shooter to just hold on please, while we evacuate the area of civilians. Even in states like mine, which disallows private use of JHP rounds, police are provided with such in order to limit overpenetration; but it's not perfect. That said, when a guy in downtown Manhattan starts shooting folks, I'm glad that the cops have guns with which to stop him even if that fact comes with risks.

Just as a matter of accuracy, I read that the guy only fired five shots (all of which hit his ex-boss in the face); when the cops caught up to him later, we see him draw the gun, but he never got off another shot. The gun apparently jammed.

Anyways, police should be trained to use whatever weapons they're issued. In this case, I'd say they were not. Friend of mine works at a shooting range; he says most beat cops can't hit the broad side of a barn. I'm inclined to believe him after watching that video.

Tsukiyumi wrote:when the cops caught up to him later, we see him draw the gun, but he never got off another shot. The gun apparently jammed.

The cops can't reasonably be expected to just wait to see if the shooter's gun happened to have jammed, nor should they be expected to wait on the chance that he doesn't know how to TRB his weapon. Hell, I've never shot anything bigger than a Red Ryder airgun, and I know how to TRB a pistol. The guy might have had a hammer-fired pistol, and could conceivably have double-struck a misfired primer (even though it's not preferred manual of arms, it could have discharged the weapon without waiting to clear a jam.) What I'm saying is that the guy had a drawn gun - the cops can't and shouldn't treat it as anything other than a live weapon.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Anyways, police should be trained to use whatever weapons they're issued. In this case, I'd say they were not. Friend of mine works at a shooting range; he says most beat cops can't hit the broad side of a barn. I'm inclined to believe him after watching that video.

Most cops are required to qualify on their duty sidearm. This may not satisfy many range masters, as it doesn't bear any resemblance to .22LR target drills, rapid-fire competition shooting, or anything of the sort; and may not even include things like the Mozambique drill. However, cops will have proficiency in obtaining a sight picture much more rapidly and accurately than a casual shooter, and will generally have greater accuracy in a 10 - 25 yards than a casual shooter. None of this, however, bears on high-threat situational thinking, which is where I believe you see the perceived deficiency. Obviously, simply proficiency with a weapon isn't at issue, as any of those cops would have done just fine hunting paper at the range.

That being said, I don't have a lot in this particular instance about which to criticize the officers' response - especially bearing in mind that these were investigative anti-terror officers on a lower-mid patrol, not regular-duty beat cops.

Tsukiyumi wrote:when the cops caught up to him later, we see him draw the gun, but he never got off another shot. The gun apparently jammed.

The cops can't reasonably be expected to just wait to see if the shooter's gun happened to have jammed, nor should they be expected to wait on the chance that he doesn't know how to TRB his weapon. Hell, I've never shot anything bigger than a Red Ryder airgun, and I know how to TRB a pistol. The guy might have had a hammer-fired pistol, and could conceivably have double-struck a misfired primer (even though it's not preferred manual of arms, it could have discharged the weapon without waiting to clear a jam.) What I'm saying is that the guy had a drawn gun - the cops can't and shouldn't treat it as anything other than a live weapon.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Anyways, police should be trained to use whatever weapons they're issued. In this case, I'd say they were not. Friend of mine works at a shooting range; he says most beat cops can't hit the broad side of a barn. I'm inclined to believe him after watching that video.

Most cops are required to qualify on their duty sidearm. This may not satisfy many range masters, as it doesn't bear any resemblance to .22LR target drills, rapid-fire competition shooting, or anything of the sort; and may not even include things like the Mozambique drill. However, cops will have proficiency in obtaining a sight picture much more rapidly and accurately than a casual shooter, and will generally have greater accuracy in a 10 - 25 yards than a casual shooter. None of this, however, bears on high-threat situational thinking, which is where I believe you see the perceived deficiency. Obviously, simply proficiency with a weapon isn't at issue, as any of those cops would have done just fine hunting paper at the range.

That being said, I don't have a lot in this particular instance about which to criticize the officers' response - especially bearing in mind that these were investigative anti-terror officers on a lower-mid patrol, not regular-duty beat cops.

I just think it was overkill in this situation; you don't need 16 rounds to put someone down, and most FBI agents or even police detectives probably would've done better. Mozambique would actually have been rather appropriate. Two to center mass, one to the head; they were at close range (3 yards or so), and were actually looking for this fellow, so they should've been on guard. I agree that they definitely didn't have time to do more than draw and shoot, but it just strikes me as panic fire.

Tsukiyumi wrote:It's really only an indication of how poorly trained for combat most police are in the US. Sad, really.

Fixed, at least as far as firearms are concerned. The fundamental problem is that the plod, even US plods and SO19, are primarily trained for investigating crimes and arresting those responsible, not shooting people. That, combined with the amount of work they've usually got, means that when it comes to using their weapons they are amateurs.

In Florida yesterday, a civilian with a concealed handgun license killed an armed robber in a dollar store; he didn't need 16 rounds to do it, and no one else was hurt. Some more range time and tactical training would be a valuable thing for most of our police, if we actually had the money to pay for it.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I just think it was overkill in this situation; you don't need 16 rounds to put someone down, and most FBI agents or even police detectives probably would've done better. Mozambique would actually have been rather appropriate. Two to center mass, one to the head; they were at close range (3 yards or so), and were actually looking for this fellow, so they should've been on guard. I agree that they definitely didn't have time to do more than draw and shoot, but it just strikes me as panic fire.

AFAIK, Shin Bet is the only police force (as opposed to paramilitary or military forces) which can be confident in putting down any assailant with a single Mozambique drill. Unfortunately, "fire until your slide locks back" seems to be the extent of HTR fire training a lot of police get. Like I said, they are required to qualify only as far as accuracy - against paper.

Tsukiyumi wrote:In Florida yesterday, a civilian with a concealed handgun license killed an armed robber in a dollar store; he didn't need 16 rounds to do it, and no one else was hurt.

It's lucky nobody else was hurt. Chances are that this guy trained to a higher level of accuracy than most LEO's; but for a CCW he could've been carrying anything from .25 or .380 ACP up to a .40 S&W or .357 Mag snubbie - if the latter, at across-the-room ranges and with the muzzle-blindness that comes from shooting a .357 Magnum out of 1.825" barrel, he could've hit nothing but the BG and still killed an innocent behind him. Remember, not only is his caliber unrestricted, but his powder loads and types of bullets aren't either. Do you want some hero taking out a BG with, say, a .40 S&W round with FMJ bullets if you're behind the target?

Remember, also, that police are trained in the history and forensics behind gunfights, more so than you or I. If the po-po seems to drop way too many cases per incident, that may be; but if we learn anything from Marshall & Sanow (and by learn, I mean learn from how badly skewed their data was) it is that there is no caliber, no firearm, no load, and no bullet that can certify the mythical one-shot-stop.

if we actually had the money to pay for it.

Now we come to the crux of the matter.

Well, weekend is upon us. I work today, tomorrow and Sunday off. Much rejoicing. Yay.

Not to rehash the argument, really, but: 92 year old WWII vet kills burglar with a single shot.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Not to rehash the argument, really, but: 92 year old WWII vet kills burglar with a single shot.

There was an old lady (in her 70's odd i believe) I know of. A burgular made the mistake of coming into her house. Turned out she had a coal shovel at the end of her bed. Let me put it this way he was easily found. He was the one with bruises all over his face. That said I love that woman

I just downloaded an LCARS style desktop skin. It's pretty neat.