TexasCHLforum.com

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?

Perhaps the question should be..

"But why the extra protection for them?"

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.

That is just one possible answer... and that said.... I do not agree that officers are not held responsible necessarily, I do agree they are held accountable in a much different way, by different rules and standards then you or I would be in the same situation.

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

E.Marquez wrote:Perhaps the question should be..

"But why the extra protection for them?"

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.

That is just one possible answer... and that said.... I do not agree that officers are not held responsible necessarily, I do agree they are held accountable in a much different way, by different rules and standards then you or I would be in the same situation.

I do appreciate your comment, but I intentionally avoided that question - since I don't want this to become another 'us vs. LEO' thread. But, I do have to challenge one statement: they volunteered as well.

True, they volunteered to put themselves in harm's way on a regular basis, and I opt not to do the same (of course, as I write this, I'm sitting in Oman, heading to Nigeria in two days, but that's another story).

But once in harm's way (e.g. if I'm in a convenience store and in walks an armed robber), then it's life-or-death for me as well. Why then, wouldn't anyone in harm's way get the same protection? Note, I'm not suggesting that it's OK to hit bystanders, nor am I suggesting we should become trigger-happy. I think we should all have a respectable amount of constraint for the force we're able to unleash. However, I feel it's a shame that we should have more fear in our hearts from the impending bureaucratic nightmare we're about to undergo if we decide to defend ourselves, than from the criminal who is standing before us with the gun.

We should all be held accountable in the same way.

Vol Texan wrote:
I do appreciate your comment, but I intentionally avoided that question - since I don't want this to become another 'us vs. LEO' thread. But, I do have to challenge one statement: they volunteered as well.

True enough..
They volunteered to apply for the job.
.. BUT were hired, are paid to engage in those activities and be placed in those situations as a condition of employment.

JustMe wrote: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.

E.Marquez wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:
I do appreciate your comment, but I intentionally avoided that question - since I don't want this to become another 'us vs. LEO' thread. But, I do have to challenge one statement: they volunteered as well.

True enough..
They volunteered to apply for the job.
.. BUT were hired, are paid to engage in those activities and be placed in those situations as a condition of employment.

As were you, as you serve our country in the US Army - for which I have the greatest respect.

But my comment above was just a segue to the more important part of the post:

Vol Texan wrote:But once in harm's way (e.g. if I'm in a convenience store and in walks an armed robber), then it's life-or-death for me as well. Why then, wouldn't anyone in harm's way get the same protection? Note, I'm not suggesting that it's OK to hit bystanders, nor am I suggesting we should become trigger-happy. I think we should all have a respectable amount of constraint for the force we're able to unleash. However, I feel it's a shame that we should have more fear in our hearts from the impending bureaucratic nightmare we're about to undergo if we decide to defend ourselves, than from the criminal who is standing before us with the gun.

We should all be held accountable in the same way.

I understand the law, but I wish that once someone finds themselves in harm's way (whether through their choice of employment or by happenstance), they could be offered the same levels of protection as do any other people if things don't go 100% as planned.

NY city should cut $5 per wellfare check and hire private and independent trainers for their police officers. How about Massab Ayoub?

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

The law of unintended consequences, coupled with a lack of quality recurring training...

K.Mooneyham wrote:

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

The law of unintended consequences, coupled with a lack of quality recurring training...

2 cops fired a total of three shots at a guy acting like he was shooting at them who "simulated shooting at the officers." I am not sure how that makes this a glock issue nor a trigger issue. Were I retired from we had the heavier 8lb triggers on our glocks and it didn't interfere with anything because you got used to it. This is a case of missing the intended target, which happens in shootings. A real world shooting is a lot different then a paper target at a static range or even IDPA type matches. Adrenalin is flowing, there are additional factors like the distance, was the suspect moving, lighting, ect isn't stated in this article. The military calls this collateral damage. In police work it is a big issue and they could face being suspended, fired, sued and even prosecuted for this incident as there is no magic immunity for a missed shot. I can assure you this is a very stressful time for them as they won't know the outcome for some time. I hope the ladies recover quickly.

texanjoker wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:

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

The law of unintended consequences, coupled with a lack of quality recurring training...

2 cops fired a total of three shots at a guy acting like he was shooting at them who "simulated shooting at the officers." I am not sure how that makes this a glock issue nor a trigger issue. Were I retired from we had the heavier 8lb triggers on our glocks and it didn't interfere with anything because you got used to it. This is a case of missing the intended target, which happens in shootings. A real world shooting is a lot different then a paper target at a static range or even IDPA type matches. Adrenalin is flowing, there are additional factors like the distance, was the suspect moving, lighting, ect isn't stated in this article. The military calls this collateral damage. In police work it is a big issue and they could face being suspended, fired, sued and even prosecuted for this incident as there is no magic immunity for a missed shot. I can assure you this is a very stressful time for them as they won't know the outcome for some time. I hope the ladies recover quickly.

New York City used to have the standard of using the 'New York trigger' from Glock on their guns, which made the triggers 11 lbs. Don't know if that is still in place today or not.

http://eu.glock.com/english/options_triggerspring.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

texanjoker wrote: 2 cops fired a total of three shots at a guy acting like he was shooting at them who "simulated shooting at the officers." I am not sure how that makes this a glock issue nor a trigger issue. Were I retired from we had the heavier 8lb triggers on our glocks and it didn't interfere with anything because you got used to it. This is a case of missing the intended target, which happens in shootings. A real world shooting is a lot different then a paper target at a static range or even IDPA type matches. Adrenalin is flowing, there are additional factors like the distance, was the suspect moving, lighting, ect isn't stated in this article. The military calls this collateral damage. In police work it is a big issue and they could face being suspended, fired, sued and even prosecuted for this incident as there is no magic immunity for a missed shot. I can assure you this is a very stressful time for them as they won't know the outcome for some time. I hope the ladies recover quickly.

Normal for NYPD.
From a little over a year ago....
NYPD: 9 shooting bystander victims hit by police gunfire

NYC is a very crowded place. Lucky 3 bystanders weren't hit.

http://nypost.com/2013/09/15/cops-accid ... ubdue-man/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Near as I can tell three shots three misses. Tough situation. Man acting crazy, pulls hand out of a pocket and pretends to shoot you. Problem with NYC people everywhere, and probably behind target.(rule four)

18 months on the job for the police officers who fired.

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.