Crime scene where NYPD accidentally shot bystander Felix Kumi (courtesy nytimes.com)

“The New York Police Department said that in the midst of the sting, a suspect pulled a gun on the undercover officer, stole the cash changing hands in the transaction and ran,” nytimes.com reports. “When the officer opened fire, police officials and witnesses said, he shot the suspect, but he also hit Mr. Kumi, 61, who was walking to retrieve his van from a nearby repair shop.” And killed him. The police “excuse” for the negligent discharge: the dealer in question pointed a gun at an officer as he fled. (You gonna argue wit dat?) New York’s Finest didn’t just fire ONE stray bullet . . .

Terrance Raynor, the Mount Vernon police commissioner, said that several vehicles had been struck by bullets during the shooting and that one had gone through the front door of a nearby home. An employee of a nearby business, Renzo Auto Body, said gunfire had come through its windows as well. “Things went awry, and shots were fired,” Commissioner Raynor said . . .

Tony Isles, who lives near the scene of the shooting, ran to the window after he heard two bursts of gunfire on the street nearby, he said.

“It was a ton of shots,” he said. “Bap, bap, bap, bap, bap, bap! Then it stopped, and then bap, bap, bap, bap again. I couldn’t count how many shots because it was such rapid fire.” . . .

A woman who lives near the shooting scene said she had been inside her home with the windows open when she heard between 10 and 12 gunshots. She said the neighborhood had problems in the past with drugs and guns, and declined to give her name because she was afraid of retribution.

Seems to me the [disarmed] community is living in fear, of both the bad guys and the police (you know; given these events). Anway, the cops eventually apprehended the dealer. Jeffrey Aristy was caught in possession of the money the cops used for the “sting” and . . . wait for it  . . . a replica .45.

The Times article puts the anti-gun cops’ negligent discharge in the context of “it’s a dangerous job but someone’s got to do it.”  Such as calling Mr. Kumi’s death at the hands of government agents one of “the hazards of the job.” The fact that NYPD’s average “hit rate” is 18 percent – that 82 percent of shots fired miss their target – doesn’t get a look in. Nope. The Times’ focus is on the task and hand the dangers faced by the boys in blue.

The risks must be endured, police officials say, because illegal guns are a scourge, used in many of the shootings and homicides that occur in the city. Last year, the Firearms Investigations Unit was involved in at least 15 significant gun-sale investigations in New York. One of those inquiries led to the arrest of Michael Quick, a dealer from Georgia, who authorities say sold over 150 firearms, including assault weapons, to an undercover officer. Last week, Mr. Quick was sentenced to 18 years in prison.

The unit removed about 1,100 illegal firearms from the city’s streets in 2014, mostly by making undercover purchases, the police said.

Mistakes, while rare, can be deadly.

In 2003, a series of missteps during an undercover gun buy on Staten Island led to the deaths of two detectives with the Firearms Investigations Unit, James V. Nemorin, 36, and Rodney J. Andrews, 34. The detectives were forced to allow two of the buyers to sit behind them in their car, leaving them vulnerable to a surprise attack. They were then diverted from their planned route into hilly, unfamiliar terrain. At one point, the detectives lost contact with the four units meant to provide backup.

So the NYPD’s elite unit relies on badly-crafted stings where innocents and cops get shot but removes a thousand guns from the streets of New York (rather than remove criminals who use them). Are you OK with all this?

[h/t DJ Lang]

112 Responses to NYPD 1, Innocent Bystander 0

  1. Remember folks; these are supposed to be the “discretion exercising, competent handlers” of firearms when yours are gone!

    • And we’re supposed to believe the “fleeing” punk was pointing a gun back at the officers as he ran away. Hell, for all we know the replica .45 was a plant after the shoot. In any event, they’ll all circle the wagons right on up to the commissioner and it will be deemed “a good shoot”.

      • Let’s assume that the gun wasn’t a plant.

        Let’s also assume that the NYC utopia of a disarmed America becomes a reality.

        Criminals will continue to obtain weapons, meaning these types of confrontations will continue. Cops will continue to need to assume a replica is real, at their own peril. And bad shoots, like this will continue. And innocents will still fall to gun violence.

        So, remind me, how is a disarmed America safer?

      • Even if the cop was justified in shooting his target, he’s still responsible for every bullet that leaves his gun. Just like we are. And if he’s not, he’s not obeying the law. And if he’s not obeying the law, from which he derives his authority, then he has no legitimate authority.

        • “And if he’s not obeying the law, from which he derives his authority, then he has no legitimate authority”

          Well said, You must be a Constitutional scholar.

        • I believe the “law” in every jurisdiction excuses excess when police have made reasonable attempts to do their job. unless a cop just starts shooting randomly at people without any provocation, poor gun control is just part of the risk we all face when police determine they need to shoot someone. The uncertainty of a deadly situation means any action a cop takes is likely to be held “reasonable”, when threatened or trying to bring down a bad guy. cops have a tough job and cannot be expected to be as circumspect as the normal person.

          So say the overwhelming number of court decisions when a bad shoot occurs.

    • But, but, but, HIGHLY TRAINED!!! Like a Circus Poodle! Training! The Training so high! Or maybe they’re so high during training? Or when writing these NYT articles?

    • To large a caliber for distance to target , poor marksmanship by the officer = poor training and poor judgment .
      He should lose his job immediately , and be required to take financial care of the victims immediate family for the next twenty years , perhaps transfer policeman’s pension to victims family , don’t friggin shoot if you have any doubt , proper training would have prevented this innocents death . Tragic . You don’t shoot a 40 or 45 caliber pistol at 50 plus yards on a moving target , let em go .

  2. What the NYT is really saying is “acceptable losses” because guns. They don’t care how many people get hurt because they support the police state.

  3. “In the midst of a sting”, I take that to mean an event they planned, not an emergency they were called to…

      • Something, I mean unless the bystander crawled in through a storm sewer they should have known he was around and/or prevented it.

    • They should have marked the money, or more appropriately the bag the money was in with a GPS tracer. Then they could have let the criminal think he got away with it and then gone after him with more police when it was safer for everyone involved, including the police.

      • Exactly, I mean get a picture of the alleged perps, keep a file, plant a GPS, marked bills. Pick them up later or just make sure they keep a low profile for the next decade.

        I realize apparently someone did pull a gun on the police, so that escalated the situation. But did they not suspect that could happen? I assume if they went to the trouble of doing a sting they thought they were dealing with major villains. The officers should have been ready to curtail the alleged perps’ violence and especially their own violence without it spilling into the populace.

        • fail, fail, fail.

          there is no glory in “following the money”
          there are no medals for “following the money”
          there are no headlines for “following the money”
          there are no opportunities to employ overwhelming force in “following the money”
          there is no satisfaction of employing violence of action in “following the money”
          there are no high-fives at the bar for “following the money”
          there is no joy of “putting the bastards down” in following the money.

          playing it safe provides no heros.

          get it? got it? good.

    • Exactly. It’s the only thing that matters. If innocent bystanders have to die to ensure the cops go home, then law enforcement organizations are a-ok wih that.

  4. … ok, who’s going to be the first to defend cops that killed an innocent 61 year old man when not under actual threat?

    You see this, this is why I don’t live in a large city. Around me, the cops know to behave because they will be doing a Mississippi Wind Chime if they get innocent people killed.

    • Those who have seen my comments here before know that I’m generally very skeptical of police in this country, but in this particular case I feel that the problem is just as much with the equipment as it is with the officer. An armed suspect, even if fleeing, is a clear danger that has to be neutralized (consider what happens if he runs into someone while fleeing, or runs into a house and takes a hostage). However, unloading a magazine from a handgun at considerable range in a middle of a residential area to do is a patently bad idea.

      But aside from the fact that the officer should have clearly thought better, they didn’t exactly have many options available to them – all they had was a handgun. If it were a shoulderable rifle instead, with some decent red dot or holo optics, I think this would have made for a much more accurate shot – and properly selected .223 ammunition (like Hornady TAP) can be both highly efficient at stopping a threat, and reduce the risk of ricochets and wall penetration due to its tendency to fragment when in contact with any barrier.

      • Yes, because the obvious solution to cops abusing the firepower they have now is to give them more firepower. I say we go with the revolver and a single bullet approach.

  5. So it appears that all of the shots were fired by a negligent cop without regard to background and using ball ammo rather than hollow point.

    Where is Brady’s outrage? Isn’t this a shining example of tragic gun violence?

    from NYT article:
    “The officer gave chase and — after the suspect again pointed the gun at him — started firing. The suspect, whose weapon was later found to be fake,…”

    “The officer involved was a member of the Police Department’s Firearms Investigations Unit, an elite group formed in 2000. Undercover officers assigned to the unit are meticulously selected”

    “several vehicles had been struck by bullets during the shooting and that one had gone through the front door of a nearby home. An employee of a nearby business, Renzo Auto Body, said gunfire had come through its windows as well. “

    • The Brady’s and other anti groups are trying to figure out how to work the new mantra “If it only takes one life…” Sorry, I meant they are doing nothing about this and therefore continuing in their hypocritical ways.

  6. Sounds like the NYT doesn’t care about the lousy firearms training the NYPD gets, “18%” accuracy rate, nor the innocent people who are shot/killed as long as the emphasis is on the ‘Times’ crusade and obsession with getting “illegal” guns off the street.

  7. So they’re removing 1100 “illegal” guns from circulation each year in a city of 8.5 million people? An absolutely pointless exercise.

    Can’t they just pay those Firearms Unit cops to stay home and play video games or something? The net result on crime in the city would be identical, and innocent bystanders won’t end up dead.

    • That’s what I was thinking. 1100 firearms “off the streets” of NY is no return on investment even without the death of an innocent bystander.

      That anyone finds this acceptable in any way shape or form just shows how far down we have slid as a people. Talk about mind numbed; good grief.

      1100 firearms in a city that size…and they are the “elite.” This “elite” killed an innocent man, potentially killed additional bystanders (shooting into HOMES? That’s a federal felony, isn’t it?) … just stunning.

  8. Guy flashes a gun, robs, and runs? I don’t have a problem with them shooting him, even if in the back. The problem is they missed, and hit some poor guy in the background. That’s the tragedy.

    Nobody can guarantee 100% shot placement. Cops drill shoot/no-shoot all the time, and this cop made the call at the time. He missed, but I won’t say it was wrong. He obviously thought he could hit the guy.

    • no! if he fired 12 shots at a fleeing suspect this is no longer a good call, 1 shot and the guy runs out of range would be acceptable, this is negligent homicide!

    • If the guy took the cash out of his hand, he was pretty close. Instead of shooting him, the cop “gave chase” like they do on TV. As a result, we have a dead bystander. Grab the money, turn to run, and BANG. Even a cop will find it difficult to miss from 10 feet. One shot, not a mag dump.

      • “…Cops drill shoot/no-shoot all the time…”

        No, they don’t.

        Most departments re-qualify annually or semi-annually. Most officers never set foot on the range except for those occasions.

        • anybody want to hazard a guess at how many cops have formal training in a “shoot house”, or standard competition tactical course?

          these guys are on an adrenalin high all the time. they react in hyper mode, all the time. they are wildly scared, all the time. point a play gun at them, and you get carnage.

    • Federal agents practice shoot/no shoot drills. So do Military Police but I know of no big city police department.that does. Just normal static quals break the budget.

      I think the city needs to be liable for the poor police training. Certainly “elite”police units should be held to federal and military qualification standards.

    • Go back to Tennessee v Garner remedial training. Flashing a gun, grabbing cash and running may well not meet the Objective Reasonableness standard.

      It was to prevent this exact kind of scenario (cops shooting when the NEED may not require it) that led the court to rule as they did in Garner.

    • And the rounds that hit cars? Through a kitchen widow? Through an auto repair garage? Had to circumvent the NYT’s paywall to read the entire article. Suggest others do too.

      • Police watching too many police TV shows, where bullets fly everywhere, but no collateral damage is evident?

  9. and this is Bloomberg’s and Shannon’s frame of reference when they think about us carrying guns. . . .

      • and waste precious money on a no-win? the cop(s) have immunity when executing their duties. these sorts of incidents is what is contemplated by the concept. the cops will be determined to have acted reasonably, given their situation (which the NYPD has already claimed). bad marksmanship is not a crime or even a civil tort when officials of the state are involved.

        • @stoopid
          ““Go after” as in wild west style.”

          It was more old testament I believe. Shed man’s blood, by man shall your blood be shed.

          Or:
          As I whet my flashing sword, and my hand takes hold upon judgement. Judgement is DEVINE, but arranging the meeting is human.

  10. Its hard to shoot while running. Try it some time.
    But 10-12 shots………Seems someone needs some more time at Rodmans Neck. With 54 acres lots of room to practice. And miss.

  11. The guy had a toy gun, the cop unloaded two magazines. He’s as elite as my asshole. Manslaughter.

    Remember, fear the police for they will kill you. Didn’t I say that before?

    • not that i am a big fan of LEOs, but if you were suddenly faced with a street person who pulled out an exact replica of a gun, would you take the time to determine if the gun was harmless? while many plastic guns are no more than toys, they can be incredibly realistic-looking. then there is the whole “replica” industry that makes exact copies of guns, the difference being the replicas cannot be fired. how do you make the distinction in a threat situation?

      • “but if you were suddenly faced with a street person who pulled out an exact replica of a gun, would you take the time to determine if the gun was harmless?”

        As a citizen, If the feral savage was running away, I could only fire at them when I saw their muzzle flash.
        Plus, shooting on the run is not responsible, especially by a cop, who are not known for their good judgement.

        My friend and I stopped an armed robbery when we were out hunting once. I noticed the gun she was pointing at the clerk was fake, I learned it was fake, because I studied the facts of the situation before blindly mag dumping. I sent my friend outside to hold the driver at shotgun point, and I placed a gun forcefully to the back of her head and told her it wasn’t going to be a good day. We were white on a reservation so it was best to let them go, after the clerk called her husband to come and sort it out among themselves.

        • very favorable situation where you had time to observe and dissect. yes, as a civilian you are not allowed to chase anyone. but given the police are sanctioned/required to chase suspects, my question stands: if you are SUDDENLY faced with an unexpected drawn gun, how much time are you willing to dedicate to analysis? willing to bet your life?

      • ” I could only fire at them when I saw their muzzle flash.”

        Not sure where you get that idea.

        Of course, I don’t know the wording of the laws in your particular state, but I didn’t think any state required you to wait until you were actually being shot at to defend your life.

        Someone pointing a gun at you constitutes “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” (the general wording for these things) and in the “ability, opportunity and jeopardy” analysis, a pointed firearm is certainly jeopardy.

        So, while it’s essentially a quibble against the details of your wording, waiting til you see a muzzle flash is generally not required.

        • I agree with you, I would not allow a savage to get off the first round, my bad on the wording.

          I was going for, me as a lowly citizen/subject would be hamstrung if I shot a fleeing felon, who wasn’t actively engaging me.

  12. I’m gathering this was an “illegal gun” buy and not a drug bust And the “meticulously selected” gun-safety cops are (a) unable to hit what they are aiming at, (b) wildly firing at targets they have no chance of hitting, or (c) both (a) and (b). How comforting is that?

    • surprise, violence of action, overwhelming force (firepower). keep shooting until the threat is ended. no other rules apply when facing an armed attacker.

      the fact that civilians going about their business, living quietly in their homes, can be in the field of fire from a police operation is just the price of freedom and safety in these united states. the police have no responsibility to protect and serve.

      • Dunno whether that is serious or sarcasm, but either way I am comforted myself primarily by the fact that I don’t live in NY.

        • just pointing out why cops are not accountable for a bad shoot. just our tough luck to be in the way of uncontrolled gunfire.

      • I also can’t tell if that last is serious or sarcasm.

        I’ll offer this in case it was serious:

        What you say is true to a point. However, one must also weigh into the equation just how essential to the free society the given ‘sting’ operation actually is.

        The “War on Drugs” is a colossal failure by any of at least a half-dozen metrics. This off-shoot “War on Guns” in NY is likewise a failure. We have an “elite squad” of “meticulously selected” agents getting 1100 guns per year off the streets. How many of these are entrapment? How many are very clear violations of the Second Amendment?

        Did any of this squad’s activity change the rate of violent crime in NY?

        If you (they, really) can’t point to any net positive, a net gain, to the society at large, this death fails the Balancing Test. There is not even a debate possible without a net gain.

        All we are left with is a useless, Statist Police group killing an innocent man.

        • like your comment on the usefulness of they type sting that led to all this.

          my point was that the sort of gun violence visited by the police on peaceful bystanders is well accepted by the gun grabbers, else you would see the news outlets and airwaves saturated with their complaints about out-of-control police.

          which you don’t.

  13. Elite group? Really? Is there any Average Joe Gun Owner who isn’t more responsible AND a better shot?

    Highly Trained Experts! My left nut is more highly trained than this.

    Negligent Homicide is what they’d call it for any of us. Not to mention a book full of other enhancements and tack-ons. But as long as it’s one of the “only ones” there’s no consequences…

    • I am going to suggest if a person is expected to do something as part of their government job that could very likely take a life then they should be well trained for it. If not then they should not be endangering others practicing or experimenting on the job. But they aren’t, for the most part they are using square ranges that only have a use for new ammunition and hardware testing as well as new or infrequent shooters.

      Now I will be that guy if I haven’t already. I had to shoot on the run with both pistol and rifle for my “job” and it did not ever involve endangering the lives of anyone but possibly me. Shooting on the run is relatively harder than standing on a square range and that gap can be closed greatly for any distance a cop should be shooting a handgun at. It also never removes being responsible for where your missed and even sometimes hit shots land. Oh wait it does for some that are more equal than others.

  14. I read the article and I can’t tell if it’s supposed to be op-ed, news, propaganda or just a reprint of a police PR release. So much fail, especially this “The risks must be endured, police officials say, because illegal guns are a scourge” and this “I pray that they may find comfort in their hope of resurrection and awakening.”. Really? That’s it, not even an apology? FU NYPD.

    • dph,
      Couldn’t agree more with your assessment. The article seems crafted by NYPD’s PR department.

      But my ire is directed at the reporter, Michael Schwirtz and NYT’s editors – not NYPD’s spin doctors. They are doing what they get paid to do.

      The NYT appears to have abdicated responsibility for critical thinking and reporting. No mention of the NYPD cop’s race. If white, perhaps the DOJ will decide to investigate since the innocent victim was black.

      Sad to say, but maybe a race-based claim could result in some needed reforms. Meanwhile I’m wondering if the payout will exceed $5.9M awarded to Eric Garner’s survivors and how long it will take to settle.

  15. Well…this kind of shite happens quite often in Chicago. “He had a gun-er cell phone”. And giving chase in a crowded neighborhood killing innocent bystanders. The po-leece are not you friends.

  16. They screwed up the sting plain and simple.

    New Yorkers are stripped of what is a Right. As public fear increases the bad guys fear decreases. The cops spray bullets like a cow pissing on a flat rock. The option is allow citizens their self-defense Rights and place fear back in the bad guys or become a police state. And a police state would not have as great an effect to place fear in the criminal element.

  17. “So the NYPD’s elite unit relies on badly-crafted stings where innocents and cops get shot but removes a thousand guns from the streets of New York (rather than remove criminals who use them). Are you OK with all this?”

    I am OK with exactly zero of it.

  18. “…The risks must be endured, police officials say, ”

    The risks THEY post must be endured.

    The risks WE post must be dealt with swiftly and with great prejudice.

    I’m not bashing all cops, just the f^cktards that say stupid crap like this.

    • People, people, people…..

      Let’s all take a step back, take a chill pill and reflect calmly….

      From where does the NYPD draw its recruits?

      ‘Nuff said.

      Move on.

    • It’s actually a wonderful turn of phase. I’ll be sure to use it every time we learn about yet another cop shooting yet another innocent because they thought that he had a gun (and it turns out that it was actually a cellphone or a wallet or nothing at all). I’ll remind them that “the risks must be endured” – yes, including the risk that the guy actually had a gun rather than a wallet.

  19. This is a trend brought on by having military designed handguns in the hands of *civilian* police agencies. The circumstances 99% of the time do NOT resemble a battlefield and the officers are not platoon members fighting off a squad of enemy. If you are going to pull a firearm in a populated area, you should be able to hit your target in one of two rounds. If you can’t, he is too far away to pose and immediate threat and backup could be called; or you are too incompetent to carry a firearm.

    Personally, I would take away any large capacity handgun from an officer who demonstrates the inability to control his bullet placement and replace it with .38 revolvers. They then might be more cautious in drawing and firing; at least aiming instead of “spray and pray”.

    And its not just and urban police dept. problem. Its a national problem. Lack of money for training. Cheap or reduced cost high capacity handguns, militarized police mentality….all contribute and you can read news accounts all around the country with the same story line.

    Yes, I understand the adrenaline and fear issue, but these guys have been given badges and guns to serve US, the community. And don’t tell me that departments in the .38 revolver days didn’t face some (not all) of the same circumstances. How many hallways, houses, cars, store fronts, by standers got sprayed by mis-aimed rounds then?

    Well, my 2 cents. I’ll keep and fire my low capacity handguns in a controlled manner and try to hit what I’m aiming at. I’m good enough not to need 15 rounds within 50 yrds.

    • Trigger control is paramount, always. Don’t think anyone disagrees.

      What we have is a 12lb trigger (mandated from the .38 revolver days), and a hopped-up shooter (police, too). How well does anyone do with a revolver in rapid fire? How ’bout under stress of being killed? High capacity handguns are not designed for optimal situations where the mythical one-shot-stop will end the discussion. They are designed for situations where the bad guy just won’t stop (read the numerous occasions where bad guys just refused to stop with less than 8 bullets in them. High capacity handgun is important when taking time to reload would be fatal. Who would truthfully declare that they have survived an experience where a single shot from a revolver (while being shot at) ended the discussion? Want to bet your life on outlying statistics?

      But high capacity handguns in the hands of a freaked-out cop (or civilian) will be susceptible to wasting ammo at the expense of non-targets. Maybe civilians can/do train enough to master handgun combat, but cops virtually never train to that level. Ever.

      • Since the current crop of M&Ps/Glocks, etc… have trigger pulls of 5-7 lbs. Lighter triggers on revolvers should be a non-issue. However, with limited training and practice that most police depts get, use of high capacity handguns is a minus vs. the pluses those guns have on the battlefield. And I mean a hot war zone, not a street robbery. Time and time again, those firearms have been shown to be a danger to the community and officers themselves without the rigorous training they require. If circumstances reveal that an officer is not personally able to handle their capabilities, then he shouldn’t carry them.

        And that includes any unintended discharge. In the locker room, in class rooms or school yards (see Youtube for those Einsteins)…. all the places that a 5 lb trigger pull on a round in the chamber can show incompetence.

        • Five/six pound triggers resulted in too many ND and injuries. Twelve pound triggers were installed to hopefully cut down NDs. Service weapons with lighter triggers will be retro-fitted with heavy triggers. Inaccuracy by police in shooting situations is not the premier consideration; avoiding NDs is.

    • Drop handguns altogether. Too inaccurate by far. Issue them with lightweight, ultracompact SBRs. Could even be chambered in handgun rounds, just so long as it’s small enough to be carried on the side (say, with a single-point sling, and maybe some holster-alike to secure it in place), and shouldered to fire.

      Something like MP7 or MP9 in semi-auto would be near perfect.

  20. Thought NYC have gun control. Maybe they should practice their gun control better. Practice Practice and Practice until they can hit the paper in front of them with the siloite

    • what world do you live in?

      training and practicing handgun control is a waste of money that could be better spent on community outreach, hiring felons to reduce inner-city crime, gun buy-backs, providing endless services for illegal residents. that sort of thing. you must be really uncaring to want to divert precious dollars from those ideals.

  21. This cop should be tried for murder. No use of the use of force concept and lack of care for his soroundings. If a CCW holder were to do this, he would be in jail tried for murder or at least manslaughter.

  22. Common sense gun control starts with re-arming the NYPD with 6 inch barreled .38’s. Altered to single action only. With one bullet in their shirt pocket.

    I kid, I kid. NYPD should be fine with tasers and whistles.

    • Or maybe just whistles. It does appear to me that the Chinese cops aren’t the only ones who could stand to be issued manual-safety equipped revolvers.

  23. Know what is behind your target at all times.
    Aim, dont spray and pray.

    Am Sure the City will pay out for the victim, but unless its a big hit, it will be back to biz as usual.
    The payout should hurt the budget enough that the city is motivated to fix the problem

    Maybe the City should start issuing revolvers to basic officers, and only issue hi caps to those who get further training and prove they can react under stress.

    • I think this is absolutely correct. There is no need for a vast majority of officers to carry “SWAT” type of equipment without the rigorous training that requires. That they do is an result of the War on Drugs/War on Terror mentality that has turned the civilian police forces into a wannabe extension of the Pentagon. So they are getting surplus equipment as well as semi-legal foreign intelligence monitoring systems like Stingrays and Dirtboxes; however, they aren’t using them against kidnap- murder or terror investigations, but petty crime as well.

      Its reaching a breaking point that the “civilian” police depts are going to have to held accountable in court.

    • Revolvers with 12 pound triggers were the reason for high capacity auto loaders with 12 pound triggers; safety against ND. Bad shooting under stress isn’t solved by reverting to revolvers with 12 pound triggers. Money spent on firearms training means more time off the street. More time off the street means less police presence. Less police presence means more crime. Ergo, firearms training is directly responsible for more crime.

      • If “more police presence” means poorly-trained cops shooting innocent people, I think I might prefer to take my chances with the criminals. There’s at least a chance that a criminal might have to answer for his crimes.

      • >> More time off the street means less police presence. Less police presence means more crime. Ergo, firearms training is directly responsible for more crime.

        This is a joke, right?

        • Always sorta admired how mush-brained liberal logic captures the essence of where we are, and where we are headed. Thought I’d try it out, see how it plays.

  24. These are the supposed trained competent professionals that are the only ones that should have guns, my ass! The incompetent yahoo jerkoffs in this story should be going to prison.

  25. I blame this on the NYPD’s decision to require obscene trigger pulls, 12.5 lbs?!? You try hitting your target under pressure and suddenly remembering your trigger pull requires more weight than Chris Christie’s belt buckle.

    • While I’m sure the heavy trigger didn’t help things, I think most of the blame for this one goes to a lack of training, a cop who panicked, and a poorly-planned “sting” operation that put way too many innocents in the line of fire. I really doubt that if the guy’s pistol had a crisp 4-lb trigger, things would have ended much differently. He may have actually hit the suspect at least once, though.

      • I would just like to point-out here….the famous Miami shootout was conducted by highly trained FBI agents in a heavily populated residential neighborhood, with no thought given to whose bullets impacted where. Supressive fire was the game of the day, as it is with so many LEO shootings. Indeed, if you are ever faced with someone actively shooting at you, your mind will be force-locked on putting up a wall of bullets in the hopes you will keep the aggressor from being able to shoot at you.

        • Granted. But in this case, I’m not sure how a guy running away with a fake gun was “actively shooting” anyone.

        • Noted the responses pointing to violation of Cooper rule #4. Cooper rules do not apply to LE. When police start shooting, civilian casualties are acceptable.

    • True, but this is one area where the cop’s role is a bit different than that of the rest of us. They have a duty to stop really bad people from fleeing.

      Garner vs. Tennessee is the key piece of case law, where the judges ruled that shooting a fleeing felon is OK only in certain, very special circumstances. In short, the idea was that if the felon was posing a “significant threat” to “the public,” dropping the fleeing felon (even without direct, personal jeopardy to the cop) was probably going to be ok.

      Consider an example: cops roll up on a robbery scene where bad guy has shot and killed one or more innocent bystanders/victims. Gets in a shoot-out with cops and gets away..running down the street. Still has weapon, but more in ‘flight’ mode than ‘fight’ mode.

      At this point, cops are not in direct jeopardy. But, the dude is still armed and has shown willingness to kill innocent people.

      Should the cops just let him go?

      The corner case questions get thorny.

      Now, the other side of this is how often does this sort of thing REALLY happen? Not very, except in Hollywood movies, TV shows and novels.

      The Garner ruling was meant to create a very, very rarely used narrow exception, not to set the stage for an SOP of shooting people that dare to run from cops.

      Getting back to THIS case…was this guy a significant public threat? I’d argue that if ALL he has done is stolen money and/or made “illegal” gun transactions, with no actual evidence of direct violent behavior (against the cops or anyone else)…well, that’s (to my lay way of thinking) a pretty hard sell under Garner.

      • “rarity” would excuse a civilian death? does anyone know where they keep those permission forms we all signed allowing cops to ignore rule 4? if so, i want to go retract mine.

    • This comment seems very sadly to be almost accurate and yet it’s also funny , what a delightfully funny way of describing complete ineptitude . I have NO interest in living in the new Babylon the Great anyway . It is funny .

  26. Someone’s gotta say it…why don’t the NYPD just start aiming for the bystanders? Their hit rate on the bad guys would inevitably go up.

  27. I don’t know if this matters, or is relevant, but I’ve never shot an innocent bystander, I’ve never shot and killed someone’s dog, and then lied about the circumstance of the shooting, and I’ve never pulled my gun to kill a litter of kittens in front of young children, because I was too busy to call animal control. These, and more, are what our superior trained, professional LEO’s have done, yet we armed citizens are deemed to be the real shooting threat? What happened to this country where shooting and killing the innocent is now treated as justifiable collateral damage?

  28. From my observations dating back a few years of being on ranges with cops nearby (like, oh, 30 or so), I think the 12+ lb trigger in their Glocks isn’t the root issue. Oh, sure, if you’re shooting bullseye or bowling pins with a 12lb trigger, you’re not going to do as well as you would with a lighter trigger. But for combat accuracy (let’s say a putting the shots into a 6″ by 12″ vertical rectangle center of mass on a B-27 target)? Pfah. You can do it easily with a 12lb trigger. Cops used to do it with S&W revolvers with 12lb double-action trigger pulls.

    Three things have happened since the days of cops carrying .38’s and .357’s in revolvers and hitting what they needed to:

    1. Cops went to semi-autos. The early semi-autos in law enforcement were often the S&W single/double semi’s, with various mag capacities, or a Hi-Power. These were good pistols, with decockers, safeties, external hammers and (in the S&W’s) mag disconnects. The general shooting public hates some of these features (esp. the magazine disconnect), but S&W knew their marketplace better than you non-LEO shooters know that market. S&W knew that cops aren’t the most competent shooters out there when it comes to gun handling, so adding more safeties wasn’t a bad idea. I think that any semi-auto carried by cops should have a decocker/safety, an external hammer, SA/DA operation, a grip safety and a magazine disconnect. It should also have a 5lb trigger in SA mode and 12lbs in DA mode.

    2. Cops then went to high capacity magazines, 15 to 17+ rounds became typical. As they did this, tactics changed. In the revolver days, aiming was a priority since a) you had only six rounds and b) reloading, even with a speed loader, wasn’t a quick operation. Now I started to notice cop marksmanship suffering, because the mentality of “well, I’ll get on target with the next round” started showing up. You see this in non-LEO shooters as well. It is why I believe that using a bolt action .22 is the best way to get youngsters started in marksmanship. When you have one shot before you have to fumble to reload, it tends to focus one’s mind on making it count. When I was on ranges with cops in the mid-1990’s, I started to see fancy horsecrap starting to show up as well – “Mozambique drills” and “double taps” and all sorts of assorted nonsense. The idea of hitting what you needed to with the first shot was being rapidly de-emphasized.

    It was in this era that I was on several courses of training with cops. I’d see shots all over the place on B-27 targets at 50 yards, or B-29’s on indoor ranges from cops. My target would always have all the shots in the critical area in a group you could cover with your hand. Cops would ask me “How did you do that?”

    “I aimed.”

    It never did seem to quite sink in. Yea, I aimed. I always wondered “What’s going on here? I’m supposedly ‘just a civilian’ and I’m shooting rings around these guys.” As I got older, I saw what the problems were. Most cops aren’t “gun people.” They might carry a gun, they might talk like they know something about guns, but most cops simply don’t know much about guns, most don’t engage in any additional training above their requirements and too many cops believe their own PR that they’re “trained” with guns.

    3. Then the Glocks came onto the scene. All the safeties that LEO’s need were stripped out. Cops started red-legging themselves, shooting other officers, shooting innocents, etc. The idiotic solution of the 12lb connector started to keep cops from ND’ing their guns – it doesn’t work. There’s no such thing as solving bad gun handling with a heavier trigger. Further, in the era of the Glock, the “mag dump” style of shooting started gathering steam. Now we have really deadly results on innocent bystanders. This is when I started to ask any of the instructors of courses I wanted to take whether there would be cops in the class with me, and if so, could I schedule a class that had no cops. In the Glock era to today, I’ve seen some absolutely outlandish gun handling errors on ranges from cops. If I’m paying big bucks for a shooting course, getting shot isn’t something I’m paying for. I can get shot for free just by ambling on down to Compton or South Central in LA.

    The best way to solve these problems is to force cops back to six round revolvers. Give them a S&W model 10 and two speed loaders. Let them have SA/DA triggers – so if they want a nice trigger, all they have to do is thumb the hammer back. Watch cop marksmanship improve very shortly thereafter.

    At the very least, we should get Glocks and Glock clones out of the hands of cops. Glocks simply lack the safety features necessary for use by cops. If cops don’t want Model 10’s, then give them all 5906’s with 10 round magazines and call it done. If a cop can’t handle a 5906 competently, then fire him/her immediately.

    • DG, thank you. Refreshing to see recommendations *and* rationale – not just rants.

      Your comments are motivating me to check with local PD & SO to learn more about their protocols and qualifications. Perhaps some good can come from Mr. Kumi’s death.

    • if i counted correctly, there were 3 semi-autos and 8 revolvers used in the famous miami shootout. don’t recall the number of rounds the fbi fired (completely disregarding that they were in a firefight in the middile of a residential street). thinking revolvers, not so much.

    • I used to shoot at a range that soon became popular with Orange Co. FL deputies. Their shot groups were, or should have been, embarrassing for any LEO. It would have been an embarrassment if I had shot that poorly. They also seemed to be bothered greatly by my shooting proficiency compared to theirs. Their question to me was, “Why are your shooting skills so good? Why do you feel the need to shoot that well?” Uh….because my life may one day depend on it. My answer concerned them, as though they thought they might have to shoot it out with someone like me. Gee, thanks…for assuming that I would be the sort of person who would have any cause to fire on a LEO. Wen I told them that putting a thousand rounds down range a month is bound to hone your shooting skills to a fine point, they said 1) they didn’t have the time to shoot that often, or 2) their Sheriffs department didn’t require it, or wouldn’t pay for them to shoot that many rounds . They seem get by with the Hail Mary, hail of bullets method. In a flurry of rounds, one of them is likely to hit what they’re shooting at.

      I think that poor shooting skills, combined with “Qualified Immunity” have created the Hail Mary shooting style we have seen in too many stories involving police discharging full magazines….and then some. It all begins to look like they’re just laying down suppressing fire. Here, have a bakers dozen of bullets. If I hit and kill a civilian bystander, I’ll just invoke Qualified Immunity, and a charge of involuntary manslaughter goes bye-bye, and all is forgiven/excused. A-n-n-d, I get to keep my job. Win-win. The old, tired criticism about how letting the public carry firearms, would only lead to wild west shoot-outs in the streets, is false. The wild west shoot-outs in the streets are happening, but it’s the police who are acting like it’s Dodge City on Saturday night.

      • The liability immunity issue was brought home to me once on a range, shooting next to a cop.

        The drill was to start with a gun in the holster, in whatever ‘safe carry configuration’ we had. That meant if you were carrying a 1911, you’d be hammer-down on a live round. I was using a Springfield 1911, made in the early 90’s. Made in the US. Still got the gun. Works nicely. If you were carrying a revolver, it had to be hammer-down, etc. The exercise was to draw and then put a round into a small target circle (about 3″ diameter) at 25 yards in two seconds or less. The obvious point of the exercise was to get your gun into “target trigger” mode ASAP to make your shot count. Then you were to re-holster, with the hammer de-cocked.

        The LEO gentleman next to me was carrying the SA/DA S&W, third gen, .40 S&W as I recall. His hammer is down, per normal MO with a SA/DA pistol.

        The whistle blows, we draw. I thumb my hammer back, aim and fire. One round, on target, under the time limit.

        Out of the corner of my eye, I see some dirt go flying. We re-holster. Turns out the LEO next to me shot a round into the ground about 5′ in front of our line, and then he went on-target, nailing the target. His shooting was “bang-bang,” that fast. He was a good shot, I’ll give him that. Those S&W third-gen pistols were very accurate, BTW. I like them very much. Nice quality, good workmanship.

        Send a round into the ground just to cock the hammer? WTF-ing F? Really?

        Yep. He told me he found it quicker to just squeeze off a round into the ground in front of him to get access to the SA trigger on his pistol. No hammer-cocking necessary, he said.

        This just boggled my mind. Just light off a round for no other reason than to cock the gun into SA mode. Just send a round downrange to points unknown to cock the hammer.

        It still boggles my mind all these years later.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *