Shooting in NY city

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

>Why would you wrongly assume someone who does not have a need, but rather a
>desire for tactical training would be more poorly trained?

Same reason skydiving instructors often have better skydiving skills than people who just have a desire to make a few fun jumps. There are, of course, some exceptions - but by and large people who are trained to do something and do it often as part of their professional lives are better at it than hobbyists.

So what are the training and concurrency requirements for a NY city cop?

[SkyDekker 1,122]

I am pretty sure they have to be able to walk and concurrently eat a donut.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Apparently so, so what could we expect of even more poorly trained civilian CCW holders?

something like this maybe?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/28/13526604-armed-customer-shoots-dollar-store-robber-killing-him

--
Rob

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Apparently so, so what could we expect of even more poorly trained civilian CCW holders?

something like this maybe?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/28/13526604-armed-customer-shoots-dollar-store-robber-killing-him

Ummm - 2 employees hardly constitutes "a crowd" except, maybe, using redneck math.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[roostnureye 2]

quick question: same scenario but you have a ccw holder that is hit by one of these cops bullets. as he/she is lying on the ground watching other innocent people being shot by a person in a uniform... at what point should they say enough is enough and shoot the uniformed idiot that is shooting up all of the innocent people? i mean come on... at some point there has to be a "rouge cop law" where civilians can protect themselfs and other innocent people from this bullshit?

Flock University FWC / ZFlock
B.A.S.E. 1580
Aussie BASE 121

[rhaig 0]

Texas has a provision for use of force against an officer.

9.31.(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction)

uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;  and


(2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to 

protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force 

than necessary.

However 9.31.(d) says "The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34."

those 3 sections are a lot to quote here, but you can go look it up at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
They outline the justifications for using deadly force in the defense of a third person of for the protection of life or health.

I don't know if other states have similar statutes.

--
Rob

[roostnureye 2]

Quote

Texas has a provision for use of force against an officer.

9.31.(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction)

uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;  and


(2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to 

protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force 

than necessary.

However 9.31.(d) says "The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34."

those 3 sections are a lot to quote here, but you can go look it up at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
They outline the justifications for using deadly force in the defense of a third person of for the protection of life or health.

I don't know if other states have similar statutes.

looks like i need to move to texas!

Flock University FWC / ZFlock
B.A.S.E. 1580
Aussie BASE 121

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If this was the result of the work of trained NYPD officers I think we can quite confidently close the argument on what would have happened in the cinema when the 'joker' killer burst in. If there had been people with firearms in there its pretty clear that it would have been an even bigger bloodbath than it already was.

Yeah, if you believe their training and methods were worth a shit. The were not.

Apparently so, so what could we expect of even more poorly trained civilian CCW holders?

Perhaps a greater hesitancy to empty a magazine at a perp.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If this was the result of the work of trained NYPD officers I think we can quite confidently close the argument on what would have happened in the cinema when the 'joker' killer burst in. If there had been people with firearms in there its pretty clear that it would have been an even bigger bloodbath than it already was.

Yeah, if you believe their training and methods were worth a shit. The were not.

Apparently so, so what could we expect of even more poorly trained civilian CCW holders?

Perhaps a greater hesitancy to empty a magazine at a perp.

Cops here have to go to the range to qualify every 3-4 months. Here in California, it seems rare to find officers who shoot more than the department requires them to. There are some, but they seem to be the exception. I'm sure in areas where gun culture is more prevalent, this is different.

I personally know a really good chunk of the CCW holders here in my county. I know them because I see them at the range regularly. I know how many there are because I'm politically active on the issue, I know how many permits my county has issued, and I know how many of them I know, interact with, and shoot with. I'm at the range about once a week. The majority of the ones I know shoot pretty often.

In my experience in California (and admittedly, experience is not data. If anyone has the data, I'd love to see it!), CCW holders fall into two categories: 1. Those that hit the range regularly and carry a gun. 2. Those that get their CCW to say they have it, and never carry, and shoot recreationally once in a while. I'm sure there are exceptions, but it seems that usually, when someone gets their CCW, they'll carry for a bit, and realize that it makes them uncomfortable. They will then do one of two things. They will either put the gun away in the safe or they will start hitting the range a lot more often, because once you have that gun on your hip, it gets heavy...it's a heavy burden of responsibility, and you don't forget about it easily, and you don't take it lightly. It's there, and it's serious, and once you put it on and wear it, you realize just how serious.

That said, would I empty a magazine at the bad guy? Every CCW holder has to think about this question. The majority of the ones I've spoken to have the same answer I do. My answer: Nope. Not unless I was personally in danger, or someone I cared about was, because that's why I carry a gun. It's not to be a big damn hero. That's the cops' job, and I'll trust them to do it. You put me or my family in immediate danger, I'll do what I have to do.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Why would you wrongly assume someone who does not have a need, but rather a
>desire for tactical training would be more poorly trained?

Same reason skydiving instructors often have better skydiving skills than people who just have a desire to make a few fun jumps. There are, of course, some exceptions - but by and large people who are trained to do something and do it often as part of their professional lives are better at it than hobbyists.

So you believe police officers are rated shooting instructors? That's obviously false.

But let's take it further. Is a person with a 1000 jumps who has trained to teach a canopy course an better swooper than the guys that are doing 300 jumps a year practicing? Another reality check - most police officers are not crack shots, do not practice often, and do not fire their guns in the line of duty often. These two officers, i recall reading, had never used their guns in public in many years of service.

But to answer Skyrad's question simply with actual evidence...we have millions of CCW carriers around, and we do not have stories of them shooting 9 bystanders while taking out a bad guy. (or even fewer) Are they better shots...many in fact are. But are most of them not choosing to fire wildly or actively going after a gunman...damn right. CCW is for self defense, not vigilante work, and they would be held responsible for these victims. There's a good chance these police will not be sanctioned for it...the words the next morning from the department was that it 'looked like they did it right.'

There is too much actual history out there for this tired bullshit about wild west shootouts and morgues full of accidental victims. But since the evidence disproves this, some of you choose to trumpet the lies of 'maybe,'

[Skyrad 0]

Interesting, do you have any figures on the firearm usage in incidents by CCW holders in your county?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If this was the result of the work of trained NYPD officers I think we can quite confidently close the argument on what would have happened in the cinema when the 'joker' killer burst in. If there had been people with firearms in there its pretty clear that it would have been an even bigger bloodbath than it already was.

Yeah, if you believe their training and methods were worth a shit. The were not.

Apparently so, so what could we expect of even more poorly trained civilian CCW holders?

Perhaps a greater hesitancy to empty a magazine at a perp.

Cops here have to go to the range to qualify every 3-4 months. Here in California, it seems rare to find officers who shoot more than the department requires them to. There are some, but they seem to be the exception. I'm sure in areas where gun culture is more prevalent, this is different...

I'm not quoting the whole thing, but it's all accurate AFAIK.

I'm a range officer at the local shooting range, and we have a couple departments that use it for training.

The training officers are all top notch shooters, very experienced, very current, very good.
The rest of the officers...
Not so much. They aren't qualified instructors. Some of them don't shoot outside of the qualification (some is quarterly, some is semi-annually) and don't care to.
Some of them barely qualify, and that's good enough for them. Others, mainly the ones on the tactical teams, will come down on a fairly regular basis to keep current. I've had some fascinating conversations with them about the level of training that is required. The ones who are good generally dismiss it as barely adequate to keep the officers from shooting themselves in the foot (and don't forget the video of the ATF agent doing exactly that).
I've watched a few of the training sessions and I know that I can shoot better than most of them. Both in slow fire bullseye and in the faster "react to a signal, draw and fire" practical stuff.

To claim that all police officers are highly qualified, expert shooters is pretty stupid.
As is claiming that all CCW holders are poor shooters.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Nightingale 0]

Somewhere close to zero (at least in the last 7 years or so, which is the time I've been involved in the CCW community here). I've heard of a couple of incidents where there have been cases where CCW holders have used their weapons, but we're a relatively safe county. We also have gun ownership hovering at around 25%. Whether you think that's correlation or causation is up for debate.

Here's one, though. A store owner shot an armed robber who was threatening his employees and customers. The owner ordered the robber to drop his gun, and he refused. The owner shot the robber in the head. Damned good shot.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8755202

[Skyrad 0]

Fair play to him. I shoot around three times a week so am not anti gun in anyway, although there really is no need for it in the UK if I lived in the USA damn straight I'd get a CCW permit.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

And I don't know a single person who claims that laws will prevent something 100%.

1969912 a few posts above yours: "Close a few "loopholes" and it'll never happen again."

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

There was a crowd in that Aurora, CO, cinema too. And it was dark. And noisy.

And also prohibited legal carry. Didn't stop the gunman, but did stop the legal citizens.

Quote

Yet a bunch of non-professional, untrained gun owners, both here and in other fora, claim that they could have stopped the gunman. They are, of course, deluding themselves.

And your 'expert' opinion comes from? I'll make you a deal, I will not claim your physics claims are BS if you don't claim expertise in an area I am an expert in... Deal?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

There was a crowd in that Aurora, CO, cinema too. And it was dark. And noisy.

And also prohibited legal carry. Didn't stop the gunman, but did stop the legal citizens.

Quote

Yet a bunch of non-professional, untrained gun owners, both here and in other fora, claim that they could have stopped the gunman. They are, of course, deluding themselves.

And your 'expert' opinion comes from? I'll make you a deal, I will not claim your physics claims are BS if you don't claim expertise in an area I am an expert in... Deal?

You are an expert in being a "non-professional, untrained gun owner"?

Nice of you to admit it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You are an expert in being a "non-professional, untrained gun owner"?

You are claiming that you are qualified to make assumptions you know nothing about.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Did you get banned or something? Was it really necessary to dig up every old gun thread for a comment?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Did you get banned or something?

Nope, just busy.

Quote

Was it really necessary to dig up every old gun thread for a comment?

Was it necessary for you to reply?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Did you get banned or something? Was it really necessary to dig up every old gun thread for a comment?

no kidding. I thought it was CarpeDiem on a rampage, but instead it's DaVinci flogging the horses. God help us if we end a thread without another word from the Master himself!

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Did you get banned or something? Was it really necessary to dig up every old gun thread for a comment?

The one-trick-pony is back!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhaig 0]

donkey?

--
Rob

[SkyDekker 1,122]

yes, shrek?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

God help us if we end a thread without another word from the Master himself!

And yet here YOU are!

When someone replies to me.. It is rude to not answer him. YOU are free to quit posting at anytime, I did for a few months... Maybe you should give it a try?