Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: A Hail of Bullets, a Heap of Uncertainty - New York Times Article

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    377

    Post imported post

    A Hail of Bullets, a Heap of Uncertainty

    AFTER almost every high-profile fatal shooting by the police, a flurry of questions follows hard on the hail of bullets. Premier among them is, Did they have to kill him?

    This often implies a more subtle subtext that goes to the heart of police training: Is there a middle ground? And is it possible to shoot to wound?

    The answer, law enforcement officials and experts agree, is no, but not because the only alternative is shooting to kill.

    Read more of the article here.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/we...w/09baker.html

    Later on, a BATFE AGent is quoted, “We do not train our agents to shoot to wound or to shoot the gun out of someone’s hand, we train them to shoot to stop the threat,” said William G. McMahon, the special agent in charge who heads the New York field division of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “In the milliseconds a law enforcement officer has to react during a life-threatening situation, aiming to wound is not an option.”

    Comment: And those highly trained policemen only hit their target 28.3% of the time.

    This is a pretty decent article considering the source.

    I wonder when the NYT will start publishing some analyses of defensive shootings by private citizens? Don't hold your breath...

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    XD Owner wrote:
    I wonder when the NYT will start publishing some analyses of defensive shootings by private citizens? Don't hold your breath...
    And I won't hold my breath for them to release their articles for timely comment. They demand too much reduction of my security suite to see the article, as the URL that you presented, though thank you for what you did display.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    377

    Post imported post

    here's more.

    While popular culture has embedded both extremes — the hardened mantra of “shoot to kill” and the benevolent private eye (think Barnaby Jones) who expertly inflicts only a flesh wound — the truth is that neither practice is a staple of police guidelines. In fact, the most likely result when a policeman discharges a gun is that he or she will miss the target completely. So an officer could no sooner shoot to wound than shoot to kill with any rate of success. In life-or-death situations that play out in lightning speed — such precision marksmanship is unrealistic.

    In New York, many other municipalities and some federal agencies, guidelines instruct officers to shoot to “stop” — and in particular, to stop an assailant who poses a deadly threat to the officers involved or civilians.

    “We do not train our agents to shoot to wound or to shoot the gun out of someone’s hand, we train them to shoot to stop the threat,” said William G. McMahon, the special agent in charge who heads the New York field division of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “In the milliseconds a law enforcement officer has to react during a life-threatening situation, aiming to wound is not an option.”

    Agent McMahon faced tough questions a few weeks ago when a federal officer in the Bronx shot a suspect in the head, after the suspect had brandished a hand grenade and sped away in a car, dragging the agent 20 feet. That followed two fatal police shootings in Brooklyn, one in which the victim pulled out a hair brush that the police said looked like a gun, and another in which the victim wielded a broken bottle in his hand. Both shootings raised questions about the use of deadly force.

    New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report. The police shot and killed 13 people last year.

    In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.

    In all shootings — including those against people, animals and in suicides and other situations — New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away. Nearly half the shots they fired last year were within that distance.

    In Los Angeles, where there are far fewer shots discharged, the police fired 67 times in 2006 and had 27 hits, a 40 percent hit rate, which, while better than New York’s, still shows that they miss targets more often they hit them.

    Bad marksmanship? Police officials and law enforcement experts say no, contending that the number of misses underscores the tense and unpredictable nature of these situations. For example, a 43 percent hit rate for shots fired from zero to six feet might seem low, but at that range it is very likely that something has already gone wrong: perhaps an officer got surprised, or had no cover, or was wrestling with the suspect.

    “When you factor in all of the other elements that are involved in shooting at an adversary, that’s a high hit rate,” said Raymond W. Kelly, the New York police commissioner. “The adrenaline flow, the movement of the target, the movement of the shooter, the officer, the lighting conditions, the weather ... I think it is a high rate when you consider all of the variables.”

    John C. Cerar, a retired commander of the New York Police Department’s firearms training section, was more tempered in his assesment of the hit rates. “They’re acceptable,” he said. “In pristine conditions, you are going to get better hit ratios.” He said handguns were an imperfect weapon. “As long as the handgun is the main tool for the police officers to use, you are going to have misses,’’ he said.

    Citizen’s rights advocates insist the statistics point up the need to train officers to recognize and employ other, less deadly options. “The low hit rate provides another reason why they should do everything possible to avoid having to shoot in the first place, given the likelihood they are going to hit something or someone other than their intended target,” said Christopher Dunn, the associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

    Mr. Kelly pointed to examples of excellent marksmanship, including a 2003 incident in which a City Council member was killed at City Hall. An officer fired six times at the assailant from about 45 feet away; four or five of the shots hit the gunman and killed him.

    Interviews with police officials in Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles show that when the police do shoot, they are trained to aim at “center mass.” That gives the officer a margin of error, because missing the target can mean hitting bystanders. In stressful confrontations, experts said, the goal was to have the officer fall back on his training to aim for the center.

    “You want instinct to take over,” one federal agent said.

    New York police officials say that their policy manual includes several directives instructing officers to use the minimum amount of force necessary. For instance, the guide bans warning shots in deadly physical force situations — because police don’t use bullets as deterrents, and because errant shots can be dangerous. They also cannot shoot at a moving vehicle unless a deadly threat is coming from something other than the vehicle, like a gunman.

    New York officials say they believe their officers use more restraint than the police in other major cities do. The police reports on gunfire do not include a breakdown of the victims’ race, which is often an inflammatory aspect of New York police shootings.

    Mr. Dunn said the policies in the manual are “pretty good” in spelling out abstract rules on deadly force but added: “I am struck at the lack of practical direction about how to minimize the circumstances in which deadly force can be used.”

    Candace McCoy, a professor of criminal justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, said that officers must be intimately familiar with the neighborhoods they patrol, and understand its natural perimeters, so they can intelligently contain an incident and defuse it short of using deadly force. They can find an in-between tactic, experts said, such as using a Taser, a baton or pepper spray.

    But too often, Professor McCoy said, such middle ground for officers disappears. Once it does, and bullets start to fly, there is no telling where they will land.

    “You take Olympic shooters, and they practice all the time, and they can hit a fly off a cow’s nose from 100 yards,” said Mr. Cerar, the retired commander. “But if you put a gun in that cow’s hand, you will get a different reaction from the Olympic shooter.”

    # # #

    What kind of security suite are you using?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Thanks for the posted article.

    My suite is cobbled up of AdAware (legacy), AdWatch(legacy registry monitor), FireFox(enables the rest), AdBlockPlus, NoScript(the most intrusive since everyone thinks they can write a 'better' script than good ol' html) and FlashBlock. At the lowest level is the subscription service Windoze LiveOneCare.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    It appears that professional officers (like the TSA, "to professionalize you must unionize.") must train to be as good as an armed citizen.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP *******

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    XD Owner wrote:
    I wonder when the NYT will start publishing some analyses of defensive shootings by private citizens? Don't hold your breath...
    Have you ever MET anyone from New York? Their analysis would be so idiotic, even the TIMES wouldn't print it! And, who do they pick to do it? The first bag lady that comes along?

  7. #7
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Thanks for the posted article.

    My suite is cobbled up of AdAware (legacy), AdWatch(legacy registry monitor), FireFox(enables the rest), AdBlockPlus, NoScript(the most intrusive since everyone thinks they can write a 'better' script than good ol' html) and FlashBlock. At the lowest level is the subscription service Windoze LiveOneCare.
    Totally OT, but since I do this thing for a living, I can give advice.

    Get Spybot to compliment your AdAware program (Lavasoft has been "bought" by some of the companies that make adware...same with Microsoft and their products), the Firefox with AdBlock and NoScript is excellent, it's what I use. I'd get rid of the "AdWatch" portion of the program, then it's free as an "on-demand" scanner, which is what it is best at, anyways. Get rid of Live One Care, and download Avast; it's free and does a much better job at AV protection. Live One Care consistently gets the worst scores on AV tests.....Avast is top tier every time they test. http://www.avast.com

    The Spybot program is the only one I really trust for anti-spyware anymore, because it is an independent developer that refuses to be bought out by the big companies to remove detections of malware. And the TeaTimer element is getting better as a real-time detection program.....between Avast, Firefox, Spybot and AdAware as a last resort, I pay for nothing when it comes to PC security, and I've never had a virus or spyware infection. Also, without the MS bloatware and the AdAware real time turned off, you will have a faster machine, too. Avastallows the system tobe pretty fast, while still being very secure (scansnot only opened files in real time, but web pages before they download files to your PC, so it saves you before you ever GET a virus on your PC, and tells you the site is infected....). I've kept it over McAfee, Norton, F-Secure, any of the others. Just my .45.



    OK, OT rant off......



    The article does give us something to think about though.......how many of us carry 8 rounds of 45 in a 1911 (I carry 10 in my HP 45, but still....), or even 5-6 in a revolver? If this study is indicative of trends regarding shootings, it gives us a good reason to carry that extra magazine or speed loader......I hope that I can get the job done in one magazine, but if not......the worst thing in the world is to hear "click" when you want to hear "BANG"........

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •