# Nice Job, NYPD...



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

All this for a teenager smoking pot? :roll: :roll: 

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/437672p-368722c.html


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

Maren Bell said:


> All this for a teenager smoking pot? :roll: :roll:
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/437672p-368722c.html


You have got to be joking...26 bullets? 26?

How many of those could have hit the little boy had he not been playing in a bedroom? And why seize the puppy? They were after a teenager who had smoked pot...why torture this familiy (who have enough grief thanks to their dead dog who was doing noting more than protecting them) simply because a teenage suspect BROKE into their apartment?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Maren Bell said:


> All this for a teenager smoking pot?


Since this suspect was named we can safely assume that he's at least 18. Let's not forget that he's the one who kicked the door open releasing the dog to bite the officer. He escalated this situation when he ran and loosed the pit bull on the officers. 



Stacia Porter said:


> You have got to be joking...26 bullets? 26?


How many do you think it should have taken? 



Stacia Porter said:


> They were after a teenager who had smoked pot


He ran from his apartment to another one on the same floor. There's no indication that the officers knew whose apartment this was. They didn't know if it belonged to a friend, a crime partner or some innocent person whom Acevedo was going to take hostage.


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> [
> He ran from his apartment to another one on the same floor. There's no indication that the officers knew whose apartment this was. They didn't know if it belonged to a friend, a crime partner or some innocent person whom Acevedo was going to take hostage.


Exactly. So officers fire multiple weapons at a dog (hitting one another) risking ricochet into the apartment they have yet to enter...they could have hit the child, or anyone else who happened to be there. And why do I not think it takes 26 bullets to kill a dog? It doesnt' take 26 to kill a man...or did these police officers fail marksmanship?

No matter how you spin this, it's overdone. Especially seizing the puppy from the apartment: why? This reminds me of a situation a while back where a suspect hopped someone's fence during a chase and a GSD and her litter of puppies were in teh backyard; she bit the assailant, taking him down, and then the PD seized the dog AND her puppies b/c she bit! The puppies were put up for adoption on the AC website in the town (I remember this all b/c we were trying to arrange rescue). I never knew what happened to the mother. If private citizens are going to be punished because criminals try to seek refuge on our property, we need to take an honest look at our legal system.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Stacia Porter said:


> And why do I not think it takes 26 bullets to kill a dog? It doesnt' take 26 to kill a man...or did these police officers fail marksmanship?


It's always interesting when someone, from the comfort and safety of their living room, with 20-20 hindsight, can tell exactly how best police officers operating under the stress of a rapidly unfolding, potentially deadly situation, should have handled it. 

It's foolish to try and predict how many rounds it will take to stop a fight before that fight occurs. I knew a man who was shot 36 times and survived! There's an awful lot of open space around any target that includes complete misses and hits that don't do enough damage to stop the threat. It's not how many times someone (or a dog) is shot, it's where the shots land that determine whether or not they stop the fight and whether or not they survive. You've been watching too much TV. 

I wonder how much experience you have with firearms and being attacked by a pit bull that you'd be able to calmly place one round where it would effectively stop the problem? About 20 times I've taken people with such an attitude, stressed them, put them on the range and had them fail to make a single hit, much less a stopping one, on a man size target from a distance of 5'. These people are just cops. They're not TV or movie cops and they're not supermen either. 



Stacia Porter said:


> No matter how you spin this, it's overdone.


No spin is necessary. I wonder how many times you've found yourself in such a potentially life threatening situation such as this one? Police rightfully should keep shooting until the threat against them has been stopped. If that can be done with one round, great. If it takes 26, that's what it takes. 

Let me be perfectly clear. I'm not defending these officers. I'm saying that you don't know everything that happened (neither do I). With that thought in mind, it's foolish to assume that things happened when you don't have a clue. There are many things going on that you don't know that you don't know.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

What, you forget that most cops are doofs? C'mon, I thought 26 shots was pretty low. Forget about just reaching down and prying the dog off with a gunbarrel, this is an opportunity to save a life, that cop could of died from that leg bite. Forget common sense, why use that when we can get away with shooting blindly 26 times. They should all be fired. screw em, if they are that stupid, GONE. Time to actually have to pay for your stupidity. No wonder we can't produce GSD's. Look at the dumb humans we got. Too bad for the dog, but the image I get in my head of this happening is pretty funny.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> What, you forget that most cops are doofs?


Many are but I'd match the average cop against the average JQ Public any day. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> C'mon, I thought 26 shots was pretty low. Forget about just reaching down and prying the dog off with a gunbarrel


This ranks pretty high on list of the "stupid comments" I've heard people make. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> this is an opportunity to save a life, that cop could of died from that leg bite.


Probably not but he could have easily suffered a career ending injury. One that would have left him limping badly for life. People have had to have amputations from dog bites and some HAVE lost their lives to them. How do you know how serious this bite was or wasn't? 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Forget common sense


Probably never a good idea. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> why use that when we can get away with shooting blindly 26 times.


There's no indication that anyone "fired blindly." Making such a statement is just inflammatory. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> They should all be fired. screw em, if they are that stupid, GONE.


According to the news article, NYPD has already determined that they acted properly. Not gonna be fired. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Time to actually have to pay for your stupidity.


Just about universally when a police officer gets hurt it's because his stupidity took the form of being too nice, giving people the benefit of the doubt or giving people a break. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> the image I get in my head of this happening is pretty funny.


There's nothing the slightest bit humorous in this situation. It's sad all around. Sad for the injured cop. Sad for the "teenager." And sad for the dog and his owners.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I knew you were gonna get me for that post.


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

If my husband and his fellow soldiers had shot an _armed_ Iraqi man 26 times, there'd be one hell of an investigation. Especially if several soldiers were grazed with bullets during the firefight AND it was in the presence of a minor. Why should I hold the NYPD to different standards? 

And I'm sorry, Lou: dog is on your leg. How can you not put a bullet through its head? And why do several officers fire at once, risking collateral damage? What if one of those bullets had gone into an apartment and killed another occupant? Forget the dog: there were people living in this building, people who were probably home and in their apartments when a voray of bullets were sprayed over their hallway (OVER A DOG). If the dog were hit 26 times, and several officers received graze wounds, think about the number of bullets that were flying. Unless the NYPD is using machine guns these days, that's a lot of trigger time.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

If Mike Morris had held that stupid football just a little looser the snap wouldn't have gone high, Gary Anderson wouldn't have gone wide right, and the Vikings would have won the whole deal in 1998.

Speaking as a poster here--this is not a mod comment--speculation on this kind of stuff never works out and only offends the people on this forum who have been in spots that we can't really imagine. To Lou's point, it's just a sad situation all around. Don't know what we learn factually about this, good or bad, particularly from a source like the NY Daily News.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I knew you were gonna get me for that post.


Darn right Jeff. I'll be the first one to admit that sometimes cops do the wrong thing. I arranged for the firing of several that I caught at it. Cops come from the same gene pool as everyone else. The background examination that we go through weeds out most of the crooks, idiots and those not psychologically suited but it's not perfect. Sometimes bad apples slip through the cracks, sometimes they're friends of relatives of the right (wrong) people and they get through. Sometimes they go bad after getting in. There are about 800,000 police officers in the US. Expect that a few of them will be stupid. Expect that some of them will be crooks. Expect that some of them will make mistakes today. 

Please don't forget that there are also stupid and crooked lawyers, doctors, plumbers, dog trainers, electricians, grocers, and on and on. Even if they're not stupid or cooked, some of them will make mistakes today too. 

We can't all be Wyatt Earp (Heck, even Wyatt Earp wasn't Wyatt Earp)! We can't all have knowledge about everything on the planet; so when a dog bites a cop it's silly to expect that he'll respond the same way that most of us would much more calmly and rationally than the average person. 

When such a story hits the papers it does so precisely because it's so rare. It's the phenomenon of "man bites dog." 



Stacia Porter said:


> If my husband and his fellow soldiers had shot an _armed_ Iraqi man 26 times, there'd be one hell of an investigation.


According to the news story, NYPD conducted an investigation. Do you have any factual support that it was any less than a "hell of an investigation?" In any case, once a person (or a dog) has "earned the right to be shot" (by his actions) it makes no difference how many times he's shot (except to civilians who have watched too much TV). As long as he's a threat, it's appropriate and proper for the police to continue shooting. As long as the dog continued to bite, it was appropriate and proper for those officers to shoot at him. 



Stacia Porter said:


> Especially if several soldiers were grazed with bullets during the firefight AND it was in the presence of a minor. Why should I hold the NYPD to different standards?


I haven't suggested that you do so. I am saying that you don't know the entire story from a 400 word news report. Typically investigations of such incidents run dozens of pages and thousands of words. 



Stacia Porter said:


> dog is on your leg. How can you not put a bullet through its head?


Well, first of all it *HURTS. *That's going to affect how well the shot is placed. Secondly (I don't know but can reasonably assume, having seen dozens of real dog bites on real humans) it's not a calm situation. This dog was probably thrashing about violently, making the placement of a gun against his head, all but impossible. When a (normal, not drugged or drunk) human being realizes that he's not the top of the food chain he becomes a very primitive animal. So primitive that he often forgets that he's the "tool using animal." I've seen suspects bitten by dogs put down guns and knives they had in their hands to fight the dog. Common sense is not present at those moments, survival is. 

How many real bites have you seen? I noticed that you didn't respond to my earlier questions about experience with firearms and pit bull attacks so it's safe to assume that you either have no experience or that it's minimal. You have some idea of my qualifications as a dog trainer. I'm a certified (by the State of CA and the NRA) firearms instructor. I'm a certified instructor for the MP-5 submachine gun. I'm also a former member of my department's SIT (Special Investigation Team) that investigated, among other things OIS (Officer Involved Shootings). There are many dynamics at work that you have no concept of. 



Stacia Porter said:


> And why do several officers fire at once, risking collateral damage?


I'd really like to put you into a highly stressful situation and see how you'd respond. All of the people I did that to in my career, had the same response, "I had no idea." So easy to sit in your living room and pass judgment on people about whose job you know little or nothing. 



Stacia Porter said:


> What if one of those bullets had gone into an apartment and killed another occupant?


That would have been a tragedy, but still the officers would have been justified. 



Stacia Porter said:


> Forget the dog: there were people living in this building, people who were probably home and in their apartments when a voray of bullets


Do you mean "volley of bullets?" 



Stacia Porter said:


> were sprayed over their hallway


You write as if this was a spray of water from a garden hose, indiscriminately fanning out in all directions. It wasn't. The officers were trying to hit one target, albeit one that was probably moving quite rapidly. 



Stacia Porter said:


> (OVER A DOG).


It wasn't over a dog. It was over the survival of a police officer. 



Stacia Porter said:


> If the dog were hit 26 times


It's not perfectly clear that all 26 rounds hit the dog. The article states in the headline "Cops 'justified' to shoot pit bull 26 times" but then in the article it says that, "it took 26 bullets to subdue the attacking dog" I'd guess, based on the fact that we often miss human sized targets in stressful situations that the dog wasn't hit with all 26 rounds that were fired. 



Stacia Porter said:


> and several officers received graze wounds, think about the number of bullets that were flying.


Twenty six rounds. It's quite clear how many bullets were flying. 



Stacia Porter said:


> Unless the NYPD is using machine guns these days, that's a lot of trigger time.


Two officers shooting at the same time can fire 26 rounds in less than two seconds. Is that a lot of "trigger time?" 



Woody Taylor said:


> speculation on this kind of stuff never works out and only offends the people on this forum who have been in spots that we can't really imagine. To Lou's point, it's just a sad situation all around. Don't know what we learn factually about this, good or bad, particularly from a source like the NY Daily News.


Stacia what kind of education and experience do you have in investigating shootings? I'd guess none. Your comment about "trigger time" clearly shows that. Your education probably consists of watching some TV shows and extrapolating from there. As I said earlier, you don't know that you don't know.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Woody, here's one from the New York Times from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/nyregion/24pitbull.html?_r=1&oref=slogin:



> 4 Officers Hurt (One by Pit Bull) as Police Fire 26 Shots to Kill Dog in Bronx
> 
> By FERNANDA SANTOS
> Published: July 24, 2006
> ...


Good Lord, a 12 year old dog? Probably was asleep and couldn't hear much except the door of its home being broken into. And can we PLEASE not ALWAYS have to use the phrase "and the pit bull locked its jaws on (insert body part here)" in every pit bull attack story ever? :roll: Not to mention that the dog's name in the NYT's article was named Red and the one in the NYDN article was Cookie, so who knows.


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

You think what you want, Lou.

And if someone other than the police officers had been hit by one of those bullets, would that change your view? Do PD's not have to worry about collateral damage?

How safe is it for MULTIPLE officers to fire at a dog on an officer's leg?

I may not have PD experience, but I've grown up in military families...and I'll say it again: no one would accept this scenario from soldiers. If a squad went into an Iraqi apartment building after a suspect and a dog came out and bit one of the soldiers, if several fired at the dog at once and soldiers were hurt in teh process IN A RESIDENCE, there'd be hell to pay: not only under the UCMJ, but in the media. That would be considered too dangerous for the civilians, not to mention the soldier being attacked by the dog (and the friendly fire graze wounds). There would be NO military official on the 6 o'clock news declaring the squad's actions "justified." That's where I come from on this...concern for the innocent citizens who could have been injured. I would hope that PD SOP's do not condone this, regardless of the amount of stress on the officers; but since the NYPD is claiming the situation was justified, and you are defending it, I suppose that isn't the case. If it's applicable to combat situations, I think it ought to be in civilian criminal scenarios as well...


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

> Two officers shooting at the same time can fire 26 rounds in less than two seconds.


Good grief, what kind of guns are they using?! I don't see 26 rounds being fired between two people shooting 9mm or 45 ammo in less than 2 seconds unless they're firing automatic weapons.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

<<two people shooting 9mm or 45 ammo in less than 2 seconds>> 

If you don't know shooters that can do that, they need better guns. Most service pistols today carry 15 in the mag and 1 in the tube. 2 seconds is plenty of time to empty a gun.

As for people in combat being struck with 26 rounds, well having been in that situation, it's not uncommon for a body to be hit with that or more. Bullets are cheap, soldiers aren't. The "one shot, one kill" slogan may be fine for a sniper, for a grunt it's get them down range fast quick and in a hurry.

comparing a combat soldier and an officer in a deadly force situation is apples to oranges for the most part. A soldier takes on a completly different mind set from the moment they enter a theater of operations to the moment they leave. sometimes it affects them even longer. Having been in both situation as a combat man and a law enforcement officer it always amazes me at the number of people that, from the comfort of home, can make such judgements. While many dog people may have had a dog hanging off of them while training, how many of you have done it not knowing if it is a diversion so someone can come out and start shooting. It's no secret trained pits are a favorite among drug dealers and thugs. When an incident is over it's easy to say, well it was a 12 year old dog, the officer wearing that dog at the time, probably didn't draw that conclusion, he had more serious concerns at the time. Officers in todays litigeous society are trained to stop the threat. We don't shoot for the gun, the knee, the shoulder or give warning shots. You don't shoot unless you have too, if you have too, you shoot until the threat ceases. I can't say how many bullets that takes, I'm willing to give the officers involved the benefit of the doubt, they felt it needed 26.

DFrost


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Maren Bell said:


> Woody, here's one from the New York Times


I'm more liberal than conservative, so I can't take the obligatory shot at the NYT. ;-)

Again, just looking at the thread...this is just one of those things, I guess, that only serves to upset people directly involved in this line of work. Me taking potshots at rogue SARs people, random generalizations about breeds, etc....and this involved a really bad situation that we don't know about (us, non-LEOs) but that some LEOs here can certainly empathize with (without taking one side or the other). It's just a bad deal. I just don't get how we're informed enough to comment as civilians reading about this via two, three, or four hundred URLs. Certainly not enough to do tactical walkthroughs of how people could have acted.

Just my thoughts. I commented on the Sgt. Caradona situation in Abu Ghraib as I felt reasonably well-informed from multiple perspectives on what did, may, and could have happened. This just strikes me as cursory treatment of something most of us will never really "get."


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Stacia Porter said:


> And if someone other than the police officers had been hit by one of those bullets, would that change your view?


Nope. The appropriateness of their actions has to be judged by what the circumstances were and what was their state of mind *at the time of the incident. * This is very old law. It's been stated by the US Supreme Court as, "The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." 



Stacia Porter said:


> Do PD's not have to worry about collateral damage?


Yep. But since the NYPD investigation found that they acted properly, I'll acquiesce to their judgment. They had all the facts, we have few. 



Stacia Porter said:


> How safe is it for MULTIPLE officers to fire at a dog on an officer's leg?


Not very. But that's what they did. That's how the situation was resolved. And the NYPD said it was within policy. 



Stacia Porter said:


> I may not have PD experience, but I've grown up in military families...and I'll say it again: no one would accept this scenario from soldiers.


That's part of what's causing you not to understand. The military model is not the same as the police model. The "Rules of Engagement" are vastly different. 



Stacia Porter said:


> If a squad went into an Iraqi apartment building after a suspect and a dog came out and bit one of the soldiers, if several fired at the dog at once and soldiers were hurt in teh process IN A RESIDENCE, there'd be hell to pay: not only under the UCMJ, but in the media.


Please tell us what articles of the UCMJ would have been violated? The fact that you base part of your statement on how the media would play this just shows how confused you are. The media is in the business of selling newspapers or air time, not telling the truth and not in what's right. They get the facts wrong too often and have been caught blatantly falsifying facts. 



Stacia Porter said:


> That would be considered too dangerous for the civilians


I'd bet that his has happened dozens of times. Perhaps not in Iraq because of their outlook on dogs in general, but in many other places around the world. And I'd bet that when it did, the dog was dispatched and the soldiers moved on. Sad over having to kill a dog that was merely defending his home but glad to be alive. 



Stacia Porter said:


> There would be NO military official on the 6 o'clock news declaring the squad's actions "justified."


Pure speculation on your part. But since you brought it up . . . How many times have officials apologized for "just" missing a military target and killing a buncha innocent civilians in just this conflict alone? The answer is dozens. It happens quite frequently. 



Stacia Porter said:


> That's where I come from on this...concern for the innocent citizens who could have been injured.


There are recourses available if that had occurred. There's nothing wrong with that viewpoint, but it's not all-controlling. 



Stacia Porter said:


> I would hope that PD SOP's do not condone this


NYPD already has. The first news story said, "Police chiefs said NYPD procedures were followed . . . " The second news story said, " 'The shooting was justified,' the Police Departments chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne, said yesterday." Knowing the basic facts as outlined in the two news stories, my findings would have been the same. Had a military investigation been conducted, I have no doubt that their findings would have been similar. 



Stacia Porter said:


> since the NYPD is claiming the situation was justified, and you are defending it, I suppose that isn't the case. If it's applicable to combat situations, I think it ought to be in civilian criminal scenarios as well...


It is. 



Kristen Cabe said:


> Good grief, what kind of guns are they using?! I don't see 26 rounds being fired between two people shooting 9mm or 45 ammo in less than 2 seconds unless they're firing automatic weapons.


Most officers on NYPD are carrying Glock 19's in 9mm. They're semi-automatic, meaning that the gun fires each time that the trigger is pulled. (Automatic, means that the gun will empty itself with one pull of the trigger). In fact it's quite easy to shoot at this rate or higher. Never mind when one is highly stressed and pumped full of adrenalin. 



Woody Taylor said:


> This just strikes me as cursory treatment of something most of us will never really "get."


I think that's a safe bet Woody.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I think it's a safe bet, too, Lou and Woody.

We just do not know enough to judge. People who did know enough did judge.

I can't even imagine the amount of information we would have to absorb in order to have intelligent discourse about it. But we don't have the information needed, and most of use don't have the experience needed.

It's news, of course, and naturally we will all discuss news, but discussion stops short of judging, doesn't it? We can raise questions, I think, without presuming to answer them.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I think it's a safe bet, too, Lou and Woody.
> 
> We just do not know enough to judge. People who did know enough did judge.
> 
> I can't even imagine the amount of information we would have to absorb in order to have intelligent discourse about it. But we don't have the information, and most of use don't have the experience.


that sums up this thread beautifully connie. well done...


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

I'm only posting this because I spent some time looking it up and I don't want it to be in vain. :lol: 

I know the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic weapon. I find it hard to believe that one can empty a high capacity magazine, plus one in the chamber, of a semi-automatic pistol in 2 seconds. Here's why:

According to http://www.armystudyguide.com, the max effective rates of fire for the M16 are:



> * Semiautomatic - 45 rounds per minute
> * Burst - 90 rounds per minute
> * Sustained - 12-15 rounds per minute


Semiautomatic, as you have stated, means that one bullet is fired with each pull of the trigger. One would have to pull the trigger approximately 35 times to fire 26 rounds. Could you imagine being able to pull a trigger 17.5 times per second?! 
Burst fires 3 bullets with each pull of the trigger, which means that one would have to pull the trigger approximately 4.5 times a second to fire 26 rounds. Possible, but that's with an automatic (sort of). 

Granted, I'm comparing a rifle to a pistol, but the point is that you have to really be pumping to get 26 rounds out in 2 seconds. Even if both people (since the reference was made to two officers being able to easily do this) were pulling the trigger simultaneously, the liklihood of it actually happening is extremely low, because that would still mean that the triggers would have to be pulled 13 times per second. Right? :twisted:





ONE more question, and then I'll hush:

*Why did they have to use bullets? Why didn't they use a tazer instead??*

I don't really expect an answer, since no one here was involved, but just another thought!


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Gun Porn!!! Which dog forum is this, again? ;-)

A three-inch SP-100 with 158 grain 38+P hollowpoints are the ideal urban defense gun/load tandem. Discuss.

Kidding.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Kristen Cabe said:


> Semiautomatic, as you have stated, means that one bullet is fired with each pull of the trigger. One would have to pull the trigger approximately 35 times to fire 26 rounds.


is this that new math i keep hearing about? :| as far as i can tell 35 trigger pulls=35 rounds...


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

Whoops! I meant "to fire 26 rounds in 2 seconds," based on the number of bullets the gun can fire in one minute on that setting. :lol:


----------



## Gregg Tawney (Apr 4, 2006)

Your research assumes one thing......the info that was in the newspaper was accurate. 

Having been the subject of news articles and having conducted administrative investigations I have found that the newspapers are rarely accurate and usually one sided against law enforcement. 

If this was a bad shoot then the family has civil avenues and a grand jury can step in and review the department's administrative investigation which as Lou stated is probably tens if not hundreds of pages long with the facts not just a blurb by a paper thats goal is to sell papers. As officers, our actions are judged in the paper, by our department, by the district attorney's office and finally by the grand jury. Not to mention the public which is evident by this thread. So, rest assured that if there was wrong doing then the officers will answer for it. 

Until then, as Woody said long ago, let it go.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Kristen Cabe said:


> I find it hard to believe that one can empty a high capacity magazine, plus one in the chamber, of a semi-automatic pistol in 2 seconds. Here's why . . . the max effective rates of fire for the M16 are


This is a little technical but here goes. There are several measures of the rate of fire of a firearm. "Cyclic rate" refers to the mechanical rate of fire. How fast the weapon can cycle (fire and reload to fire again). It does not take into account reloading or cooling. It's the absolute "top speed" of a gun. It's the rate we're concerned with in this discussion. "Effective rate" (what you've mentioned) is the rate at which the gun could be fired in combat. It includes reloading, aiming, allowing time for cooling and such things as changing barrels (not pertinent to this discussion.) Effective rate is always less than cyclic rate. Finally there's "sustained rate of fire." That's a long term measurement, dealing with how fast the weapon could be fired indefinitely; that would include allowing time for cooling and is not pertinent either. It's usually applied to machine guns. 

In the case at hand, "effective rates of fire" were probably not at issue. I'm quite sure that everyone was firing as fast as possible, not as fast as effective. In a stressful situation one shoots much faster than in a test situation. And so we're talking about cyclic rate. 

The Glock 18, a full automatic version of the same firearm carried by the officers, can fire up about 1,200 rounds per minute. That's 20 rounds per second. The mechanisms, except for the triggers, (of the Glock 18 and the Glock 19 [probably the handgun carried by the officers]) are virtually identical. If one could pull the trigger at the rate of 20 times per second one could fire the Glock 19 at the rate of 20 rounds per second. That's probably much faster than a human can move his finger. But 7.5 rounds under a blanket of adrenalin is easily achieved. 



Kristen Cabe said:


> One would have to pull the trigger approximately 35 times to fire 26 rounds. Could you imagine being able to pull a trigger 17.5 times per second?!


We now know that the "35 times" statement was an error. There were at least two and possibly more officers shooting. But for the sake of argument, let's limit it to two officers. That means 13 rounds each in two seconds of a rate of 7.5 rounds/second. 



Kristen Cabe said:


> Burst fires 3 bullets with each pull of the trigger


Not necessary to talk about "burst;" they didn't have that option. 



Kristen Cabe said:


> the liklihood of it actually happening is extremely low, because that would still mean that the triggers would have to be pulled 13 times per second. Right?


You're off by a factor of two. 26 rounds fired by two officers in two seconds = 13 rounds per officer in two seconds = 7.5 rounds per second per officer. 



Kristen Cabe said:


> Why did they have to use bullets? Why didn't they use a tazer instead??


They're not available to a patrol officer on the NYPD. Only the ESU (Emergency Service Unit) has them and not even all of them. 



Gregg Tawney said:


> Having been the subject of news articles and having conducted administrative investigations I have found that the newspapers are rarely accurate and usually one sided against law enforcement.


I've been present at incidents and then read about them in the paper the next day. Often the incident isn't recognizable from the news account.


----------



## Phil Dodson (Apr 4, 2006)

Lou, David, why bother until these anti cop, military experts have been there done that, it's useless to explain! As far as the lawyers, politicians, the reporters, and the bleeding heart liberals go, I gave up decades ago wasting my time explaining anything to them. Having spent my first career as a military cop and finishing my second career as a civilian cop, I have little or no use for any of them nor do I care anymore. I work in it only for the opportunity and love of working and training these magnificant animals to locate the scum these people seem to praise when it can gain them some type of attention. My motto when I hit the street is "I 'm not prejudice, nor does anyone have a right to call me prejudice, I hate everyone equally on duty"! Geez, I wonder how I got that way? Now take your shots, whatever you say I have heard a million times before,and by my post you should know by now I don,t give a !#$%&*+?! :twisted:


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

Kirsten...for a decent handgunner, drawing the pistol from its holster, and firing the first three shots takes a shave under ONE second. Each additional shot takes between one tenth and four tenths of a second. The point here is not the rate...the point is unless you have not been there YOU HAVE NO POINT.

The same applies to any kind of second guessing, to include tazers.

Criticizing those that are paid to SERVE YOU serves no purpose if done in the context of the internet. Be thankful instead that someone actually places his life in danger FOR THE SOCIETY YOU LIVE IN to be a better place.

Whether the individual is smart, stupid or somewhere in between, it is very disheartening and unfair to hear armchair quarterbacking regarding an officer's DECISION to enter a dangerous environment and what he does there...regardless of training or anything else regular folks think an officer should have at his disposal.

It's more common to have someone critisize like it's been done here...than have people actually thank police officers for serving. Remember, Police Officers have families, mortgages and credit cards, health problems, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE...and they can actually DIE IN THE LINE OF DUTY. EVERYDAY.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

I guess this is my real frustration about the effects of this kind of discussion...usually only reinforces the stereotypes citizens and (much more frustrating) cops have of each other. The generalizations (the NYPD/the media/these damn sheep citizens) start flying. Just an observation, makes me yearn for a nice table training thread.

Specific incident, specific cops, specific criminal, specific dogs. Shouldn't induce anything beyond that.


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

I wasn't criticising anyone. I just found the comment about the number of bullets and rate of fire to be interesting. I also never said anyone was smart, stupid, or otherwise. All I commented on was rate of fire. 

As for Phil, I don't know who that post was directed towards, but both Stacia and I are military wives, and MY husband is an Army MP (a cop), who _would_ be on the local police force if the money was there, so the "bleeding heart liberal," anti cop comments were a bit out of line.

I'm through with this thread because of what it has progressed into, and I'm sorry it HAS progressed this way.


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

> both ..... and I are military wives, and MY husband is an Army MP (a cop), who would be on the local police force if the money was there, so the "bleeding heart liberal," anti cop comments were a bit out of line.


...are you saying then that your husband(s) would have answered your questions with more "sympathy" for your naivete?

Let's just not post or comment on newspaper stories like that...it serves NO purpose...and certainly has nothing to do with working dogs.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Phil Dodson said:


> Lou, David, why bother until these anti cop, military experts have been there done that, it's useless to explain!


I sometimes feel like that too Phil. But I have a glimmer of hope that people who feel as Stacia do will somehow see the light. 



Phil Dodson said:


> As far as the lawyers, politicians, the reporters, and the bleeding heart liberals go, I gave up decades ago wasting my time explaining anything to them.


I've given up on them, not because I've lost hope but because they usually have an agenda that involves furthering their own ends. They're not going to listen because they have their minds made up and won't be confused by the facts.


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

It is obvious to me that I can argue my point until the cows come home and I am going to be discredited simply because I am not a LEO...which is sad, really.

When I taught (once upon a time in fairy land) I gave my students evaluation questionaires at the end of every lesson unit. I wanted to know what things I did well, and what I didnt' do so well; what things I should improve, and what I should keep. Who better to tell me this than the people I had taught to? My fellow teachers thought it was ridiculous: why does anyone other than a teacher have the right to evaluate teaching skills? Hmph. What do those kids know? Well...they knew how they learned best. They knew what was fun, and what was boring. They knew if I was making sense, or if I was being too hard. They had been going to school for at least 10 years of their lives; they knew good teaching when they saw it. If a parent came to me with a concern: I listened. I could have taken the attitude that *I* spent four years and $80,000 on school, how dare this person with no educational background try to tell *me* I was wrong! But what good would that have done? Sometimes it takes someone OUTSIDE the field to make observations about a situation. For instance, it was a parent who clued me into the fact that I needed to give my students more responsibility for their own learning. I would have been missing out if I hadn't considered her suggestions...

You may find a point in that, and you may not. My problem with this scenario has never been the dog: it's been the occupants of that apartment building, and the fact that officers were injured. Taking the attitude that if someone's "never been there" their opinion is useless does a disservice to the public...


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

apples and oranges stacia. yes, i commend you on seeing the light that a student who had been in school for 10 years could offer insight into teaching. that same analogy doesn't hold water here. of those that have criticized these officers (based on a newspaper article) who has 10 years experience in stressful, life and death situations? 10 years of experience in police tactics and procedures? 

the main point that we're making isn't that they were "right" or "wrong", just that it is improper for ANY of us (LEO's included) to pass judgement one way or the other JUST off of this newspaper article. if you had access to the full investigation conducted by the NYPD, then yes, at least your opinion would be an informed one. all we're saying is don't be led like sheep by the media who often skew stories to make LE look bad because it sells.

lou, do you still get PORAC? there was an interesting article in the last one that dealt with how the media crucified a Davis PD officer over a hit and run investigation. the Davis city council piggy backed on this and guess what? they ended up apologizing to the officer and department after ALL of the facts came out.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Stacia, I understand your point.

But it was pointed out a little earlier that we (the public) can address only what the newspepers say.

In other words, we have no idea what the facts of the case really are; we are assuming that the media is/are (1) correct, and (2) complete.

Having watched and read the media as much as anyone else, I'm not ready to assume that. :lol: 

I don't know how to get around that in order for the public to have influence over public employees except by electing people to oversee them, and giving those people the authority to assess and judge, based on the actual evidence. If we don't like their actions, then we elect different people.

In this city, for example, the County Board of Supes and the City Council are elected officials. They have authority over the police department, the fire department, and so on. 

There are police oversight committees, commissioners, and other governing bodies in some jurisdictions. These elected officials do indeed have the "real" story and they make the judgment calls. 

So our measure (here) if we think public employees or those overseeing them are doing a poor job is to question the elected officials.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

And no, I did not secretly meet with Tim to structure our two posts! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> And no, I did not secretly meet with Tim to structure our two posts! :lol: :lol: :lol:


haha. that did work out nicely didn't it?


----------



## Andy Andrews (May 9, 2006)

Having had the chance to read both articles I'd have to say the police were justified in shooting the dog. Maybe they didn't *need* to fire 26 rounds to subdue the animal but none of us are really at liberty to second guess an incident we did not witness. 

One thing I'd like to mention though is that some of you are seemingly blaming the suspect, Lenin Acevedo, for owning and releasing the dog on the officers. Both articles suggest the dog did not belong to him, but to the residents of the neighboring apartment he broke into.

Andy.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Stacia Porter said:


> It is obvious to me that I can argue my point until the cows come home and I am going to be discredited simply because I am not a LEO.


You're not being discredited Stacia, you're being disagreed with. The fact that your arguments aren't convincing isn't because you're from outside LE, it's because you have no expertise to make them. 



Stacia Porter said:


> Sometimes it takes someone OUTSIDE the field to make observations about a situation.


If that person has the credentials to make that determination then it doesn't make any difference where they come from. You however don't have those credentials. If I was going to have open heart surgery I wouldn't consult a plumber, a banker or a gardener. I might consult another heart surgeon but to go looking outside the area of expertise would be foolish. Likewise people who have no expertise in the goings on of law enforcement techniques, the dynamics of shootings or what happens in crisis situations shouldn't be making comments about those situations. If they do and they're wrong, as is the case here, then they should expect to be corrected. 

You seem to think that your background having grown up "in military families" gives you some insight into this situation but it doesn't. And the fact that you've ignored my questions just underscores that. You made many statements but when called upon to back them up, you conveniently overlooked those questions. 



Stacia Porter said:


> Taking the attitude that if someone's "never been there" their opinion is useless does a disservice to the public...


That's not the attitude that was taken. Your opinion was taken into account and rejected. And I wasn't the only one; even just dealing with the very limited facts we had here. The NYPD investigators had all the facts available and they disagreed with your assessment too. 

Think about who you'd consult if you were about to have open heart surgery. Would it be the dog trainers here? I think not. 

Given your background, you simply lack the skills and the expertise to make a determination in this case. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure that there are many areas where your expertise is great and I have none. When we discuss those areas, you won't hear from me. I know that I don't know squat about those areas and I'll sit back and learn. 

The problem that people have is that they've seen so much TV and movies about cops that they think they understand what goes on. They don't.


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

I just have to address your notion, Lou, that I've gotten my ideas about law enforcement from "TV." Ridiculous. I don't watch police dramas, mostly b/c there is not one shred of truth to any of them. This would be like me insisting that all anyone knows about real teaching they got from Boston Public, or birthing from A Baby Story. I assure you that I am fully capable of evaluating my forms of entertainment and can absolutely separate fact from fiction. It is truly insulting that you would assume that my comments on this scenario have anything to do with media portrayals of policework. Nor do I blindly believe everything I read in a newspaper or watch on the evening news. Honestly. My area of expertise, in case you're interested, is literature: specifically literary analysis (criticism). This includes the ability to evaluate sources, and hinges on ideas about point of view, author's experience, the fact that no one writes in a vacuum. Of course I would not go so far as to tell YOU that since your background is not criticism, that you have no business forming arguments or trying to analyze mine; that would be presumptuous on my part. Having no formal training in the area doesn't render you senseless, just as never having worked in law enforcement doesn't render my observations pointless.

Your questions went unanswered because I did not believe they merited a response. Good night and may this pit bull rest in peace, this little boy not be scarred for life, and the injured officers heal quickly...I'm done discussing it.


----------



## Becky Shilling (Jul 11, 2006)

Well, the whole damn problem would have been solved if the stupid dog had bit the FIRST person to bust into the apartment, i.e. the perp.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Stacia Porter said:


> It is truly insulting that you would assume that my comments on this scenario have anything to do with media portrayals of policework.


Then where do you get your ideas about how police work is supposed to be done? In today's society it's virtually impossible not to be affect by the media at some level. And the media rarely gets it right. 



Stacia Porter said:


> My area of expertise, in case you're interested, is literature: specifically literary analysis (criticism). This includes the ability to evaluate sources, and hinges on ideas about point of view, author's experience, the fact that no one writes in a vacuum.


Can you tell us how this gives you insight into such things as police policy and procedure, ballistics, skill with firearms, skill at combat, tactics, decision making in crisis situations, laws of arrest and laws of search and seizure? That and more are required to make a decision as to the propriety of the actions of the officers at the scene. 



Stacia Porter said:


> Of course I would not go so far as to tell YOU that since your background is not criticism, that you have no business forming arguments or trying to analyze mine; that would be presumptuous on my part.


When you see me writing on "literary analysis" feel free to let me know that I'm lacking in expertise there. I wouldn't call what we're doing here "literature." 



Stacia Porter said:


> Having no formal training in the area doesn't render you senseless


It renders my opinion in that area as lacking in expertise and value. 



Stacia Porter said:


> just as never having worked in law enforcement doesn't render my observations pointless.


You needn't have worked in law enforcement in order to have received training, education and experience in that field. This is just an effort to make this into an "us and them" disagreement. There's a difference between an educated opinion and one based on emotions and feelings. One has value in the real world and the other has value only to the person holding the opinion. 



Stacia Porter said:


> Your questions went unanswered because I did not believe they merited a response.


My questions went unanswered because they underscored the fact that you don't have the background, training, or education to make a meaningful decision as to whether these officers acted properly or not. You're welcome to your opinion but let's not pretend that it has any impact in the real world.


----------



## Barbara Erdman (May 8, 2006)

Hi, I don't normally post here, but I read this forum everyday. I'm inclined to post because I'm from Long Island and very familiar with the city, and one of my brother's is an NYPD police officer, and my other brother is currently in the NYPD Police Academy.

First; the Bronx is a big slum. If someone had been shot accidentally, chances are they were guilty of something somewhere. Criminals there use pitbulls to guard drugs. Officers know this. There are all kinds of stories about pitbulls and encounters with officers. Even firefighters have problems with them. They go to put out a fire in a building and when they open the door, pitbulls come charging them. They have to slam the door shut if they're fast enough, and then attempt to fight the fire from outside. These are not the nice pitbulls you may be familiar with. So, when police officers see a pitbull biting one of their own, it's natural for them to kill it. 26 shots may be excessive, but like Lou said, under the stressful circumstances, these things happen. These guys are probably rookies who just got out of the academy 3 weeks ago. They are now the laughing stock among their peers and being judged harshly by regular citizens. Welcome to law enforcement, the thankless job :roll: 

It's easy for people from nice southern towns to judge this, but unless you've been to some of the rougher areas of NYC, you just don't have a clue. Even if you live in a bad town somewhere else down south, it doesn't even compare to the Bronx, that I promise you. I've lived on Long Island all my life and I'm still shocked by some of the things I've seen in the city. 

Had the officers shot a bunch of 'bystanders' they would most likely have been doing the area a great service. These officers had no idea what they were going to encounter as they were running through buildings and into apts. Then the pitbull started attacking. It's easy to see how the situation could get out of hand, especially if these PO's just hit the dirty streets of the Bronx 3 weeks ago.

I don't know if it matters, but the NYPD have three choices for weapons, the Glock as Lou mentioned, Smith & Wesson, or a Sig. They could have any of those three. I think the 26 bullets sounds a little surprising, but unless you're in the Bronx daily, you probably wouldn't understand. I give them the benefit of the doubt because I sure as heck wouldn't want to be in the Bronx as a police officer. Do you know that many police cars have bullet holes in them because they get shot at from buildings?


----------



## symeon kazanas (Jul 3, 2006)

Barbara Erdman said:


> First; the Bronx is a big slum. If someone had been shot accidentally, chances are they were guilty of something somewhere.
> 
> I've lived on Long Island all my life and I'm still shocked by some of the things I've seen in the city.
> 
> Had the officers shot a bunch of 'bystanders' they would most likely have been doing the area a great service.


Typical Long Islander elitist attitude. As bad as certain areas of the Bronx are, there are decent families there, trying to raise their kids with good values.

Your statement that if someone gets accidently shot deserves it, because in your mind they are guilty of something anyway is completly without merit. 

That's the mentality of a bigot.

And yes I live and work in NYC. My liquor store is two blocks from the projects in Brooklyn. We get the best and the worst of society in our store.

Just because your family in law enforcement relays all the bad experiences they have (yes cops for the most part deal with bad people in bad neighborhoods) doesn't mean that your assesment is true.


----------



## Barbara Erdman (May 8, 2006)

You're right, that was a typical Long Islander attitude and I apologize.  I should have said Mott Haven in the South Bronx was a slum. I live in a crummy area here on Long Island and people from the city move here and think it's nice  :lol:


----------

