Magazine capacity, munitions, and NYPD

[DocGKR]

The most recently released NYPD SOP-9 "Annual Firearms Discharge Report" data from 2011 document that 7 rounds or less were fired in 65% of NYPD OIS incidents, while in 35% of cases officers needed to fire more than 7 shots to stop the threat. Interestingly in 29% of the incidents, more than 10 shots were required to end the violent encounter.

For 2010, in 67% of the NYPD OIS incidents 7 rounds or less were fired; however in 33% of the incidents more than 7 shots were required to subdue the threat. In 21% of lethal force encounters more than 10 shots were required.

So if NYPD officers need more than 7 shots to stop violent attackers greater than 1/3 of the time, why would innocent civilians who likely have no body armor, no radio, no partner, no cover units, no less lethal options, no duty belt with extra magazines, yet who are being confronted by the same violent felons as the police need less ammunition than the NYPD officers?

By arbitrarily restricting magazine capacity for civilians to 7 or 10 rounds, the most current NYPD SOP-9 data strongly suggests that in 1/4 to 1/3 of incidents civilians will likely run out of ammunition before the violent attacker has been stopped...

When law enforcement agencies select munitions intended for Lethal Force Use, the primary requirement is to choose munitions that can rapidly and reliably incapacitate and stop hostile individuals who pose an immediate potentially life threatening danger to public safety and prevent them from continuing their violent actions. In addition, the munitions are carefully selected to try and minimize danger to innocent bystanders, as well as officers.

If a member of the public is sadly forced to use lethal force to defend themselves, their family, or other innocent citizens, the requirements for lethal force munitions are EXACTLY the same as needed by the Police in such a horrible eventuality--to quickly stop the violent criminal without endangering other innocent people. In fact, it would likely be prudent and wise for a legally armed citizen to seek out the same tested and proven munitions that are used by police in order to have the greatest chance of safely and successfully surviving a lethal force encounter.

As the progenitor of modern law enforcement, Sir Robert Peel, cogently noted:

"The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

In short, civilian citizens should use the same munitions chosen by police in their community, as the lethal force requirements are identical and the anatomy, physiology, and incapacitation potential of a violent felon does not suddenly change whether confronted by law enforcement officers or private citizens.

[ToddG]

Well said!

[Nephrology]

Well said!

Now, if only our elected officials spoke "logic"...

I have recently been donating generously to the Second Amendment Foundation in the hopes that they might help translate for those blue staters who no hablan.

[MDS]

Doc, do you mind if I send your post to my elected officials? With attribution of course.

[DocGKR]

The data is public info and can be distributed widely: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/nypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2011.pdf

[Corlissimo]

I think it would be extremely interesting to see, if it were possible, the "hit/miss" ratio for the OIS events then, compare that to the same data (again, if it were possible) for civilian defensive shooting incidents.




~ Typos brought to you by my laziness & in attention to detail.

[dickmadison]

fantastic write-up!!!

[MikeO]

Makes sense.

Even when I look at every single civilian use of a firearm in self defense in this city/county (pop 700,000) since 1989 and see none where more than 7 rounds were fired. Inside/outside the home, w pistols, rifles, shotguns, all less than 7 rounds.

The cops and crooks do it often, the civilians not.

The latest case was last week. Don't know how many rounds were fired by the CHL holder, but if it was more than 7, would be the first.

[hufnagel]

I'd like to see # shots fired with resulting outcome on the perp (death, flight w/ subsequent death, flight w/injury, flight w/o significant/no injury (no hospital report, etc.))

MikeO... do you see any statistical support for the possiblity that civilians are more accurate and as such not requiring more shots on target?

[rsa-otc]

Makes sense.

Even when I look at every single civilian use of a firearm in self defense in this city/county (pop 700,000) since 1989 and see none where more than 7 rounds were fired. Inside/outside the home, w pistols, rifles, shotguns, all less than 7 rounds.

The cops and crooks do it often, the civilians not.

The latest case was last week. Don't know how many rounds were fired by the CHL holder, but if it was more than 7, would be the first.

Careful who you quote that stat to, it could be used against us in the "Civilians don't need more than 10 of rounds" argument.

[ACP230]

The Best Defense by Robert A. Waters has a write-up of a case where a citizen used a lot of ammo in a self-defense incident.

Travis Dean Neal from Katy, TX was on the way back from the range when he saw a cop fighting three criminals.
He had a CZ-75 and three 15 round mags. The gun was unloaded at the start of the fight. Neal was nearly out of ammo by the time it ended.
He had been in combat in Korea and told the author that the fight reminded him "of Heartbreak Ridge."

Neal was declared Citizen Of The Year for his actions in saving Deputy Sheriff Frank Flores.

There's also a story done by Mas Ayoob about a gunfight at a gun store in Micanopy, FL in 1990. The owner, Harry Beckwith, used several guns, including an AR, a S&W M76, and a Remington 1100,
and 105 rounds fighting seven armed robbers. The perps had driven a car through the front of the gunshop. They also attempted to run him down with a car.

The fight took three minutes Beckwith changed magazines several times. A lot of rounds were used to discourage the guy who tried to run him down and disable the other car used in the
robbery.

I visited that store in 1980 and talked with Beckwith for about two minutes. I looked at a Krag rifle. Read the article years later and suddenly remembered the visit.

I have no doubt there are other incidents where citizens needed more than seven to 10 rounds. These are the two I remembered reading this thread.

[RoyGBiv]

Even when I look at every single civilian use of a firearm in self defense in this city/county (pop 700,000) since 1989 and see none where more than 7 rounds were fired. Inside/outside the home, w pistols, rifles, shotguns, all less than 7 rounds.


How many civilians walk around with extra mags/speed loaders?
How many carry a revolver or .45?

Take these into consideration and the opportunity for a civillian to shoot more than 7 drops dramatically.
Cops use more rounds because cops have more available at their fingertips.
Doesn't lend ANY credence to the notion that civilians shouldn't have access to as many rounds as they feel comfortable carrying.

[MikeO]

Hey, I'm just going where the local stats take me.

That may not be where your local stats take you, or NYPD's take them. Careful w stats; there be dragons there. In one two year period, 41 of the 121 people (34%!) hit by NYPD bullets were hit by NYPD bullets that went through somebody else first. That's never, ever happened here.

"By arbitrarily restricting magazine capacity for civilians to 7 or 10 rounds, the most current NYPD SOP-9 data strongly suggests that in 1/4 to 1/3 of incidents civilians will likely run out of ammunition before the violent attacker has been stopped..."

That's just not even remotely close to true here for the last 24 years. So what?

The relationship between how many I have, v what I use, v what I need and how that relates to policy and legislation, if it does at all (or should) gives me a headache.

As I said, DocGKR makes a lot of sense, and as ToddG has said somewhere else, what's "need" got to do w it anyway?

[David Armstrong]

Makes sense.

Even when I look at every single civilian use of a firearm in self defense in this city/county (pop 700,000) since 1989 and see none where more than 7 rounds were fired. Inside/outside the home, w pistols, rifles, shotguns, all less than 7 rounds.

The cops and crooks do it often, the civilians not.

The latest case was last week. Don't know how many rounds were fired by the CHL holder, but if it was more than 7, would be the first.
While I do oppose the concept of limiting capacity just on general purposes, arguing that civilians need hi-caps because NYPD or any other LE agency has some shootings that went over 7 rounds (or any other arbitrary number) seems a poor way to make that argument. I remember one of the SOP-9 reports from a while back where the police shot a lot of rounds because they were chasing a lion. Most LE shootings that have high round counts are the result of LE engaging in an offensive role, not defensive. Again, don't think that necessarily justifies capacity restrictions, but I've not seen anything to indicate much would change if all the good guys went back to S&W Model 10s.

[joshs]

Most LE shootings that have high round counts are the result of LE engaging in an offensive role . . .

Please explain how a LEO in the United States can use offensive force. If you mean offensively making contact and then responding to a threat with defensive force, aren't they still acting defensively?

[MDS]

Please explain how a LEO in the United States can use offensive force. If you mean offensively making contact and then responding to a threat with defensive force, aren't they still acting defensively?

Zackly. When sumdood swipes my laptop, I might run after him. When he pulls a gun, I might defend myself. Was I acting offensively at any time?

[MikeO]

I think he means a cop can chase a bad guy down the street and around the corner firing as they go; I would probably get in trouble for doing that. Sumthin' like that?

Local guy caught a guy trying to steal his truck from his driveway. They struggled in the driveway, bad guy got loose. Good guy caught him in the street, bad guy got loose again. Good guy chased him down the street, across another road, across an empty lot, and cornered him at a fence. Bad guy raised a screwdriver and good guy shot him. DA and judge did not see that as self defense. Good guy is now a felon guilty of manslaughter.

Here's a good read: Officer-Involved Shootings:What We Didn’t Know Has Hurt Us ©

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

[David Armstrong]

Please explain how a LEO in the United States can use offensive force. If you mean offensively making contact and then responding to a threat with defensive force, aren't they still acting defensively?
Police are charged with taking BGs into custody. They chase after people that are trying to escape, they go into houses where people are trying to hide, they engage people in fights where they could just leave. Egon Bittner, the great police researcher, said that was the key element that made the police different from all other social service agencies, the police are given the right to use force to impose their will on others. That is offensive, not defensive. When I try to take you into custody and you fight back, I am acting from a position of offense and you are acting on defense.

[joshs]

I think he means a cop can chase a bad guy down the street and around the corner firing as they go; I would probably get in trouble for doing that. Sumthin' like that?

I don't think you've provided enough information to say whether the cop can legally do that, or whether you would get in trouble for doing the same thing. In general, LEOs use of deadly force must still comply with the same justifiable homicide rules as anyone else who uses deadly force.

I think of offensive force as a predetermine decisions to use force unrelated to any threat that the recipient might pose. I don't see how anyone could justifiably use such force in the United States. This is especially true of a government agent whose use of force is further constrained by the 5th and 14th Amendments.

The only ways I can think of where true offensive deadly force is lawful would be war or a legal system that followed the traditional rules of outlawry.

[David Armstrong]

Zackly. When sumdood swipes my laptop, I might run after him. When he pulls a gun, I might defend myself. Was I acting offensively at any time?
Probaly not. But when sumdood drops your laptop and you have it back, if you then continue to chase him down the street trying to catch him so you can place him into custody you are probably acting offensively, while he is trying to defend himself from your actions. Commonly the person who is attempting to get someone else to do something is acting offensively while the person trying to resist those efforts will be defensive.

[joshs]

Please explain how a LEO in the United States can use offensive force. If you mean offensively making contact and then responding to a threat with defensive force, aren't they still acting defensively?

I just wanted to clarify that since we are talking about use of firearms, which are per se deadly force, I wasn't questioning whether officers can offensively use lesser forms of force offensively.

[MDS]

Probaly not. But when sumdood drops your laptop and you have it back, if you then continue to chase him down the street trying to catch him so you can place him into custody you are probably acting offensively, while he is trying to defend himself from your actions. Commonly the person who is attempting to get someone else to do something is acting offensively while the person trying to resist those efforts will be defensive.

As joshs said - cops can legally bring lesser force offensively, civilians can't. No one can legally bring lethal force offensively. If that's true, then all legal ois's are defensive on the part of the officer.

[Le Français]

No one can legally bring lethal force offensively. If that's true, then all legal ois's are defensive on the part of the officer.

Some areas have laws permitting the use of deadly force against individuals who are in flight after an escape from a jail or prison.

[rudy99]

The most recently released NYPD SOP-9 "Annual Firearms Discharge Report" data from 2011 document that 7 rounds or less were fired in 65% of NYPD OIS incidents, while in 35% of cases officers needed to fire more than 7 shots to stop the threat. Interestingly in 29% of the incidents, more than 10 shots were required to end the violent encounter.

For 2010, in 67% of the NYPD OIS incidents 7 rounds or less were fired; however in 33% of the incidents more than 7 shots were required to subdue the threat. In 21% of lethal force encounters more than 10 shots were required.

So if NYPD officers need more than 7 shots to stop violent attackers greater than 1/3 of the time, why would innocent civilians who likely have no body armor, no radio, no partner, no cover units, no less lethal options, no duty belt with extra magazines, yet who are being confronted by the same violent felons as the police need less ammunition than the NYPD officers?
[/b]

Doc (or others),

Is there any issue with the difference between how one should interpret the shots fired "per officer" as compared to "per incident?" For example, in 2011, only 11% of shots fired per officer (Figure A.9) were in excess of 10 rounds (12% in 2010, 1% in 2011)? Not saying those are favorable odds from my perspective, but perhaps the "per officer" stat is less compelling.

[MDS]

Some areas have laws permitting the use of deadly force against individuals who are in flight after an escape from a jail or prison.

Fair point. Maybe I've been laboring under a false assumption. Is there an objective sense of how many ois's are offensive in nature, vs defensive?

[joshs]

Some areas have laws permitting the use of deadly force against individuals who are in flight after an escape from a jail or prison.

Officers in those areas must still comply with the requirements of Tennessee v. Garner.

[Chuck Haggard]

Fair point. Maybe I've been laboring under a false assumption. Is there an objective sense of how many ois's are offensive in nature, vs defensive?

Legally? None.


You can not justify deadly force without someone's life being reasonably believed as being in danger. For prisoners in an escape you have to reasonably believe that they are an imminent danger to society if allowed to escape AND you have no other way to stop them.

Garner leaves us with that decision, and it is implied in Graham.

[David Armstrong]

Doc (or others),

Is there any issue with the difference between how one should interpret the shots fired "per officer" as compared to "per incident?" For example, in 2011, only 11% of shots fired per officer (Figure A.9) were in excess of 10 rounds (12% in 2010, 1% in 2011)? Not saying those are favorable odds from my perspective, but perhaps the "per officer" stat is less compelling.
Yes. The "per officer" is just that, shots fired per officer. Per incident can involve multiple officers.

A few items of interest I noticed:
In less than half the shootings did the officers report using their sights, and the greater the proximity and immediacy of the threat the lower the rate went.
Glocks are over-represented in the unintentional discharge category.
Almost 10% of the adversarial shootings were at a distance greater than 15 yards.
2 of the 5 officers shot were shot by friendly fire.
Nobody needed to reload during a fight.
89% of the adversarial shootings were solved with 10 rounds or less, and the mode for shootings was 1 round.

[David Armstrong]

Fair point. Maybe I've been laboring under a false assumption. Is there an objective sense of how many ois's are offensive in nature, vs defensive?
Don't think those kinds of numbers are kept, probably in no small part due to the difficulty in defining terms, as seen here.

[Corey]

I really like and agree with Doc’s op, but a thought occurred to me regarding the differences between number of shots fired by police and number fired by private citizens defending themselves.

If a bad guy attacks a citizen, and the citizen starts shooting the bad guy pretty much just has to get away from the immediate area (assuming good guy doesn't get killed first). If the bad guy gets into a shooting with the police, he knows they will pursue him, possibly changing the dynamics of the fight.

Looking at that difference over a statistically significant number of incidents, could that have an effect on the differences between the number of shots fired? I am not trying to come up with a justification for why equipment rules should be different, just spitballing about possible reasons for the differences.

[David Armstrong]

I really like and agree with Doc’s op, but a thought occurred to me regarding the differences between number of shots fired by police and number fired by private citizens defending themselves.

If a bad guy attacks a citizen, and the citizen starts shooting the bad guy pretty much just has to get away from the immediate area (assuming good guy doesn't get killed first). If the bad guy gets into a shooting with the police, he knows they will pursue him, possibly changing the dynamics of the fight.

Looking at that difference over a statistically significant number of incidents, could that have an effect on the differences between the number of shots fired? I am not trying to come up with a justification for why equipment rules should be different, just spitballing about possible reasons for the differences.
That is the primary difference. Many (not all) LE incidents that involve a large number of shots revolve around the officer attempting to chase someone down or engage someoen that has holed up and is unwilling to come out. Incidents where the BG suddenly attacks and the officer responds tend to be low round count affairs.

[Le Français]

Officers in those areas must still comply with the requirements of Tennessee v. Garner.

I know of at least one state law that specifically allows certain correctional officers and law enforcement officers to use deadly force on any inmate attempting escape from the State Prison, as long as the officer reasonably believes that that level of force is required to thwart the escape attempt, and the inmate has been warned.

My understanding is that in this case, the very fact that they are attempting escape from a maximum security prison constitutes the significant threat required by Garner. Does that sound right?

[David Armstrong]

I know of at least one state law that specifically allows certain correctional officers and law enforcement officers to use deadly force on any inmate attempting escape from the State Prison, as long as the officer reasonably believes that that level of force is required to thwart the escape attempt, and the inmate has been warned.

My understanding is that in this case, the very fact that they are attempting escape from a maximum security prison constitutes the significant threat required by Garner. Does that sound right?
I'm aware of at least 3 states where that is the law and I'd sort of be surprised if that wasn't the rule in most states.

[joshs]

I'm aware of at least 3 states where that is the law and I'd sort of be surprised if that wasn't the rule in most states.

Are they all in the 5th Circuit? There is a 5th Circuit case that says that once a person is in custody, the 4th Amendment is no longer the correct method of analysis, so Garner does not apply. I know that the 9th Circuit refused to follow this case and continues to apply 4th Amendment analysis, but I'm not sure that any other circuit has addressed this issue.

[steve]

The most recently released NYPD SOP-9 "Annual Firearms Discharge Report" data from 2011 document that 7 rounds or less were fired in 65% of NYPD OIS incidents, while in 35% of cases officers needed to fire more than 7 shots to stop the threat. Interestingly in 29% of the incidents, more than 10 shots were required to end the violent encounter.

For 2010, in 67% of the NYPD OIS incidents 7 rounds or less were fired; however in 33% of the incidents more than 7 shots were required to subdue the threat. In 21% of lethal force encounters more than 10 shots were required.

So if NYPD officers need more than 7 shots to stop violent attackers greater than 1/3 of the time, why would innocent civilians who likely have no body armor, no radio, no partner, no cover units, no less lethal options, no duty belt with extra magazines, yet who are being confronted by the same violent felons as the police need less ammunition than the NYPD officers?

By arbitrarily restricting magazine capacity for civilians to 7 or 10 rounds, the most current NYPD SOP-9 data strongly suggests that in 1/4 to 1/3 of incidents civilians will likely run out of ammunition before the violent attacker has been stopped...

When law enforcement agencies select munitions intended for Lethal Force Use, the primary requirement is to choose munitions that can rapidly and reliably incapacitate and stop hostile individuals who pose an immediate potentially life threatening danger to public safety and prevent them from continuing their violent actions. In addition, the munitions are carefully selected to try and minimize danger to innocent bystanders, as well as officers.

If a member of the public is sadly forced to use lethal force to defend themselves, their family, or other innocent citizens, the requirements for lethal force munitions are EXACTLY the same as needed by the Police in such a horrible eventuality--to quickly stop the violent criminal without endangering other innocent people. In fact, it would likely be prudent and wise for a legally armed citizen to seek out the same tested and proven munitions that are used by police in order to have the greatest chance of safely and successfully surviving a lethal force encounter.

As the progenitor of modern law enforcement, Sir Robert Peel, cogently noted:

"The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

In short, civilian citizens should use the same munitions chosen by police in their community, as the lethal force requirements are identical and the anatomy, physiology, and incapacitation potential of a violent felon does not suddenly change whether confronted by law enforcement officers or private citizens.

Very well put.

[David Armstrong]

Are they all in the 5th Circuit? There is a 5th Circuit case that says that once a person is in custody, the 4th Amendment is no longer the correct method of analysis, so Garner does not apply. I know that the 9th Circuit refused to follow this case and continues to apply 4th Amendment analysis, but I'm not sure that any other circuit has addressed this issue.
Two in the 5th and one in the 10th.

[Kukuforguns]

Makes sense.

Even when I look at every single civilian use of a firearm in self defense in this city/county (pop 700,000) since 1989 and see none where more than 7 rounds were fired. Inside/outside the home, w pistols, rifles, shotguns, all less than 7 rounds.

The cops and crooks do it often, the civilians not.

The latest case was last week. Don't know how many rounds were fired by the CHL holder, but if it was more than 7, would be the first.

Is this information publicly available? If so, where is it? I've found no reliable reports on non-LEO self-defense shootings and had believed no one was keeping such records.

[David Armstrong]

Different places keep different records, as there is no standardized reporting requirement.

[Corvus]

The people trying to ban firearms do not care about what is right or what the evidence shows. We are dealing with people who think they know it all and everyone else is wrong. They are not going to listen to facts.

See example below..........

"I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the
people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so
if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity
magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the
bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available."

And here is the video:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/03/co_democrat_doesnt_understand_high-capacity_magazines_can_be_reloaded.html

[David Armstrong]

Don't make that mistake. Sure some anti-gun folks have no idea what they are talking about. But plenty of pro-gun folks have no idea what they are talking about either. The antis have plenty of intellilgent and well-educated folks on their side who honestly believe they are in the right and who argue the pro-gun side does not listen to the facts. Assuming they are all a bunch of ignorant idiots is a big mistake.

[Corvus]

I do not doubt they have degrees with the full alphabet before them and many of them are good at working the system. The facts do not back up the argument they preach. Well educated does not always = intelligent.

They are arrogant enough to think they are right when they suggest doing away with the 2nd amendment , when they think people are stupid and would be better off having the gov't ( them ) run their lives for them , when they think those of us who work and pay our own way should sacrifice so that the lazy can have benefits paid for without working for them. Thinking they are right does not make them right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WypFNHOl5_Q&feature=player_embedded

[David Armstrong]

I do not doubt they have degrees with the full alphabet before them and many of them are good at working the system. The facts do not back up the argument they preach. Well educated does not always = intelligent.

They are arrogant enough to think they are right when they suggest doing away with the 2nd amendment , when they think people are stupid and would be better off having the gov't ( them ) run their lives for them , when they think those of us who work and pay our own way should sacrifice so that the lazy can have benefits paid for without working for them. Thinking they are right does not make them right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WypFNHOl5_Q&feature=player_embedded

Again, there are plenty of idiots and plenty of smart folks on both sides. Trying to pretend otherwise does not change that. Their arguments makes as much sense to them and they are as sincere about those arguments as we are. Judgign the anti-gunners on the comments of a few ignorant folks is sort of like judging the gun community on the wisdom of Fat Fred at the local gun store.

[TGS]

I think the majority of anti-gunners are actually just mislead by misinformation from idjits, rather than outright idjits themselves. Allegory of the cave, that whole deal.

[David Armstrong]

I think the majority of anti-gunners are actually just mislead by misinformation from idjits, rather than outright idjits themselves. Allegory of the cave, that whole deal.
I'd certainly agree that the misleading part is accurate. I'd still question the idjits classification. Those idjits seem to be able to outplay us on a regular basis when it comes to manipulating ideas to present a particular picture.