MovieChat Forums > Dai si gin (2004) Discussion > a note on police shootouts

a note on police shootouts


A bunch of people have complained about this movie having people firing a lot and not hitting much and how unrealistic it is. I don't mean to be rude but that is ignorant *beep* Police very often miss and handgun round are not really the most efficent way to kill someone, check out the fbi's 1986 miami shoot out. as an example to prove my point i shall include some data from the NYPD. This movie is far more realistic with it's shootouts than most movies
NYPD GUNFIGHT STATISTICS
1990-2000

NYPD SOP-9
YEAR NYPD GUNFIGHT

HIT PROBABILITY
NYPD SHOTS FIRED PER GUNFIGHT
NYPD SHOTS FIRED PER OFFICER

1990
19%
8.2
4.4

1991
15%
5.9
3.7

1992
17%
7.7
3.6

1993
15%
Unavailable
Unavailable

1994
12%
9.3
4.4

1995
18%
12.5
6.2

1996
14%
11.1
6.1

1997
10%
10.6
5.3

1998
25%
10.0
5.5

1999
13%
10.6
5.9

2000
9%
16.8
6.9

MEAN SCORES
15%
10.3
5.2
from http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/Main-R.htm

information on what happens in a gunfight
http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics_training/what_happens_gunfight/index1.html
FBI 1986 miami shootout
http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html

reply

see! all of a sudden no one is responding on this post, but still bashing the movie. if it's good it's good that's it. how can police officers be as efficient as professionals? they got away because they were more skilled and experienced in gunfights situation than cops.

R.I.P. J-DILLA 1974-2006.

reply

[deleted]

I am aware of that, hence the reason for my reply above.

R.I.P. J-DILLA 1974-2006.

reply

[deleted]

heh, also, in the minor military training I've had, one of the first things they taught of was that if you fire at them they should stay down, hence the term "supressing fire"... and if they stay down you know where they are and you can move in while keeping them busy... true, a lot of ammo is "wasted" this way, but it is a kindof safe way to wage battle...

But then again, I never thought that this movie was supposed to be taken literary and seriously, so I'm quite shocked by the outrage here... o.0

reply

Bump for the stupid people bashing the gunfights

reply

I thought the shootouts weren't very well done. They might have been going for a far more realistic view, but there were points when Cheung was mere feet away from the bad guys and couldn't land a shot. It even looked like Chung was lying down at points in the lobby, yet nobody could still hit him? I might have been content with it if *Spoiler* Cheung hadn't made his shot at the end. Sure he had time, but it's hard to see where he's standing, and from the look of the entrance wound he was standing pretty far away. He can't spray bullets from an SMG down a hallway and hit everything but he's fine when he's metres away and has a hostage to consider.

All in all it was a good film with some great moments, however I prefer Election.

reply

i didnt think it was done very well either.

by all means, have a shoot out with loads of misses, but at least keep some reasonable realism in what happens to something when it gets in the way - ie. glass!

for a start, the vehicle bodies were raked with machine gun fire, but the glass, in *every* single car remained intact.
no wonder it was safe for them to take cover behind a car - the glass windows are bulletproof!

the one vehicle which did have its windows broken was the police van... but that arrived on scene with its 'bullet holes' very evidently pre-placed on its body.

reply

[deleted]

Rarely I see so stupid and ignorant comments in this place, than about this movie.

The shootings were unbelievably unrealistic. To the point of being utterly ridiculous. Lots of people shooting each other from close range even with automatic weapons and even just staying in the open without any kind of shelter and none, NONE hitting their targets at all. In Hollywood movies we're used to sometimes see laughable comedy class crap like that, but even in Hollywood it's rarely as bad as in this movie. Otherwise the movie was good and I enjoyed watching it, but the shooting scenes were insanely and ridiculously unrealistic, especially in the early part of the movie. If those had been done better, the movie would've been even better than it was. Also the characters' behaviour was ridiculous as well just openly walking there on the street in the middle of a fierce close range gunfight almost like if they were just coming from every day shopping.

reply

[deleted]

There's a classic case (1950s? 60s?) in NYC, in which a cop, masquerading as a negotiator for the DA's office went in to talk (allegedly) to a prisoner who had gotten hold of a gun in court.

The cop had a .32 automatic strapped to his ankle. The bad guy had a fully-loaded .38 revolver.

The cop went for his hideout gun, and they both began shooting.

Both emptied their guns and neither scored a single hit.

They were sitting across a standard conference table from each other.

It's *amazingly* hard to shoot accurately if someone is shooting at you, too.

reply

...having tried firing a few rounds myself a couple of years back, it is not hard to believe that it is difficult to hit a target even at close range. A bullet is generally fairly small so it is probably not surprising that it requires some precision. At the gun safety class, it was taught to go through a series of steps before firing the trigger that included the stance, breathing, aiming with the rear sight, the front sight, and so on. For a practiced professional, I'm sure that the steps come automatically, but just from that experience, it became obvious that it takes some practice to shoot accurately.

Anyway, it is probably best not to analyze it too deeply since it is just a movie.

reply