Cops open fire at times Square, miss their suspect, shoot bystanders instead.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkjJ4AaPV68

This just got uploaded on youtube and figured i'd share it here.
It just happened so news is sketchy, but seems suspect was miming a gun with his hand and the cops overreacted a little...

So tldr, cops opened fire in a very crowded place and shot innocents. Over a suspect that wasnt even armed if initial hear say is accurate.

...I don't even these guys. I blame whoever gave them their weapon certifications.

Like to shot motherfucker. I mean, damn...

Bullets in the air + crowded place = likelihood of someone getting shot.

It's rather simple, really. Now, when you're an allegedly trained officer of the law and legally empowered to fire in such a situation, you might be expected to actually hit what you're aiming at, especially if a miss means innocents get hurt.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/times-square-police-shooting/
That's the CNN article on the shooting.

Firing three times to bring down someone pointing his finger at you (and missing all three times), especially in a crowded area, seems terribly careless.

I have been saying for years that LEOs are poorly trained in the use of firearms. They are also poorly equipped with firearms that take more training than average to use appropriately. This is not the first time this has happened in Times Square in NYC (9 injured in that incident)- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57602998/times-square-shooting-nypd-officers-shoot-two-innocent-bystanders-near-times-square/

Yep, can't defend this one. Good grief. I'm glad no one was killed. Someone needs to get those officers eyes checked (for both their aim and being able to differentiate a finger from a gun barrel).

cops are in the right, mimes are a menace to society

So, it must be that time of the year where the cops of NYC lose their mind. At least the LAPD and NYPD have the decency to alternate.

Mayor Bloomberg, on denying National Guard security assistance during Hurricane Sandy:

"The NYPD is the only people we want on the street with guns."

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/35/44/all_martysnubbed_2012_11_02_bk.html

Also this:
NYPD Gunfire Wounded All 9 People Injured In Empire State Building Shootout

http://abcnews.go.com/US/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-gunfire-wounded-victims/story?id=17078377

Yet they believe that it's the citizens that can't be trusted with guns.

Right.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/north-carolina-police-shooting/index.html?c=&page=1 Cops seem to be a huge threat to innocent people lately. All the dude wanted was help because he was in a car wreck and they shot him to death.

captcha: glazed donut

really captcha, freakin really?

farson135:
I have been saying for years that LEOs are poorly trained in the use of firearms. They are also poorly equipped with firearms that take more training than average to use appropriately. This is not the first time this has happened in Times Square in NYC (9 injured in that incident)- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57602998/times-square-shooting-nypd-officers-shoot-two-innocent-bystanders-near-times-square/

Isn't NYC the place where cops' sidearms have unreasonably high trigger weights? You'd think after incidents like this, they might reconsider that.

evilneko:

farson135:
I have been saying for years that LEOs are poorly trained in the use of firearms. They are also poorly equipped with firearms that take more training than average to use appropriately. This is not the first time this has happened in Times Square in NYC (9 injured in that incident)- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57602998/times-square-shooting-nypd-officers-shoot-two-innocent-bystanders-near-times-square/

Isn't NYC the place where cops' sidearms have unreasonably high trigger weights? You'd think after incidents like this, they might reconsider that.

Yup. Same city. Maybe with a new mayor coming in the city will change its policies. On the other hand I am sure it cost a lot of money to make those firearm contracts. Plus replacing all of the firearms will be time consuming and expensive. Most likely nothing will change.

Yet another example of how guns in crowded and chaotic situations cannot be relied on to solve the problem. Can't wait to hear the gun-apologist's excuses on this one.

mokes310:
Yet another example of how guns in crowded and chaotic situations cannot be relied on to solve the problem. Can't wait to hear the gun-apologist's excuses on this one.

You do realize that this incident was perpetuated by a poorly trained LEO that carries a firearm that extremely difficult to use without a high level of training, right?

It was a gun-control happy city that mandated that LEOs must carry a firearm that is very difficult to use. At the same time that same city cut back on training and increased the difficulty to get training in the city limits.

If anything, gun control proponents should be apologizing for their shortsightedness.

Meanwhile, my local sheriff sent a couple of his deputies out to Thunder Ranch. One of the finest firearm training facilities in the world. Also, one of my friends is a deputy and he just bought himself a custom Wilson Combat m1911 that he uses on duty AND in IDPA matches. World of difference.

mokes310:
Yet another example of how guns in crowded and chaotic situations cannot be relied on to solve the problem. Can't wait to hear the gun-apologist's excuses on this one.

....you seem to miss the part where this happened in NYC, which leads the country in gun control. If anything, this event undermines gun control....

I would just criticize whatever decision made them shoot in a crowd. Whether it's a firearm or teargas, you don't do that.

Ryotknife:

mokes310:
Yet another example of how guns in crowded and chaotic situations cannot be relied on to solve the problem. Can't wait to hear the gun-apologist's excuses on this one.

....you seem to miss the part where this happened in NYC, which leads the country in gun control. If anything, this event undermines gun control....

And you seemed to miss the part where I said absolutely nothing about gun control, or the City of New York's gun control policies.

What I said was that this is another example of how when guns are used in chaotic and dynamic situations, you cannot fully account for all possibilities. The potential to maim, injure, or kill an innocent individual is far greater than when compared to non-lethal weapons.

Seriously, gun people, get over yourselves and wake up to the fact that your is not as safe and controllable as you'd like it to be.

mokes310:
What I said was that this is another example of how when guns are used in chaotic and dynamic situations, you cannot fully account for all possibilities. The potential to maim, injure, or kill an innocent individual is far greater than when compared to non-lethal weapons.

When used by an ill trained officer who is issued piss poor equipment.

Seriously, gun people, get over yourselves and wake up to the fact that your is not as safe and controllable as you'd like it to be.

Let us see, I have never had an accidental discharge and my safety record is spotless. I am also a nationally ranked rifle shooter with several thousand hours of training under my belt. Are you trying to argue that I must be put on the same level as that LEO?

farson135:

mokes310:
What I said was that this is another example of how when guns are used in chaotic and dynamic situations, you cannot fully account for all possibilities. The potential to maim, injure, or kill an innocent individual is far greater than when compared to non-lethal weapons.

When used by an ill trained officer who is issued piss poor equipment.

Seriously, gun people, get over yourselves and wake up to the fact that your is not as safe and controllable as you'd like it to be.

Let us see, I have never had an accidental discharge and my safety record is spotless. I am also a nationally ranked rifle shooter with several thousand hours of training under my belt. Are you trying to argue that I must be put on the same level as that LEO?

What do you know about his equipment and training? Were you there? Do you know his scores? What about his background? Do you know that as well? What makes you qualified to speak on his, or the NYCPD's behalf? Furthermore, what say you to non-lethal alternatives in a situation like this? Were they ever considered? What's NYCPD's protocol for using lethal versus non-lethal weaponry?

Good for you. You're an excellent shot. But this has absolutely nothing to do with you, or your gun experiences as there are countless instances where guns do misfire, where ill-trained people make mistakes, be the equipment or judgmental, this being one of those examples.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. The point that I'm trying to make is that no matter the training, no matter the person behind the trigger, all it takes is one small lapse in judgment, one small equipment failure, and many more people could be hurt opposed to your intended target. The shoot first, ask questions later mentality of gun enthusiasts is both callous and myopic.

farson135:

mokes310:
What I said was that this is another example of how when guns are used in chaotic and dynamic situations, you cannot fully account for all possibilities. The potential to maim, injure, or kill an innocent individual is far greater than when compared to non-lethal weapons.

When used by an ill trained officer who is issued piss poor equipment.

Out of interest, what's wrong with it? Do they not use much the same Glock that has been popular with many LEAs around the world? Or is the trigger that much of a problem?

farson135:
It was a gun-control happy city that mandated that LEOs must carry a firearm that is very difficult to use. At the same time that same city cut back on training and increased the difficulty to get training in the city limits.

This sounds more like an issue of judgement than an issue of poor equipment. From what I can tell in the video, there were one or two shots, several seconds of pause, and then two or three more shots. I can see how poor training when it comes to judging situations would lead to what happened, but I don't see how the sort of gun he had lead to the decision that it was a good idea to open fire in the middle of a crowded street before even being certain if the person in question was armed.

mokes310:
What do you know about his equipment and training?

LEO training and equipment in NYC is standardized.

Do you know his scores?

His scores on those tests are irrelevant. I could pass that test in my sleep (and I probably did when I got my CHL).

What makes you qualified to speak on his, or the NYCPD's behalf?

They post all of the requirements.

Furthermore, what say you to non-lethal alternatives in a situation like this? Were they ever considered?

Idiot judgment on the part of cops was not my point.

there are countless instances where guns do misfire

Which is a problem for you why? It is a problem for me because I expect my bullets to go bang. What is your deal?

where ill-trained people make mistakes

Because anti-gun city councils decide that training an LEO how to use his firearm is a bad idea. My sheriff is a gun owner and he makes sure his deputies are well trained. As I said, a world of difference between anti-gun shortsightedness and our preparedness.

The point that I'm trying to make is that no matter the training, no matter the person behind the trigger, all it takes is one small lapse in judgment, one small equipment failure, and many more people could be hurt opposed to your intended target.

And you use the example of a poorly trained and poorly equipped officer. Do you understand how ridiculous that is?

The shoot first, ask questions later mentality of gun enthusiasts is both callous and myopic.

Given the fact that this officer obviously does not have any real training he is more like you than me. You guys believe that guns are magic. We know they are tools. Y'all caused this incident through shortsightedness and a refusal to acknowledge reality. Don't blame us for your failures.

thaluikhain:
Out of interest, what's wrong with it? Do they not use much the same Glock that has been popular with many LEAs around the world? Or is the trigger that much of a problem?

Let me give you an idea. A standard Glock trigger is about 5 pounds. NYC mandates that it must be at least 12 pounds. That is a lot. You can read this article and the contributor compared firing with his gun and his friends NYC standard firearm. Go a little down and you see a target. Big difference- http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/08/foghorn/nypds-choice-of-firearm-may-have-contributed-to-the-terrible-shooting/

Lilani:
This sounds more like an issue of judgement than an issue of poor equipment. From what I can tell in the video, there were one or two shots, several seconds of pause, and then two or three more shots. I can see how poor training when it comes to judging situations would lead to what happened, but I don't see how the sort of gun he had lead to the decision that it was a good idea to open fire in the middle of a crowded street before even being certain if the person in question was armed.

Yes it is a judgment problem but once he decided to start firing his equipment came into play. Look at the link I gave to thaluikhain. His equipment means the difference (for a trained marksman) between center of mass and a shoulder shot. For an untrained "marksman" that means the difference between hit and miss.

farson135:
A standard Glock trigger is about 5 pounds. NYC mandates that it must be at least 12 pounds.

7 pounds more? Why?

Is it because they are worried about negligent discharges and it doesn't have a conventional safety? If so, couldn't they just insist on that instead?

thaluikhain:

farson135:
A standard Glock trigger is about 5 pounds. NYC mandates that it must be at least 12 pounds.

7 pounds more? Why?

Is it because they are worried about negligent discharges and it doesn't have a conventional safety? If so, couldn't they just insist on that instead?

Yes. It is because of negligent discharges.

As for the safety, well, they are worried that an officer might fire on accident after (s)he draws his/her gun (pressure of the situation and such). A safety really wouldn't help with that unless they forget to flick the safety off. Which given their low level of training is a distinct possibility (and would bring about more problems).

farson135:
As for the safety, well, they are worried that an officer might fire on accident after (s)he draws his/her gun (pressure of the situation and such).

Ah...well, they could always stop issuing ammunition if they are worried about that sort of thing.

Or maybe insist on training their officers better.

thaluikhain:
Or maybe insist on training their officers better.

We can dream. Who knows, maybe this newest example of police incompetence will drive people to push for more training. Somehow I doubt it.

thaluikhain:

farson135:
As for the safety, well, they are worried that an officer might fire on accident after (s)he draws his/her gun (pressure of the situation and such).

Ah...well, they could always stop issuing ammunition if they are worried about that sort of thing.

Or maybe insist on training their officers better.

The sad thing is, while they increased the trigger pressure, they decreased the training time allotted to the officers as well, so a double whammy in this case that got a few people hurt.

Hopefully the new leadership will fix some of this stuff. I feel bad for the people who were wounded, but I place the blame squarely on the politicians.

Desert Punk:

thaluikhain:

farson135:
As for the safety, well, they are worried that an officer might fire on accident after (s)he draws his/her gun (pressure of the situation and such).

Ah...well, they could always stop issuing ammunition if they are worried about that sort of thing.

Or maybe insist on training their officers better.

The sad thing is, while they increased the trigger pressure, they decreased the training time allotted to the officers as well, so a double whammy in this case that got a few people hurt.

Hopefully the new leadership will fix some of this stuff. I feel bad for the people who were wounded, but I place the blame squarely on the politicians.

I dunno, considering the politicians prevented an unarmed man from being murdered by police incompetence (considering they weren't really justified in pulling their firearms and shooting at him in the first place), at the cost of wounding two innocent bystanders instead, I'm not really sure the politicians can be blamed for not wanting police officers to not accidentally discharge their weapons, when they can't even trust the officers not to purposely discharge their weapons in situations that don't actually warrant it.

I mean honestly, would "Police open fire in Times Square, kill unarmed man in front of a crowd of bystanders" really be a more acceptable headline?

Zeconte:

Desert Punk:

thaluikhain:

Ah...well, they could always stop issuing ammunition if they are worried about that sort of thing.

Or maybe insist on training their officers better.

The sad thing is, while they increased the trigger pressure, they decreased the training time allotted to the officers as well, so a double whammy in this case that got a few people hurt.

Hopefully the new leadership will fix some of this stuff. I feel bad for the people who were wounded, but I place the blame squarely on the politicians.

I dunno, considering the politicians prevented an unarmed man from being murdered by police incompetence (considering they weren't really justified in pulling their firearms and shooting at him in the first place), at the cost of wounding two innocent bystanders instead, I'm not really sure the politicians can be blamed for not wanting police officers to not accidentally discharge their weapons, when they can't even trust the officers not to purposely discharge their weapons in situations that don't actually warrant it.

I mean honestly, would "Police open fire in Times Square, kill unarmed man in front of a crowd of bystanders" really be a more acceptable headline?

Well, I can say this about you. You certainly like to look on the bright side of things.

But seriously bro, no. This isn't a better headline. Both are unacceptable. But I at least want the cops to hit what they're fucking shooting at for those off chances where there's actually a guy with a guy around.

farson135:

mokes310:
What do you know about his equipment and training?

LEO training and equipment in NYC is standardized.

Do you know his scores?

His scores on those tests are irrelevant. I could pass that test in my sleep (and I probably did when I got my CHL).

What makes you qualified to speak on his, or the NYCPD's behalf?

They post all of the requirements.

Furthermore, what say you to non-lethal alternatives in a situation like this? Were they ever considered?

Idiot judgment on the part of cops was not my point.

there are countless instances where guns do misfire

Which is a problem for you why? It is a problem for me because I expect my bullets to go bang. What is your deal?

where ill-trained people make mistakes

Because anti-gun city councils decide that training an LEO how to use his firearm is a bad idea. My sheriff is a gun owner and he makes sure his deputies are well trained. As I said, a world of difference between anti-gun shortsightedness and our preparedness.

The point that I'm trying to make is that no matter the training, no matter the person behind the trigger, all it takes is one small lapse in judgment, one small equipment failure, and many more people could be hurt opposed to your intended target.

And you use the example of a poorly trained and poorly equipped officer. Do you understand how ridiculous that is?

The shoot first, ask questions later mentality of gun enthusiasts is both callous and myopic.

Given the fact that this officer obviously does not have any real training he is more like you than me. You guys believe that guns are magic. We know they are tools. Y'all caused this incident through shortsightedness and a refusal to acknowledge reality. Don't blame us for your failures.

What I'm still trying to wrap my head around is why gun enthusiasts still believe that guns don't do any collateral damage: it's always the shooters fault (bullets never fragment, ricochet, guns never malfunction, etc). Additionally, you still do not understand the point I'm trying to make. So, I'll break it down for you very simply.

Would a non-lethal alternative have caused more, less, or the same amount of damage as this gun?

Also, I have been shooting weapons for well over 25 years. Just because I'm/you a/are good shot, doesn't mean that we're exempt from circumstance. Does that make sense?

mokes310:
What I'm still trying to wrap my head around is why gun enthusiasts still believe that guns don't do any collateral damage

"Gun enthusiasts" do not think that. You are the only one who says that.

it's always the shooters fault (bullets never fragment, ricochet, guns never malfunction, etc).

Yes it is the shooters fault. They should have shown better judgment. Tools do not have the ability to act on their own. They are inanimate objects. Equipment maintenance is a part of the shooters responsibility.

Additionally, you still do not understand the point I'm trying to make. So, I'll break it down for you very simply.

Would a non-lethal alternative have caused more, less, or the same amount of damage as this gun?

1- In no way shape or form do you make that your primary point.
2- Irrelevant.
3- It all depends. A person with a pacemaker will find a Taser much more harmful than a bullet wound to the leg.

Also, I have been shooting weapons for well over 25 years. Just because I'm/you a/are good shot, doesn't mean that we're exempt from circumstance. Does that make sense?

One, simple time is irrelevant.
Two, if the LEO was better trained then he would not have fired to begin with. In addition, if he did fire then he would have been accurate enough to not hit innocent bystanders.

farson135:

mokes310:
What I'm still trying to wrap my head around is why gun enthusiasts still believe that guns don't do any collateral damage

"Gun enthusiasts" do not think that. You are the only one who says that.

it's always the shooters fault (bullets never fragment, ricochet, guns never malfunction, etc).

Yes it is the shooters fault. They should have shown better judgment. Tools do not have the ability to act on their own. They are inanimate objects. Equipment maintenance is a part of the shooters responsibility.

Additionally, you still do not understand the point I'm trying to make. So, I'll break it down for you very simply.

Would a non-lethal alternative have caused more, less, or the same amount of damage as this gun?

1- In no way shape or form do you make that your primary point.
2- Irrelevant.
3- It all depends. A person with a pacemaker will find a Taser much more harmful than a bullet wound to the leg.

Also, I have been shooting weapons for well over 25 years. Just because I'm/you a/are good shot, doesn't mean that we're exempt from circumstance. Does that make sense?

One, simple time is irrelevant.
Two, if the LEO was better trained then he would not have fired to begin with. In addition, if he did fire then he would have been accurate enough to not hit innocent bystanders.

See post 16, after my bait comment. It is not irrelevant. As a graduate student, you should know that things aren't black and white. Had the officer used a stun gun, what would the probability have been that other people would have been injured? Would their injuries have been as grievous as they were with a firearm? How would the officer have acted differently?

Yes, simple time is irrelevant, just as your hours and hours of training are irrelevant. You cannot, in no specific terms, argue that had you been in that situation, you would have performed any differently had you been required to shoot. You are not Superman. You are not impeccable 100% of the time. You are capable of making mistakes.

Sure, if he was better trained, things may have ended differently. But the other factor you're forgetting is that training costs money. Money that is exponentially greater than that of the small town example you gave before. Using the example of your Sheriff's Department's training regime as a 1:1 with the NYCPD is the epitome of apples and some other object that is in no way fruit.

Your recalcitrance on the matter is a clear indication that we'll never see this debate from the same paradigm.

Zeconte:

Desert Punk:

thaluikhain:

Ah...well, they could always stop issuing ammunition if they are worried about that sort of thing.

Or maybe insist on training their officers better.

The sad thing is, while they increased the trigger pressure, they decreased the training time allotted to the officers as well, so a double whammy in this case that got a few people hurt.

Hopefully the new leadership will fix some of this stuff. I feel bad for the people who were wounded, but I place the blame squarely on the politicians.

I dunno, considering the politicians prevented an unarmed man from being murdered by police incompetence (considering they weren't really justified in pulling their firearms and shooting at him in the first place), at the cost of wounding two innocent bystanders instead, I'm not really sure the politicians can be blamed for not wanting police officers to not accidentally discharge their weapons, when they can't even trust the officers not to purposely discharge their weapons in situations that don't actually warrant it.

I mean honestly, would "Police open fire in Times Square, kill unarmed man in front of a crowd of bystanders" really be a more acceptable headline?

Training does not only include time on the range handling a weapon you know. Better training which the politicians denied the officers would have given them more hands on time as well in classrooms and in simulations, so you would know if it is appropriate to draw your weapon and to drill possibilities into you.

But still, even all said and done I would rather the cops be able to hit what they are aiming at than hurt bystanders because of shoddy equipment and training.

Shadowstar38:
Well, I can say this about you. You certainly like to look on the bright side of things.

But seriously bro, no. This isn't a better headline. Both are unacceptable. But I at least want the cops to hit what they're fucking shooting at for those off chances where there's actually a guy with a guy around.

Indeed, and talking about a police officer's equipment and lack of training is indeed a worthy discussion to be had, but to claim that the blame in this incident lies squarely on the shoulders of the politicians who made the decision regarding the officers' equipment and extent of firearms training is to completely ignore the fact that in this incident, neither factor should have ever come into play and only does so because of the poor judgment of the officer who chose to open fire unnecessarily in the first place.

In short, the blame for this incident lies square on said officer, not on the politicians, even if they are to blame for putting the officers at a great disadvantage when it comes to hitting their target with their firearm.

mokes310:
See post 16, after my bait comment.

Your first comment set your primary point.

It is not irrelevant. As a graduate student, you should know that things aren't black and white. Had the officer used a stun gun, what would the probability have been that other people would have been injured? Would their injuries have been as grievous as they were with a firearm? How would the officer have acted differently?

It is irrelevant to your initial post that I was referring to. You changed your argument.

Yes, simple time is irrelevant, just as your hours and hours of training are irrelevant.

You said years. Obviously you have not trained every second of those years. If you trained for an hour every year you could say that you have trained for 25 years (and that would put you on the level of your average LEO). My several thousand hours of training is more concrete.

You cannot, in no specific terms, argue that had you been in that situation, you would have performed any differently had you been required to shoot. You are not Superman. You are not impeccable 100% of the time. You are capable of making mistakes.

Had I been required to shoot I would have changed the angle of my shot and my shots would have all hit center of mass or lower mass. That is according to my training doctrine.

Changing the angle of your shot on the fly in order to miss a bystander is a standard 3-gun scenario. Hell, I do it all the time in defensive pistol courses. Aiming your shots so that any potential penetration will just end up in a wall is just another thing you practice.

Sure, if he was better trained, things may have ended differently. But the other factor you're forgetting is that training costs money. Money that is exponentially greater than that of the small town example you gave before. Using the example of your Sheriff's Department's training regime as a 1:1 with the NYCPD is the epitome of apples and some other object that is in no way fruit.

My sheriff's department also has far few resources than the NYPD. Although, the NYPD would have more money if they would sell their brass to reloading companies. Anti-gun office holders strike again.

Plus, you may not realize this but those firearms the NYPD uses are not standard. They had to pay a lot of money to get those non-standard firearms.

Now you are just looking for an angle. We both know that LEOs are poorly trained in the use of firearms and there plenty of money to train them. Cities don't care to train the LEOs. Rural cops do. It is a difference in mindset between antis and pro-gunners. Your point has no validity. This incident is because of the shortsightedness of anti-gun politicians.

mokes310:
And you seemed to miss the part where I said absolutely nothing about gun control, or the City of New York's gun control policies.

What I said was that this is another example of how when guns are used in chaotic and dynamic situations, you cannot fully account for all possibilities. The potential to maim, injure, or kill an innocent individual is far greater than when compared to non-lethal weapons.

Seriously, gun people, get over yourselves and wake up to the fact that your is not as safe and controllable as you'd like it to be.

...the fuck?

Mine is as safe and controllable as I'd like it to be.

Know why?

Because I'm not a complete MORON and I wouldn't ever point it into a crowd of people. No, I don't wanna die, but I certainly wouldn't accept the accidental death of an innocent bystander as a result of my attempt to defend myself.

This entire story here isn't about the gun, it's about the poor training of the NYPD (who have a history of this sort of thing). Quite grasping and trying to turn this into a gun debate.

mokes310:

What I'm still trying to wrap my head around is why gun enthusiasts still believe that guns don't do any collateral damage: it's always the shooters fault (bullets never fragment, ricochet, guns never malfunction, etc).

Ok, first of all, I don't know of any true gun enthusiast that believes guns don't cause collateral damage. That point is driven home EXCESSIVELY in all gun safety literature and courses available.

Second, it is ALWAYS the shooters fault, because a gun cannot fire without a finger on the trigger (barring some weird circumstance of a gun in an oven or something crazy like that). You do not point your gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy, you do not put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire, you do not ever ever EVER treat a gun as if it's safe just because you're "sure" it's not loaded. Every last gun accident is the fault of the person holding the gun. Nobody firing a gun should ever be firing it in such a way where even the worst malfunction could hit a bystander. If I'm at the store and a robber pulls a gun, I'm not going to fire my gun at him unless I KNOW there's nobody behind him or within the cone of my muzzle. Because that's how I was taught.

mokes310:

Additionally, you still do not understand the point I'm trying to make. So, I'll break it down for you very simply.

Would a non-lethal alternative have caused more, less, or the same amount of damage as this gun?

Also, I have been shooting weapons for well over 25 years. Just because I'm/you a/are good shot, doesn't mean that we're exempt from circumstance. Does that make sense?

I am all for non-lethal. I wholeheartedly believe/KNOW that non-lethal should be been used in this case. There is no argument there. A gun should not have been discharged by an officer in that crowded area unless it was the absolute last resort.

I don't believe that you've been shooting guns for over 25 years. You seem to be fairly ignorant of the very basic fundamentals of gun handling.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked