[Otintx]

What I see is two different inputs trying to reach the same conclusion ...

lol, no, NOT the players !

lol some more.

To Protect and Serve. The rules are different than the ones Joe Citizen plays by.

I am not going to go into why or which is the better way, what I am pointing out is, one's views on a particular course of action is not going to be the same level, (remember it doesn't matter if one is lessor than the other), as the one taught/administered/enforced the way it will be done will be as required for law enforcement agencies.

So I conclude that the argumentsdiscussions of "my way or their way is best" is at most kinda moot.

 

[ZENAS]

I don't have any more information than you do. And THAT'S why I'm not here casting judgments on those involved. You see the difference? I know from research, experience, and the fact that as a prosecuting attorney I investigate police shootings, that there are MANY more relevant factors to consider before a proper conclusion can be drawn. So I am not about to do that. That would be ignorant. All I've done is try to present to you additional possibilities that could explain the hit ratio, which is the ONLY thing you seem willing to consider. But you came here with a fully formulated opinion and intent to run these cops through the mud without adequate information. And that is completely stupid in my opinion.

 

[billt]

The rules are different than the ones Joe Citizen plays by.

Correct. Police actions, (especially involving the use of firearms), are held to a much higher standard than Joe citizen, or even a CCW holder, because of the alleged superior training they receive. Does this seem like it to you? It sure as hell doesn't pass the smell test to me. What do you think would happen if 3 or 4 citizens exchanged 84 rounds of gunfire with a bad guy on a city street, and connected only ONCE?

 

[billt]

............... All I've done is try to present to you additional possibilities that could explain the hit ratio, which is the ONLY thing you seem willing to consider.......

And while your explanations may even be correct, they do not explain away the horrible lack of good judgment in taking that many shots, (84), to begin with. All of these idiots got lucky in this entire fiasco. The cops for not killing any innocent citizens. And the bad guy, for the cops being such lousy shots. Which in itself explains how lucky the cops really were not to kill any innocents.

 

[ZENAS]

And while your explanations may even be correct, they do not explain away the horrible lack of good judgment in taking that many shots, (84), to begin with. All of these idiots got lucky in this entire fiasco. The cops for not killing any innocent citizens. And the bad guy, for the cops being such lousy shots. Which in itself explains how lucky the cops really were not to kill any innocents.

More ridiculous assumptions without ANY facts to back them up. Were there innocent bystanders nearby? How far were the cops taking the shots from their target? Did they secure a perimeter? What was the backstop of the shooting? How many officers pulled the trigger and how many times each? The list of questions we can't answer at this time goes on and on. Yet you still ignorantly claim "these idiots got lucky" without having ANY relevant facts to make that judgment. The mark of a true idiot is making judgments without facts. Any you've hit the nail on the head with that one. I hope you realize just how ignorant and unwise you look in this thread.

 

[TheLaw]

So this one is close to being shut down. Just so everyone is aware. We have been very clear here for years that Law Enforcement bashing will not be tolerated. There are several instances of wide, sweeping generalizations that call the actions of Law Enforcement into question here instead of discussing this specific case. Additionally, anyone that gets their facts from the news clearly has very little knowledge of how these processes actually work, and how badly the media constantly gets it wrong.

 

[billt]

The list of questions we can't answer at this time goes on and on.

And so does your blind support of this nonsense, with absolutely nothing what so ever to back it up.

Yet you still ignorantly claim "these idiots got lucky" without having ANY relevant facts to make that judgment.

I have the best FACT of all. THEY DIDN'T HIT ANY INNOCENTS. What the hell would you call it, their remarkable lack of skill? If that isn't both proof they're lousy shots, and at the same time damn lucky they didn't kill any innocents, I sure as hell don't know what is.

Go out on your street at night and wildly cap off 84 rounds. Do you think you'll be lucky, or are you as "confident" as these nit wits were? You have the audacity to criticize me for "having issues with cops", when you're nothing more than a proven badge fluffer at this point. Damn straight I have issues with a bunch of cowboys playing run and gun at night in a residential area. Then, in spite of their stupid actions come up empty for it 84 rounds later.

 

[ZENAS]

I have personally gone through training simulators for law enforcement shootings. I would LOVE to take you though one some time just to laugh at your hit ratios since you think you are some expert marksman but have no idea how the real world works.

 

[ZENAS]

I have the best FACT of all. THEY DIDN'T HIT ANY INNOCENTS.

This is hilarious since the fact that they didn't hit innocents is actually pretty decent evidence they took good/safe shots more than anything.

 

[billt]

This is hilarious since the fact that they didn't hit innocents is actually pretty decent evidence they took good/safe shots more than anything.

"Good safe shots"?? Are you kidding? They couldn't hit their intended target but once with 84 rounds, because they're lousy shots. Now, according to you, we're supposed to believe it was their skill at, "taking good shots", that prevented them from killing innocents. No, I don't think so. With what we've got so far, I'm going with pure, dumb luck, nothing more. You're right about one thing. This is hilarious..... If it wasn't so sad it's pathetic.

 

[billt]

I have personally gone through training simulators for law enforcement shootings.

That's nice. I drove a Formula 1 simulator once. I guess Sebastian Vettel had better look out.

 

[ZENAS]

"Good safe shots"?? Are you kidding? They couldn't hit their intended target but once with 84 rounds, because they're lousy shots. Now, according to you, we're supposed to believe it was their skill at, "taking good shots", that prevented them from killing innocents. No, I don't think so. With what we've got so far, I'm going with pure, dumb luck, nothing more. You're right about one thing. This is hilarious..... If it wasn't so sad it's pathetic.

You make at least 2 critical errors in your assumptions that a wise person would avoid. First, you assume the shots here were high percentage shots where their hit percentages would be higher. Second, you assume that a low percentage shot is always unsafe or shouldn't be taken. Both of those aren't always true. If you had any real training you would know that. There are many situations (especially for law enforcement or military scenarios) where a low percentage shot needs to be taken (sometimes in great volume) and can be done safely.

But hey, not only is it clear you have no formal training, the fact that you scoff at the law enforcement training we do have tells me you can't even comprehend what a realistic shooting entails and are not in any kind of position to judge these officers.

 

[billt]

You make at least 2 critical errors in your assumptions that a wise person would avoid. First, you assume the shots here were high percentage shots where their hit percentages would be higher. Second, you assume that a low percentage shot is always unsafe or shouldn't be taken. Both of those aren't always true. If you had any real training you would know that. There are many situations (especially for law enforcement or military scenarios) where a low percentage shot needs to be taken (sometimes in great volume) and can be done safely.

That is without question the biggest bunch of meaningless double talk I've ever heard. These clowns broke just about every rule in the book concerning basic firearm safety. For one.... Know your backstop, and where your bullet will end up. Did they? NO. These cowboys were running from location to location, blasting away in a running gun battle in the dark, on city streets in a residential neighborhood. They had no way of knowing where these shots, (all 84 of them), were going to end up. This regardless of what "percentage" they had of hitting anything. It obviously was as close to ZERO as they could possibly get.

These clowns took unnecessary risks, and put the very people they are supposed to, "protect & serve" directly into harms way in the process. For what? That is piss poor risk management on their part. This is no different than these high speed chases that start out over an out of date tag, and wind up in a 3 car pile up that kills someone, and injures God knows how many. The only difference is as I said. These buffoons got luckier, nothing more. You're showing your total desperation at haplessly trying to defend these fools. None of this had to happen. It did because of bad judgment on their part. You only take shots you know you can make in the field. Be it game or criminal. The only difference with game you can loose your quarry. With these cowboys, they could have easily lost citizens. Then what? A 7 digit law suit that who is going to end up paying... You? And at a time when cops killing innocents are just about the last thing anyone needs to see as a lead in on the 10:00 o'clock news.

 

[PattonWasRight]

I don't know man ... unless those rounds were to provide cover to other officers, or keep the bad guy in a fixed position, knowing there was solid backstop, all I can think is those guys were dang lucky, more than 80 times. A running gun battle? This is sorta the reason why many police departments disengage from high speed car chases.

 

[ZENAS]

That is without question the biggest bunch of meaningless double talk I've ever heard. These clowns broke just about every rule in the book concerning basic firearm safety. For one.... Know your backstop, and where your bullet will end up. Did they? NO. These cowboys were running from location to location, blasting away in a running gun battle in the dark, on city streets in a residential neighborhood. They had no way of knowing where these shots, (all 84 of them), were going to end up. This regardless of what "percentage" they had of hitting anything. It obviously was as close to ZERO as they could possibly get.
.

Interesting you gathered all that information from an article that really doesn't give it to you. You are reading a lot into a journalist's version of the events and making MANY assumptions that we simply don't know. You have no idea what they knew of their backstop. You have no idea whether they knew where their shots would land. You have no idea where they landed. You have no idea if they shot while running from location to location or not. You are making assumptions based on little information and your own preconceived ideas. And that's lame.

 

[ZENAS]

I don't know man ... unless those rounds were to provide cover to other officers, or keep the bad guy in a fixed position, knowing there was solid backstop, all I can think is those guys were dang lucky, more than 80 times. A running gun battle? This is sorta the reason why many police departments disengage from high speed car chases.

That's been my whole point. We don't know. billt seems to think he does, but in reality we don't. Many of those 84 shots very well might have been cover fire. But hey, let's all jump to conclusions so we can bash these cops.

Mods, please end this thread. It's a joke of ignorance.

 

[billt]

Mods, please end this thread. It's a joke of ignorance.

If it's so bad, why have you been participating in it for 14 posts over the last 3 pages? Are you adding hypocrite to your list of credentials as well, or just more of the "ignorance" you're bitching about?

Just think about something instead of all of your badge fluffing, for just a minute. When is the last time you fired a weapon 83 times at something and never hit it once? You would think common sense had to kick in at some point. But if you did, you would obviously be wrong.

 

[billt]

You have no idea if they shot while running from location to location or not.......

Will you believe the Deputy Police Commissioner? If you're this uneducated about this incident, it's no one's fault but your own. The information is out there. I especially like the part where he compares his officers to bikers. Class!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-08/nypd-cops-fire-84-shots-murder-suspect-miss-83-times

"NYPD Deputy Commissioner Stephen Davis explained that, much like true biker shootouts, real "running gun battles" are wildly unpredictable affairs."

 

[ZENAS]

Will you believe the Deputy Police Commissioner? If you're this uneducated about this incident, it's no one's fault but your own. The information is out there. I especially like the part where he compares his officers to bikers. Class!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-08/nypd-cops-fire-84-shots-murder-suspect-miss-83-times

"NYPD Deputy Commissioner Stephen Davis explained that, much like true biker shootouts, real "running gun battles" are wildly unpredictable affairs."

Thank you for absolutely proving my point. You link to an article by someone with a clear agenda, and quote the Commissioner who was trying to inform people as to how real gun fights go down and explain why there were so many misses, but you use it like the liberals who have no clue to twist his words to mean he was calling his cops "bikers" in a bad way. You are proving to be quite the anti-gun spinster.

This is EXACTLY why we as gun owners need to stop this crap you are pulling here. These cases get tried in the court of public opinion based on limited facts put out there by an anti-gun and anti-cop media. The result is people like you who rush to judgment and form strong opinions without any real knowledge of the situation or of true gun fight scenarios, and you dig in your heels on the issue. This public misconception of the situation then puts pressure on the agency, the prosecutors, and the investigators to try to satisfy the mob of idiots. This corrupts the system and ultimately we have good cops involved in good shootings villainized.

I love how you come here with an article on Zero Hedge. I checked them out and they are well known as conspiracy theorists with an "apocalyptic world view". They are a liberal activist website and you come here to a gun website and bash police using their article to try to make a misinformed point spinning the quote from the commissioner to suit your needs. LOL. What a joke.

http://business.time.com/2009/10/01/wall-streeters-like-conspiracy-theories-always-have/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

 

[PattonWasRight]

Guys!!!

Take a breath!