Question About Marksmanship Under Stress

An unfortunate event to say the least. Obviously the police officers did not intend on shooting innocent bystanders. Remember now, that happened in downtown New York. LOTS of people around makes that a bad situation.
As far as the mental marksmanship topic stated earlier, it's a bit hard to replicate situations like that considering the stress level will never be the same as the real deal would be. I do agree with the muscle memory training though. Wish I could get to that level myself but can't afford that much ammo.
 
My impression from watching the video was that the two officers were at opposite ends of the proficiency spectrum. One planted himself, took solid aim, and fired. I suspect he made the mortal hits.
His partner appears to blaze away as he clears the area, in what looks to me to be panic. It's not hard to conclude HIS shots did most of the injury to bystanders.
 
With close together targets at IDPA, it is not unknown for the no shoots to get shot. Even by higher level shooters. Before someone critiques the police performance, we should state whether we are just square range Annie Oakleys or William Tells.

We had a very tight target with a bad guy behind an innocent and you only had a head shot at the BG. It was in a non moving, only match level stress. Out of a squad of about 10-12, only two people didn't shoot the innocent.

I didn't - I made the shot, so of course in an emergency I would be perfect - haha - don't ask me about the last stage last week (what a disaster!).
 
No, they are not above critique but I never like the implication we get in threads that some shooter stinks but I would be a Grand Master when the situation is nasty.
 
I wasn't there so this is just what I've read of the incident, and the videos posted all over the Internet.

Based on that, I question the timing and location of the incident. The way I read it,the bandit was walking away with his gun in a bag of some sort in an extremely crowded area. He didn't pull the gun until confronted by the police.

If the bandit wasn't endangering any one esle, why not follow him to a better place for a confrontation.

Hell you do that on traffic stops, you follow the car and iniciate the stop at a place of your choosing. A place where there is a less chance of bystanders getting in the way.

I also think that NYCP would have been able to buy lots of bullets, and fund lots of training for what it's gonna cost them in law suits.
 
Second guessing - he's walking through one of the most crowded venues you can find - when will he get to somewhere less crowded. I've been there, ain't going to happen easily.

Also, when does he go nuts again and start shooting?

See, it was a mess - besides missing the guy, they had few good choices.
 
Marksmanship does deteriorate under stress. That's one reason that good training and practice can be important, and one reason why competition experience can be valuable. As I learned from competition: no target is too big or too close to miss.

Skill level vary a great deal among police (as well as among private citizens). In a rapidly unfolding crisis in which one needs to act, he'll have to use whatever skills he has at the time. If those skills aren't fully up to the task, results will be less than satisfactory.
 
Yes like traffic stops, but he could go ballistic on other innocent people too and that would open up another can of worms. Damed if you do and Damed if you don't. All in all I'm glad it worked out for the officers the lawsuits well they can afford that too. I'd like us gun nuts on here to go to a live fire house or something similar and just see what we each could really do or not do. I bet alot of us would really be surprised. One way or the other! And we're gun nuts , unlike alot of officers who only have to qualify once a yeàr. Yes it is alot easier to see things afterwards and point out faults but if we were there sometimes just choose what you're gonna do and do it. All in all in any situation you better have really good training to revert to or alot of luck.
 
"You're only as good as you practice."
This statement is only half true because nobody is shooting back at you in practice.
 
True in that sense. But atleast you do tons that can help you in those situations instead of others that never do are hardly train and won't have a clue what to do are not do in a bad situation.
 
Was the LEO's aim lousy? When I see a diagram of where EVERYBODY was as well as where the rounds actually hit( you can't aim bullet fragments!) maybe, I would think about a critique, maybe.
But as a veteran of many life or death situations( Nursing, and keep in mind nobody was shooting at me during these times) some people react better than others when the chips are down. There were perhaps 25% of us who could reliably think as the patient was doing their best to die on us. 1/4! and these were carefully selected people who worked at an internationally known hospital! No one was shooting at us at the time I might repeat!
LEO's do their very best but you have to remember there is no big red "S"on their chest they are just human.
Not only that New York cops probably have less hours handling a hand gun because they grew up under NYC's draconian gun laws. They probably see trouble and things that are out of the ordinary for the city better than I would because of it, It's a trade off.
We had core teams for when we had to resuscitate somebody because we understood this concept.
It's easy to talk big when you've never had someones life in your hands.
 
Nearly 50% of the shots hit the BG, not bad by LEO standards. The problem comes in with that many people around, the BG gave them no option. The officers made contact, sure its what they do. the BG directed that he be shot, he could have surrendered, instead he chose to die, he alone put those other people at risk.
 
50% isn't bad at all. It sounds like a number of those injured were injured by concrete. I also agree one officer probably made the majority of the hits here.

I still doubt this 33% number for police shooting at people.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/2...yc-gunfire-highlight-dangers/?intcmp=obinsite
In this news story they say 20%. My CCW instructor who was a Columbus PD instructor cited OPOTA statistics at just below 20%

Around me police shoot a lot of deer maimed by cars. You add in shots fired in such situations you may get up to 33%, but even that situation has some funny stories attached, such as one highway patrolman running out of ammo and doing several thousand dollars of damage without hitting a deer writhing next to a car.

Like most of the military, police simply do not train with their firearms as part of their department funded training. They have lots of other stuff to worry about. Like sexual harassment.
 
Most of the people wounded were hit by ricochets and were minor wounds !
The perp didn't shoot because his gun jammed !!! That should be Rule # 1 -always have a reliable gun !

A study of cops who had been in shootouts showed that those who hit the perps remembered seeing the front sight ,and those who missed didn't !
Front Sight , Front Sight !!!
 
I don't know why people are calling the shooter the BG. As far as the shooter was concerned, he was the GG who shot the BG. Then the cops shot him and everyone around him. Maybe, he's got to be labeled the BG so the people can sooth their own fears and misdeeds.
 
Okay, you got me confused but we're probably not all good guys, either. At least not real good guys. It's not so cut and dried. But in this case, who was the "real" bad guy again and who did he kill?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top