Multiple people shot outside Empire State Building

[tman]

I agree... I then wonder why so many are giving the police so much slack, they are pros, should they not be held to high higher standard?

Police officers, acting "under color of law" and "within policy" are granted individual immunity from civil lawsuits for stuff like this. Carry permit holders shoot bystanders at their own risk.

[Grayskies]

I agree... I then wonder why so many are giving the police so much slack, they are pros, should they not be held to high higher standard?

Police officers, acting "under color of law" and "within policy" are granted individual immunity from civil lawsuits for stuff like this. Carry permit holders shoot bystanders at their own risk.

But not the city.

I think immunity for police for "Stuff Like This" should end. I see no reason why police should be able to shoot inocent civilians with out risk.

[tman]

I think immunity for police for "Stuff Like This" should end. I see no reason why police should be able to shoot inocent civilians with out risk.

The argument is that if police (CIA officers, too, for example) could be held liable civilly for accidentally hurting someone, then no one would want the job.

I'd probably turn my badge in and become a librarian....

Take that info and run with it...

[Grayskies]

I think immunity for police for "Stuff Like This" should end. I see no reason why police should be able to shoot inocent civilians with out risk.

The argument is that if police (CIA officers, too, for example) could be held liable civilly for accidentally hurting someone, then no one would want the job.

I'd probably turn my badge in and become a librarian....

Take that info and run with it...

I am sure some people would want the job, I am not aware of any civilian job with blanket immunity including those that are armed.

I might suggest something besides librarian, they are having funding issues.

[tman]

I am sure some people would want the job, I am not aware of any civilian job with blanket immunity including those that are armed.

It's not blanket immunity. There are conditions: It has to be "under color of law" ie; lawfully doing my job, AND I have to be within policy. So, in this case, if the NYPD policy says, "thou shalt not shoot without a crystal clear backstop," these cops would be fracked, in civil lawsuits...

I might suggest something besides librarian, they are having funding issues.

Maybe I should open a strip club...."tman's ta-ta's!"

[goalie]

I think immunity for police for "Stuff Like This" should end. I see no reason why police should be able to shoot inocent civilians with out risk.

The argument is that if police (CIA officers, too, for example) could be held liable civilly for accidentally hurting someone, then no one would want the job.

I'd probably turn my badge in and become a librarian....

Take that info and run with it...

Don't even go there. Haters gonna hate, and they ain't gonna get it. Ever.

(and that's coming from someone who hasn't had the best of luck dealing with the MPD after a DGU. YMMV)

[Grayskies]

I think immunity for police for "Stuff Like This" should end. I see no reason why police should be able to shoot inocent civilians with out risk.

The argument is that if police (CIA officers, too, for example) could be held liable civilly for accidentally hurting someone, then no one would want the job.

I'd probably turn my badge in and become a librarian....

Take that info and run with it...

Don't even go there. Haters gonna hate, and they ain't gonna get it. Ever.

(and that's coming from someone who hasn't had the best of luck dealing with the MPD after a DGU. YMMV)

If you are refering to me as being a "Hater", I am not. I just do not think that 8 civilians injured is acceptable.

Yes there were lots of people about, but should not they train specificly for this kind of event?

Also is there any evidence this guy was planning on shooting anyone else accept himself?

This could have ended alot worse, it also could have and (imo) should have ended alot better...

[jshuberg]

tman, correct me here if I'm wrong, but while the individual officers are immune from civil actions while acting under color of law, the NYPD itself could be sued, and the plaintiffs could argue that their officers didn't have sufficient training to adequately provide for public safety.

Winning the lawsuit is another matter, but the suit could be brought, giving the victims the opportunity to have their grievances heard by a judge, correct?

[tman]

tman, correct me here if I'm wrong, but while the individual officers are immune from civil actions while acting under color of law, the NYPD itself could be sued, and the plaintiffs could argue that their officers didn't have sufficient training to adequately provide for public safety.

Winning the lawsuit is another matter, but the suit could be brought, giving the victims the opportunity to have their grievances heard by a judge, correct?

Oh, absolutely, they can sue.

[Lunchbox]

tman, correct me here if I'm wrong, but while the individual officers are immune from civil actions while acting under color of law, the NYPD itself could be sued, and the plaintiffs could argue that their officers didn't have sufficient training to adequately provide for public safety.

Winning the lawsuit is another matter, but the suit could be brought, giving the victims the opportunity to have their grievances heard by a judge, correct?

You hear of cities getting sue over wrongful deaths quite a bit, I'd be amazed if you were wrong.

[ktech]

Wow, that's a neat trick.

It's not a trick, it's how the brain works. The vast majority of things we do each day we perform without conscious effort. Walking, talking, riding a bicycle, throwing a baseball, driving a car, and even converting letters on a page into thoughts and ideas. These are all activities that are not instinctual, but through deliberate and conscious repetition, we have taught our subconscious mind to perform without requiring conscious effort.

I would characterize these sorts of behaviors differently than shooting during a dynamic situation.

Yes, one can drive without paying full conscious attention, but when an obstacle appears and the driver has to swerve, that still requires conscious attention. Similarly, someone can drill bulls-eyes on a paper target at a range, but when an "obstacle" (a BG) appears, conscious attention is still required, regardless of the level of training. Yes, officers can train in a dynamic environment, force-on-force training, etc. but they can't train for every possible situation.


Again, that's not to say training isn't valuable, but under no circumstances could someone respond to a dynamic threat situation without conscious attention... I'm sorry, but things like this (as well as terms like "muscle memory") really drive me nuts, because it's a mis-characterization of what's actually happening, and can create a false sense of what's required to actually train well.

[/rant]

ETA: I fully agree that an officer can train to draw, present and fire without any real conscious interaction with the movements; that's not what I thought you were referring to, and if that was what you meant, then I retract my disagreement.

[jshuberg]

As long as the people who were injured can sue the NYPD, I see no problem with the individual officers being granted exemption from civil action. Being involved in dangerous situations is after all part of their job.

If a lawsuit results in greater training opportunities for NYPD officers, I'd consider that a positive result of an otherwise tragic and terrible incident.

Also, in MN, the victim of a violent crime is exempt from civil action for any injuries or death of their attacker. If you accidentally injure a bystander, you're probably screwed. Carry insurance may cover some of the costs involved in a civil action, but you're still probably going to be screwed.

Just one more reason to train as often as possible if you're going to carry a firearm.

[jshuberg]

ETA: I fully agree that an officer can train to draw, present and fire without any real conscious interaction with the movements; that's not what I thought you were referring to, and if that was what you meant, then I retract my disagreement.

That is actually what I was referring to, apologies if I wasn't able to make the point well.

In your example, when someone swerves at you while driving, you immediately become very aware if your surroundings. All of your minds attention is focused on situational awareness. You are not thinking about the clutch, the brake, how to turn, etc. the actual act of operating the car is still being performed subconsciously.

However, someone with very little driving experience or training, like a 16 year old who just got their license, hasn't developed the ability to operate their car subconsciously yet. They have to think about the brakes to use them. They have to think about how far to turn the steering wheel to swerve out of the way. Because the mind can only focus on one thing in a high stress situation, having to think to operate the car will limit their situational awareness. This is the main reason that younger drivers have significantly more accidents than older drivers.

The exact same thing happens with a firearm. If you can operate it subconsciously, you are extremely more likely to react better than someone who has to think about sight alignment or trigger squeeze to hit their target in a life threatening encounter.

Also, for whatever reason the act of shooting a firearm is a perishable skill. Once you learn to drive, ride a bike, throw a ball, etc. it pretty much sticks with you. Unfortunately, the ability to shoot a firearm starts to diminish as quickly as several weeks without shooting, maybe a month or so it best. Without ongoing training someone who had been able to operate their weapon effectively without thinking will eventually lose that ability.

I have seen a few cops whose firearms handling ability I would characterize as similar to the driving ability of a 16 year old. As long as they are able to concentrate on operating their weapon, they are able to pass a proficiency test. Unfortunately, in a real world encounter they will have a significantly more difficult time reacting effectively than someone who has had the necessary training to develop and preserve their skills.

Without passing judgement on the officers involved in the incident, it appears to me from their actions that they may not have had the training necessary to allow them to both focus on the situational awareness, and be able to operate their weapons effectively at the same time. It's only my opinion, but if I'm correct I would hope that someone at NYPD would come to the same conclusion, and provide greater training opportunities for their officers in the future.

[Chunkychuck]

I worked in the feeding tent in 2001 at Ground Zero. Many of the NYPD would come eat there. One day an officer came through wearing a revolver. I asked him about it and he said he was old school. He told me he was an intructor and that he tried to talk the new guys into revolvers but most chose semi-autos. I would agree with him based on what I saw there that week. In our conversation, and perhaps this incident may be some confirmation of what he told me, he said there were officers on the force who had difficulty hitting a silhouette at 10 ft. I had no reason not to believe him then and just thought I would share our conversation.

[whiteox]

CNN is reporting that four of the bullets that hit the perp went right through. It's not out of the question to believe that they went on to hit others. They said 16 rounds fired and nine hits on the perp. If you watched the video those 16 rounds must have been fired pretty damn quick.