# NYC Shooting



## MJS (Nov 13, 2007)

I'm sure this will cause some tension.

Apparently a mentally challenged 18yo was shot by police because it was believed that he had a handgun.  It turned out that he was holding a brush.  It could be heard on 911 tapes that a male was saying, "I have a gun!"  

Apparently 20 shots were fired.  Its interesting because they also mention Sean Bell, the groom that was killed, also in NY.  Of course, I was not surprised to see Sharptons name mentioned in this.  

As always, its hard to judge a situation like this, because we usually don't have all of the facts, however, I figured it would make a good topic for discussion. 

A small portion of the article.



> NEW YORK - An unarmed, mentally ill teenager could be heard yelling, Ive got a gun! in a 911 call made by his mother before police arrived and killed him in a 20-bullet barrage, according to a transcript of the call released by police Tuesday.
> Five officers opened fire after Kheil Coppin, 18, ignored warnings and suddenly charged them outside his mothers home with a black object in his hand, police officials said. The object turned out to be a hairbrush.
> Officers received the 911 call from the teens exasperated mother around 7 p.m. Monday, police spokesman Paul Browne said.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 13, 2007)

The first four or five articles I read on this subject today did not mention Mr. Bell or Mr. Sharpton. In fact, I read four articles trying to find the race of the young man who was shot. All of the initial reports said nothing concerning Bell, or Sharpton.

What was mentioned was a hair brush. 

And many reports from the police department about a 'gun'.

Of course, the gun never materialized.


----------



## grydth (Nov 13, 2007)

On first impression, it sounds like suicide by cop.

The cops have every reason to think they are being charged by an armed nut - who can blame them for shooting?

But - and large but - what's with 20 rounds? This is what troubled me about the Diallo case- what are these officers taught about use of a fire arm? Are they panic shooting and just emptying the gun?

Sharpton should never be considered after his dishonest antics in the Tawana Brawley circus, he is a nonfactor. Funny how Sharpton never apologized and was successfully sued, but still gets air time. Hmmmmmmm.


----------



## MJS (Nov 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The first four or five articles I read on this subject today did not mention Mr. Bell or Mr. Sharpton. In fact, I read four articles trying to find the race of the young man who was shot. All of the initial reports said nothing concerning Bell, or Sharpton.
> 
> What was mentioned was a hair brush.
> 
> ...


 
I have to wonder if the mother gave any input as to whether or not her son had a gun?  I mean, you'd think that she might know, but the article never mentions that.


----------



## MJS (Nov 13, 2007)

grydth said:


> On first impression, it sounds like suicide by cop.


 
Good point.  I didn't think about that.




> But - and large but - what's with 20 rounds? This is what troubled me about the Diallo case- what are these officers taught about use of a fire arm? Are they panic shooting and just emptying the gun?


 
Yes, that does seem like alot.  Then again, we don't know how many each officer fired, nor how many hit the kid.  Of course, I don't know what procedure is.  Are they supposed to shoot until the target is no longer a threat?  



> Sharpton should never be considered after his dishonest antics in the Tawana Brawley circus, he is a nonfactor. Funny how Sharpton never apologized and was successfully sued, but still gets air time. Hmmmmmmm.


 
My question is...why does he have to get involved at all?  Seems to me like anytime people like him get involved, they act as if they already have their minds made up about who was wrong and who was right.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 13, 2007)

As if death by one bullet is somehow better or different then 20??


----------



## grydth (Nov 13, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> As if death by one bullet is somehow better or different then 20??



Your inexperience shows itself in your sarcasm.

If you needlessly empty your gun on one assailant, but there are three assailants.... you die.

If you shoot without discipline until the gun empties, it is very likely that at least 3/4 of your rounds will not go where you want them.... as, into innocent bystanders. Happens all the time in gangster drive-bys, but not what a cop should be doing.


----------



## MJS (Nov 13, 2007)

grydth said:


> Your inexperience shows itself in your sarcasm.
> 
> If you needlessly empty your gun on one assailant, but there are three assailants.... you die.
> 
> If you shoot without discipline until the gun empties, it is very likely that at least 3/4 of your rounds will not go where you want them.... as, into innocent bystanders. Happens all the time in gangster drive-bys, but not what a cop should be doing.


 
Regarding the last paragraph...I'd say that it all comes down to proper training.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 13, 2007)

MJS said:


> I have to wonder if the mother gave any input as to whether or not her son had a gun? I mean, you'd think that she might know, but the article never mentions that.


 
Again, I read several articles on this shooting throughout the day. 

All the reports of a gun came from the police ... The police reported they heard 'I have a gun' on the phone call.

I admit, I was wondering about race ... and, if the story would show up here ... I almost posted it myself. I do think it is unfortunate that the first report shows up with the name Sharpton. As grydth post shows. By post 3, much is already discredited because of his invovlement. 

As grydth suggests, this may very well be suicide by police. 

The first reports were 20 rounds, later reports had 15 rounds. Further reports tell of multiple entrance and exit wounds. 

Not a good day. Very sad.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 13, 2007)

grydth said:


> On first impression, it sounds like suicide by cop.
> 
> The cops have every reason to think they are being charged by an armed nut - who can blame them for shooting?
> 
> ...


I'm working on digging up some of the research (check the Force Science Institute at http://www.forcescience.com/ as well as Col. Grossman's site at http://www.killology.com), but it's really not uncommon for anyone involved in a shooting situation to fire multiple shots without even realizing it.

I'm not saying it's ideal -- I'm just saying it's what happens.  In this case, several officers each fired a few shots; they add up quick.  And a shooting situation is chaotic beyond words.


----------



## MJS (Nov 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Again, I read several articles on this shooting throughout the day.
> 
> All the reports of a gun came from the police ... The police reported they heard 'I have a gun' on the phone call.
> 
> ...


 
Believe it or not, this is the first that I've heard of this.  I havent seen anything on the news or the paper in my area.  I agree with you Mike, this is sad.  Whats worse IMHO, is that rather than try to investigate what made this kid do this, people, ie:Sharpton, are totally turning the tables, making the cops to the be the bad guys, as usual, and will most likely bring race into this.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 13, 2007)

That's kind of the point though, Mike, isn't it. When Sharpton gets involved, suddenly a local news story gets carried outside the five borroughs. 

Twenty shots by three officers against a young man wielding a brush. Well, that's outrageous. And, outrage, for good or ill, is where Mr. Sharpton is drawn, like a moth to flame. 

And once he is there, the news media pick up the story. Because the news media loves to hate Mr. Sharpton. As do many who post here. The virtue of his arguments are void, because he makes them. And the story can be pivoted to be about Sharpton, rather than a challenged 18 year old that is dead.


----------



## dubljay (Nov 13, 2007)

I heard about this earlier this morning.  It was very tragic to hear.  Watching it on the news... CNN I believe, and they were reporting on the number of shots, that there was no gun, there were claims about a gun over the 911 call.

All I kept thinking about was how tragic this was.  Tragic that the boy lost his life, and for his family.  Tragic for the officers to have to do it, and for the inevitable ****storm to follow.

Domestic violence calls are among the most dangerous for an officer to face.  They always seem to be something of a no win situation and very unstable.  The time in which those officers had to make a decision is too small to even comprehend.  

Most of all, the information thats been made available is far too incomplete to even begin to make an accurate assessment of what happened, let alone judge the actions of all parties involved.  The public is already going to be making judgments on incomplete and inaccurate information which is unfair to both the officers and the victim. 

My heart goes out to all that are involved with this tragic mess.


----------



## MJS (Nov 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> That's kind of the point though, Mike, isn't it. When Sharpton gets involved, suddenly a local news story gets carried outside the five borroughs.
> 
> Twenty shots by three officers against a young man wielding a brush. Well, that's outrageous. And, outrage, for good or ill, is where Mr. Sharpton is drawn, like a moth to flame.
> 
> And once he is there, the news media pick up the story. Because the news media loves to hate Mr. Sharpton. As do many who post here. The virtue of his arguments are void, because he makes them. And the story can be pivoted to be about Sharpton, rather than a challenged 18 year old that is dead.


 
LOL, very true.  We all know how the media loves to look for the flavor of the moment.  Seriously though, why do people like Sharpton feel the need to get involved in things like this?  Do they think they'll have some light to shed?  Doubtful IMO.  It is a shame that someone died.  However, if I was an officer and someone pointed a gun at me, or what appeared to be a gun, I'd shoot too.  Could something have been done differently?  What made this 18yo act like this?  Those are just a few of the questions.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 13, 2007)

grydth said:


> Your inexperience shows itself in your sarcasm.
> 
> If you needlessly empty your gun on one assailant, but there are three assailants.... you die.
> 
> If you shoot without discipline until the gun empties, it is very likely that at least 3/4 of your rounds will not go where you want them.... as, into innocent bystanders. Happens all the time in gangster drive-bys, but not what a cop should be doing.



Thinking 20 or so rounds is too many on one assailant among a number of cops is usually thought by people who have never been  in a shooting.

First, I can unload an  entire magazine  with accuracy into an 11X8" piece of paper within 10 meters and mag change within about 2 seconds. I don't know  how many  cops train  that way, but I know a few that do. Even if it takes them longer,  a few seconds is not a long time. You could in theory  unload  an entire mag  very  easily before it was evident that your assailant had been "stopped." Keep in mind, that once shoots are fired, it is not apparent where the shots are all coming from. You  see a guy with a "gun" pointing at you or one of your buddies, and you hear a bunch of shots echoing all over the place. You orient yourself to the perceived threat and shoot until the threat has stopped. Plus, adrenaline is running high. And, all this occurs within a few seconds.

But, all of the above aside, if we consider that there were 5 cops involved, that leaves about 4 shots per cop, give or take. If there was 15 shots instead of 20, then that is even less. So, provided that this was what we call a "clean" shooting (meaning that the shooters reacted reasonably),  this is hardly a case of undisciplined cops, or cops with insufficient training here.

Now, I don't know all the facts, but based on what I do know, this seems like a clean shooting (albeit a very tragic one). But I do know for sure that "a lot of shots" in incidents like these is not an indicator of excessive force, and is in fact very common in shootings like these.

One thing that is for sure also is that this is a very tragic incident. It's a shame that the kid had to do what he had done for him, for his family, and for the police involved...

C.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 14, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> That's kind of the point though, Mike, isn't it. When Sharpton gets involved, suddenly a local news story gets carried outside the five borroughs.
> 
> Twenty shots by three officers against a young man wielding a brush. Well, that's outrageous. And, outrage, for good or ill, is where Mr. Sharpton is drawn, like a moth to flame.
> 
> And once he is there, the news media pick up the story. Because the news media loves to hate Mr. Sharpton. As do many who post here. The virtue of his arguments are void, because he makes them. And the story can be pivoted to be about Sharpton, rather than a challenged 18 year old that is dead.


 
I'm going to be quite blunt.  Be warned.

Have you ever been there?  Have you responded to the report of a man with a gun threatening someone?  I have; thank God, I didn't have to shoot, but I've been within ounces and hundredths of an inch of doing so.

Let me paint a picture for you.  I don't know if this is how it went down -- but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's pretty close.  Dispatch sends you to an address; they advise you that the call taker has heard statements about that the suspect has a gun, and that it's a domestic dispute.  Oh, ****, you think, this is gonna be bad.  You start running possible scenarios through your mind, all while figuring out the best way to get there, dealing with traffic, and wondering if you're going to have to shoot someone, or if you'll be shot.  All this is going on at light speed.

You get there; the suspect comes out of the house.  You see he's got something that's kind of long, and black in his hand.  He's acting nuts.  He's not doing what you're telling him to.  Then he charges at you...

NOW -- all this is taking place in a matter of moments.  Maybe you're the first to fire; maybe you just suddenly hear gunshots or see muzzleflash out of the corner of your eye, and you're primed to go off, because in the tunnel vision of combat all you really know is the guy's charging, maybe you're hearing the gunshots (maybe your not; it's not uncommon under this sort of situation for your senses to focus and many people in shootings don't remember the sound of the gunshots).  In a matter of seconds, it's over.  You've fired 2 to 5 shots, the suspect is down... and that longish black object turns out to have been a hairbrush.

The little I've seen or read on this sounds like a clean shooting.  I hope maybe my little story has put you a little closer to being in their shoes, because I'm virtually certain that those cops are second guessing themselves, trying to decide if they could have done anything better.   You know what I'd tell them?  They obeyed rule 1; THEY went home at the end of their watch.  Acting on the information available, with the time they had to react -- they did the best they could to ensure that.  There may or may not have been anything they could have done.  In the real world, there's no shooting to wound, there's no tackling him _a_ _la _*Walker, Texas Ranger*, and there's no way that this was a case for a Taser or similar less lethal weapon.  Had the man (we do generally consider 18 year olds men, adults) had a gun, and had they not responded had they did, the headlines could easily have read "Police officer shot" or, even worse, "Innocent bystander killed by mentally ill 18 year old."


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 14, 2007)

grydth said:


> Your inexperience shows itself in your sarcasm.
> 
> If you needlessly empty your gun on one assailant, but there are three assailants.... you die.
> 
> If you shoot without discipline until the gun empties, it is very likely that at least 3/4 of your rounds will not go where you want them.... as, into innocent bystanders. Happens all the time in gangster drive-bys, but not what a cop should be doing.


 
I beilieve I have much more experience on this topic than you. Real world isnt lie the movies/TV or what you think a gunfight is like from the gun mags, And BTW...3 shooters, 20 shots...about 6-7 shots per officer, thats not excessive IMO.


----------



## grydth (Nov 14, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I beilieve I have much more experience on this topic than you. Real world isnt lie the movies/TV or what you think a gunfight is like from the gun mags, And BTW...3 shooters, 20 shots...about 6-7 shots per officer, thats not excessive IMO.



Believe whatever you wish, its irrelevant. Your first insulting post added nothing to the discussion here.

Nobody has mentioned any movie or TV reference. This is a cheap straw man tactic on your part. So is the "gunfight" reference.... there was no gunfight. The decedent had a hair brush..

 Just how do you know that each officer fired the same number of shots, with equal discipline? Care to give us a source on that.


----------



## grydth (Nov 14, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Thinking 20 or so rounds is too many on one assailant among a number of cops is usually thought by people who have never been  in a shooting.
> 
> First, I can unload an  entire magazine  with accuracy into an 11X8" piece of paper within 10 meters and mag change within about 2 seconds. I don't know  how many  cops train  that way, but I know a few that do. Even if it takes them longer,  a few seconds is not a long time. You could in theory  unload  an entire mag  very  easily before it was evident that your assailant had been "stopped." Keep in mind, that once shoots are fired, it is not apparent where the shots are all coming from. You  see a guy with a "gun" pointing at you or one of your buddies, and you hear a bunch of shots echoing all over the place. You orient yourself to the perceived threat and shoot until the threat has stopped. Plus, adrenaline is running high. And, all this occurs within a few seconds.
> 
> ...



Why, I didn't know the thread participation was limited to baaaaad gunfighters in black. Maybe we can have the mods check kill tallies before allowing anyone to post.

What you can do with a gun on a paper target is irrelevant, The focus should be on what these cops, *with their training level*, did against this assailant. 

Maybe you shoot until "the threat has stopped"..... and in the past, isn't it true that some have continued shooting well after that? How, exactly, do you know that did not happen here?

Same question to you as to Blotan: where do you get the 'fact' that each officer on the scene fired the same number of rounds? Now, I don't gunfight every morning on my way in to work, but don't accounts of armed engagements often show that some participants empty their guns while others don't shoot at all? Or, did I get that from some TV show while I was knitting?


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2007)

Well, this happened at 7pm.  By that hour, I'm sure it was dark outside.  Now, you have someone acting crazy, yelling, screaming, making comments that he has a gun, started moving towards the officers and kept moving despite warnings to stop.  I wasn't there either, but as I said, given the situation, I'd have shot as well.  

We don't know how many shots were fired from each of the 5 officers there.  20 sounds like a big number, but I don't believe the cops are going to pick and choose which one of them fires.  No, I would imagine they're all going to fire.  

As far as the stray shots go....like I said, alot of it comes down to training.  There are some that're going to focus more time on shooting than others.  But hey, its part of the job.  Look at the shooting a while back in L.A.  The one with the guys that held up the bank, that were armed with high power weapons.  Hell of a shootout and I'm sure there were many stray shots.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 14, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> I'm going to be quite blunt. Be warned.
> 
> Have you ever been there? Have you responded to the report of a man with a gun threatening someone? I have; thank God, I didn't have to shoot, but I've been within ounces and hundredths of an inch of doing so.
> 
> ...


 
Is there a reason you are lecturing me? 

Really? 

Good Grief.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 14, 2007)

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

_Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 14, 2007)

First, people should understand the Objective-Reasonableness standard, as put forth by the Supreme Court, before any judgement can be rendered as to whether force used was excessive. This issue was determined in the case of Graham vs. Conner. Basically it goes something like this:

*The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.* 

Now, from there, you must look at each officers actions individually, in light of the circumstances which he/she presents. Each officer will have to justify their own shooting, even if multiple officers are present and shooting. 

In this particular case, I keep hearing about the totallity of bullets being excessive. That has absolutely no legal bearing on whether the use-of-force was excessive. 

For instance, in this case of three officers shooting, you ask officer A why he shot and why the number of times he did. This individual officers actions are then deemed justified or not. Then you do the same with Officers B and C individually. If all are deemed to be within a legal standard, the the overall 20 rounds issue is irrelevant.

I believe it is peoples fundamental lack of understanding of the legal standard for excessive force which makes them call it such in the first place. And this for which they argue a criminal/civil penalty against officers.

In the second, I believe that people hold police officers to an unreasonably high standard. This is the case which usually begets a moral judgement. This usually comes from a lack of understanding the psychological/physiological reactions to a deadly threat stimulus with regards to police shootings, as well as the practical realities of police training.


----------



## jim777 (Nov 14, 2007)

grydth said:


> But - and large but - what's with 20 rounds? This is what troubled me about the Diallo case- what are these officers taught about use of a fire arm? Are they panic shooting and just emptying the gun?


 

A very good friend of mine was one of the first cops on the scene after the Diallo shooting, and spoke with a number of the cops involved. One of the things that never got mentioned in the media is exactly what happened there, and could have happened here. And that is: when you fire a gun down a long hallway, the sound of the gunfire bounces off the end of the hallway and comes back at you. You shoot, and half a second later the echo of the shot being fired hits you in the face. So, the cop firing the gun hears two shots. IMMEDIATELY your mind tells you the guy on the other end of the hallway is firing back. At that point, it is literally (and unfortunately) kill or be killed. So, you fire again, your partner fires, your shots and returns are echoing all over the place, smoke fills the area so you can't see what's going on....It's very unfortunate but that does contribute to high shot totals.


Anyway, Just a thought, I'm not lecturing anyone here.


----------



## thardey (Nov 14, 2007)

I had another thought to throw in the mix - for the record, I'm just a citizen with a glock, and have never pointed a gun at anybody.

But it seems to be that if you're going to shoot, shoot! I've been taught at least two shots to the center of mass, and, if the guy is still standing, one to the head. The part that bothers me is the idea of emptying your gun through lack of discipline.

So I've heard different numbers: 3 or 5 cops shot 15 or 20 rounds. What kind of guns were they using?

Since I don't know, I'll try to make my point using a couple of scenarios.

We'll start conservative:

15 shots, 5 cops, with old service revolvers. Average: three shots apiece, leaving an average of three shots apiece, or 15 more rounds. 

15 shots 3 cops, with revolvers, average, 5 rounds apiece, leaving one. On average, no empty guns yet.

18 shots, 3 cops, revolvers. Out of bullets on all counts.

I'm guessing they carried some sort of semi. Around here, the pistol of choice is the Glock .40. 15 round magazine, plus one in the pipe. For simplicity's sake, we'll call it 15.

3 cops, 20 shots. Average: Two shot 7, and one shot 6. That still leaves 25 shots between the three of them. Two with 8 left, and one with 9.

The 9mm. has 17 in the mag, and even the .45 has 13 rounds.

Not counting reloading mags.

I just don't get the sense that these guys fired away until their guns stopped firing.

Something else I had heard once on Glocktalk, and maybe someone here can shed some light on it. Someone suggested target practicing with a T-shirt over the target, because in self-defense situations, you often can't see where, or if, your bullets are hitting, especially in low-light.

That is, blood doesn't explode out of the wound like in hollywood special effects. (what do they call them? squibs?)

Maybe these guys couldn't see that they _were_ hitting him, until he stopped.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 14, 2007)

Sorry, but I'm going to cut this up and respond for convienence...



grydth said:


> Why, I didn't know the thread participation was limited to baaaaad gunfighters in black. Maybe we can have the mods check kill tallies before allowing anyone to post.


 
Everyone can have an opinion, but it would be nice if people looked to others who have been in similar situations or have been in shootings to broaden their viewpoint. The first thing people often comment on in these situations is how the number of shots fired is "excessive," when that usually isn't the case.



> What you can do with a gun on a paper target is irrelevant, The focus should be on what these cops, *with their training level*, did against this assailant.


 
My point in mentioning that is to point out that I am a human being. I am not special. Anyone with some training can fire off a mag within a few seconds; shorter then it would take someone to register that the threat has stopped.



> Maybe you shoot until "the threat has stopped"..... and in the past, isn't it true that some have continued shooting well after that? How, exactly, do you know that did not happen here?


 
I was clear that WE meaning ALL OF US including you, do not know all the facts. But based on what we do know, this appears to be a clean shooting. We have to make judgements based on evidence that we have, not judgements based on speculations on what could happen from evidence we do not have.



> Same question to you as to Blotan: where do you get the 'fact' that each officer on the scene fired the same number of rounds? Now, I don't gunfight every morning on my way in to work, but don't accounts of armed engagements often show that some participants empty their guns while others don't shoot at all? Or, did I get that from some TV show while I was knitting?


 
In no way did I say that all the cops fired an equal number of shots. I was clear in saying that with 5 cops involved (the number given in the linked article) that leaves ABOUT 4 SHOTS per cop for 20 shots. I did not imply that each cop shot an equal number of shots. One could have shot 2, another 6, another 7, another 0, and another 5, for example. My point was that when you divy up the shots among 5 cops, 20 shots is not unreasonable.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 14, 2007)

Exactly Cru. I think people believe that in these situations the cop is going to calmly aim 1-2 well aimed shots (perhaps to the leg, or shoot the gun out of his hand), you see those big gouts of blood so you know you hit him and down he goes and thats it. When in reality your scared, think you are going to get shot, you start shooting but nothing seems to happen so you keep on shooting. When theres 3 other people around you, each of you thinks that it ME hes shooting at or you think hes about to kill your partner.

And you are right, how is it that ANY side can critique the number of shots at this point? Im just saying that the number doesnt MEAN anything unless more evidence comes to light. Others seem to knee-jerk that any shooting past 5-6 rounds is automatically indicitive of poor training or an execution. Thats not the case. If you are justified in using deadly force, you use it till you are no longer justified. The number of shots it takes to get there is irrelavent IMO.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 14, 2007)

thardey said:


> But it seems to be that if you're going to shoot, shoot! I've been taught at least two shots to the center of mass, and, if the guy is still standing, one to the head. The part that bothers me is the idea of emptying your gun through lack of discipline.


 
What happens when your 2 to the body dont do anything and you miss the head shot? The failure drill is passe (sp?) for defensive shooting. If you are going in on a building entry where you are in that "mode" it may have its use, but in general you shoot untill the threat is stopped. You pause to see if your Mozambique drill worked, hes going to empty his gun into you. Rapid fire CQB point shooting is absolutely acceptable and not evidence of "panic shooting". Why do you think SWAT/SEAL/SAS guys go in and lay bursts of 9mm on people with their MP5's? Because pistol bullets are not the best tool for the job so you hit them as many times as you need to.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 14, 2007)

grydth said:


> But - and large but - what's with 20 rounds? This is what troubled me about the Diallo case- what are these officers taught about use of a fire arm? Are they panic shooting and just emptying the gun?


 
For a really good analysis of the Diallo case, may I recommend a book called Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking? Very interesting book about the method by which people make quick judgements.  It's similar in concept to The Gift of Fear but broader in scale; where de Becker focuses on the quick judgements that set off our fear instinct, Gladwell looks at how the brain applies this method to all aspects of life.  The final chapter is devoted to how and why the system breaks down, and he uses the Diallo case as an example.  It was a _lot_ more complicated than it was made out to be in the media.  

It sounds like this case is similar.  The information in the article was collected after the incident, and we don't know how much information the police had when they had to make fast decisions.


----------



## thardey (Nov 14, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> What happens when your 2 to the body dont do anything and you miss the head shot? The failure drill is passe (sp?) for defensive shooting. If you are going in on a building entry where you are in that "mode" it may have its use, but in general you shoot untill the threat is stopped. You pause to see if your Mozambique drill worked, hes going to empty his gun into you. Rapid fire CQB point shooting is absolutely acceptable and not evidence of "panic shooting". Why do you think SWAT/SEAL/SAS guys go in and lay bursts of 9mm on people with their MP5's? Because pistol bullets are not the best tool for the job so you hit them as many times as you need to.



Totally agreed, that's why I qualified it with _"at least."_ I figure train for _at least _two and one, then I won't just take one shot and freeze. Sometimes I train for 4 and two. Sometimes I unload my mag rapid fire to the CoM. I want to build good habits, but I don't want to constrain myself.

I've gotten some tips from a friend of mine who's in the FBI, and he stressed to me the importance of the difference in shooting, then analyzing, vs. analyzing _while_ shooting. You could easily burn 6 rounds while analyzing, and you would typically be justified in doing so.

Especially if, like I was asking above, you're not seeing red marks from where you're hitting. You may not be getting feedback, until the guy falls down. (Not blown backwards, or shaken around like a rag doll, either).


----------



## thardey (Nov 14, 2007)

Whoops, on re-reading your post *Blotan*, I realized I didn't communicate clearly what I meant to say was.

"The part that bothers me is the implication that they were emptying their guns through lack of discipline."

Instead of what I wrote:



thardey said:


> The part that bothers me is the idea of emptying your gun through lack of discipline.



I was responding to this post:



grydth said:


> If you needlessly empty your gun on one assailant, but there are three assailants.... you die.
> 
> If you shoot without discipline until the gun empties, it is very likely that at least 3/4 of your rounds will not go where you want them.... as, into innocent bystanders. Happens all the time in gangster drive-bys, but not what a cop should be doing.




Then I tried to make the point that one the _average_ there were plenty of shots left to deal with other situations, should something unforeseen have arisen. Obviously I wasn't clear. Sorry, but I was trying to agree with you.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 14, 2007)

thardey said:


> Totally agreed, that's why I qualified it with _"at least."_ I figure train for _at least _two and one, then I won't just take one shot and freeze. Sometimes I train for 4 and two. Sometimes I unload my mag rapid fire to the CoM. I want to build good habits, but I don't want to constrain myself.
> 
> I've gotten some tips from a friend of mine who's in the FBI, and he stressed to me the importance of the difference in shooting, then analyzing, vs. analyzing _while_ shooting. You could easily burn 6 rounds while analyzing, and you would typically be justified in doing so.
> 
> Especially if, like I was asking above, you're not seeing red marks from where you're hitting. You may not be getting feedback, until the guy falls down. (Not blown backwards, or shaken around like a rag doll, either).


 
All good points. There are some people out there training (for lack of a better term) "random sequence engagement". You never shoot the same sequence of rounds twice in a row. On every command to fire you can shoot from 1-5/6 rounds.


----------



## grydth (Nov 15, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> _*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*
> 
> _Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.
> 
> ...



Point taken. By now I should know when to just walk away...


----------



## redfang (Nov 16, 2007)

My department's policy is shoot until the threat stops. All officers are trained to shoot center mass of the target. 

One reality is that most handguns do not have tremendous stopping power. If someone is jacked up on adrenaline, drugs, etc. they can be shot multiple times, keep advancing, and continue fighting for several minutes,EVEN IF THEY HAVE RECEIVED FATAL WOUNDS. A few months back, I attended an officer survival training. A portion of it was just watching car vid after car vid of officers shooting suspects many times and having those suspects continue to fight and in most of the tapes kill the officer. These were all actual footage, not dramatizations. One suspect took a shot to his heart and still managed to struggle with and then kill the officer.


----------

