more often than a kill shot. It would make interrogating the person so much easier. Also, if civilians were shot then maybe they should leave the actual shooting to people with a better vantage point like say a sniper? Surely our boys in blue can be trained better. As a New York City taxpayer and voter I am very displeased with how this was handled, but it's good that he didn't manage to kill anyone else.

Go for a wounding shot? Sure, why not -- give him the opportunity to take a hostage! Henry, for someone who grew up in New York, you are remarkably naive. It's called "suicide by cop." The perpetrator killed his intended target, and then started randomly shooting innocent passers-by, thus forcing the police to use deadly force. Obviously, he never intended to be taken alive. And since it was clearly not a terrorist attack, interrogation would reveal nothing worth knowing.

A wounding shot eh? So you as a taxpayer would prefer to pay for his medical bills after the shot, his incarceration during his whole legal process and afterwards, his legal fees during his trial and a myriad of appeals afterwards, his further education and studies while he rots in prison after being convicted.... and the list just goes on! Doesn't it make much more sense to take him out permanently during his rampage and get it all over with and save some money up front?

I am tired of reading about all the times someone innocent is killed because of cops going for the kill. Even with killers like this, it is preferable for such people to face the judgement before the law rather than simply being shot. How are you sure interrogation wouldn't reveal anything? It might be that what seems clear isn't really the case and even if that isn't the case, it's better for the guy to be tried. Also, if you shoot the guy in the arm and leg, it should disable his ability to hold the firearm or take a hostage unless he's on PCP or something. I'm wondering what the cops were doing that go so many innocent bystanders wounded though.

Any of those expenses that would actually apply (the medical one being the most likely) would be a drop in the bucket. If you look up the guy on other news sites though, you'll see that he couldn't have been too short on cash living in my neighbourhood (appears to have lived either up near on 86th or near 70th judging by he proximity to MacDonalds) and so he could have afforded his own attorney most likely. As for prison education, I don't know much about all of that, but I doubt white-collar criminals take advantage of such things. No, it would not make more sense. We have laws in this country for a reason. That it was sets us apart from places like Somalia and other god-forsaken dumps. They are meant to protect against the forms of "justice" favoured by the emotional common man.

you have been watching too much T.V. Where should they shoot to wound, it is not so easy to shoot a gun from someones hand [the only way to stop him shootong ]and by the time they have snipers in place {the point of a sniper is to position them at a distance and what would that do to help} Think if you or yours were at the scene I am sure you would be happy that they stopped this maniac any damn way they can. I think the NYPD deserve nothing but praise

Killing as opposed to wounding serves no one's interest. Believe me, you are in no position to issue such a statement that there is nothing to learn from interrogating the shooter. What khutzpah to pretend the professional! I am glad that in Israel our police rarely ever use their guns, and we have much less of a violent crime rate than you Americans. Why not comment more thoughtfully, and less brashly and imperiously? Humility of decibel level!

Unfortunately ,you tend to write the daftest most stupid comments here on Ynet. GOOD that this violent murderer was killed. GOOD for the rest of the planet. Cry no tears for him.

Da cops did da right thing man...

For somebody that is that concerned to have someone on a rampage taken alive and be tried, you seem to have condemned the NYC police and accused them of all the injuries caused to bystanders.... Methinks that you are all for meting out justice as long as it's not the cops or security forces that are on the receiving end... A simple word comes to mind - hypocrite!!

What's more dangerous, David? A wounded bear or a dead bear?

Give them a little credit. This guy was a white collar criminal, probably not terribly strong and remember that unlike Israel, very few people in the US have military training. He'd probably have been in shock from a bullet which could have been fired by a police officer on the ground.

Just because you dislike what I say does not mean that the comments are unintelligent. Also, as a New Yorker whose taxes pay our officers quite generously (look up how much policemen are paid with benefits), I actually do have a right to complain about their procedure. This guy was definitely guilty, but the NYPD shoots too many people whose guilt isn't so clear-cut.

I'm wondering why people other than the suspect managed to get shot by the police in the first place. I didn't blame them for all, but the fact that any significant portion was caused by police fire concerns me greatly. Thankfully this doesn't happen most of the time. Errr... well I don't think the police should be prosecuted if that's what you're getting at. There should probably be an investigation of some sort though.

When the cops killed this guy he got the judgement he deserved. A lot of time and money were saved and the world was made a safer place. This isn't Hollywood where the good guy shoots the gun out of the hand of the bad guy. You start shooting people to wound them in our society where people sue at the drop of a hat and the wounded person will end up owning everything you have. As a wise poster pointed out...which is more dangerous, a wounded bear or a dead bear?

No, the judgement someone deserves is that determined by a jury. That is why we have trial by jury and not things like summary executions. Obviously I'm not talking about something as silly as shooting a gun out of someone's hand. I am talking about wounding them by shooting them in the arm or leg. He would most likely lose that suit unless he had a really really good lawyer. The people who got shot by the police will probably recover a bundle from the city though.

My point was that a cop on the street would have been there sooner and dealt with the murderer with a kill shot than deploying a sniper in a near by building to take a distance shot [which is the whole point of snipers]. I give them police all credit they did what they had to do as quickly as they could . As to shocking the guy into stop shooting good luck with that, and when he has a gun in his hand which he is firing what the hell does it matter how strong he is or what he does for a living where they supposed to ask for his c.v. before they shot him. I think it is harder to get a gun here than the States and I say again if it was you or yours you would want him put down as soon as possible probably would not come into it

You do not speak for most people How would shooting some one in the leg stop him? Being a taxpayer doesn't give you the right to expect the police to put there lives and the lives in others in danger IIF and I say IF bystanders were shot by the police it was not because they were going for the kill shot . how many more would have died if they had tried to arrest him to interrogate him.

I said where he was living in reference to things after he would have been arrested. That he wouldn't have to have as many things paid for with regard to legal fees and education in prison. Strength is in reference to what it would take to take him down if you shot him in a limb or two. I would say they could have tasered him, but judging by the pictures of his body, he was dressing in layers and I don't know how effective police tasers are at penetrating layers of clothing. Sir, as a New Yorker, I have more of a right to be unhappy about the conduct of police in my city than anyone else who has commented here besides Sarah B as it can affect me and those I care about in the future if a cop decides it is necessary to use his firearm. This is New York in 2012, not 1972. The mayor himself said that people were shot by the police (which is something coming from him) and those people will most definitely sue because they were hit by officers not using their guns properly.

Sarah, all I am saying is that having the gunman alive is no skin off of anyone's back. BUT IF, in the best professional estimation of the lawmen involved, the gunman had to be killed, sobeit. For most of us, far away from the scene, and not professionally qualified to speak, silence is a virtue. So many in America get so excited about blooding themselves vicariously. Blood isn't fun; its red, and it smells like iron and salt. The answer, then? A wounded bear. I can tell you a dozen Golani Brigade snipers that could shoot the weapon out of a gunman's hand no problem at a few hunded metres. Since your American police see more violence than our Israeli soldiers, they should be as good!