It is just too many guns in the streets’ he said, adding: ‘We are the only developed country in the world with this problem. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Gun control, as an integral part of leftist/socialist/communist doctrine shares with those destructive and dehumanizing philosophies, one inescapable reality: it can never be falsified. When socialism and its related or component parts fail as they inevitably must, the fault is never socialism, for socialism can never be wrong. The only fault must be that socialism does not exist everywhere, or that insufficient socialism has been imposed, or that it has not been fully implemented and with sufficient socialist fervor. For these reasons is utopia—paradise on Earth—unattainable.
The events of August 24, 2012 near the Empire State Building have now been sorted out. According to Fox News:
NEW YORK – All nine people wounded during a dramatic confrontation between police and a gunman outside the Empire State Building were struck by bullets fired by the two officers, police said Saturday, citing ballistics evidence.
The veteran patrolmen who opened fire on the suit-wearing gunman, Jeffrey Johnson, had only an instant to react when he whirled and pointed a .45-caliber pistol as they approached him from behind on a busy sidewalk.
Officer Craig Matthews shot seven times. Officer Robert Sinishtaj fired nine times, police said. Neither had ever fired their weapons before on a patrol.
The volley of gunfire felled Johnson in just a few seconds and left nine other people bleeding on the sidewalk…
Police have determined that three people were struck by whole bullets — two of which were removed from victims at the hospital — and the rest were grazed ‘by fragments of some sort.’
It was not a mass shooting after all, just a pre-meditated murder enacted on a sidewalk in broad daylight. New York Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun mania is well known, and in a bizarre bit of irony, only a half hour before the shooting, he was on local radio demanding ever more stringent gun control, not just for NYC, but everywhere. Another bit of irony is New York state—and NYC in particular—have among the most onerous and restrictive gun laws in the nation. NYC’s laws are almost certainly unconstitutional in many ways.
New York is one of the few states that has a “may issue” concealed carry law. In other words, no one in New York has a right to carry a concealed weapon—or to carry openly for that matter—and all permits are issued at the whim of government functionaries. In NYC, concealed carry permits are possible, but in practice, issued only to the wealthy or politically connected. One must have a permit merely to have a firearm in their home or business, and the application fee—non-refundable of course—is $340.00. This does not include a fingerprinting fee of from $94.25 to $105.25. All other applicable regulations are clearly designed to make it so difficult to exercise ones rights under the Second Amendment as to cause most people to abandon the attempt.
In other words, NYC is essential an anti-freedom paradise for gun control fanatics, yet Mayor Bloomberg is not satisfied because the law-abiding have not been completely disarmed and/or jailed for attempting to exercise Second Amendment rights.
Even in such an anti-gun people’s paradise, shootings still occur, yet anti-gun policy cannot possibly have failed. The shooting must be attributable to the fact that other states allow people to observe the Second Amendment and there are “…too many guns in the streets.” Only when perfect socialism—no gun ownership by the law abiding—exists, can utopia exist. NYC’s near-utopia just isn’t enough.
There exists another issue plainly illustrated by this shooting: poor police training and marksmanship. A security camera happened to record the confrontation between the killer—who would want his name to be mentioned here—and the two NYPD officers that shot him—and nine bystanders.
Notice that there was a large concrete planter between the gunman and the two officers, and one behind him. Some news stories have suggested that the officers had no cover and had to simply start shooting in the middle of a crowd of bystanders. The security video makes plain that this is not the case and the officers used poor tactics.
Consider these issues:
(1) Both officers approach the shooter, who is walking down the sidewalk at the curb, bunched together and from his left/rear. They do not try to flank and contain the shooter.
(2) The officers appear to be fixated on the shooter and appear to have little situational awareness, particularly no awareness of available cover or of the surrounding crowd. For instance, there are three people seated on a bench immediately behind the shooter and directly in the officer’s line of fire.
(3) Glancing behind him, the shooter spots the fast approaching officers, pulls his handgun from his briefcase, turns and points it at the officers. This obviously catches them by surprise.
(4) The closest officer, who appears to be left-handed, draws and begins to shoot in what appears to be a sort of Weaver position while simultaneously slowly shuffling to his right (toward the curb) and cover, but the shooter is down and out of the fight before he can ever actually use that cover. His engagement range appears to be about eight feet.
(5) The lagging officer engages from what appears to be 15 feet, but he draws and while crouching and clumsily side stepping to his left (away from the curb) fires one handed. As he side steps, he also steps backward, away from the shooter and any cover. In fact, his actions place bystanders—all of whom are running and ducking for their lives—directly in his line of fire. His final rounds would have been fired from as much as 20 feet.
(6) When the shooter is clearly down and out, the officers do not take time to scan their surroundings to be certain there are no additional threats. In fact, the closest officer immediately starts transmitting on his radio.
Most people assume the police are good and cool shots. They’re used to seeing TV and movie cops take down suspects with single shots from great ranges with perfect precision and coolness. In reality, most police officers are not good shots, and under the stress of deadly force confrontations, have abysmal hit/miss records. In this case, the two officers fired 16 rounds. They did hit the shooter but as Fox News reports:
The volley of gunfire felled Johnson in just a few seconds and left nine other people bleeding on the sidewalk.
In the initial chaos Friday, it wasn’t clear whether Johnson or the officers were responsible for the trail of wounded, but based on ballistic and other evidence, ‘it appears that all nine of the victims were struck either by fragments or by bullets fired by police,’ Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly told reporters on Saturday at a community event in Harlem.
He reiterated that the officers appeared to have no choice but to shoot Johnson, whose body had 10 bullets wounds in the chest, arms and legs.
‘I believe it was handled well,’ Kelly said.
The distance in this case varied from about eight to twenty feet, but the police generally shoot poorly even at gunfight-in-a-telephone-booth ranges. There are many cases on record of cops and bad guys emptying their weapons at each other at point blank range without scoring a single hit.
Keeping in mind that it is easy to Monday morning quarterback such things, there are a number of simple ways this situation could have been handled better:
(1) Rather than immediately running up behind the shooter, the officers could have remained out of sight while keeping the shooter in view and used their radios to prepare officers in the shooter’s line of travel. This would have allowed them to better use cover and to choose the time and place of the confrontation to maximize the chances of catching the shooter unaware and to minimize the danger to bystanders. Even though the shooter had just shot and killed a man, he was doing nothing but walking away from the scene of the crime. It was not necessary to immediately confront him in an uncontrolled manner while surrounded by innocents.
(2) The officers—particularly the one who shot with only one hand while crab-walking to the left and backward—engaged in panic shooting, firing until the man dropped and was obviously incapacitated. They made a number of dangerous shooting mistakes:
When caught in the open, there are two choices: run for cover and then engage the shooter, or stand and immediately engage the shooter. Either shoot well and accurately or move, but not both. Virtually no one can shoot accurately while moving, and TV tactics of firing rounds off blindly to “keep his head down,” absolutely do not apply in the real world, particularly when innocents surround the area of the confrontation. Police officers (and citizens) are absolutely responsible for each and every round they fire.
Shooting one handed while moving is a particularly bad idea. In any panic shooting situation, officers tend to place only a fraction of the rounds fired on target because they are jerking the trigger—which tends to make rounds hit low—they aren’t watching their sights at all (they’re fixated on the target, or perhaps just his gun), and with their gun up and in front of their face, they can’t see what the suspect is doing, if their rounds have been effective, or if they are having the desired effect.
Under virtually any circumstance, officers must adopt a solid Weaver stance and fire no more than two rounds to center mass, then immediately drop to low ready to assess the effectiveness of their fire. This takes only fractions of a second, but prevents panic firing as in this case. If this rational and professional procedure were followed, no more than four rounds would likely have been fired and all four would have been much more likely to have effectively hit and immediately stopped the shooter rather than bystanders.
It is little wonder nine people were hit by bullets or fragments. It now appears that the shooter did not fire a single round at the officers or bystanders, and Mr. Kelly thinks it was handled well. Due to their uncoordinated tactics and panicky shooting, I suspect that at least some of the officer’s bullets ricocheted off the planter behind the shooter and surely, off the sidewalk, producing the fragments that hit bystanders.
There is legal precedence for officers shooting in the middle of crowds. There are cases where officers accidently shooting innocents is legally justified because the danger to those innocents was greater than the danger posed by the officers trying to end that initial danger. A mass- shooting situation where a gunman is blazing away at a surrounding crowd is a classic case. Officers opening fire in that kind of situation are more likely to end the imminent danger; it is worth the risk to the public for them to fire. This was not such a case. The officers provoked an uncontrolled confrontation when the suspect was not posing any immediate danger to the public, but was merely walking away, his gun in his briefcase.
I’ve little doubt that some will think I’m being too hard on the officers. After all, it was a very stressful situation. Indeed it was, but it was made more stressful by the officers themselves who, rather than controlling events to the greatest degree possible, allowed events to control them. Do we not expect police officers to be able to correctly and safely handle stressful situations? Do we not expect them to use their weapons only when absolutely necessary? Do we not expect them to be aware of their surroundings and to avoid shooting innocents? Do we not expect them to be able to shoot accurately when under stress? Do we not expect them to use only the minimum number of rounds necessary to eliminate the threat rather than wildly banging away in a blind panic?
If we do not expect all of this of them, how—other than wearing a uniform—do they differ from any untrained, inexperienced citizen?
Police officers are, in many respects, the product of their training. There is a famous old maxim: “train like you want to fight, because you’ll fight as you’ve trained.” The security video reveals either two officers who have not been properly trained in tactics and shooting under stress, or officers who, having received sufficient and continuously updated training, did not use it. In a virulently anti-gun city, one might be forgiven for thinking that proper and continuous firearm training for even police officers might be a low priority.
So in one of America’s most anti-gun cities, despite some of the most draconian gun laws, a shooting somehow took place. This, of course, cannot speak to the futility of New York’s gun laws—which affect only the law-abiding—but must be the result of the fact that NYC’s draconian socialism is not uniformly applied to the entire nation, for gun control can never be wrong or ineffective.
Perhaps I’m too cynical in believing that Mayor Bloomberg will never allow the necessity of proper and effective police training to overshadow his never-ending crusade to quash the Second Amendment. Perhaps I’m wrong in thinking that politics will keep the NYPD from viewing the same security camera footage I saw and coming to conclusions that will improve training and keep officers from panicky fire into crowds. More likely, the officers will be declared heroes, and Mayor Bloomberg’s disarmament crusade will continue.
For you see, socialism can never be falsified.
thepermit said:
“It was not necessary to immediately confront him in an uncontrolled manner while surrounded by innocents.” Sounds exactly like what happened in Las Vegas. Stupid cop confronts, when he should have simply followed my son into the parking lot and had a civil conversation. Instead, a scared, fat little cop murdered Erik Scott for the “crime” of having a BlackBerry in his hand.
RIP Big Son.
Joel C said:
I don’t know why the officer’s chose to close on their suspect so quickly, nor do I know for sure that they did not have (or think they had) a good reason to do so. As to crowds, I’ve never been there and don’t care if I never, but I can’t imagine New York City has very many uncrowded locations.
Other than that, I agree with everything you’ve got here. What a clusterf**k on wheels!
OrionXIII said:
I feel the need to inject a little levity in a deadly serious conversation – It’s impossible to add to your expert assessment and analysis, so that’s what I’m left with. ;-)
Good thing they were shooting 9mm rounds. Anyone they hit was quite likely to survive with little more than a painful bruise. Even the security guard at the FRC was able to disarm the shooter and then restrain him after being struck. *running and hiding*
Sorry. Poor taste, I just couldn’t resist.
Orion
PS: Seriously though, I believe this IS the sort of situation leading to the choice of bullet, powder load, etc. for police firearms, no? A configuration that is more likely to result in an incapacitating injury than death with a single hit?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Orion XIII:
Thanks for your good points and questions. Police firearm ammunition must be no less powerful and effective than that available to citizens. The goal of any defensive use of a firearm, for the police or citizens, is to stop an attacker as quickly and effectively as necessary. Most people shot with handgun ammunition (in the 80% range) do not, in fact, die. Handgun ammo is simply not very powerful and the much fabled “one-shot stop” is rare indeed outside an immediately debilitating brain or brain stem shot. Even someone shot in the heart may have as much of three minutes of useful consciousness before rapidly dropping blood pressure stops them. I recently wrote an article on police ammo choice for Gun Values Board. It’s available here.
Some have also suggested that officers should use tasers or other less than lethal methods in this and similar situations, but that’s a very bad idea indeed. In most circumstances, officers using tasers when a suspect has the means to attack with deadly force do so only while accompanied by one or more officers covering the suspect with actual firearms in case the TAser fails to achieve the desired result. As it happens, I recently posted an article on that topic at GVB as well. It’s available here.
Thanks again!
OrionXIII said:
Both excellent – no surprise there. I’ve just forwarded several of your articles to other interested parties.
A question for you – Do you know of some place that I can gain access to street shooting statistics? Preferably including shot placement, caliber, manufacturer, type, etc? I’d like to do some analysis on this. Or perhaps you’re aware of existing RELIABLE studies that may have links to their source data?
Thanks again for sharing your time and expertise!
Orion
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Orion XIII:
Thanks for your kind comments. I’m glad the articles are useful.
Regarding the information you seek, that’s a tough one. I’m not aware of any comprehensive database that encompasses all, or even most, of what you seek. Because the FBI does not collect police shooting data as part of the year Uniform Crime Reports, and because police agencies generally don’t want such things publicized or widely known, I’m not sure any such database exists. I’ve seen a variety of articles over the last three or four decades that tried to deal with similar things, but all used quite small samples, and usually regional samples. Unfortunately, I’ve always been less than thrilled with such “studies” and their methodology. I’m afraid I can’t direct you to a specific source.
If anyone can help with this, please feel free to chime in. If not, there’s always Google. I’m sorry I couldn’t be more immediately helpful.
Knuckledraggingwino said:
Try the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports. Call the UCR unit and ask for cding for justifiable homicides by police. This database is not exhaustive, but it is a start.
Also read “Deadly Force, What We Know.”. It includes a study of firearms use and shootings by the City of Portland, Oregon’s police department.
OrionXIII said:
Thank you Wino! The FBI should be an excellent resource for raw data. I hadn’t even thought about the UCR stuff – which is sad as I work with that unit at our agency. LOL
Orion
SlingTrebuchet said:
It looks as if Bloomberg should consider disarming the NYPD as well as the citizens.
I don’t see how legal concealed carry is in any way related to this incident.
What level of formal certified training is required before someone can get a licence?
It is of a higher standard that that of the NYPD?
If concealed carry were legal in NY, and one or more civilians had drawn a weapon anywhere near this incident, the result could well have been a complete bloodbath.
Speaking of bloodbaths – and 9mm ammo….
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/nyregion/police-fired-12-shots-in-killing-near-times-square.htm
Two officers fired 12 shots at the man, Darrius H. Kennedy, after he ignored their orders on Saturday to drop the long kitchen knife …… At least seven of those bullets hit Mr. Kennedy, including three shots to the chest, the police said.
How can you *miss* someone in that situation *five times* out of twelve?
How can you only get *three* hits to the chest if you are trained to shoot at body mass?
His kitchen knife wasn’t that long.
Again – are civilians required to be trained to a higher standard than are the NYPD?
OrionXIII said:
More likely, had a CCW holder engaged the shooter, he would’ve been put down quickly and the situation ended without further bloodshed. That seems to be the case historically.
CCW holders in the states I’m aware of don’t have an annual training requirement – but since the folks who get them are, in the main, firearms enthusiasts, they likely spend considerably more time at the range and practician. Further, since unlike Police, they are not shielded from liability from their shots, they are more likely to be cautious in engaging with a firearm and cautious in their aim.
Statistics nationwide bear this out. When was the last time you heard about a citizen using a firearm (concealed or not) in a defensive situation that resulted in even one innocent casualty, much less 9? With our phobic media, if there had been one, it would STILL be getting national coverage.
Orion
SlingTrebuchet said:
I think it is highly likely that a CCW holder pulling a gun in that situation would have been shot at by those cops. The cops would also have two targets to miss and a greater variety of innocent bystanders to injure.
It’s all very well to practice target-shooting on a range.
It’s an entirely different matter to be in a situation where the targets are not alone shooting back, but at the very least are the ones pointing guns first.
Perhaps enthusiasts might do more range shooting than those cops, but I wouldn’t make any bets that they would be any more cool-headed than were those cops when ‘shit got real’.
As you mentioned to Mike above, an analysis of shooting incidents involving CCW would be interesting.
OrionXIII said:
OH! My bad! My situation was for BEFORE the cops arrive. If you draw a weapon when the police are on scene you are ASKING to be shot. I don’t think ANY CCW holder would be that foolish (Well, I’m sure there are some harboring a ‘Rambo’ complex who might, but still).
Apples and oranges. :) I should probably mention that I train extensively and have for years. Further, I’m an NCO in the US Army (though any opinions stated are my own and not those of the Army as a whole) and work for a Law Enforcement Agency (in IT, not as a sworn member!)…:D Almost every CCW holder I know practices more than the police do. As has been pointed out, Police firearms training budgets get slashed first so if they want to train they do it on their own dime – dimes that are in short supply as most of them are very underpaid for the work they do. Further, training time is eaten up reviewing policies, procedures, etc. rather than range time. (Makes sense – an Officer is FAR more likely to Mirandize a subject, or defuse a domestic violence situation than need to discharge his weapon).
In times of tight budgets and reduced staffing, the Officers are going to be on the street, not on the range.
Orion
Joel C said:
Hi there Sling.
Nope, generally the standard of training required to get a CCW license is not higher than that which police officers receive. Though, in some states, it is not nearly SO much less as you might think! That’s because the cops generally don’t train their firearms skill near as much as you (and most everybody else too) probably expect.
The CCW folks kind of fall into two categories, if you like. There are those who take the training, buy a pistol, get the license and carry either all the time, some of the time, or “meh, forget this”… practically none of the time! That’s fine, cause they (like the other group I’ll describe) are not expected to go looking for trouble. They are not required to run toward the sound of gunfire, and generally (pretty near universally) they don’t.
The other group does the same as that first, but we become (or already were) enthusiastic shooters. We find it fun and we improve our skills as a matter of course, because it’s something we like to do. These are the folks Orion 13 is referring to. But, like the “other group” we are not cops and we don’t pretend to be. Consequentially, CCW carriers very rarely/ almost never wind up in situations which police officers frequently do.
As to the poor shooting you point out… It is hard to believe, isn’t it? Dismaying, in fact. A long time ago I was taught that when the proverbial s**t hits the fan a shooter can pretty reliably expect to see his/her skills degrade by 25% or more. The fight or fight startle and fear reflex to which we are all ruthlessly bound just ain’t conducive to good marksmanship!
The only practical solution to this, if you expect that you may ever be in a gunfight, is to train and raise your skills to a level where 25 to 50% off still leaves you with enough muster to get the job done and get it done acceptably well. That requires a fairly high level of skill, yes, but it is attainable. It only requires a bit of good training and lots of repetition. It certainly isn’t rocket science, hell, it’s easier then tennis!
The solution to this EPSB shoot isn’t to disarm the cops (though I’d like to think you wrote that tongue in cheek) but to train them better! Unfortunately, given that what I’ve written here has been known for a very long time now, it doesn’t seem to be happening much.
Joel said:
Mike,
I see. The rampage was actually the police with Poor Gun Control. How ironic.
Leonard Jones said:
Back in 1980 or 1981, I knew a firearms instructor for the city of Hawthorne Ca.
He told me that most of the cops he worked with were “Lousy shots.” He said
very few shot more than the required periodic qualifications, and all lacked proper
tactical training.
I later became concerned abut PD’s switching to automatics, and later to high
capacity autos. In the 60s, a veteran cop might shoot you once if he mistakes
a gesture, but now it is not uncommon for someone to be hit with a volley of
20 or more rounds. There is no walking that back.
I now realize it is not the weapon, but the training. It is probably still true that
most cops never fire their weapons in the line of duty. So when confronted by
an armed bad guy, the adrenalin kicks in and it’s “Spray and pray.”
30 years ago, I taught my 105 pound 13 year old sister how to shoot. She was
deadly accurate with my Mo. 1911. Either one of us could deliver one well aimed
shot, but we were not trained police officers.
Nanny Bloomberg needs to lay off the sugar and sodium crusades and start
investing in a little firearms training for the NYPD!
Knuckledraggingwino said:
Obviously; the cops didn’t justbemploy poor tactics, they employed no tactics. They actually approach from the same vector so that only one of them could get a shot at him. This also made them more vulnerable to being engaged in rapid succession.
This being said, it seems obvious to me that the cops were fearful rather than confident in their abilities when confronting an armed man. It takes courage as well as training to stand your ground to engage a threat at close range with disciplined gun fire rather than seek cover. Both officers attempted to shoot while maneuvering for cover with abysmal results. Their movements actually put more bystanders in the line of fire.
I could pontificate about the officers suffering from hopliphobia and the anatomical short comings that cause their Freudian phobia of firearms. However; it seems obvious that officers who are constantly told that they are outgunned by the criminals are going to suffer from paranoia. This excessive fear is either going to incapacitate them or provoke the use of excessive force as happened in the Eric Scott case. Read “Deadly Force, What we know” published by the police executives research forum.
John said:
Dated but still interesting… it’s a NYPD shooting study.
http://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Shooting/Combat.htm
styrgwillidar said:
Well, The Truth About Guns is reporting that part of the problem is NYPDs insistence on Dual Action Only pistols with 12 lb triggers for every shot fired. I would never have that set up for a weapon I intended to use for self defense. I’m guessing that set-up wasn’t chosen by the knowledgeable police who work the streets.
So, one of the police was trying to shoot one-handed as he was moving with a 12 lb trigger. Anybody really surprised he missed a few times?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/08/foghorn/nypds-choice-of-firearm-may-have-contributed-to-the-terrible-shooting/
styrgwillidar said:
Did a bit of googling. At least in 2010 NYPD had 12 lb triggers. From their own firearms discharge report published in November 2011,page 45:
All NYPD service pistols are “double
action only” (DAO), meaning they have a
two‐stage trigger pull for each round fired
(unlike single‐action weapons, which can be
“cocked,” resulting in a one‐stage trigger
pull, which is smoother and easier). Additionally,
all NYPD weapons are also modified
to have a heavier‐than‐stock 12‐lb trigger
pull; this diminishes the likelihood of unintentional
discharges but also affects aiming.
Nevertheless, it balances the fact that NYPD
pistols do not have safeties, and are carried
“hot,” with a round in the chamber.
Click to access afdr_20111116.pdf
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Styrgwillidar:
Thanks for the updates. I’ll be including this information in a followup article later this week. With 12 pound double action triggers, it’s amazing they hit anything but bystanders and nearby buildings.
Thanks again!
Marty said:
Watching the first few seconds of the video, you can see bystanders and the shooter turn and look back at the cops (the bystanders then looking back at the shooter).
That strongly suggests that the cops were yelling at the guy – obviously they’ve never heard of “the element of surprise”. Not only did it alert the perp, it enabled him to get the drop on them. Surprising that neither of the officers were among the wounded.
OTOH, it also speaks to the notion that the perp had accomplished what he set out to do, and was simply trying to blend into the crowd ie. no intent on committing general mayhem. But that wouldn’t fit into Bloomberg’s narrative.
On the subject of police marksmanship, I recall an incident about 4 years ago in London, Ontario, Canada where an officer chasing a suspect through backyards at night thought the perp pulled a gun (he didn’t). The officer fired 19 shots – 1+ full mags, from about 10′, without hitting the suspect. Although you could probably count the suspect’s fully loaded undershorts as an injury, at least to his dignity.
SlingTrebuchet said:
The officers were not wounded because they were both on the same side of the guy.
They did at least manage to get their shots off in the general direction of the target.
I’m not sure if the guy did any shooting.
There is an assumption that the ‘object’ in his hand was the gun, although he does seem to be holding it in a very novel limp-wristed way :)
Pingback: To Terrorist Or Not To Terrorist… | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Can The NYPD Ever Stop Shooting Innocents? | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Who Are We? | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Lessons Of Tamir Rice | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns: Leave It To The Police | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Police: Commanding Mistakes | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns? You Don’t Need Guns; Let The Professionals Handle It | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: You Don’t Need Guns; Rely On The Professionals, 2023 | Stately McDaniel Manor