NYPD Commissioner: Police had "no choice" but to shoot at Empire State Building scene

By: Julia Dahl
Topics: Daily Blotter

New York City police officers talk at the scene of a shooting near the Empire State Building Aug. 24, 2012, in New York City.

New York City police officers talk at the scene of a shooting near the Empire State Building, Friday, Aug. 24, 2012, in New York City.

/ Getty Images

(CBS/AP) NEW YORK - According to New York City's police commissioner, the officers who fired on a man who had just shot and killed a former co-worker near the Empire State Building had "absolutely no choice" but to open fire.

Pictures: Shooting near Empire State Building

Raymond Kelly says surveillance video shows the gunman pulling out a pistol and pointing it at officers. The officers then drew their weapons and fired 14 rounds, killing the man, who has been identified as 58-year-old Jeffrey Johnson.

Nine passers-by were wounded in today's gunfire - some by stray police bullets.

Eugene O'Donnell, a former New York City police officer who is now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says that although some of the people wounded by police bullets may file lawsuits against the city, officers have "a lot of leeway" when they have an "honest belief" that their lives - or the lives of civilians - are in danger.

"They're authorized to use as much force as necessary to extinguish the threat," says O'Donnell. "With the caveat that under New York State law you can't recklessly endanger people."

O'Donnell says that because public shootings like the one that happened Friday morning in Manhattan are very unusual, it's a rare cop who "isn't completely gobsmacked when it comes to this."

According to O'Donnell, officers are typically trained to see if they can find cover from a threat and assess the situation safely, but active scenes can unfold in a "nanosecond," leaving officers with little choice but to shoot.

Johnson, a women's accessories designer, allegedly shot and killed his former co-worker, Steven Ercolino before being killed by police. Johnson had worked at Hazan Imports but was laid off about a year ago. He and Ercolino had traded accusations of harassment when Johnson worked there, Kelly said. And law enforcement officials told the Associated Press that Johnson had been angry that Ercolino wasn't promoting his products.

All of the civilians wounded by stray bullets are expected to survive, and O'Donnell says that means the NYPD will likely be under less scrutiny for its actions than it would have had more people been killed.

Complete coverage of the shooting near the Empire State Building on Crimesider

42 Photos

Shooting near Empire State Building (GRAPHIC IMAGES)

View the Full Gallery »

15 Comments +

Add a Comment See all 15 Comments

by aleutianflyer August 27, 2012 2:03 AM EDT

For those who have little or no knowledge and critical about the NYPD's actions. First of all it is obvious you have little to no idea about police tactics much less about shooting scenarios in general. These officers world over have a split second decision when it comes to their job on daily basis. Try going to a gun range and put yourself in a stressful situation. Also try to understand this, the FBI keeps stats and when it comes to bullets flying, only 17 % of shots fired by law enforcement actually hit the intended targets. We can't second guess the NYPD's actions, but we also can't expect them to be the best shots in the world. Ask any soldier who has been in combat situations and they will set you straight about target acqiusition. It is never easy my dear citizens who believe they live in a perfect world. So quit whinning like sheep and stop complaining about how the shepherd dog(s) did their job, protected you from further harm and put the bad wolf down.

Reply to this comment


by skeezix06 August 27, 2012 4:47 AM EDT: For starters the two policemen I saw on the video were not in a war zone possibly surrounded by enemy and I have no doubt they knew there was only one shooter. The soldier thing is totally bogus.

It is their job to be able to stand up to the stress and make correct decisions. Becoming so frightened that they start shooting indiscriminately is not indicative of the type of mentality I would want carrying a gun. If the report that he was on his way out and wasn't shooting at anyone I would question whether they even tried to arrest him or whether they just started shooting on sight.

In addition, Texbelle asked a good question below. I looked later at some pictures and he was handcuffed. So were the shots instantly fatal or did they just handcuff him and wait for him to die? I don't want a police force that considers itself judge, jury, and executioner. I want a police force that arrests the guilty person and a legal system that puts them on trial to decide innocence or guilt. If you were thinking straight you'd want the same thing.


by intelhonest August 27, 2012 9:55 PM EDT: So please tell us where you obtained all this knowledge on tactics and defense? Any firearms/tactics instructor will tell you that the average person can close the distance of approximately 20 feet before the average officer can draw and fire one round from his sidearm. The subject was maybe 10 feet from the officers when he moved for his firearm. If the officers had been trained properly and were concerned about protecting the citizens they would have continued to rush the subject, close that distance, and take subject down. This for certain would have been the best tactic since there were two officers and no clear way to discharge a firearm. You even help make the logical argument for this tactic. If it is KNOWN that law enforcement only has a 17% hit ratio there is NO WAY they should have fired with innocents around. You are most likely a shill working for a PR firm hired by certain NY individuals trying to convince those that know no better that the officers made a good call. They did not, and they were not concerned with public safety as the spinsters are trying to make you believe. Their actions of yelling, getting the subjects attention, taking the time to stop and draw, acquire a sight picture, and fire shows they were only concerned with themselves and not the innocents around them. Maybe it is a failing of their training. Either way, your spin is praying on the other lack of knowledge.


by fredm6900 August 26, 2012 1:07 PM EDT: 14 rounds to kill a man just a few feet away? ... some training may be necessary.; Reply to this comment

by skeezix06 August 25, 2012 9:24 PM EDT

According to newspapers outside of New York, ALL the wounded were shot by the police. A person would think that they would have had better aim and a little more, how shall I put this... caution or discrimination or maybe even common sense about their targets. I would put this down to the equivalent of "buck fever" and assign them to double time spent practicing their aim and common sense. HOpefully they won't shoot any more innocent civilians should they ever find themselves in a similar situation.

Reply to this comment


by Hippiekiller123 August 26, 2012 1:00 AM EDT: Your absolutely right I guess they were caught in the "heat of the moment"


by skeezix06 August 26, 2012 6:25 AM EDT: When they became policemen, one of the things they were assigned to do was protect the public, not shoot the public. One of the requirements for their position is or should be additional responsibility and/or accounting. On second thought they should be assigned desk jobs and tested to see if they can meet that level or responsibility in the future or if they should just go ahead and fire them.

by Hippiekiller123 August 25, 2012 7:25 PM EDT

I'd like to see you take down a moving target with a .45 caliber handgun aimed at you, while your back pedaling with a crowd of on lookers.

Reply to this comment


by skeezix06 August 26, 2012 6:26 AM EDT: That's their job.


by FoolKiller August 25, 2012 5:41 PM EDT: "New York's 35,000-officer force remains a worldwide model of firearms restraint". "Firearms restraint" is all well and good, but what about FIREARMS PROFFICIENCY??? I don't care how many rounds they fired... that's a call best made by the officers on the scene. What I care about is that they missed their target with over 75% of the rounds they fired. THAT fact is not acceptable, and no amount of spin will change that.; Reply to this comment


by texbelle123 August 25, 2012 12:10 PM EDT: Couple of things: first of all, the gunman did NOT take down 9 people - he took down one: his target. The others were hit by one of the eight cops firing 14 rounds at the gunman.
Second is really a question. The video of the gunman being shot shows him falling to the sidewalk, landing on his back with his arms splayed out from his body, presumably dead. Yet later photos show him lying on his stomach with his hands handcuffed behind his back. So I have to wonder, is it normal to handcuff a corpse? Or did they maybe handcuff him while he was still alive and then sit back and watch him die? Just gotta think about a dead man with his hands handcuffed behind his back and the reason for that.; Reply to this comment

by Hippiekiller123 August 25, 2012 11:38 AM EDT

What kind of country do we live in where cops get criticized for taking down an armed gunman who just shot 9 people?

Reply to this comment


by Colt4542 August 25, 2012 1:06 PM EDT: The cops took down the 9 people, not the original shooter! Get your facts straight. These cops should have their weapons replaced with night sticks until they can properly qualify on the shooting range. No excuse for not hitting the target on the first shot.


by ralphing August 25, 2012 10:36 AM EDT: These cops need more target practice if they have to fire 14 rounds to take down one gunman. Just because there are eight cops, that doesn't mean all eight need to fire at the guy. All cops look forward to the day when they have to shoot someone. They take that opportunity to get rid of as many old dusty bullets as they can.; Reply to this comment


by dnkevinsmith August 24, 2012 11:28 PM EDT: "find cover from a threat and access the situation safely"? I think "assess" was the meaning here.; Reply to this comment