PDA

View Full Version : 84 rounds fired at murderer, 14 hits and he's still alive:


g.willikers
May 3, 2012, 05:20 PM
Check out this story from John Farnam's web site and maybe think about your choice of home defense weapon.
And about your skills.
I'm going to the range a little more.

http://defense-training.com/quips/25Apr12.html

towboat-er
May 3, 2012, 05:30 PM
Yep, a rifle sure would have came in handy

mete
May 3, 2012, 05:45 PM
A 16% hit rate. Not bad I suppose for the average cop .Some departments are more concerned with community relations than intensive training .Ten years ago a study of hit probability in the NYPD in actual shootouts it was 10% !! But in the revolver days it was 20% !! So rapid fire is still done rather than aimed fire .
BTW, some years back I took Farnam's course . It was fantastic and I was amazed at how much I didn't know .:eek: I only wish I could persuade more shooters the importance of really good training.

BGutzman
May 3, 2012, 05:53 PM
Cant be a true story... everyone knows anyone shot by the ultimate 2 x 4 gun falls dead prior to the round even being fired. :D

Isk
May 3, 2012, 06:26 PM
Crud, I use the same setup the NYPD does: Glock 19 with 124 gr. 9mm +p Speer Gold Dots. I'm suddenly feeling less adequate.

g.willikers
May 3, 2012, 06:39 PM
I think it was Clint Smith, of Thunder Ranch, who put it well.
When he was asked what would he consider the best choice for effective fire power, he replied, "An Air Strike."

dabluesguy
May 3, 2012, 06:46 PM
I'm sure Jeff Cooper is looking down saying, "I tried to tell ya!"

Double Naught Spy
May 3, 2012, 06:50 PM
I got a hunting buddy that gives me crap about not using enough gun on hogs. Of course, he always used enough gun, or maybe not. Shooting 12ga slug at a deer is enough gun, right? Of course it is, except when you actually miss the target and shoot the feeder instead. How much is enough gun for a miss?

I am not sure that the officers using "enough gun" would have changed things dramatically. Misses are misses and poor shots are poor shots and the officers didn't exhibit much in the way of proper control. The G19 is a proven performer and certainly is "enough gun" when shots are properly landed. In looking at various articles on the story, it looks like shooting distances were between 10-15 feet and 70 feet depending on the various accounts.

Prior to trying to put a cap in the cops, the suspect had killed his sister and shot his mother.

No doubt rifles, shotguns, or pistol caliber carbines would have helped the officers get shots on target, but the officers did have enough gun to start with, but not enough marksmanship. The failure here isn't with the the gun.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-24/news/31394494_1_cops-shot-critical-condition-harlem-hospital
http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Patrol/News/2012/04/26/NYPD-Cops-Fire-84-Rounds-at-Murder-Suspect.aspx
http://gothamist.com/2012/04/25/cops_fired_84_times_at_man_who_kill.php

From the OP's link...
Had those two officers been armed with an AR, PTR, XCR, SIG/556, OBR, M1A, or some other flavor of 223, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 6.8Spc, 300Blk, 30Carbine, et al military rifle, they could have easily ended this fight with the expenditure of only one round, certainly no more than three.

The same could be said for the G19s. The fight certainly could have been ended with 1-3 rounds.

Even with plain-vanilla iron sights, much less precision optics, hitting this animated suspect at 21m would be amply easier than trying to do the same thing with a pistol, any pistol!
Absolutely true, but the issues isn't about enough gun. It is about application of enough gun. Use enough gun, properly.

I do like how this fight was considered a gun battle. The suspect did fire a single round a the cops. So when you have both sides shooting, it is a battle and not just a shooting.

A 16% hit rate. Not bad I suppose for the average cop

You know, 16% really isn't all that good either. However, the hit rate might have been much less. The following article states that there were 14 entry and exit wounds. Potentially, Marray may have been hit by 7 through and throughs.
http://gothamist.com/2012/04/26/harlem_shooting_4.php

Denezin
May 3, 2012, 06:55 PM
Heres what new york police trainers should do. Stay with the same firearm but remove the stupid NY trigger job of a 8 or 12lb sa pull. Its simple keep your finger off the trigger until you need or have to fire. Step 2, more training. My dad was a police officer for 20 years and a rangemaster at his dept. he had enough pull to test and pick new guns and ammo for the dept. he trained constantly and was a great shot. being a good shot comes down to daily training. its not somethin you gain and then can sit on the shelf.

Vermonter
May 3, 2012, 06:57 PM
I am supprised NYPD doesnt carry. 40

C0untZer0
May 3, 2012, 07:18 PM
Every once n' awhile someone will post about the NYC trigger like it's some great thing.

The NYC trigger, IMO takes an already horrible Glock trigger and makes it worse.

I don't know where this guy was hit but I don't think getting hit in non-vital areas with a .40 is significantly worse than getting hit in non-vital areas with a 9mm.

And as far as the misses go - I think people are assuming the gunman just stood there and shot it out with the officers, he could have been moving, using cover - being a whack-a-mole - we don't know.

Manson
May 3, 2012, 07:22 PM
I'm a skeptical as well. All those misses with a handgun some how translates to a 3 round fight with a rifle? In most urban environments a handgun is more practical. Just issuing a rifle is no guarantee they will train more than with the pistol.

What would be more likely as a little range time with the rifle and less with the pistol. Ending with proficiency in neither.

BGutzman
May 3, 2012, 07:23 PM
The G19 is a proven performer

No pistol is a death laser... Horrible accuracy rate... is it truly the poor skill of the officers shooting (no disrepect to the officers as officers) or is it a combination of poor skills and not so great a trigger and sights? Thats a lot of bullets to expend and not calm down and shoot with more accuracy at some point. My point being there is more to a gun than reliability sometime sights that are worth more than a nickle helps as does a reasonable trigger.

I dont know... It would be fun to see tested in some scientific way would a different brand of gun led to better accuracy in a stress condition.

Dragline45
May 3, 2012, 07:31 PM
I gota say that's a pretty low percentage of hits, and 84 rounds fired total!? I suspect they did a good deal of pointing the gun around the car they used for cover and unloaded. I would rather slow down and take 10-20 shots and hit my target then take 84 wild shots and hope I hit. For one to protect innocent bystanders from getting hit from stray rounds, conserving ammo, and more quickly and efficiently eliminating the target. If your job entails you to carry a firearm, the least you can do is become proficient with it. I have a couple buddies who are cops and an uncle who is also an LEO and I shoot more often and better than the lot of them. It amazes me how some people go into the profession of law enforcement and do not practice and hone critical skills needed to safely do their job. I'm sure there are plenty out their who disagree with me, but the numbers don't lie.

GaryH
May 3, 2012, 07:40 PM
Bob and weave?

Nnobby45
May 3, 2012, 08:06 PM
9mm is more economical to shoot. NW

Not always, Dobblenaught. Way to many stories of pistol fire not getting the job done even when shots were in "the zone". Too many factors involved--even with good ammo.

Good pistol courses, including Farnum's, emphasizes that you shouldn't be surpised if your hits don't solve the problem immediately. That's why we keep shooting until it's over.:)

mnhntr
May 3, 2012, 09:04 PM
As a paramedic I have taken care of patients with gunshots of all flavors. I had a drive-by victim take a 9mm fmj in the arm pit and follow the rib around the chest and lodge under his pectoral muscle. No vital dmage despite being hit in the zone. I have also had dead patients from .22lr self inflicted to the head. I know this is just one case, but to me the 9mm is not a proven performer. I understand that some people are recoil sensitive and more rounds are better and so on but I will stick to a little more gun and better bullets. IMHO the smaller calibers sufer from under penetration due to the bullets they use. A 38 +p with 158gr SWC cuts holes instead of relying on blunt force. I am not saying the 38+p is better than a 9mm. I will stick to my .45acp.

MLeake
May 3, 2012, 09:10 PM
The linked article indicated the suspect was behind cover, and active, at 21 yards from the officers.

I have no trouble accepting that hit percentages would be lousy for typical shooters in those conditions, particularly if they thought they were taking fire.

I also suspect that in such a scenario, I would choose my AR with EOTech 552 over any handgun.

m&p45acp10+1
May 3, 2012, 09:21 PM
It is easy for any of us to say that the reason the fight was not stopped earlier was due to a plethora of reasons. Well I have a news flash for those that think this rifle, or that shotgun are the end all. The human body is a lot tougher than you may think. I have as a medic seen men that were hit in the chest with hunting caliber bullets from deer rifles. They lived. Two actualy walked out of the house they were shot in. Yes they did drop in the yard. I personaly survived a 12 Ga to the chest from less than 6 feet. It did not knock me down, or even backwards. It spun me forward as a matter of fact. Due to more miracles than I care to go into I lived to learn a lesson.

Besides it unknown if the suspect was on drugs. That can make a huge difference.

Rampant_Colt
May 3, 2012, 09:27 PM
Don't they issue shotguns to the NYPD? That's what I woulda been reaching for in that scenario.

Anybody claiming that hitting a bad guy pointing a handgun at you from twenty yards away in the dark with adrenaline pumping is an easy shot is sadly mistaken. A 16% hit ratio is pretty good considering the baby-killer wouldn't go down after multiple bullets striking him. He was probably tweaked on coke, meth, or pcp. Cop's worst nightmare

Nnobby45
May 3, 2012, 09:55 PM
I am not saying the 38+p is better than a 9mm. I will stick to my .45acp.

To a large extent, bullet selection within the caliber is more important than caliber selection by itself.

Some 9mm ammo penetrates little, but expands quickly. Some expand not at all and over penetrate. Some do a good job of both. There are good bullets in the 9mm that make it superior to the .38.

youknowit
May 3, 2012, 10:23 PM
I honestly dont think 17% is absolutely terrible given the circumstances. I would challenge anyone here to do better when being fired upon(spare me the war stories). However... it could obviously be improved upon. Many untrained shooters act just like untrained fighters. Instead of picking their shots precisely, they just throw as many as they can as quick as they can and dont worry so much about aiming, also their form suffers due to the fear of getting hit. Fighting is a little different than gun fighting though!lol Id have to say youre not human if youre not worried about getting shot when being shot at. And about the target... people are animals. Some are way tougher than others. Some people act like humans in modern society, soma still have that animal instinct and drive. Ive seen deer run a long way after being shot with a centerfire rifle right in the bread basket. They dont care. They just want to survive. Some people have that same drive. They dont care about pain. All they care about is to continue living or going out in a blaze of glory.

9mm
May 3, 2012, 10:49 PM
o... I carry 50+ rounds of ammo, maybe I need another 30... :confused:


Me thinks, the cops just pulled rapid fire and not aimed, but more of "cover/suppressive fire"


What people don't understand is, shooting at someone WHO IS SHOOTING BACK AT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! is no OH, let me aim down my sights for 10 seconeds and get this centered.

No, you do your best to aim that barrel/sights at them.

I like to see someone understress of being struck by a bullet try to shoot a target/moving target that is SHOOTING @ THEM.

If someone shoots at me, the first thing I would do is go behind a object for cover.

Double Naught Spy
May 4, 2012, 01:20 AM
No pistol is a death laser...

Sadly, neither are rifles.

Not always, Dobblenaught. Way to many stories of pistol fire not getting the job done even when shots were in "the zone". Too many factors involved--even with good ammo.

Of course not always. Then again, of course not always for rifles either. In fact, I don't believe that there is currently any single man portable stand-off (projected force) weapon that always will stop the threat. The G19 is a proven performer and is widely used.

With that said, let's wait and see just how many rounds actually hit the suspect and just how many were in "the zone." We know at least 70 completely missed and so they were outside of "the zone." That doesn't give me a lot of hope in expecting the other 7-14 to be there. We also know that the suspect was shot in the legs and torso. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/04/24/nypd-1-dead-1-injured-in-washington-heights-shooting/

Leg hits are not going to be what most folks would consider to be "the zone."

It amazes me how some people go into the profession of law enforcement and do not practice and hone critical skills needed to safely do their job.

If you think about it, most cops will never shoot their gun on the street and a tremendous number of them are not gun people. My pop managed 21 years with Dallas PD and never fired his gun on the street. One of the first cops to arrive at the North Hollywood bank robbery was a motorcycle cop Officer Richard Zielinski who was something like 3 or 4 weeks from retirement. He had never fired his gun in the line of duty on the street before that day and that day he fired all 60 something rounds he had on her person. He arrived and was in a side crossing fire position on the suspects. He would fire at the suspects when they were firing at the cops and people on the street. He had said that he knew when he was hitting them because when he did, the one hit would turn and shoot at him. Of course, his shots did little, if any, harm because of the suspect's body armor.

Many cops make their shooting quals and do their jobs and many do exceptional jobs of policing without firing a shot. Certainly, more cops lives are preserved and injuries reduced via situational awareness, people skills, and attitude. Street cops end up doing everything from neighbor disputes, domestic disputes, finding lost children, car chases, speeders, public interaction, counselors, and on and on and on. Strangely most cops are not absolute experts in all the areas in which their job forces them to work.

The really sad thing is that while we would all really like to know that our local cops shoot better, citizens don't seem willing to pay the extra $ in taxes to make them all highly trained shooters. If we pay for them to be highly trained shooters, are we also going to make them all hostage situation negotiators which would require a lot more training? How about making them professional grade family counselors?

The linked article indicated the suspect was behind cover, and active, at 21 yards from the officers.

If the suspect was behind cover, you have to wonder how he got shot in the torso and in the lower located legs.

I have no trouble accepting that hit percentages would be lousy for typical shooters in those conditions, particularly if they thought they were taking fire.

I honestly dont think 17% is absolutely terrible given the circumstances. I would challenge anyone here to do better when being fired upon(spare me the war stories).

It certainly isn't the worst, but 17% isn't all that good compared to many other police departments with gunfight statistics. It is even low for NY.
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2007/12/police-hit-rates-on-shootings-as-low-as.html

However... it could obviously be improved upon. Many untrained shooters act just like untrained fighters. Instead of picking their shots precisely, they just throw as many as they can as quick as they can and dont worry so much about aiming,

Untrained shooters may act like untrained fighters in conflicts, but the NYPD cops have training in both those areas.

This article from tactfire.com discussed the hit rate of an unnamed police department. The hit rates were terrible, especially when it was about the same rate as the untrained shooters they had battled (11%). So why spend the time and money training officers to shoot if they shoot no better than the untrained bad guys? Given the results, the commander described the officer's gun training as being worthless.
http://www.tacfire.com/uncategorized/21st-century-deadly-force-training-for-police

So if officers in a gunfight have that much trouble hitting their target, then they are not likely to be able to hit a specific point on the target.

Of course, OP's gunfight apparently happened at a greater distance than most non-LEO gunfights. That should make hitting the target more difficult. However, at 70 feet, the the shots being made by officers were within the distance for which most officers have been trained and qualify.

So at the range, making use of cover, I would have thought that officers would shoot slower and better pick their shots. Also, the suspect was within the cops trainging rage and the officers outnumbered the suspect. and so they had the upper hand which should have afforded better shooting. Apparently, my thought was wrong.

So did y'all catch Farnum's closing comments? I know he is supposed to be a respected firearms and combatives instructor, but one comment was ludacris. Keep in mind that Farnum is really pushing the need for officers having rifles. Even so, I would not have expected him to make a blatantly wrong comment about pistols to make the rifle option sound better.

He stated...
The fact is, this threat was out of pistol range!

Out of pistol range, really? I can't think of ever having any instructor suggest to me that threats that close are outside of the range of the pistol, especially ones firing centerfire ammo in calibers suitable for self defense such as 9mm. If 21mis outside of pistol range, then maybe I need to start carrying a pocket full of rocks with me to throw and hit threats at 21m and a bit further given. In all my years, I never would have thought that the range of my throwing arm was superior to the range of handguns.

Don P
May 4, 2012, 06:54 AM
Just goes to show what stress, adrenalin flow will do to one trying to shoot a gun with accuracy. IIRC the hit percentage is about average for LE.
Makes you think, are we the civilian, really ready for a armed confrontation?

Double Naught Spy
May 4, 2012, 08:30 AM
Makes you think, are we the civilian, really ready for a armed confrontation?

I don't think being a civilian means one iota of anything in regard to being really ready and comparison against the cops doesn't either. Both groups have been to shown to have outstanding individuals that perform exceptionally well and both groups have been shown to have folks that are more of a threat to themselves, bystanders, and other possible victims more so than they are to the threat they are fighting.

Seaman
May 4, 2012, 09:34 AM
Range to target = 21 metres = 69 feet = 23 yards...G19 9mm...84 shots fired...14 hits.

My preference is 45 cal. Would want the S&W M22-4 45 ACP. 230gr fmj.

Rifle not an option for CCW duty, just my daily CC.

Tactics demand right tools for the job.

Your choice may differ.

Fishing_Cabin
May 4, 2012, 10:38 AM
DNS,

I don't think being a civilian means one iota of anything in regard to being really ready and comparison against the cops doesn't either. Both groups have been to shown to have outstanding individuals that perform exceptionally well and both groups have been shown to have folks that are more of a threat to themselves, bystanders, and other possible victims more so than they are to the threat they are fighting.

You bring up some good points. I guess what I have seen it is hard to measure and to predict which individual or group will do well, and which will not in an actual shooting. I have seen a few basic studies in years past but I dont remember anything really special out of them.

One item I have noticed several instructors mention, and it was a factor in a local shooting. I will give two examples below:

1. A more outspoken, generally larger officer, who is good at the non-lethal aspects of wrestling, and restraining suspects, generally do poorer then their oppisites.

2. An officer which are smaller, and generally more quiet, and less apt to use any force unless absolutely required, generally do better in a shooting situation.

As I said I cant cite a study on the above 2 examples, but it has been mentioned by several instructors.

Vermonter
May 4, 2012, 10:54 AM
With two officer I would think the following approact would be the ticket. Please someone educate me if I am ill informed or incorrect......

Two officers shooting from behind cover at one subject who is shooting at them (presumably also behind cover). In theory one officer could be responsible for laying suppressive cover fire and one officer could be responsible for waiting for better higher % shots.

Obviously this would have to be trained and ingrained in the folks who would be asked to do it however I could see it working.

Regards, Vermonter

pgdion
May 4, 2012, 01:44 PM
I doubt a .45auto would have made any difference for the officers except they would have run out of ammo about 20 rounds before the job was done. A classic example of where capacity matters ... maybe more than you think. When your out of ammo, it's lights out. :(

overkill0084
May 4, 2012, 02:03 PM
The article was trying to sell rifles in police vehicles. In that encounter I'm thinking I'd rather have a 12 gauge.
I know that once upon a time, shotguns were normal equipment in patrol vehicles. Where'd they go?

Buzzcook
May 4, 2012, 02:30 PM
Suspect also fired at least one round at responding officers. That round struck their patrol vehicle, and caused no injury. Both officers got through the incident unhurt. Suspect was struck with fourteen police bullets, but did not die.Emphasis mine

An arrest was made with no officers or additional citizens hurt. I'd call that a success.

Without further info, it's difficult to assess whether the police could have made the arrest with fewer rounds shot. Difficult also to say why the hits weren't fatal. Was the bad guy behind cover? were the wounds to his extremities?

C0untZer0
May 4, 2012, 02:52 PM
the 9mm carbine also disapeared from police cruisers, maybe that was because DEA switched - I don't know.

I think any long gun including a shotgun would have been easier to use in this scenario.

FrankenMauser
May 4, 2012, 02:54 PM
Whether or not the suspect is "active and behind cover", you shouldn't be firing, unless you have a reasonable chance of hitting the suspect.

This isn't Afghanistan. You don't use "suppressing fire" on city streets.
And, if you're stupid enough to think a 'suppressing fire' tactic is useful, you better have some friendlies advancing on the suspect. Otherwise, it's just a dangerous waste of a precious, limited commodity: ammunition.

One of my favorite quotes, from a local cop:
"One bullet in the bad guy sure beats 6 in the crowd behind him."

jrothWA
May 4, 2012, 03:00 PM
PLACEMENT!

C0untZer0
May 4, 2012, 03:18 PM
^ yes

But it's a lot easier for me to place a shot COM when I have a scope or a 15" sight radius and the weapon is stabilized by holding a forestock, and it's stabilized againt my shoulder.

manta49
May 4, 2012, 03:22 PM
Quote.

I know this is just one case, but to me the 9mm is not a proven performer.


The 9mm is the most used round buy police and military world wide. It was used by the british and Germans in WW2. It was used by the british SAS to good effect in terrorist and hostage situations. It is the most tried and tested hand gun ammunition ever produced.
And you think its not a proven performer. :confused:

The person could have being hit by the same number of rounds in the same place with .40 or .45 and and had the same result. Hit someone with 9mm .40 or .45 in a vital area they will go down hit them anywhere else and will or won't depending on the person.

MonsterB
May 4, 2012, 04:24 PM
The 9mm is the most used round buy police and military world wide. It was used by the british and Germans in WW2. It was used by the british SAS to good effect in terrorist and hostage situations. It is the most tried and tested hand gun ammunition ever produced.
And you think its not a proven performer.

The person could have being hit by the same number of rounds in the same place with .40 or .45 and and had the same result. Hit someone with 9mm .40 or .45 in a vital area they will go down hit them anywhere else and will or won't depending on the person.
I agree 100%. I have a friend who was shot at a party in Boston as an unlucky bystander. 3 45 rounds in his upper body, one went through his armpit, through his midsection, and out the other side. One went through his lower abdomen. And the otherthrough his arm. After the shooting, he spent 1/2 hour getting his shiznit together, and then drove himself to the hospital. Was out of work for a month but today he is fine. One 9mm in the right spot would have had much different results. Heck, one 22 in the right spot would have laid him out. A 45 does not guarantee dead guy, no matter what the ninjas tell you. Nothing against 45, or any other caliber, they all can work, you need to be good or lucky enough to put the round where it counts.

Seaman
May 4, 2012, 05:39 PM
Good to hear your Boston friend survived 3 hits from a 45 and then drove himself to a hospital to get patched up. Impressive if not amazing.

I use the 45ACP cartridge not because it has a tendency to drop assailants quickly, not because it propels a large bullet, and not because it has a devastating reputation...

I shoot the 45 ACP (preferably thru a 4" S&W revolver barrel) because (for me) it is VERY ACCURATE and in a gunfight ACCURACY RULES.


PS The 9mm is an excellent cartridge, for some bizarre reason takes more effort (for me) to get accuracy.

mete
May 4, 2012, 06:14 PM
I wonder how Jim Cirillo would have done ?? He had shot it out with 17 bad guys mostly in his work in the NYPD Stake-out Squad. He took out all 17 ! 'He was certainly exceptional .
He was at an IPSC match and played it as he would have in real life .They laughed at him !! That shows how stupid most people are -playing at shooting instead of using it as serious training.

Newton24b
May 4, 2012, 06:16 PM
well the scariest part is, this is a common representation of a governmental group that says citizens shouldnt be able to defend themselves in public with any useful means, like say a glock 19 with 9mm speer gold dots.

Double Naught Spy
May 4, 2012, 06:48 PM
Gents, remember it comes down to...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLACEMENT!

Placement is nothing without trajectory and penetration.

PeterGreg
May 4, 2012, 08:14 PM
Forget about use enough gun the mantra should be carry enough ammo

BGutzman
May 4, 2012, 08:36 PM
Forget about use enough gun the mantra should be carry enough ammo

All the ammo in the world wont make up for poor shooting skills and lack of critical thinking..

C0untZer0
May 4, 2012, 09:38 PM
Man, the NYPD sure use a lot of bullets:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-09-08/news/30147111_1_stray-bullet-gucci-murder-doors

Patriot86
May 4, 2012, 10:09 PM
First I thought the NYPD average overall in shootings was around 17% which is higher than many other large city police forces.

Second,Not having those 10# NYPD triggers might have helped, 21M is on the long side of where most people train for pistol shots but 9mm is still accurate at this distance. I can't help but think that with a browning hi power or even a DAO or DA/SA USP or P226 they could have been a little more accurate. That being said... A rifle MAY have helped, but poor shot placement with a rifle won't do much more damage than poor shot placement with a pistol. I can arm chair jockey this all night long but IMO there is no "one" thing, be it larger/different caliber pistols, different pistols , different weapons or better training that will "solve" incidents like this. I can personally say that especially at long distances I will shoot better with a standard glock trigger than with a modified extra heavy glock trigger.

BlackFeather
May 4, 2012, 10:45 PM
Regardless of caliber, rounds that have contacted the suspect, and rounds missed, if he is still moving and able to shoot back why not continue to shoot? At that point in time does anyone seriously care what round they are using? Sure, I think the hit percentage should be higher, but their job isn't SOLELY to shoot bad guys.

manta49
May 5, 2012, 08:10 AM
A lot of guys on this forum carry revolvers and go into statistics about the average shooting incident uses 4 to 5 rounds ect. I think you are better having to much ammo than not enough. This incident just confirms this.

Manson
May 5, 2012, 10:34 AM
I've read the posts and I see a lot of differing opinions. I would like to follow up on a couple if I may.

Someone mentioned .45's. but we all know that one well placed shot with a 9mm will do the job. I seriously doubt that any really well placed shots were made.

Another poster said that the 9mm was the right tool for the job. Reasoning that they would have run out of ammo sooner with .45's. These guys fired 84 rounds. And yet I say no mention that they ran out. So I can't be sure that more in this case is better. One well placed 9 or .45 would have been enough.

Then there is the point about a rifle. Now these officers were unable to take the time, or were unable to make one good head shot with two pistols. Why can I expect they would do better with a rifle? Are rifles easier to aim? Perhaps better penetration would have gone through cover.

My thinking is at some point they should have waited for back up. Swat (with rifles) if necessary. The suspect only fired one shot that we are aware of. And a hail of bullets didn't work. And it was just blind luck that others weren't injured.

BGutzman
May 5, 2012, 11:14 AM
I wasnt there so its impossible for me to be totally critical here.. Still this sounds like poor markmanship and lack of stress training at its finest...

It sounds like a combination of possibilities.

Standard Glock.. not the finest trigger or sights in the world by any means....
Poor marksmanship
Poor critical thinking - spray and pray instead of thinking

Seems like they reacted and didnt have the experience to tell them to make fewer but better aimed shots. Certainly something may have well obstructed the view but seriously this is a horrible number of hits with a lot of bullets not on target...

MLeake
May 5, 2012, 12:46 PM
With regard to the question about the rifle being easier to snap shoot - it depends on the sights (not to mention training).

A reflex sight, such as my EoTech, eliminates parallax. If you can see the dot, and the dot is on the target, you should be able to hit the target. Your eye doesn't have to be perfectly aligned, just close enough to aligned that you can see the dot.

Additionally, the reflex sight allows the shooter to focus on the target; the dot almost appears as an afterthought.

Such a system is VERY fast, if the shooter practices.

Did you ever wonder why SWAT, ESU, etc use AR or SMG platforms as primary, with pistols in a backup role, even indoors? (Even when they do not plan to use full auto.)

With the right sights, the long guns are faster.

Salmoneye
May 5, 2012, 01:37 PM
Tactics
With two officer I would think the following approact would be the ticket. Please someone educate me if I am ill informed or incorrect......

Two officers shooting from behind cover at one subject who is shooting at them (presumably also behind cover). In theory one officer could be responsible for laying suppressive cover fire and one officer could be responsible for waiting for better higher % shots.

Obviously this would have to be trained and ingrained in the folks who would be asked to do it however I could see it working.

Regards, Vermonter

SHHHH!

You're giving away all our tactics!

mete
May 5, 2012, 03:54 PM
Nope , doesn't work that way. Suppressive fire is really a military tactic and is done with machine guns. Cops [non SWAT ] don't carry enough ammo .
Just slow down a bit and AIM , you know FRONT SIGHT !

seeker_two
May 5, 2012, 05:10 PM
If the two officers were ex-military, they might have defaulted to their military training....supressive fire & all....

Mello2u
May 5, 2012, 10:55 PM
It seems to me that the author (John Farnam) of the linked article is using a different meaning to the phrase "use enough gun" which is the title of Robert Ruark's book. On the one hand, where Ruark was focused on choosing an adequately powerful and penetrating big game rifle cartridge; on the other hand, the linked article seems to be premised upon at ranges over 20 yards a handgun is not enough gun. Not enough because pistols lack what a rifle has, a shoulder stock and a forearm which provides much greater stability; and therefore, accuracy at what Farnam calls "beyond pistol range".

Farnam states: "The fact is, this threat was out of pistol range!" [the distance was 21 meters.]

Farnam lists several example of cartridges he feels would do: "223, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, 6.8Spc, 300Blk, 30Carbine".

I can only imagine how difficult it is to place shots on a armed adversary who is firing at me. I know how difficult it is in IPSC competition and in the Gunsite shoot-offs to quickly and accurately place major caliber hits. However, my competitive experiences are artificial stress and can't compare to a life and death shoot out.

I remember one night on patrol being the first officer on the scene of a shooting where I spotted a man down on the sidewalk. I was trying to look in ten different directions for potential threats, trying to call for help, preserve the scene, and identify and corral witnesses . . . . .
That was stressful, and no one was shooting at me.

I can agree that having the option of a readily accessible carbine in a patrol car would be good for officer survival. Even pistol cartridges in a carbine platform would have likely have been a great advantage. It was not a lack of power or a lack of the bullets to incapacitate, but a lack of hits on the threat that was the focus of the article.

Double Naught Spy
May 6, 2012, 03:44 AM
Nope , doesn't work that way. Suppressive fire is really a military tactic and is done with machine guns. Cops [non SWAT ] don't carry enough ammo .
Just slow down a bit and AIM , you know FRONT SIGHT !

See Lubbock SWAT 2001. We have some threads here and you can google it. 369 rounds fired, 3 people hit with 1 killed and 2 wounded after responding to a call about man who might be suicidal who was burning belongings from his house in the yard (apparently, most of his wife's stuff after they had fight). SWAT setup with teams in front and back and did a brake and rake for entry because the door were barricaded. A shot was fired and 2 SWAT guys went down in the stack for the front entry. One had a grazing scalp wound and the other was dead from the same bullet, IIRC. Front team opens open on the house with suppressive fire. Bullets travel through the house and out the back and so the back team opens up. In the fusilade, the suspect in wounded in the leg and surrendered within the hour, was treated very poorly by the cops for murdering one of the entry guys. Medical care was delay, threats were made to him,...and he didn't fire the shot.

So the man, unemployed and distraught about his situation ends up with nice settlement from Lubbock for the police's willful neglect in their operation. He had been shot while hiding inside of a closet by a random bullet...as just about all were random. The sniper had shot the fellow team members and tried to cover it up.

Aside from the sniper's shot, 368 rounds were fired into the house and not a single shooter had eyes on the suspect. Moments after the firing stopped, a radio call (used to be on the internet) was made to get somebody from the police range to bring more ammo to the scene as most of the entry folks had discharged most of their ammo from their primary guns.

So, a shot happens and the front entry team has 2 hit and so they start their suppressive fire so they can retrieve their folks and get back to safety, only their shots fly past the entry team in the back who open up with their own suppressive fire.

The suspect did have guns, but never threatened the cops with any, they never saw him with a gun, and apparently the guns were all stored/cased and unfired. So they were in the house, but he was unarmed. Lubbock PD underwent some restaffing in mgmt and on the SWAT team...all over a guy who was distraught, would not speak with the cops, and needed a ticket for the illegal disposal of garbage for burning belongings in his yard inside the city limits.

And what of the sniper who killed his own team member?
Police Cpl. Wade Lee was cited by interim Police Chief Claude Jones for violating departmental policy regarding firearms safety and falsifying a written report about the shooting of Sgt. Kevin Cox by a fellow officer.

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/071302/loc_0713020032.shtml
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75603
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89932

Vermonter
May 6, 2012, 08:17 PM
That is an unsettling story. The first I've heard of it. I can see how the suppressive fire tactic would be military more so than LE. However in an extreme situation it might be a good option.

seeker_two
May 7, 2012, 05:07 AM
In a military situation, supressive fire is a great tactic.....in a police situation, it creates a hazard for bystanders and opens up departments to all sorts of liability....

....pick the right tool for the job....

Glenn Dee
May 7, 2012, 06:18 AM
Hey Fella's

Wow... some interesting posts.
First off I'd like to comment on the NY Trigger. I currently have one in my Glock 19. Left over from my days with the department. There is nothing wrong with the NY Trigger IMO. I actually prefer it. IMO It allows the user to be a bit more aware of each pull. After training with the NY Trigger it's no different than a lighter trigger.

In my experience... shootings happen where they happen, when they happen, at the distance it happens. The police rarely get to choose any of these equasions. The only common thread in shootings is they happen very very fast. Officers, and armed civilians (I know the police are civilians too) are almost always are behind the curve reacting to the threat.

This shooting happened at an unusually long distance for an urban gunfight. This in my opinion is the major reason for high miss rate. Of course a practiced bull's eye shooter probably would have made the shot... but he may also have been killed by the perp. I didnt see anything in any artical about colateral damage to property or people. I choose to attribute this to the officers keeping their shots on target rather than using a cover by fire tactic. I'd love to know what the object the perp used for cover looked like.

The NYPD does not have a dedicated patrol rifle, but there are units within 15 minutes response time with rifles, shotguns, tear gas, and a bunch of other neat stuff. But even if the officers did have a rifle in the radio car they were in the fight with their hand guns. Like I say these things happen very very fast. They wouldnt have had the luxury of going back to the golf bag and choosing the .223 iron for this shot. You fight with what you have.

Double Naught Spy
May 7, 2012, 09:03 AM
In a military situation, supressive fire is a great tactic.....in a police situation, it creates a hazard for bystanders and opens up departments to all sorts of liability....

....pick the right tool for the job....

I am not sure of the repeated comments that because suppressive is a tactic that can be used by the military that it can't be used or has not place being used by the police. If you are talking about the right tool for the job, it most certainly can and has been used by the police.

That the police should not use suppressive fire assumes that all police situations take place in a context where there are bystanders such as inside of a densely occupied city, that the liability to the police is greater than the risk, and that suppressive fire is necessarily a high volume spray and pray sort of shooting. None of these assumptions are necessarily true or necessarily negate the use of the tactic.

http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/27319
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/family-of-former-marine-gunned-down-by-swat-team-still-searches-for-answers-and-justice/
http://vanessawest.tripod.com/columbine-4.html
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=208297

Some may wish to debate the use of terminology between suppressive fire, directed fire, or cover fire, but the intent of use is the same - to keep the opposition from being able to fire for a period of time by putting rounds on his location.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270353
http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/1697394-Officer-down-Getting-an-injured-officer-to-safety/

MikeNice81
May 7, 2012, 05:57 PM
So at the range, making use of cover, I would have thought that officers would shoot slower and better pick their shots. Also, the suspect was within the cops trainging rage and the officers outnumbered the suspect. and so they had the upper hand which should have afforded better shooting. Apparently, my thought was wrong.


Unfortunately adrenaline is much stronger than training for most people. Standing and throwing bullets at paper doesn't equal training. Most officers really don't recieve considerably more than that. The average officer's yearly training is about equal to an NRA Defense Outside the Home course with a dash of retention. Then they get a day of active shooter training.

Until an officer is tested in the heat of fire there is no true understanding of how they will react.

seeker_two
May 7, 2012, 06:18 PM
DNS: While there may be few times when supressive fire is useful for police, the vast majority of law enforcement situations are not those times. In fact, supressive fire may injure the very public that the police are supposedly protecting. And every bullet has a lawyer attached....and an out-of-court settlement paid with taxpayer funds....

C0untZer0
May 7, 2012, 07:39 PM
Maybe they should have called in artillery fire, the guy they were firing at was using this:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=81236&stc=1&d=1336437577


.

seeker_two
May 7, 2012, 08:16 PM
Cheap gun can kill you just as dead as an expensive one....

JimPage
May 7, 2012, 08:27 PM
I have never been in a gunfight with small arms. Havng said that let me say that as fighter pilot in Vietnam I learned early on that when divebombing, it is much wiser to take an extra few seconds to aim carefully on the first pass despite the fire coming against you. Because if you don't hit the gun/gunner the first time you have to try it again. Mathematically that means that you are exposed to enemy fire for at least as long as the carefully aimed attack as you will be to go into the dive bomb attack again, and possibly again.

And extra second or two improves your odds significantly. Remember that time compresses in the heat of battle

jeepman4804
May 7, 2012, 09:43 PM
All about shot placement. 14 hits with a rifle would not have changed the outcome if those hits where not properly placed. Just like a properly placed .22 could have ended the confrontation with 1 bullet.

MLeake
May 7, 2012, 10:22 PM
Shot placement is typically easier to achieve with a rifle...

C0untZer0
May 7, 2012, 11:19 PM
^ yep. It's not about caliber, it's about the greater ease of placing accurate shots with a long gun.

Double Naught Spy
May 8, 2012, 05:23 PM
DNS: While there may be few times when supressive fire is useful for police, the vast majority of law enforcement situations are not those times.

Right, and I never said otherwise. However, the original claim was that it was a military tactic requiring full auto guns and that cops don't carry enough ammo. Without know the specific history, I would not doubt that it is a tactic orignal to the military, but otherwise, it can be useful to the cops, does not require full auto, and the ammo quantity isn't particularly relevant. Obviously, with the more ammo you have, the longer you can provide suppressive fire, but otherwise there is no quantity standard.

As you note, the vast majority of the time, this tactic would not be useful for the cops. I agree completely. That leaves the small amount of time when it is. From what is seen from various cop battles, it is used only in very limited number of situations....but is used.

And every bullet has a lawyer attached....and an out-of-court settlement paid with taxpayer funds....

In fact, supressive fire may injure the very public that the police are supposedly protecting.

And every shot fired by the police has the potential to harm the public. Suppressive fire can be controlled and aimed so as to reduce said risk. With that said, police use of suppressive fire does not seem to be for the purpose of protecting the public in most cases, but protecting the cops in immediate danger.

seeker_two
May 8, 2012, 08:53 PM
Suppressive fire can be controlled and aimed so as to reduce said risk. With that said, police use of suppressive fire does not seem to be for the purpose of protecting the public in most cases, but protecting the cops in immediate danger.


On that, we agree.....the public is just on their own, I guess....the public....& the lawyers....

BGutzman
May 8, 2012, 09:05 PM
I don’t believe for one minute that it was a suppressive fire.. It was mad shooting much like the vietnam mad minute...

Poor shooting skills with a weapon that has less than stellar out of the box trigger and sights and lack of training and lack of critical thinking... Sounds like classical inexperience with an at best average gun thrown in the mix...

Gossettc68
May 16, 2012, 09:06 PM
This is actually a fairly funny scenario. I can actually picture myself in this firefight...and after I hit the suspect I don't know...4-5 times and he's still standing and shooting back, I think after that point I would probably go a little bullet crazy to trying to take this guy down.

kgpcr
May 20, 2012, 09:21 AM
1st is another case of a 9mm just not getting it done. 2nd if he would have been hit in the boiler room with a .40 or .45 with good hollow points it would have been game over. I bet the hits were NOT in the boiler room. If some were then that points to #1. A shotgun would have put an end to it in short order with slugs or buckshot.

Double Naught Spy
May 20, 2012, 08:34 PM
1st is another case of a 9mm just not getting it done. 2nd if he would have been hit in the boiler room with a .40 or .45 with good hollow points it would have been game over. I bet the hits were NOT in the boiler room. If some were then that points to #1. A shotgun would have put an end to it in short order with slugs or buckshot.

The issue wasn't that the cops didn't have enough gun or enough caliber, despite Farnam's claims that the distance was too great for pistols. As with the Lubbock SWAT folks, people can often miss just as effectively with long guns as they can with handguns.

Going with .40 or .45 over the 9mm would not have made any difference except that the cops likely would have either had less ammo (but same number of mags) or would have to have made more reloads, but still shot just as crappy.

Axelwik
May 20, 2012, 11:33 PM
Hmm... 84 rounds fired at one suspect. That's as many rounds as the ENTIRE German police force fired last year.

I think a shotgun with OO-buck would have been far more effective. At 21 meters through an 18-inch cylinder barrel the spread would have been about human torso size.

FrankenMauser
May 21, 2012, 02:11 AM
See Lubbock SWAT 2001. We have some threads here and you can google it. 369 rounds fired, 3 people hit with 1 killed and 2 wounded after responding to a call about man who might be suicidal who was burning belongings from his house in the yard (apparently, most of his wife's stuff after they had fight).

A similar situation happened in Utah, last year.

A 'Narcotics Strike Force' was performing a drug raid. A shot was fired just as the entry team was to breech the door of the suspect's house. One of the entry team members went down. Everyone opened up on the house to suppress the suspect's fire.

5 additional officers were wounded by friendly fire. The officer that went down was named Jared Francom. He did not survive. He took a round to the back of the head, courtesy of another team member that couldn't control his trigger finger.

The suspect was found armed, hiding in the house, but never fired a shot. The police agencies involved, however, continued to villainize the suspect for weeks. Last I heard, the State was still trying to find a way to stick murder charges to the suspect for the officer's death, even though the suspect never fired a shot and all wounded parties were hit by friendly fire.... :rolleyes:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53237543-78/officers-ogden-officer-police.html.csp

The real fallout from this incident, though, is that Utah police agencies are using his death to push for more no-knock warrants... and they're winning. :mad: ...a subject of its own, but worth mentioning.

Lambdebois
May 21, 2012, 08:05 AM
Frankenmauser,

I just noticed that the link you provided says nothing about the officers/officers being hit by friendly fire. I don't doubt it... but would love to read the "other" side of the story if there is one somewhere....

Double Naught Spy
May 21, 2012, 09:41 AM
Frankenmauser,

I just noticed that the link you provided says nothing about the officers/officers being hit by friendly fire. I don't doubt it... but would love to read the "other" side of the story if there is one somewhere....

I haven't seen an official source that says this either, but fratricide does appear to be a possibility based on the information available, or lack of information. They do appear to be trying to saddle responsibility for the injuries and death on Stewart, whose house was raided, but haven't come out and said specifically that Stewart shot any of the 6 cops which is unusual, especially after all this time. Most of the accounts of Francom's death state that he was shot during the raid, not that Stewart shot him.

You would think that the doctors had recovered at least on bullet from the 6 officers that were shot and could match it to Stewart's gun, but after 4 months, not such claims are being made by the cops.

Here is a vid from one of the responders. It has graphic language, so not work or family friendly. The second link provides more information and validates the first link as being from the incident.
http://www.fugitive.com/2012/04/12/ogden-police-officer-jared-francom-killed-5-officers-wounded-caught-on-camera/
http://fox13now.com/2012/05/19/report-gives-new-insight-into-fatal-officer-involved-shooting/

There seems to have been quite a few shots gapped over a long period of time.

As an aside, note the officer shot in the hip who fell down the stairs to the basement and then ran back upstairs. Obviously, the shot to the hip did not take him out of the battle or stop his mobility.

BGutzman
May 21, 2012, 12:18 PM
I’m sorry but if one officer shoots another officer and the BG fires no rounds and apparently wasn’t even near the door as they entered and that’s where this guy was shot I don’t see how you can charge him with murder.. Especially if the BG never fired a round.

Knock less warrants are just plain wrong... Get a bunch of people rushing in to someone’s house unannounced is a great way to get someone hurt or killed... I always try to treat officers with respect, and would try to help them in an emergency if it meant saving a life or preventing serious injury I would do what I could so long as it was apparent that the officer was in distress or would likely die if I didn’t intercede. I never want to be a police officer or attempt to be one but they are valuable servants of the community and deserving of our support.

I know many people are negative on police but the bottom line is they are there when you need them and they come in all types of weather, rain, snow or shine and no one calls you to come to a birthday party its always a negative situation..

They have my respect and gratitude even if I may disagree with the attitudes of one individual or another...

I just can imagine the situation where someone is startled awake as they raid a house (potentially even the wrong house) and the owner initiates self defense against a mass of unannounced intruders... It will be a sad day for everyone..

Willie Sutton
May 21, 2012, 12:53 PM
Hmm... 84 rounds fired at one suspect. That's as many rounds as the ENTIRE German police force fired last year.

Best quote of the year so far... and I don't know if I should laugh or cry.



The NYPD does not have a dedicated patrol rifle, but there are units within 15 minutes response time with rifles, shotguns, tear gas, and a bunch of other neat stuff.

Perfect. Just like for the average citizen, when seconds count the police are just minutes away... even for other police.



The Lubbock fiasco only goes to show that firearms are indeed dangerous if they are held by the wrong hands.


<sigh>



Willie

.

Double Naught Spy
May 21, 2012, 03:03 PM
Hmm... 84 rounds fired at one suspect. That's as many rounds as the ENTIRE German police force fired last year.

Best quote of the year so far... and I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Interesting. Did anybody check this? Supposedly, they fired 85 only with criminal activities, so the statement would be in error. They fired an additional 9000+ at animals. http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/polizei-schoss-2011-seltener-im-dienst-a-832037.html

Interesting stat, but am not sure what it indicates or how accurate it is. It was actually compiled by the Germans, but that is about as far as I got.

Axelwik
May 22, 2012, 07:30 PM
Interesting. Did anybody check this? Supposedly, they fired 85 only with criminal activities, so the statement would be in error. They fired an additional 9000+ at animals. http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justi...-a-832037.html

Not sure what animals have to do with this...

Germany has a population of around 80 million - about a quarter of the US population, but with a much higher population density.



Have they learned how to get along better than we have?


Are the cops there more likely to solve problems in a less violent way?



I think both are true. I lived in Germany for 12 years (ten of those years in the military). They certainly have conflicts, but don't seem to resort to violence as quickly as we do here.

Double Naught Spy
May 22, 2012, 08:09 PM
Not sure what animals have to do with this...

Simple, you made the statement that 84 rounds was more than all of German police fired last year. It was wrong in 2 ways. First, it was wrong in that they fired 85 rounds during engagements with criminals and second it was wrong in that they fired over more than 9000 rounds during official duties last year.

While it is impressive that they used so little firepower with criminals, there is no reason rewrite or embellish the facts and state that the NY incident fired more than all of German police last year.

dwright1951
May 25, 2012, 01:23 PM
I've shot with lots of folks, several of them were in law enforcement, some were great shots lots weren't. I used to go to a dirt pit on my lunch hour with a sandwich and a pistol or 2 and spend the time shooting. A friend of mine asked me one time what was in my purse (gym bag with lunch and pistol & ammo) that I carried into work and out every time that I got in my truck, when I told him he asked if I was robbin banks on my lunch hour. After he found out he asked to join me, pretty soon I had a different shooting partner every day for lunch. We had a ball, next thing that I know the county sheriff (he and my dad were hunting partners) caught on to what I was doing and he asked around and wanted to know if he could send some of his guys & gals out to improve their skills (this was in the middle to late 70's before there as any formal training in my area). Lots of these folks had only shot to pass the really low qualification and then just carried a gun. Once they found out that they could be fun a lot of them got real good. The best seemed to be folks who grew up hunting, the best change was a woman who started out scared of guns but once she got over her fear she had more fun than any of us.

manta49
May 25, 2012, 01:51 PM
Most of the police here will have a Heckler & Koch MP5 or a Heckler & Koch G3s
in their car. Using their pistol would be a last resort.

BlueTrain
May 28, 2012, 05:01 AM
So, how many shots would have been just about right?

gunloony
May 28, 2012, 05:26 AM
So, how many shots would have been just about right?

Ideally, zero.
If the situation didn't allow that, one.

On the other hand, none of the participants died, so maybe 84 rounds was the right number. ;)

publius
May 29, 2012, 10:29 AM
Denizen, I agree partly with your assessment, more training. Until they decide to give more training I sure don't want them having a lighter trigger though.

Denezin
May 29, 2012, 10:54 AM
well reason i say trigger pull is the nypd's basis on a heavy pull is they can rest their fingers on the trigger. thats unsafe handling if you dont plan on having to shoot someone. like tap rack and decide. you have a decision to make on the assessment do i shoot or not. lets say your resting your finger on even a heavy trigger. and you flich or twitch and you are able to pull it. you just shot someone who wasnt fighting or unarmed. best qoute ever from the book Unintended Consequences: "Sorry doesnt take it back".

FairWarning
June 2, 2012, 02:10 PM
o... I carry 50+ rounds of ammo, maybe I need another 30...

This might help if your opponent can't shoot either. :o But if he can, you'll be dead long before you can dispense 80 rounds.

fasteddie565
June 5, 2012, 05:54 AM
DNS,

You saved me a lot of typing.

Using their patrol vehicle for cover, the two officers, armed with G19s, fired a total of 84 rounds at this single suspect. Both officers reloaded twice! Range to the suspect was 21m. Exact locations of entry-wounds on the suspect are not known.

If he was shot in the extremities / in non-vital areas 14 times, I do not see how a rifle would have helped. I am not a cop and think as a security professional LEO's should carry long guns, the issue was with the marksmanship.

As someone said previously, you can never miss fast enough, or with too much gun.

Was there mention of drugs? PCP perhaps?

MLeake
June 5, 2012, 05:15 PM
Again, it's easier to score good hits at distance with a rifle or carbine.

If all shots are unaimed, then the long gun will do more damage to extremities, so even there the long gun would have probably resulted in faster incapacitation.

Handguns are relatively puny, and harder to hit with at distance.