Cops shoot two bystanders on Broadway

[rbwhatever1]

It appears the lady who was shot in the derriere has a Lawyer...

[Jumping Frog]

What bothers me is that if such a thing happened to me (or any of us) and we accidentally injured someone else, then we are criminally liable for it. I know it's the law, and I agreed to such when I got my CHL, but why the extra punishment for us?

Actually, we are criminally liable only if we acted recklessly. There are four mental culpable states defined in Texas law: (1) intentional; (2) knowing; (3) reckless; and, (4) criminal negligence. Reckless applies to this situation:

PC §9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON.
Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

Here are the definitions of the culpable mental states:

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

This is one example situation where having a competitive history with IPDA, CASS, or USPSA could conceivably help your case. For example, if you have a history of IPDA competitions where you commonly score near the top of the field in accuracy, that supports your contention that you honestly believed you could make the shot and thus were not acting recklessly. The fact that you hit someone else will still be a civil issue, obviously, but if you have a defense on why your actions were not reckless in light of the totality of circumstances, you should not be convicted of injuring an innocent third party.

[K.Mooneyham]

If NYC has one training range, and over 35 thousand officers, then even allowing for only one qualification/training day per officer per year, they're still running well over 100 officers a day through that range, five days a week, 52 weeks a year. How much time and training are they actually able to devote to any one officer at THAT rate?

We qualify four times a year, once a quarter, with 5 to 15 shooters per range day. We still have a problem with lack of training time and instructor attention. We do have after-hours extra training available, if our schedules line up with the instructors', and IF we have extra ammo. Most of us don't use this, though, because we do have lives outside of work, and the "optional training" is voluntary, therefore not paid for, and often there's no extra ammunition for it, anyway. And we've got it good, compared to the NYPD.

Factor in the "New York trigger" (yes, you can get used to it, but it takes practice and familiarity... which they apparently didn't have much of), adrenaline, a hefty crowd, and a couple of rookies, and you've got a Bat Masterson moment. Again.

Just remember, though, according to the liberals, we're the "only ones" competent enough to carry a gun.

The statement that I highlighted in red is what I was getting at. This article http://www.gundigest.com/tactical-gear/ ... rk-trigger tells the story about those NYPD Glock trigger requirements. Massad Ayoob makes a statement in the article about how he has won matches with heavy triggers, but then again, Massad Ayoob PRACTICES!

[ELB]

...
And an answer might be:
Because they were hired to do that job, you the CHL'er volunteered. The LEO is required under the terms of their employment to go out each day and purposely place them self in those difficult situations, making life and death decisions... You the CHL'er volunteered to do the same.
...

Another possible answer is that CHLs didn't volunteer for anything. A CHL is required in Texas to legally exercise a constitutional right to defend oneself; having one doesn't mean you volunteered, it means you paid the fee and took the course. Altho there are no doubt exceptions, the vast majority of non-LEO people who end up in gun battles generally didn't have the choice -- as did the NYC police officers -- about whether or how or why they were going to engage in a confrontation, and they generally do not have partners, back up, body armor, publicly funded-training-and-liability protection, or any of the other enhancements that a police officer has. So I would certainly cut a citizen more slack about missed shots than a police officer.

While it is true that one can be accurate with a heavy trigger, with practice, I think it speaks to the mindset of the NYPD and NYC in general to examine the actual purpose of the NY trigger. It is a mechanical substitute for trigger discipline - an attempt to avoid "accidental" discharges by people with sloppy trigger fingers. You may recall a couple years ago that the NYPD banned the use of Kahr pistols (which were very popular in the NYPD) as backup and off-duty guns, because Kahr could not or would not make the trigger heavy enough to please the NYPD decision makers.

The point above about the training range and the scant likelihood of any patrol officer receiving a decent amount of refresher (or even initial) training is probably dead-on. I know I have talked to police trainers from various departments who bemoan how far behind in re-quals their departments get; I'll bet if you could pull the data on that out of the NYPD you would find a large number of requalifications that are overdue, even if it is just a yearly requirement.

NYPD used to publish their "SOP 9" report, which was a yearly report on firearm discharges, and included how many boo-boos, how many confrontations, how many shots fired/shots hit opponent/shots missed etc. I think they have stopped publishing it to the public, but for a number of years the percentage of rounds that hit the guy they were shooting at pretty solidly hovered around 20%, quite often less. The report did not show, but I always suspected, that the hits were probably concentrated in a few well-trained individual police officers who hit their opponents several times, among a sea of others that did not (like the incident in the OP).

In any case, the incident in the OP reinforces my belief to immediately vacate the vicinity of any police activity I see going down. I love all the youtube videos that people put up showing public confrontations, I think they are a good learning tool, but I also think someone standing their videoing a potentially violent confrontation is taking on an unnecessary risk. But on the other hand perhaps they will serve as my cover as I boogie out of the area.

[tbrown]

What bothers me is that if such a thing happened to me (or any of us) and we accidentally injured someone else, then we are criminally liable for it. I know it's the law, and I agreed to such when I got my CHL, but why the extra punishment for us?

In NYC, only NYPD is professional enough... (you know the rest)

[jmra]

It would be interesting to have a database of documented shooting by police, regular GGs, and BGs. I would like to know how many rounds were fired by each group over a period of time and how many of those shots missed. I would be willing to bet there is a huge disparity between hits and misses (I would count pass throughs as a miss).
This is why I have taken a stand that I will not fire my weapon soley for the purpose of recovering property - simply too many things can go wrong one of which is hitting a bystander.

[Jaguar]

...
And an answer might be:
Because they were hired to do that job, you the CHL'er volunteered. The LEO is required under the terms of their employment to go out each day and purposely place them self in those difficult situations, making life and death decisions... You the CHL'er volunteered to do the same.
...

Another possible answer is that CHLs didn't volunteer for anything. A CHL is required in Texas to legally exercise a constitutional right to defend oneself; having one doesn't mean you volunteered, it means you paid the fee and took the course. Altho there are no doubt exceptions, the vast majority of non-LEO people who end up in gun battles generally didn't have the choice -- as did the NYC police officers -- about whether or how or why they were going to engage in a confrontation, and they generally do not have partners, back up, body armor, publicly funded-training-and-liability protection, or any of the other enhancements that a police officer has. So I would certainly cut a citizen more slack about missed shots than a police officer.

While it is true that one can be accurate with a heavy trigger, with practice, I think it speaks to the mindset of the NYPD and NYC in general to examine the actual purpose of the NY trigger. It is a mechanical substitute for trigger discipline - an attempt to avoid "accidental" discharges by people with sloppy trigger fingers. You may recall a couple years ago that the NYPD banned the use of Kahr pistols (which were very popular in the NYPD) as backup and off-duty guns, because Kahr could not or would not make the trigger heavy enough to please the NYPD decision makers.

The point above about the training range and the scant likelihood of any patrol officer receiving a decent amount of refresher (or even initial) training is probably dead-on. I know I have talked to police trainers from various departments who bemoan how far behind in re-quals their departments get; I'll bet if you could pull the data on that out of the NYPD you would find a large number of requalifications that are overdue, even if it is just a yearly requirement.

NYPD used to publish their "SOP 9" report, which was a yearly report on firearm discharges, and included how many boo-boos, how many confrontations, how many shots fired/shots hit opponent/shots missed etc. I think they have stopped publishing it to the public, but for a number of years the percentage of rounds that hit the guy they were shooting at pretty solidly hovered around 20%, quite often less. The report did not show, but I always suspected, that the hits were probably concentrated in a few well-trained individual police officers who hit their opponents several times, among a sea of others that did not (like the incident in the OP).

In any case, the incident in the OP reinforces my belief to immediately vacate the vicinity of any police activity I see going down. I love all the youtube videos that people put up showing public confrontations, I think they are a good learning tool, but I also think someone standing their videoing a potentially violent confrontation is taking on an unnecessary risk. But on the other hand perhaps they will serve as my cover as I boogie out of the area.

Good thing for me, I purchased a used former NYPD Kahr K9, replaced the striker spring with the standard spring, cleaned it, added some wood grips, replaced the worn out night sights and carry it every day. Love that little pistol.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Note: This is NOT a LEO-bashing thread, but the headline caught my eye.

Cops trying to subdue an emotionally disturbed man accidentally shot two female bystanders outside Port Authority Bus Terminal on Saturday night.

One victim, 54, was struck in her leg — breaking two bones in her calf — as she stood leaning on her four-wheeled walker across from the terminal; a second woman, 35, was grazed in her buttocks.

Two cops pulled off a total of three shots in the mistaken belief that the deranged man was armed after he reached into his pocket as they approached him, officials said.

The man took his hand out of his pocket and “simulated shooting the officers,” Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told reporters.

I understand that mistakes happen, and that nobody is 100% accurate with their shots all the time. I'm sure there will be an internal investigation, and these officers will (rightfully) be able to keep their jobs. Based on the limited data presented in the article, it appears that they were in fear of their life, and they acted accordingly.

What bothers me is that if such a thing happened to me (or any of us) and we accidentally injured someone else, then we are criminally liable for it. I know it's the law, and I agreed to such when I got my CHL, but why the extra punishment for us?

Why should they be able to rightfully keep their jobs? They shot two bystanders and didn't hit their target. If he were a BG, they would be dead.

[Cedar Park Dad]

If they would quit nearly tripling the trigger pull on those glocks, maybe this wouldn't happen as often

This is a significant part of the problem, but not the only one.

In NYC, most police officers handle a handgun for the first time on the police academy range. They have no lifetime of training and usage behind them. This isn't a fault, it's just a fact.

New York City has one training range for it's 35,000+ officers. Although the instructors are top notch, getting all the troops there at all each year is a major logistical challenge, let alone getting them there enough for frequent enough training to be effective.

Many officers pride themselves on not liking guns (it's fashionable up there) and take a "union" position that they won't do any training they're not being paid for.

Add all that up, and the wonder isn't that these things happen, it's that they don't happen much more often than they do with this background, the activity level, and the extremely crowded environment.

I think Excalibur and JustMe found the problem right there. These boys can't shoot for squat and seem to have a tendency to open up around other bystanders.

[Vol Texan]

...
And an answer might be:
Because they were hired to do that job, you the CHL'er volunteered. The LEO is required under the terms of their employment to go out each day and purposely place them self in those difficult situations, making life and death decisions... You the CHL'er volunteered to do the same.
...

Another possible answer is that CHLs didn't volunteer for anything. A CHL is required in Texas to legally exercise a constitutional right to defend oneself; having one doesn't mean you volunteered, it means you paid the fee and took the course. Altho there are no doubt exceptions, the vast majority of non-LEO people who end up in gun battles generally didn't have the choice -- as did the NYC police officers -- about whether or how or why they were going to engage in a confrontation, and they generally do not have partners, back up, body armor, publicly funded-training-and-liability protection, or any of the other enhancements that a police officer has. So I would certainly cut a citizen more slack about missed shots than a police officer.

You expressed my thoughts exactly, but much more eloquently. Are you related to TAM in any way?

[Frankie]

WOW.. a co-worker and I were in Time Square Friday afternoon-evening. We had a 7 hr layover at JFK on our way to Italy so we hopped a cab to Manhattan to have lunch and see the crazies. Glad we missed that excitement!!!!

[Keith B]

We do have after-hours extra training available, if our schedules line up with the instructors', and IF we have extra ammo. Most of us don't use this, though, because we do have lives outside of work, and the "optional training" is voluntary, therefore not paid for, and often there's no extra ammunition for it, anyway.

Not to meaning in any way to pick you apart - but obviously we civvies have lives outside of work, too, and we make a point to buy or reload our own ammo to get the the range on weekends.

When I worked armed response and then executive protection details, I'd go through 500 - 1,000 rounds per week; and those were hand-cranked through a single-stage press at a rate of 100 per hour, so I invested 5-10 hours each week just in reloading-time to make sure I had the best chance of making it home.

Same when I was shooting Police Pistol Competition. I would shoot 500 - 600 rounds of .38 during a practice week and 1000 - 1200 rounds in a competition week (practice and match). We also had a bowling pin league and I would run through 300 - 400 rounds of .45 for practice and 600 - 800 during match week. I did get some of the .38 via the department, but many of them were hand loaded on my single stage press for myself and another officer. .45 was done on his press for us.

[cb1000rider]

Why should they be able to rightfully keep their jobs? They shot two bystanders and didn't hit their target. If he were a BG, they would be dead.

I don't know if they should keep their jobs or not, but the reality is that they made a mistake in a very tense situation. I'd have to see other facts (like records) before determining if it's an unfortunate moment that they can learn from or if they're habitually hot-handed. It could be that those two now know what not to do in that situation, versus two new officers who haven't been there. I'm not saying they keep their jobs - it could have been grossly negligent... I wasn't there.

It's got to be tough being a LEO. I think that even with a gun drawn, if you're not firing, it can still take 1/2 second to react to someone pulling on you. Add in some additional time to identify a hand from a hand gun and I understand why the mistakes are made and why LEOs shoot unarmed people.

I'm 1000% for better trained, better educated, and better mentally-qualified LEOs, but with than goes a much higher salary and I don't think that most communities are willing to pay for it.

[JSThane]

We do have after-hours extra training available, if our schedules line up with the instructors', and IF we have extra ammo. Most of us don't use this, though, because we do have lives outside of work, and the "optional training" is voluntary, therefore not paid for, and often there's no extra ammunition for it, anyway.

Not to meaning in any way to pick you apart - but obviously we civvies have lives outside of work, too, and we make a point to buy or reload our own ammo to get the the range on weekends.

When I worked armed response and then executive protection details, I'd go through 500 - 1,000 rounds per week; and those were hand-cranked through a single-stage press at a rate of 100 per hour, so I invested 5-10 hours each week just in reloading-time to make sure I had the best chance of making it home.

You're not picking anything apart. You're actually highlighting part of the problem. Lots of cops aren't "gun people," and so aren't willing to invest the time, effort, and money into buying / reloading ammo and practicing with it. The gun is just part of the belt they put on every day for work, and once they take the belt off at the end of the day, its very existence ceases to register in their consciousness. "I can qualify, therefore I am a good shot" is as far as their mental processes get. The firearm, being a part of their job, gets "left at work" mentally. I have several coworkers who are like this; they never fired a gun before the academy, don't carry off-duty, and can't figure out why anyone would -want- to. Others, while they understand why someone would want to have a gun all the time, disagree with the conclusion for various reasons, and therefore deliberately "leave it at work."

A person with a concealed handgun license, however, is not packing as part of a job. It's a personal decision, made after careful consideration, and oftentimes has little to no bearing on what they do at work. Because the gun does not get "left at work" in their minds, the need for practice doesn't either. Because it's a personal habit, and not something you do for a paycheck (however rewarding the job may be), it becomes a matter of personal importance to improve, expand, and refine that particular skill set.

---

It also does not help matters for the cops who ARE gun people that the lawyers are getting into the "duty ammo" issue. I don't know how it is at other departments, but ours has instituted a "no ammo except issued ammo may -ever- be fired in an issued weapon" policy several years ago. Since they're not giving OUT ammo, we're stuck with either violating policy, or just not practicing with our duty sidearm.