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.
