[TopcigsCOM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-n...-live-coverage

http://gawker.com/5937627/graphic-ph...ilding-shooter
(warning, graphic images)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1


The shooter was carrying a weapon with 8 bullets, shot one person 3 times. The cops shot him, but somehow 9 other people were hit with bullets. That would mean the cops would have to have shot at least 4 people.

[sportbos]

The answer is obviously a lag spike,god!

[xpllmr]

Shooter did not fire on police: NY Times

The shooter, Jeffrey Johnson, did not in fact fire at police, the New York Times reports, contradicting Police Commissioner Ray Kelly's description of the confrontation.
"He pulled his ... pistol, and fired on the officers, who returned fire, killing him," Kelly said (video).
The Times reports that "law enforcement officials" say Johnson did not fire on officers.Jeffrey Johnson did not shootat cops, law enforcement official says. #EmpireState
— NYT Metro Desk(@NYTMetro) August 24, 2012The NYT also reports that Johnson was 58 years old, not 53, as Kelly said. The Times says it has a name for the victim, and says this is his LinkedIn page. The page describes him as vice president of sales at Hazan Import Corp. The victim had an order of protection against Johnson at some point, a coworker told the Times.

[hexniks]

The page describes him as vice president of sales at Hazan Import Corp. The victim had an order of protection against Johnson at some point, a coworker told the Times.

I can't help but wonder if something went sour in some sort of business or employment relationship between the two.

[Ifroham4]

It's kind of scary how trigger happy and imprecise the police really are, I know the guy shot someone else, but if he wasn't shooting at the police, and they injured so many people themselves, they probably should not have been shooting.

[CsFLhGNp]

It's kind of scary how trigger happy and imprecise the police really are, I know the guy shot someone else, but if he wasn't shooting at the police, and they injured so many people themselves, they probably should not have been shooting.

That part of NYC is so packed, any stray bullet in a straight line has a better chance of hitting someone that no-one.

[k1ePRlda]

That part of NYC is so packed, any stray bullet in a straight line has a better chance of hitting someone that no-one.

Begs the question, then; why shoot?

[Catieliecutty]

Begs the question, then; why shoot?

Not shooting could result in an unknown number of deaths. You know someone is opening fire with the intent to kill, but you have no idea how many people he might kill, how many bullets, other weapons, explosive, etc. First priority is to make sure he doesn't get to go on a killing spree.

[Andromino]

First priority is to make sure he doesn't get to go on a killing spree.

That's the cops jobs. How dare he!

[bredkumanfirst]

Not shooting could result in an unknown number of deaths. You know someone is opening fire with the intent to kill, but you have no idea how many people he might kill, how many bullets, other weapons, explosive, etc. First priority is to make sure he doesn't get to go on a killing spree.

Yeah, I don't agree, if he's not firing they shouldn't be either.

[bZEUWO4F]

Yeah, I don't agree, if he's not firing they shouldn't be either.

if he has a gun drawn, they will shoot, even if he isn't. That drawn gun is the line in the sand. While I agree they shouldn't, they almost always will.

What is a shame is that society is so effed we think everyone is apt for a killing spree or hiding a bomb. Most people are not terrorists, and while some might lose their temper and kill someone, very few go on to keep killing.

[amannddo]

if he has a gun drawn, they will shoot, even if he isn't. That drawn gun is the line in the sand. While I agree they shouldn't, they almost always will.

What is a shame is that society is so effed we think everyone is apt for a killing spree or hiding a bomb. Most people are not terrorists, and while some might lose their temper and kill someone, very few go on to keep killing.

Anyone who pulls out a weapon in public without just cause has just threatened the lives of everyone around them. You have no way of knowing what's going on in their head, but you do know it's bad enough that they're willing to consider deadly force. They may go on a killing spree, or they may not. I'm not willing to take that risk. I don't gamble with my life. You forfeit your right to safety, and your life, when you kill someone in a crowded place.

If you want to murder someone do it in an alley or follow them home.

[Grapappytek]

So much for all the training the police get with gun firing and handling. Also makes the argument for guns in the hands of civilians sound ridiculous, as if civilians with guns in this situation would have fared better

[eljugadordepoquer]

So much for all the training the police get with gun firing and handling. Also makes the argument for guns in the hands of civilians sound ridiculous, as if civilians with guns in this situation would have fared better

I get the feeling that you have squirrelled away a point in there somewhere?

[fygESytT]

I get the feeling that you have squirrelled away a point in there somewhere?

Sorry, I didn't get that.


I just read a report saying that all of the shooting victims on the street were shot by the police.

[benderkoz]

Also makes the argument for guns in the hands of civilians sound ridiculous

?.....

[LoisCampon]

?.....

Ah...... I was talking about the argument people make when there's an event like this. The one where they claim that civilians with guns (license to carry) can help in situations like this.

[SpeavaJap]

Ah...... I was talking about the argument people make when there's an event like this. The one where they claim that civilians with guns (license to carry) can help in situations like this.

No one has ever made that claim for a situation like this. In this particular situation, a civilian opening up fire on a crowded street would be a bad idea. You are trying to take jabs at something that isn't there.

[JulietOreira]

if he has a gun drawn, they will shoot, even if he isn't. That drawn gun is the line in the sand. While I agree they shouldn't, they almost always will.

What is a shame is that society is so effed we think everyone is apt for a killing spree or hiding a bomb. Most people are not terrorists, and while some might lose their temper and kill someone, very few go on to keep killing.

When they injure more people than the original shooter by doing so, then opening fire was a bad call.

[Rupeviv]

No one has ever made that claim for a situation like this. In this particular situation, a civilian opening up fire on a crowded street would be a bad idea. You are trying to take jabs at something that isn't there.

You might have not, others have made that argument for almost every other shooting event. I guess it's not ok in a crowded street but it would have been fine in a crowded theather in the dark.

Again, you didn't make that argument, others have made it, not just here either.