Yes, police fire at the shooter. If the shooter is a stationary target, they have a really good chance of hitting him. If the shooter is moving, the chances are less. There is also a chance they are leading a moving target by too much or too little. There is also a chance that bystanders can be hit by ricochets. The list of things that can go wrong is longer.

Well, Ryan from Texas, I guess REAL men only live in Texas! Do you mind if we call you John Wayne?

Yep... real men would waste time with macho posturing on a message board.

Troy, these bullet things are apparently made out of metal and travel at about the speed of sound.

Okay - they used the word at least a couple of times in the article, there was a country band that went by the same name and there was even a movie that used the word in its title, I believe:

Ricochet.

C'MON, SON!!

Anyone not there and not reading the article can post their opinion. Even if it is a Bullsh*t one about how the police are trigger happy.....

Now, back to the story and to answer the original poster: The article clearly states, " Nine bystanders were hit, mainly by shrapnel and ricocheting pieces of bullets."

That is completely understandable. There's so much concrete and metal here in New York that you certainly bet missed bullets can bounce off of something and hit something else. Or shatter and those fragments can hit something else. Even the material they hit can fragment and cause injury. Nobody has control where a round ends up after it hits something.

The guy was going to shoot them o.O how is that trigger happy?

Ryan in Tx is just a pimply faced kid who likes to play video games, so he thinks he is smart enought to second guess the trained professionals who were actually there and facing a man pointing a gun at them. They didn't shoot into a crowd of people. They shot a man pointing a gun at them. Shots ricocheted. Sometimes it happenes. I guess if Ryan was there, he'd have let the guy shoot him to keep from any shots going astray. Oh wait, then the cops would be dead and there would still be an armed gunman on the loose. Hmmmm...

Ryan, please leave it to the grown ups!

People also need to understand that adrenaline and fear damage your accuracy. It is a LOT harder to shoot someone trying to shoot you than it is to shoot an inanimate object at the same distance. Also, bullets don't necessarily stop once they hit their target, there is a thing called overpenetration, where a bullet hits the target, then passes through and hits something else. Law enforcement often try to avoid this issue by using 9x19 rounds (smaller than .45's), and sometimes even using frangible ammunition that breaks up upon impact, but those can't eliminate the problem completely.

No matter how good your training, bystanders will always be in danger when a situation occurs amongst them.

I don't blame NYPD for defending themselves and--quite possibly--saving lives. It was the best of a very bad situation, and they did their job extremely well under the circumstances.

But onto another subject:

From Mayor Bloomberg: "If somebody pointed a gun at you, and you had a gun in your pocket, what would you do?"

Well, Mr. Mayor...I suppose I'd probably get shot, since in your city they don't make it easy for me to have that gun in my pocket. My aggressor, on the other hand, will have no trouble since he or she doesn't need to worry about the law.

And now that I've got that out of my system: Prayers to the family of the deceased, and prayers of thanks that no one else was killed.

Without adequate training, even police officers miss at ranges that are less than you'd have if you stood across a typical office from someone. Bloomberg needs to TRAIN HIS OFFICERS in gun control (hitting what you aim at).

Studies have shown that your proficiency during an actual fire-fight like this is half or less than your proficiency on a practice range (paper usually doesn't shoot back).

So until you are proficient enough to hit the 10-ring on the target 100% of the time, when you discharge your firearm in public, chances are you're going to miss. Well, miss the target and the bullet will continue on to harm or kill innocent bystanders.

I think the comments about "shrapnel and bullet fragments" is probably BS - I would like to know how many of the 9 others injured were:

#1 Hit by bullets (or shrapnel/bullet fragments) fired from the policemen's weapons.

#2 Hit by actual bullets.

I'm not going to fault the officers involved. They acted appropriately, bravely and probably saved lives - although had they followed the individual to a safer location prior to confronting him, things might have been a little different. But as has been said, when someone points a gun at you and you have one too, whatcha gonna do? It's NOT the time to call the Ghostbusters.

But I am going to fault NYC, Bloomberg and his Police Commissioner for not providing adequate training and range time for the front line troops!

2kmaro,

Great post.

I'll disagree with one thing: hitting the 10-Ring on a target repeatedly still won't ensure innocent bystander safety. Knowing what lies *beyond* that 10-Ring is also vital, and unfortunately not always possible in a shoot-or-die situation.

I think you said it best when you suggested that the officers should have followed the suspect to a safer location. From what I learn about what happened, that scenario just might have been possible.

I bet you don't understand simple math either.

The original shooter was accused of going on a shooting spree. I disagree - the NYPD went on a shooting spree that day. The original shooter, which they subsequently killed, had one intended target and hit it.

My brother is a 20 year veteran of the local police. Anytime, anytime they have to use lethal force, there is ALWAYS a Ryan to second guess them on Monday.

From the movie Roadhouse. "When someone points a gun at you, you have two choices. You can die or you can kill the MF!"

IF this man had turned the gun on the public near him, Ryan would be here wanting to know why they didn't act sooner!!

AND for all you computer marksmen on here. Pistols are only accurate at very short range. Now, policeman or not, most people have never had a fun in their face. When someone points a gun at you I want to see how precise you are!!!

Shots ricocheted. Sometimes it happenes.

Which is exactly why the second cardinal rule of firearms safety training is...

Know your target and what is beyond it.

The police should never have fired at someone on a busy street. The fact that 9 people were injured from the police firing at the suspect clearly shows their lack of concern for the public as a whole.

There are two sides to this story, and really two questions that need to be answered or can be answered.

1) Were the police justified in pulling their weapons and firing?

A: Yes, the shooter pointed his gun at the police officers and attempted to fire on them. His gun jammed.

2) Was the police response panic-ed or overkill?

A: Yes. After the shooter's gun jammed and he didn't get off a single shot, the two policed officers present poured out 9 rounds and 7 rounds respectively. They frankly unloaded in a panic-ed spray of fine instead of aiming concisely at their target and taking it down.

Conclusion: It was a righteous shoot. But the officers were panic-ed and sloppy in their response and it got other people hurt, luckily not killed.

And to another poster's response up above. I have been shot at and I have had a gun in my face, from a police officer that didn't know wtf was going on and I was an innocent bystander. I understand the panic and lack of precision when such a situation occurs. But that's why you train with your weapon, consistently. Not just a few times a year so you make sure you past your annual checkup for marksmanship. The NYPD needs to go over that a little bit more in detail with their officers. They got lucky no one was killed, that's the silver lining to this whole thing. People and wounds heal. So consider it a win given the situation and try to do better next time.

Perhaps some fear either of being shot or not getting in on the kill.

One time they were close to the need.

Do you think cops should not carry guns?

The bullets that missed the subject just keep on going. That's how bystanders get hit. If the subject is between you and the cops, you are going to get hit by every bullet that either misses or goes through that subject. Firing multiple rounds at someone in a highly populated area doesn't make any sense. At the very least the cops should have had a single designated shooter, who can fire two shots, then wait to see if he hit the subject and see if he goes down.

What else would a bystander with cops in his family say but that he supports the cops actions?

I'm sorry the bystanders were hurt; but, the officers had to make a quick decision in a tense situation. One poster said the original shooter's gun jammed, and, it may have. But, the real fact is that we, as posters in this, weren't on location, and I can assure you that video cameras DO NOT show everything that happened. Even the shooter's own mother said, not in these exact words, that it was suicide by cop. My condolences to the family of the man who was killed, and to the family of the shooter, because both families will have to live the rest of their lives with it. My prayers go out to them, the injured bystanders, and the police, because it will affect them the rest of their lives as well.

The only thing that makes them "trigger happy" is the amount of shots they fired. 2 cops 16 shots. Do they have that bad of aim or is that a little over kill? How many times was the man hit?

*Note to CCW holders, if you need to use your weapon against a perpetrator, do not stop pulling trigger until the gun stops firing.

I think many have the mistaken impression that shoot outs occur like they do in the movies. Not true. When someone points a gun at you, even if you are a police officer, you are ducking and dodging. That surely affects your aim. It would make sense that some bullets would miss and ricochet into other things and people. This does not mean they are unprofessional. It means they are human and don't want to be shot themselves. Nor does this mean they are trigger happy. It means they are mentally saying, "He has a gun. Let's make sure he drops the gun before he shoots me." Again, a perfectly understandable human reaction to the situation. That man is dead for no other reason than he made a bad decision.

idiot !!! he should sue the balls off the NYPD,why work for them after you got shot by them,just collect a paycheck from them for your injuries

People like you are what's wrong with this country. Get a lifetime paycheck for a flesh wound? I beg to differ with your assessment of that victim's intelligence. I say he should be commended for his ambition. But people like you don't understand ambition. It's all about what you can get for nothing.

The wounded innocent bystanders were simply "Collateral damage" resulting from the law enforcement process.

Just look at all of the suffering by NON Republicans/conservatives/Christians from the effects of the hurricane that you were so fervently wishing to inundate the land in the same....... "light"...

Hope the one day delay has been deemed by you, sitting up there high and dry,..... on the moral and intellectual high ground, to be worth what it is costing all of the....."innocent..." : P people affected.

In any case, if you were one of the revelers, just compartmentalize any guilt you may feel and label it collateral damage, then it won't bother you so much.

That is, if you have a conscience.

I see what you are saying and completely understand and agree in this scenario that probably is the case. That said though if there were 4 cops present during the shooting would it still be justified at 32 shots fired. (Or 6 cops 48 shots, etc.) I thought I read somewhere that someone who knew the shooter said it was basically suicide by cop so makes our debate kind of moot.

I also have to agree with you about your "what's wrong with our country" bit. This is just the tip of the iceberg as to what is wrong with our Country, IMO, but I do agree and do not like it that "Suing" is the way most people look for and obtain the "American Dream" these days.

I like cake.

NYPD's uniform presence that day got everybody shot, you can't deny that!

I absolutely can. A disturbed, armed individual got people shot... or did NYPD shoot the guy's co-worker also?

If the man was taken down by good samaritans, nobody would have been shot by poorly trained law enforcement officers that day. They were too busy texting while walking to care about life.

Think what would happen had the police not been there. many people would probably have died. The police officers were not aiming at people but their bullets ricocheted hit them. The officers had to keep the man under control or else he man might have killed people. I hate that people got injured but I would rather be injured than dead.

The man was reportedly walking calmly away from the situation after the killing and holstering of his gun, he was no longer looking for any trouble. We can't rely on law enforcement to do everything for us.

@Ryan So the point you are trying to make is law enforcement is evil? I think we should ba able to defend ourselves but the police are needed to help regulate the stuff us normal people do not have the jurisdiction to do. If we each decided to make our own laws than we would revert back to the old western days where we shoot each other at the drop of a hat. Government should not control us but police officers are there so we can live more freely of criminals.

This shooter may have holstered his gun, I don't know. but he was still a theat to those around him. obviously ytheir were people around, what do you think would happen if they tried to forcibly arrest him and he started shooting again? I think the NYPD did what needed to be done here and when you are in a situation like that you can judge their actions.

Ryan, you're free to have your own opinion, I, however, do not want to have to rely on a "good samaritan" to possibly give up his life because, every so often, an innocent person gets shot by ricochet.

@conservativelybiased14

What would America do without all of their entertainment driven COPS spin-offs on TV?

Ryan....

The notion that somebody should have "tackled" him is to be polite naive. That area has wide sidewalks with plenty of visibility and lots of glass and reflective surfaces that would have made it nearly impossible for anyone to in fact sneak up on him. Add to that if you saw what happened then you saw him knock a guy to the ground and pump two bullets into him. So unless one is armed one would be a fool to actually go after the guy. Not to mention if the shooter saw you attempting to apprehend him he might well not only shoot you but it could instigate a shooting rampage that got a lot more people injured or killed. As you pointed out he put the gun away and was walking away so clearly there was no reason do anything than what was done, .. alert the police, get out of the way and allow them to do their job. Doing anything else, absence some direct threat to oneself or another, would be reckless to the point of stupid.

That being said, the police were handed a difficult situation and unfortunately they did what was reasonable and seemingly unavoidable. In fact considering his own mother is quoted as saying he likely wanted the police to kill him, .. perhaps inevitable. All the comments regarding bystanders being hit by ricochets is nothing more than Monday morning quarterbacking. Without seeing the shooting report anything said about it is nothing more than speculation. It is possible that some or all the injuries to bystanders was the result of misses by the police involved. However, it is also possible that some or even all the bullets hit the shooter, went through him then ricocheted or ricocheted off his bones before hitting bystanders. A 9MM bullet is about the same size a .38 cal but has 50% greater muzzel volocity. Without a detailed report it’s all uninformed speculation.

Ironically, the NYPD has had their share of controversial shooting incidents over the years but all the evidence in this one, .. including the video, .. shows otherwise in this instance and yet people still second guess them.

Next time why not just suggest that the police shoot the gun out of his hand or shoot his hat off to show the guy they mean business? I'd seem that's the way it one in Texas.

The police officers were not aiming at people but their bullets ricocheted hit them.

Actually, the body count shows that they police weren't aiming at all.
Spray and pray.

Yeah bob, this all happens in slow motion, just like the cop movies you watch becasue you couldnt pass the test and youre a chick.

Why do you need a bunch of cops firing a total of 16 rounds at one subject, especially one who wasn't returning fire? I think cops look for any reason to fire their stale bullets so they can get new ones. Or maybe they want to be put on the bulletin board as a cop who saw a little action.

Although it may not be true in this specific case considering the quoted man's comments, it is often true that people tend to stick around a dangerous situation instead of taking cover. If it looks like a conflict, many people want to watch. By the time bullets start flying, it's too late to run and then it's their own fault if they get hit when it could have been avoided by taking cover as soon as the situation started to develop. In this case, there may not have been time in the first place because the quoted man said that the shots started very soon after he saw the guy. Either way, the police acted as they should and fired back when a gun was drawn on them. Was it overkill with the number of shots fired? Maybe. But I'm sorry... if someone tries to shoot youand they die because you shoot back, it's their own fault. Maybe it could have been done without him getting killed, but he made the choice and even a single shot could have killed him depending where it hit.

People need to re-learn that there are consequences for their actions and you have to live with those consequences. If you want to do something that you know you shouldn't, then it's your choice to do so... just don't blame anyone else when you have to face the consequences, no matter what they are. And no one else should blame others because someone faced the consequences of their actions. That's a major problem in the world today... kids are taught that blame can be placed on others and that there aren't any consequences if they do something wrong. So when they get older, they can easily become very dangerous people who know nothing about consequences and think they can do whatever they want.

@RYAN That was the dumbest response to a question I have ever seen. My dad was a cop for a very short time and luckily he never had to shoot abybody. But our family is informed about what needs to be done by police in a shooting.

And so you know, the second he pulled that gun he wanted to die. Even his mother said that. When the cops pulled their guns they had tom kill him. My dad told me of a time he had to stop a riot so he shot his gun in the air. That shut the people up. When his chief found out he told him that next time he used that gun somebody better be dead. There is no shooting to injure when peoples life are in danger.

Ah, are we twisting and turning the definition of psychological terms here?

My thoughts exactly. Plus that guard at the door is listening.

Nope, just applying them to different factual scenarios (i.e., other than the standard kidnapee begins empathizing and siding with his or her kidnappers).

In this instance, we have an individual living in a city with a standing police force the size of Portugal's military (i.e., about 60th largest standing military in the world) who's been negligently shot by said police force and is now inexplicably siding with said police force. That is, we have a victim empathizing with and making apologetics for his attackers in a lop-sided power situation. Stockholm Syndrome.

One might say that many Americans (and inhabitants of other nations) suffer from a form of generalized Stockholm Syndrome in that they are captive within their own borders, controlled by police power, subject to actions by their country that are objectively adverse to their own interests and, nevertheless, side with and make apologetics for their particular country unquestioningly...of course, just to be sure, our government makes you pledge allegiance approximately 4000 times between the ages of 6 and 18.

Bloomberg's statement implies that their guns were in their pockets.

Don't all police officers keep there guns in their pockets? Who needs a holster when you got pockets.

My favorite part about this, the gunman allegedly had a .45 and police generally carry either 9mm or .45's, neither of which offer a pop pop sound, but more realistically a bang bang.

Thanks for dropping in Mr Clinton, sorry married a mud one.

Agreed.

Thanks, police, for not shooting me ... today.

VERY VERY WELL SAID!!!!!!!!! For all those hating on the police, if you think you could do a better job join up!!! If not SHUT UP!!!!! cowards!!! Thank You to all the Police!!!!!!

Maximum Bob likes movies. And cake. No, these things donthappen in slow mo and it isnt like the movies. Unless you have passed the test, shut up.

Hey pork you sound like a tough guy...from the couch. You have no clue. Hope your ungrateful ass never needs the assistance of the police.

He didn't say anything about the police, and they shot him... Imagine what they'd do to him if he made negative comments about them!!!

If I were in his shoes I'd be praising the police too...

guy near me got stabbed in the eye...he is suing the owners of the lot he was in for not helping him...the paper said he was mad because no one helped him in the 23 MINUTES it took for police to arrive.

If the cops can't shoot straight, what makes you think you could? Or any other gun nut? Do you have the insurance or other means to cover the lawsuits that you would face after shooting all those people?

Again with the "gun nut" comment?

I shoot along side cops every week, usually not the same cops.

Very few are on par with civilian shooters who practice weekly, on their own time, with their own gun, and with their own ammo.

You don't has a clue as to what you're talking about.

Bob really, shut up. Youre an uneducated moron that never had to risk his life for a citizen. Now go get ready for your job at mall security.

Wildblueyonder and Bob are exactly right. If an armed citizen had shot this guy and hit innocent bystanders Bloomberg and others would be screaming about it. Because it was the police, that's ok. I go to the gun range quite often too and I'm appalled at how bad of a shot most cops are. Most do the bare minimum of shooting to stay qualified.

When you have armed policemen on crowded streets like NYC, they should be better trained. It's lucky none of the innocent bystanders were killed by the police.

Training, training and more training is what they need. When the Special Forces train, they shoot over and over again from all kinds of positions and cover, including on the dead run. They shoot so much their skin rubs off until they bleed and their hands cramp up, then they shoot some more. On the Fight Science show, a SEAL was immersed in ice water for close to an hour, then did a few simple agility drills and then picked up an airsoft gun and immediately shot at a dummy about 35 feet away and up on a balcony. He hit it dead between the eyes. Unbelievable.

I'm not saying the police have to be trained to the same degree, but they should be trained a heck of a lot more than they are. A study done in NYC about 15 years ago examined all police shootings for that year. At a distance of 7-10 feet, the police only hit their target, the bad guy, about 60 % of the time. There's no excuse for that kind of dismal shooting. Proper training would fix that. Not only accuracy but how to control yourself when the adrenaline is pumping and your hands are shaking and your arms feel like wet noodles. It's bad enough people have to worry about the criminals. They shouldn't have to worry about being shot by the police like these innocent bystanders were.

Agree, he's only been on the job 7 months, bet he don't have health insurance either!

Lunacy.

Please find all the situations where armed citizens shot up the crowd. THEY DON'T HAPPEN. Every day, we see incidents where armed CITIZENS protect themselves, their families and others. Yet, uninformed know-nothings like you break out the "cowboys" meme?

I can google and find dozens of cases of cops shooting the wrong guys, shooting innocent guys and NOW just shooting everybody in the area.

People who want to defend themselves (and train accordingly) are "gun nuts" and the NRA is a villain for defending our Constitutional rights?

The only guy who showed trigger discipline, ironically, was the murderer.

Bob you're an idiot and watch too many movies. They had to kill this MURDERER...please enlighten me how they do it on a busy NYC street (have you ever been here?) and not hurt anyone who may be in the line of fire. Right. Shut your fat ass mouth.

Shannon, I find your argument compelling and your style persuasive.

But, I'll give you a little clue;
Standard SOP for police departments says that "if you cannot take the shot without hitting NINE innocent citizens, don't take the @!$%#ing shot!"

I train with weapons weekly and can assure you that the guy could have been stopped by a single, competent shooter without NINE INNOCENT VICTIMS.

Nine.
NINE.
N I N E.

Shannon - they do it without firing into a crowded street. The guy was walking away, they could have easily followed him to another location. Did you miss the part in the article where it said they fired 16 shots and hit 9 bystanders? That means not only did at least half of their shots miss their intended target, but hit innocent bystanders.

As for how a civilian could fire straight when the police can't, most police departments require annual firearms training, that means once, maybe twice a year, they have to go to a range, fire a magazine at a paper target, and they are good until the next time. On the flip side, many civilians are at the range weekly, going through multiple magazines. With everything else, practice makes one better, the more you practice, the better you will be.

You're kidding, right? You mean to tell me that they should have let AN ARMED SHOOTER WALK AWAY? Wow, uneducated you. Youre reading the wrong article, man. get your facts straight. They followed procedure. I guess if they folloed him as he was calmly walking away and shot and killed someone you love, you'd be whining about how they should have prevented that, too. Moron.

Except that he wasn't shooting at anyone else, his gun was holstered and he was walking away. Yes, the police could have followed at a safe distance, then, if he pulled his gun, taken action, but that is not what happened; and because of that the police wounded 9 bystanders. The gunman, only hit one person.

Thank you Kashanian. They all watch too many movies and have never been to NYC, never had firearm training, police training and have no clue. They are eating doritos in their sweats from their couches becasue they have nothing better to do than slam hero's.

Been to NYC plenty of times, but I've never shot NINE innocent citizens.

If you use the word HERO to describe the indiscriminate shooting on that NYC street, you don't have a clue as to what "hero" means.

It's always amazed me how much better people can play quarterback from an armchair. A cop who has the guts to confront people who try to kill them in their line of duty is real enough for me. You've got hollywood and reality confused, these guys are the real deal, not what you've watched from the comfort of that armchair.

They watch too many movies and eat too many chips.

Roblice you watch too many movies. Ever been to NYC? Please, enlighten all of us, how, when you have a second to react to a mad gunman pointing a firearm at you, do you respond when he is in a crowd, RUNNING NO LESS! Please, enlighten us. Right. Nothing to say. Shut your fat ass mouth. LAzy F***.

Shannon - which was it? Was he pointing a gun at them, or was he running? First cardinal rule of firearms training, never point a gun at something you don't intend to kill, second cardinal rule of firearms training, know your target and what is beyond. The police should never have fired into a crown, even if they were drawing heavy fire. The fact that they fired 16 shots and hit 9 bystanders is so far beyond acceptable, they should both sitting at desks or playing meter maid for the rest of their careers.

Todd you are an uneducated pinhead. First day on planet earth? Or are you from Omaha too?

Mayor Bloomberg and other NYC mayors have guaranteed an unarmed citizenry and the NYC police union and politicians have supported them. So, that leaves the police with a monopoly on deadly force.

Under those circumstances (and their oaths), NYC cops have a DUTY to take a bullet, rather than shoot into a crowd of innocents. Yet, these Keystone Kops opened fire when the criminal fired nary a shot at them.

Sorry. As the only armed response available, they should have shown better restraint. The killer shot one, the cops shot NINE.

Yes, and I'm sure if the "bad guy" had shot at the cops, he would have been careful to avoid hitting any civilians.

You mean Joe Schmo, who trains ever weekend with his own gun, his own ammo and on his own time?

2.1 million Americans (including myself) carry concealed daily, yet we don't hear about "Joe Schmo" shooting up a street and wounding NINE citizens in a panic. Nope.

What about the old man who defended the internet cafe during a holdup, wounding both criminals and NO BYSTANDERS?

What about the 57 year old man who killed an armed robber and didn't hurt a SINGLE citizen?

Your theory doesn't hold water, and it's clear to see that you have no real firearms experience.

Maxmum fat ass sweatpants, have you ever even been to NYC? First of all, in the cafe and your example was NOT in a CROWD of THOUSANDS like NYC streets by the ESB. Second of all, he was running in the crowd and shooting at police. YOU HAVE NO EXPERIENCE. Really, pinhead? Youre going to take a shot at the cops? Why, jealous you cant get off the couch and you can only talk the game and arent a real man?

this ramos kid is an idiot for defending them. these guys should of been properly trained for longer period of time. then maybe this wouldnt of happen...

Shannon, you have no idea.

I've been to NYC twenty times in my life, and I've NEVER shot NINE innocent citizens in a hail of panic.

I'm licensed to carry in 27 states and carry daily. I shoot weekly, consuming more rounds in a weekend that your average NYC cop shoots in a YEAR.

I'm not the best shot on the block, but I've had enough professional training (not crappy NYPD firearms training, either) to know my limitations and NOT shoot everybody else on the street.

You're talking out of your ass trying to excuse lousy tactics, lousy shooting and absolutely @!$%#ty firearms discipline. In any other circumstance, even those of a soldier, wounding nine bystanders at close range to get one bad guy would be up for review.

You're so bat@!$%# scared of citizens protecting themselves that you'd excuse this behavior, and that shows how disconnected from reality you are.

just this week, a 57 year old man shot and killed a robber at a dollar store. this robber was going for the register, with the clerk right next to him. this citizen has been training his whole life, and competed in marksman competitions. and he killed his target without harming a very nearby person.

the cops in new york fired 16 shots at 1 man, 9 of said shots hit bystanders, one whizzed by this guys head, so that in itself is 10 misses. odds are more struck objects and not bystanders. for professionally trained officers, this miss-to-hit ratio of 50% + is and should be completely unacceptable. yes, they did the right thing by shooting the man, but the manner in which they carried out the shooting was reckless. simple communication between officers in order to pull off a few well aimed pops is sufficient enough. not just "everyone open fire!" bam bam bam bam bam bam bam.... it is extremely fortunate that the only fatality was the right man

my dad used to shoot at a local outdoor gun range all the time. whenever the cops came to train, the whole range had to be shut down for the safety of the civilian shooters. the only time the range didnt have to be shut down was when the marine corps MPs came in lol