All nine Empire State injured shot by New York police

[danmand]

All nine Empire State injured shot by New York police

Police say two officers caused all nine injuries while shooting armed man who killed ex-colleague near iconic building.

All nine bystanders injured in a shooting outside New York's Empire State Building were wounded by two police officers who had never fired their weapons before on duty, authorities have said.

Police Officer Craig Matthews fired seven times and colleague Robert Sinishtaj fired nine times at Jeffrey Johnson on a busy Friday morning in an area packed with tourists.

Johnson had earlier shot a former co-worker to death, with video from a security camera showing him pointing his pistol at police while walking away from the scene.

Based on ballistic tests and other evidence, "it appears that all nine of the victims were struck either by fragments or by bullets fired by police,'" Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Saturday.

Investigators were trying to piece together what caused Johnson to ambush former colleague Steve Ercolino, a vice president at the company where Johnson was laid off last year.

Police said Johnson hid behind a car and killed Ercolino with five gunshots as he arrived for work. Johnson then walked away before being shot by two police officers who confronted him moments later.

Nine bystanders were wounded in the 16-shot volley, all by stray or ricocheting police bullets. None of their injuries was life-threatening, police said.

The shooting shocked many New Yorkers out of their morning routines, with people sprawled in the streets bleeding and a tarpaulin covering a body in front of one of the world's most famous buildings.

The officers who fired were part a detail regularly assigned to patrol landmarks since the September 11 attacks on the US, officials said.

‘Not immune to violence’

Kelly said the officers who confronted Johnson had "a gun right in their face" and "responded quickly, and they responded appropriately".

"These officers, having looked at the tape myself, had absolutely no choice," he said.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Friday that New York was still the safest big city in the country, on pace to have a record low number of murders this year.

"But we are not immune to the national problem of gun violence," he said of the shooting, which followed recent mass shootings at a Colorado movie theatre and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.

 

[Asterix]

What's your point danmand, assuming you have one.

 

[Aardvark154]

It is never nice being shot, however, the City of New York will I'm sure make a settlement offer.

 

[cunning linguist]

I thought only cops were trustworthy with guns...

 

[larry]

what i get from this is that police need better guns and more training/testing.

 

[rld]

I too would like to know what Dan's point is. Is there a lesson he wants us to learn or is this just random data?

 

[WoodPeckr]

Thought the point was pretty obvious

As Larry mentioned, the point seems to be police need better guns and more training/testing.

It appears the NYPD has too many trigger happy cowboys with poor marksmanship.....:Eek:

 

[oldjones]

I thought only cops were trustworthy with guns...

Only people properly trained and experienced with what it takes to be accurate with a handgun under fire can be trusted to use them, as others and I have stated many times, as have you. You however have gone on to point out the inadequacy of minimal police training that is required of all officers, and were it not for the fact that the injuries were from unpredictable fragments and ricochets this incident would appear to support that view.

In any case, more and better trained police still beats any proposal to arm untrained civilians. The ricochets amply demonstrate how dangerous urban close-quarter gun use is, even by trained people, and the whole effort should be to ensure there is less, not more of it.

If you can't get rid of the idea that everyone armed is the answer, then at least make them carry openly and wear distinctive clothes like the cops so you know who not to be anyplace near.

 

[rld]

You could probably cut down on this sort of thing if you up-armed and trained these chaps with say...semi auto MP-5's or small assault rifles...handguns are just terribly inaccurate tools.

 

[oldjones]

Or just accept the collateral damage and go right to RPGs. You could also set up permanent sniper-posts with clear lines of sight and all sorts of night-vison and telescopics too. It is why we have ETF squads, but these two officers did what they could with what they had and now the second guessers are all out.

Don't air marshals pack low-power loads meant to minimize damage beyond the target? Pistols are made to be close-range weapons, as the account describes—it's how they can be inaccurate as you say and still useful—but they don't all need to be able to stop charging tanks.

 

[rld]

Or just accept the collateral damage and go right to RPGs. You could also set up permanent sniper-posts with clear lines of sight and all sorts of night-vison and telescopics too. It is why we have ETF squads, but these two officers did what they could with what they had and now the second guessers are all out.

Don't air marshals pack low-power loads meant to minimize damage beyond the target? Pistols are made to be close-range weapons, as the account describes—it's how they can be inaccurate as you say and still useful—but they don't all need to be able to stop charging tanks.

I suspect you don't have much experience with weapons at all if you want to compare an MP5 to an RPG.

Small SMG type weapons are used by police forces in places like airports and large crowds all around the world, including the RCMP. They tend to be more accurate than handguns.

The police often carry shotguns in their vehicle, which is really not a good weapon for the job (although many forces are moving away from that choice now).

I don't know the reason why they are not used more broadly, it could be expense, pyschology, size etc, but they are definately more accurate than a handgun. I guess you think when people get hurt by inadvertent shots is not a good time to discuss alternatives that might reduce the collateral damage.

And I am not second guessing the officers at all. They have my greatest sympathy. They had never used their weapons in anger before and were faced with a suspect who was armed and willing to use their weapon. In fact it reminded me of my time in the military, I trained live fire plenty, but one always has doubts about how you will perform when someone is actually shooting at you and split second decisions mean life and death for you and others. It is a terrible situation and not so simple to predict the outcome.

edit: your comment about the Air Marshals got me thinking. It appears that they used to use frangible rounds but have not for over ten years now. The reasons why they stopped using them is not clear to me.

 

[anon1]

Cops are notorious for being bad shots. They have to pay for their practice ammo, so few spend any more than absolutely necessary. Others, like military or special forces, don't pay for ammo so they can train relentlessly.
As with most things, it comes down to money.

 

[diehard]

They have to pay for their practice ammo, so few spend any more than absolutely necessary.

I didn't know that. Does the same apply in Canada to RCMP, etc?

 

[rld]

Cops are notorious for being bad shots. They have to pay for their practice ammo, so few spend any more than absolutely necessary. Others, like military or special forces, don't pay for ammo so they can train relentlessly.
As with most things, it comes down to money.

I didn't know that either. If that is true it is a rather stupid policy.

 

[blackrock13]

I didn't know that either. If that is true it is a rather stupid policy.

I suspect it's BS. Remember these guys make $100G's a year and even if they used one 50 round box a week that only $1000/yr; a lot less if you buy in bulk. Since being able to shoot well is also a case of protecting yourself from the bad guys, $1000/yr. is well worth it. You might even be able to write it off

 

[Aardvark154]

A few points:

Most police even in major cities never fire a shot in anger in their entire careers.

Relatively few police really like to shoot, those that do, not infrequently go onto SWAT teams and the like where they have the opportunity to shoot a lot more than most police.

Most other police would rather take training that will get them into a specialized area with greater job satisfaction and higher pay, and/or a promotion than spending that time on the range.

 

[oldjones]

I suspect you don't have much experience with weapons at all if you want to compare an MP5 to an RPG.

Small SMG type weapons are used by police forces in places like airports and large crowds all around the world, including the RCMP. They tend to be more accurate than handguns.

The police often carry shotguns in their vehicle, which is really not a good weapon for the job (although many forces are moving away from that choice now).

I don't know the reason why they are not used more broadly, it could be expense, pyschology, size etc, but they are definately more accurate than a handgun. I guess you think when people get hurt by inadvertent shots is not a good time to discuss alternatives that might reduce the collateral damage.

And I am not second guessing the officers at all. They have my greatest sympathy. They had never used their weapons in anger before and were faced with a suspect who was armed and willing to use their weapon. In fact it reminded me of my time in the military, I trained live fire plenty, but one always has doubts about how you will perform when someone is actually shooting at you and split second decisions mean life and death for you and others. It is a terrible situation and not so simple to predict the outcome.

edit: your comment about the Air Marshals got me thinking. It appears that they used to use frangible rounds but have not for over ten years now. The reasons why they stopped using them is not clear to me.

I'll use an emoticon next time, so you won't have to suspect. Of course it wasn't meant as a comparison. Fewer bullets flying about, not more per second is what I see as safer. Frankly I don't care if they patrol in Leopard tanks if it gets that result, but I'd imagine that just as this guy went ahead when he knew armed police would respond, having cops with bigger guns wouldn't increase the deterrent. I'd suspect the reverse in fact, that anyone with a plan would arm themselves to meet the SMG carrying cops.

Just promise me your MP5 guys will hit only the bad guys and do it fast, because I'm sure the better armed bad-guys won't be better shots than they are now.

Pure speculation about the air marshals but I'd bet they discovered the danger to the airplane wasn't appreciably lessened (and airframe experience and designs have improved sinece earlier explosive decompression days), and concluded the officer's effectiveness would be improved without adding to the overall danger. Part of what I see as problematic about such incidents is that police have few alternatives, and that the handgun is really a war-maker's weapon, not a violence-stopper's tool. All sorts of clever devices from bean-bag guns to tasers have been invented to be that tool but none has yet moved the pistol aside. When they had to, authorities did look at making pistols safer and still effective on planes. You could sell an awful lot of 2012 Model Peacemakers if you could get such a police-oriented redesigned pistol right. But I've not heard of anyone trying anything but larger calibres, tighter groupings and centre of body mass stopping power.

It's no knock on the NYPD officers involved that what we just saw came from that approach. I can't believe we can't do better.

 

[rld]

I'll use an emoticon next time, so you won't have to suspect. Of course it wasn't meant as a comparison. Fewer bullets flying about, not more per second is what I see as safer. Frankly I don't care if they patrol in Leopard tanks if it gets that result, but I'd imagine that just as this guy went ahead when he knew armed police would respond, having cops with bigger guns wouldn't increase the deterrent. I'd suspect the reverse in fact, that anyone with a plan would arm themselves to meet the SMG carrying cops.

Just promise me your MP5 guys will hit only the bad guys and do it fast, because I'm sure the better armed bad-guys won't be better shots than they are now.

Pure speculation about the air marshals but I'd bet they discovered the danger to the airplane wasn't appreciably lessened (and airframe experience and designs have improved sinece earlier explosive decompression days), and concluded the officer's effectiveness would be improved without adding to the overall danger. Part of what I see as problematic about such incidents is that police have few alternatives, and that the handgun is really a war-maker's weapon, not a violence-stopper's tool. All sorts of clever devices from bean-bag guns to tasers have been invented to be that tool but none has yet moved the pistol aside. When they had to, authorities did look at making pistols safer and still effective on planes. You could sell an awful lot of 2012 Model Peacemakers if you could get such a police-oriented redesigned pistol right. But I've not heard of anyone trying anything but larger calibres, tighter groupings and centre of body mass stopping power.

It's no knock on the NYPD officers involved that what we just saw came from that approach. I can't believe we can't do better.

I think you can achieve fewer bullets flying around by using a more accurate semi-automatic weapon. Sometimes you have to discharge your handgun fairly aggressively because it is just so hard to hit a moving target with them.

And I don't think most criminals arm themselves with a plan to shoot it out with police. I believe they normally arm themselves to either harm victims or impose there will. If they are arming themselves with the specific intent of out-gunning the police then we are talking about a whole different problem.

 

[oldjones]

We're already facing that 'whole different problem' if bad guys are having shootouts with cops on a more or less equal firepower basis. Glock vs. Glock. They didn't need more than .22s to intimidate, harm or impose their will, but they're already in an arms race with their perceived threat, whether that's other gang members, a guy making time with the wife, or the cops.

I'll take the accuracy issue as settled your way, and definitely want the police to have the most accurate and efficient weapon we can afford for them. In Canada the large extra cost of such weapons is increased by how hard it is to smuggle them, which gives the baddies and even greater disadvantage. But the very understandable conviction you must match your foe's weaponry is why we traded our police .38 revolvers for Glocks. Not that the cops can back down, but arms races just make bigger shootouts. The cops won't always be the only ones with the SMGs.

 

[y2kmark]

Hardly

I thought only cops were trustworthy with guns...

In the US in the decade 1/1/2000 - 12/31/2010 more US citizens were killed by police than died in the 9/11 attacks.:Eek: