Nine Empire State Shooting Victims Were Wounded by Police Officers: Should Cops Be Able to Fire Into Crowds to Take Down a Shooter?

by Chris D Posted 2012/08/27 18:00:00

Related Topics: Police, Empire State Shooting, New York, Nypd, Friday, Recap, Empire Shooting

362 votes
Read all 438 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	64 votes	18%
	No	163 votes	45%
	It's complicated	135 votes	37%

It sounds pretty ridiculous when nine out of the ten victims of a mass shooting are caused by the police. Not to say that the cops have it easy dealing with these situations, but it seems like the rules of engagement should specify that police shouldn't fire blindly into crowds to take down a suspect. What is your opinion?

CNN.COM reports:
Nine people injured in Friday's shooting near the Empire State Building were wounded by police gunfire, a New York police official says.

+18

Add a comment above

Roy J Stewart 2012/08/27 19:04:54

It's complicated

+7
It sounds pretty ridiculous when nine out of the ten victims of a mass shooting are caused by the police. Not to say that the cops have it easy dealing with these situations, but it seems like the rules of engagement should specify that police shouldn't fire blindly into crowds to take down a suspect. What is your opinion?
I agree! 9 non-involved victims decries prudent firing by the Officers . . . how far from their target 'suspect' were the shooters? Size/Design and Velocity of bullets?
How many shots actually struck the intended 'target'?
Had the 'device' been a Bomb, perhaps the nine 'non-target' victims could have been a low casualty number!
>> See Replies

More polls by Chris D

joshua.sager.9 2012/08/30 20:35:07

It's complicated

As with dealing with any violent situation, this choice requires judgement. Simply barring the police from shooting into a group of people in order to take down a gunman will only result in more gunmen using human shields.

This should be left up to the police, but there should be far more training for the police and high levels of accountability for police who shoot innocent bystanders.

reply
belinda baardsen 2012/08/30 17:00:48

No

Really? We have to ask that question? Understood: there's a shooter--but, to fire back? Unless you are a sniper & have expert marksmen skills; it's just plain stupid. You let the bad guy get away for a minute & then follow after him into a safe place where there are no crowds - and thennn....you take him out. You do not fire into a crowd of people: ever!

reply
Bronar 2012/08/30 16:14:05

No

Obviously not.

reply
gregaj7 2012/08/29 20:43:23

No

They are not supposed to do that.

reply
Michael 2012/08/29 20:31:44

No

They are supposed to protect and serve.

reply
Texas Johnny 2012/08/29 20:23:31

It's complicated

It is obvious that these guys had a minimum of training and had no real world simulations like the military or SWAT units do in training. I suggest this>

reply
Top Shelf® (oyo) 2012/08/29 18:32:30

No

+1
i read somewhere that a study done by
the nypd found that officers only scored
a 34% accuracy rating during shootings
in the line of duty.

reply
Michael 2012/08/29 17:49:35

Yes

But they have to be better trained on the range, obviously they were not in this case.

reply
Tom 2012/08/29 17:27:17

It's complicated

+1
Only if the shooter is actively firing on the crowd, not the cops themselves.
They can just take cover.

reply
Cat 2012/08/29 15:51:33

No

+1
I saw a documentary on a bus hostage in Brazil. The cops tried to take down the shooter and ended up shooting a hostage in the face, which freaked the shooter out and shot her four more times in the back.

reply
chgo 2012/08/29 15:21:00
SunShine 2012/08/29 14:43:47

It's complicated

+2
actually the truth of this is IF THEY HAD CONCEALED CARRY IN N.Y. someone would have been able to take this guy down in two minutes flat without the police even firing a shot into the crowds..

reply
jmc07806-PWCM-JLA 2012/08/29 12:32:03

It's complicated

They were not shooting into a crowd they were shooting at someone pointing a gun at them.

reply
Rat Killer to jmc0780... 2012/09/17 03:09:28

I guess they just had lousy aim.

reply
jmc0780... to Rat Killer 2012/09/19 13:12:45

Yes they do need some real training.

reply
Franklin 2012/08/29 11:18:25

Yes

+1
as police they are members of the public sector so like all "public sector" employees they are part of the ruling class and there for are better than regular people - this is the "Change" Marx wrote about and we have all been waiting for....

reply
Mikado Hikyuu 2012/08/29 06:59:24

No

+1
When police as a group switch over to less than lethal ammunition then yes.. fire into a crowd of innocent bystanders if you feel the need to take down a criminal by hosing down a whole sidewalk with gunfire.

If you are not trained in marksmanship any better than that then why not just resort to truck mounted water guns? That way not nearly as many innocent people will get hurt or killed.. and you may just accidentally hit the suspect in the process?

reply
Fashionable60s 2012/08/29 05:49:00 (edited)

It's complicated

The police was following the perpetrator who just shot someone to death with a .45. If you live or know NYC at 9 AM, the streets around West 34th Street are always very crowded with people going to work. There was no way the police could avoid pedestrians in bringing down the perpetrator who had aimed his gun at the policemen who were following him. FYI, they were the NYPD not the SWAT team, two different specialties. Give the NYPD a break, they did bring down the perpetrator under a difficult scenario, the pedestrians injuries were caused both by bullets, bullet fragments and ricocheting bullets. BTW, the dead perpetrator was a skilled marksman when he used to serve in the Coast Guard in Florida.

reply
Standardtoaster 2012/08/29 05:02:41

No

+1
Those 9 people would probably vote "no," lol.

reply
addie 2012/08/29 03:24:29

No

+1
Wildly, into a crowd, of course not, but this is New York City and our cops shoot and kill anyway and anyone they want to at anytime.

reply
john Kills 2012/08/29 02:32:00

No

+1
They should be brought on charges of assult, negligence, brandishing, public endangerment. I have a license to carry concealed and I am held accountable for every bullet fired. Cops should be held to at least the same standard. They are paid to protect people, not shoot innocents.

reply
addie to john Kills 2012/08/29 03:25:23

You are right, but here in NYC, they will not be convicted of anything, so why bother.

reply
john Kills to addie 2012/09/01 23:36:10
Hoss 2012/08/29 01:08:34

No

+2
These are the Tards who can't shoot straight. Take a look at a history of NYPD and Washington, DC cops -- rogue governments who tyrannize the Second Amendment, are more a threat to the population than saviors. The collateral damage caused by Keystone Cops like this is inexcusable. The survivors out to sue the everlovin dogsnot out of the PD, the mayor's office, both organizationally and personally.

Every hunter, every fighting man has undergone safety training and / or is subject to Shoot- Don't Shoot Rules of Engagement.

Rule Number 1 - all guns are loaded until proven otherwise.

Rule Number 2 - only point a weapon at something / someone you intend to shoot.

Rule Number 3 - be target sure and that includes being aware of what is immediately behind your target.

reply
Larre 2012/08/29 00:03:27

Yes

Only if it is necessary. The cops were obviously trying to hit the shooter. they had little time to really aim at their target. It was 2 seconds and done, the way it should be. Also it is wise to stay away from an obvious gunman if there are obvious police cars in the area obviously following him, and he was completely obvious! The cops were also completely obvious! No one was hiding at all!! People were just not looking and taking in the situation!!

reply
mae 2012/08/28 23:30:00

No

NO! OMG! What the heck kind of SWAT Team is that?

reply
Jaiheena Star 2012/08/28 22:41:34

No

Hell no

reply
politicalsoldier 2012/08/28 22:14:59

It's complicated

+1
It's complicated somewhat, but yes, their actions looked like that of reactionary panic and not gauged by training.

I've seen one post on here where some one said it was reported, "only two shots from the police were "unaccounted" Nine of the eleven shots fired hit the gunman in the chest. the injuries were from bullets/fragments that passed through the "alleged" murderer. that 9 of the eleven shots fired hit the target."

If they were hitting their mark center-mass, then why did they need to fire 11 shots? Seems a little jumpy and trigger happy to me.

reply
Hawk 2012/08/28 22:10:27

It's complicated

Depends whos in the crowd!

reply
don 2012/08/28 21:15:37

No

and yet the NRA says all citizens should be armed to prevent criminals from shooting...if a cop cant hit a target from 10 feet away, what makes anyone think that a civilian with no training could do it better?

reply
topcat128 to don 2012/08/29 00:16:10 (edited)

+1
I happen to be an NRA member and I can hit a target 10 feet away. I have had training and Target Practice each month. I know that shooting at a target is not the same as shooting at a person, but I could hit him or her, if I needed to.

reply
Hoss to don 2012/08/29 01:13:11

+2
Non-LEO shooters (citizens) have a much safer accidental shooting record than that of so-called 'trained' police. So very often cops just fire their weapon during annual training.

So-called 'civilian' shooters (LEO's are 'civilians' too!) are often better shots, since they do it for love, not money. Many 'civilians' were once active duty military, and are often better trained than the average cop. The 'better-trained' meme by the Left comes from those who barely know anything about guns.

reply
JenSemPa to don 2012/08/29 03:51:07

+2
Private citizens with firearms prevent crimes, or stop them in progress, at least four times more often than crimes are committed with guns.

And who said anything about "no training"? The NRA doesn't advocate gun ownership without training. They advocate the exact opposite. And they provide it. They provide training sessions all over the country.

I'm not a "gun person" myself, but I've known people who are. They're fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizens who shouldn't be forced to give up their Second Amendment rights in the name of some leftist ideology.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

reply
Rat Killer to don 2012/09/17 03:14:41 (edited)

Exactly why a criminal SHOULD be scared of people with weapons...lol Actually a conscientious citizen probably takes more frequent firearms training than a fat-a__ cop these days...IMHO. Whatever happened to standards & public service anyway? Now they only say they are for controlling unrest, not protecting & serving.

reply
Ken 2012/08/28 19:25:41

It's complicated

Clearly the police in this case acted inappropriately....gun man kills one and injures none....police kill one and injure 8. The gunman got his man and no one else.

At the same time, the police were acting within the context of Aurora and the Wisconsin Sheik temple incident. Without a doubt they feared the gunman would fire on random civilians.

reply
Lerro DeHazel 2012/08/28 18:50:45

Yes

+2
Only if they can really assure themselves of a Direct Hit . . .

reply
Lanikai 2012/08/28 18:48:17

Yes

+4
Gn control should ONLY mean hitting exactly what you aim at.

FLUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the sound of taxpayer dollars paying for all the lawsuits now that the stupid police shot up a bunch of folks.

reply
JoeM 2012/08/28 18:45:58

It's complicated

+1
only two shots from the police were "unaccounted" Nine of the eleven shots fired hit the gunman in the chest. the injuries were from bullets/fragments that passed through the "alleged" murderer. I would question whether the NYPD are giving their officers enough time on the range. two misses out of eleven shots at close range is unacceptable in most departments.

reply
Keith 2012/08/28 18:39:36

It's complicated

+1
Just Wanted to say I have seen lots of things saying honor our brave police officers and what not but I gotta say, these police in this case are more concerned about their own life and do not deserve the honor to be called heroes, they would rather shoot into a crowd of innocent people to try and hit the guy shooting at them. Basically a few civilians getting shot is better then them getting shot in their view.

reply
kraftymomma1979 2012/08/28 18:23:14

It's complicated

The shooter might have started shooting people and not have stopped until out of ammo. I wasn't there. As random violence seems to be on the increase, it would be ideal for ALL officers of the law to spend more time at the gun range. Budget is always the problem.

reply