Unarmed Man Is Charged With Wounding Bystanders Shot by Police

[ryoder 1,590]

I can't believe the DA was in on these bogus charges.
[facepalm]
So now the public is responsible for the actions of incompetent cops?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/unarmed-man-is-charged-with-wounding-bystanders-shot-by-police-near-times-square.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Pacific 0]

Was the suicidal man even shot...did police miss him completely!?

I'm sure the department's sexual harassment training is more thorough and up to date their firing range qualifications.

[shropshire 0]

WTF?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[D22369 0]

our country has truly gone insane...


Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[turtlespeed 221]

D22369

our country has truly gone insane...


Roy

Not the county as a whole, just places like Chicago, LA, and NYC.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[champu 1]

ryoder

I can't believe the DA was in on these bogus charges.
[facepalm]
So now the public is responsible for the actions of incompetent cops?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/unarmed-man-is-charged-with-wounding-bystanders-shot-by-police-near-times-square.html

What do you mean "in on"? I think "solely responsible for" is more appropriate here. It would be interesting to review the grand jury proceedings to see what they were allowed to consider in indicting him.

"The defendant was breaking the law in some way... yadda yadda yadda... two people sustained gun shot wounds and we want to charge him with felony assault."

"You yadda yadda'd over the most important part."

"No I didn't, I mentioned he was breaking the law."

[ryoder 1,590]

champu

What do you mean "in on"? I think "solely responsible for" is more appropriate here.

I can't disagree.
I just wish I had a license to practice law in that state so I could volunteer to take the case pro bono, for the opportunity to tell the jury what an asshole that DA is.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[grue 1]

Why were the cops even firing at an unarmed man?

Cowards.

cavete terrae.

[gearless_chris 1]

They had to kill him to keep him from killing himself.

"If it wasn't easy stupid people couldn't do it", Duane.

My momma said I could be anything I wanted when I grew up, so I became an a$$hole.

[ChrisD 0]

The report said "reaching into his pants..." or something similar.


It's all about the what if in this day and age. They trumped up the charges to protect the police. It's all about the police. The Da trumped up the charges caus he / she gets to walk around and point to their record. It's all about your record of convictions, not about your duty and obligation to the truth. That's why lawyers have wrecked Americka. They know but they get to walk around saying I have to follow orders!

It's all about the what if.

Same thing about that woman in DC, what if, what if, what if....


Basically we live in a country and the what if,... is ok to kill you!

The what if has become the justification.

C

Get used to it, cause it is and will continue to increase and get worse...

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[regulator 0]

maybe he was reaching in his pants to scratch his junk.

[ChrisD 0]

regulator

maybe he was reaching in his pants to scratch his junk.

Don't laugh man,

but it already has past the point where I wouldn't do something like that in D.C.


Even if my ex wife's crabs attacked all at once and hurt like the thing was on fire.


C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[turtlespeed 221]

ChrisD

***maybe he was reaching in his pants to scratch his junk.

Don't laugh man,

but it already has past the point where I wouldn't do something like that in D.C.


Even if my ex wife's crabs attacked all at once and hurt like the thing was on fire.


C




What if the liquid lsd bottle broke?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[davjohns 1]

Multiple thoughts.

I'm not surprised that NY police can't hit a target. Still, firing when there are civilians in the background shows poor judgment. Whether they were justified in shooting to begin with is questionable. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt since i wasn't there. Still, the civilians in the background makes you wonder about their overall decision making ability.

Some states once had something called Felony Murder. The idea was that if you were in the commission of a felony and someone died as a result, it was your fault. If you are robbing a bank and your partner is shot by police, you are a murderer. it sounds like that kind of theory was applied here. Not sure about NY law or if anyone still uses this theory.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

davjohns

Multiple thoughts.

I'm not surprised that NY police can't hit a target. Still, firing when there are civilians in the background shows poor judgment. Whether they were justified in shooting to begin with is questionable. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt since i wasn't there. Still, the civilians in the background makes you wonder about their overall decision making ability.

Some states once had something called Felony Murder. The idea was that if you were in the commission of a felony and someone died as a result, it was your fault. If you are robbing a bank and your partner is shot by police, you are a murderer. it sounds like that kind of theory was applied here. Not sure about NY law or if anyone still uses this theory.

Felony Murder is still around. It was originally intended to place responsibility on peripheral participants. For example, if a victim was killed during a bank robbery, the driver of the getaway car, not even in the building, could be held responsible for the death. Conspiracy or accessory either weren't strong enough charges or were being defeated because the peripheral participants would claim that the original plan was that no one would get hurt. It's been expanded to include the death of perpetrators, and that's cool too. You go into a crime threatening to kill someone, don't be surprised to face murder charges.

In this particular case, the police shot the dude because he "reached into his pants." I don't completely agree with it, but I'm not surprised by it. If you get a nervous cop pointing a gun at a suspect, don't be too shocked when the suspect gets shot for making a sudden move that can be perceived as threatening.
The cop shooting without paying attention to the background (make sure of your target and what's beyond) needs to go back to basic gun safety training.
But that's true of a lot of cops.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[champu 1]

davjohns

Multiple thoughts.

I'm not surprised that NY police can't hit a target. Still, firing when there are civilians in the background shows poor judgment. Whether they were justified in shooting to begin with is questionable. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt since i wasn't there. Still, the civilians in the background makes you wonder about their overall decision making ability.

Some states once had something called Felony Murder. The idea was that if you were in the commission of a felony and someone died as a result, it was your fault. If you are robbing a bank and your partner is shot by police, you are a murderer. it sounds like that kind of theory was applied here. Not sure about NY law or if anyone still uses this theory.

From the article

Quote

Initially Mr. Broadnax was arrested on misdemeanor charges of menacing, drug possession and resisting arrest. But the Manhattan district attorney’s office persuaded a grand jury to charge Mr. Broadnax with assault, a felony carrying a maximum sentence of 25 years.

So he wasn't otherwise committing a felony, which makes charging him with felonies by association rather bizarre to me. I guess there's the "felony murder" rule and this is the "misdemeanor assault" rule.

Really this is just a bullshit transference of responsibility. Hell, with this and the felony murder cases where one of the criminals is killed as precedents, police could come up to you for loitering, beat the shit out of you and then charge you with your own assault as a felony. "But for the defendants loitering, the crime of assault would never have occurred!"

[rehmwa 2]

wolfriverjoe

In this particular case, the police shot the dude because he "reached into his pants." I don't completely agree with it, but I'm not surprised by it. If you get a nervous cop pointing a gun at a suspect, don't be too shocked when the suspect gets shot for making a sudden move that can be perceived as threatening.

Of course it's situational - but:

1 - "I don't completely agree with it" Cops are under no obligation to wait until they get shot before returning fire. They 'should' get the safety margin and benefit of protecting themselves. I don't see a disagreement, this isn't the movies and a quick draw scene. There is a point where that 'threatening move' reaches a point of no return where the suspects action, if it would be a real threat of injury or death, will be beyond a safe response. The cop must fire. Sometimes, this occurs before the intent of a stupid move can be clearly known.

2 - "If you get a nervous cop pointing a gun at a suspect" - Just because they fire at someone making a potentially life threatening move, doesn't mean the the cop is nervous. He might be....but, he might also be in complete control and making a very clear and rational decision in that particular scenario.


I'd rather have rational and calm cops that are ready and capable of taking immediate action to protect themselves and others RATHER than overly sensitive types that tie themselves into emotional, indecisive knots trying to relate to any nuances that are hard to decipher after the fact, let alone at the time.

Hold still, do what they say at the time. IF they abuse their position, there will time to deal with that legally and later, while still alive.


This post is a digression from the thread, just thoughts on Joe's couple of comments. I see those flavor of comments a lot.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Also from the article is an indication that the guy was having some serious mental issues. Rather than actually get the guy some treatment, they'll try to put him in prison for a couple of decades.

Because as we all know, prisons - not hospitals - are the best places to put the mentally ill.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

rehmwa

Of course it's situational - but:

1 - "I don't completely agree with it" Cops are under no obligation to wait until they get shot before returning fire. They 'should' get the safety margin and benefit of protecting themselves. I don't see a disagreement, this isn't the movies and a quick draw scene. There is a point where that 'threatening move' reaches a point of no return where the suspects action, if it would be a real threat of injury or death, will be beyond a safe response. The cop must fire. Sometimes, this occurs before the intent of a stupid move can be clearly known.

2 - "If you get a nervous cop pointing a gun at a suspect" - Just because they fire at someone making a potentially life threatening move, doesn't mean the the cop is nervous. He might be....but, he might also be in complete control and making a very clear and rational decision in that particular scenario.


I'd rather have rational and calm cops that are ready and capable of taking immediate action to protect themselves and others RATHER than overly sensitive types that tie themselves into emotional, indecisive knots trying to relate to any nuances that are hard to decipher after the fact, let alone at the time.

Hold still, do what they say at the time. IF they abuse their position, there will time to deal with that legally and later, while still alive.


This post is a digression from the thread, just thoughts on Joe's couple of comments. I see those flavor of comments a lot.

I agree that cops often have to make very sudden life-or-death decisions just like this. And if they guy was reaching for a gun, for the cop to wait until he actually saw the gun coming out of the pocket would be too late to adequately defend himself. That's why I don't completely disagree with it either. There have been numerous cases where a cop shot an unarmed person who made a move that was misinterpreted as a threat. There have been cases where the cop didn't shoot, some where there was no threat, others where there was. And some of the cops that were holding fire in the face of real threats died. That is the nature of the job.

And I would guess that just about anybody, including cops, would be pretty jacked up on adrenaline under these circumstances. Its an instinctive reaction that is very hard to stop. The fact that this particular cop opened fire with civilians in the background pretty much rules out "In complete control and making a very clear and rational decision"

And I agree that if a cop is pointing a gun at you, telling you to stand still, it's a pretty good idea to do that.
Argue right or wrong, legal or illegal, all that crap later.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[ChrisD 0]

lawrocket

Also from the article is an indication that the guy was having some serious mental issues. Rather than actually get the guy some treatment, they'll try to put him in prison for a couple of decades.

Because as we all know, prisons - not hospitals - are the best places to put the mentally ill.

Your scaren me dude.

this is most excellent sarchasm....

Do we agree on something????

C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[davjohns 1]

rehmwa

***In this particular case, the police shot the dude because he "reached into his pants." I don't completely agree with it, but I'm not surprised by it. If you get a nervous cop pointing a gun at a suspect, don't be too shocked when the suspect gets shot for making a sudden move that can be perceived as threatening.

Of course it's situational - but:

1 - "I don't completely agree with it" Cops are under no obligation to wait until they get shot before returning fire. They 'should' get the safety margin and benefit of protecting themselves. I don't see a disagreement, this isn't the movies and a quick draw scene. There is a point where that 'threatening move' reaches a point of no return where the suspects action, if it would be a real threat of injury or death, will be beyond a safe response. The cop must fire. Sometimes, this occurs before the intent of a stupid move can be clearly known.

2 - "If you get a nervous cop pointing a gun at a suspect" - Just because they fire at someone making a potentially life threatening move, doesn't mean the the cop is nervous. He might be....but, he might also be in complete control and making a very clear and rational decision in that particular scenario.


I'd rather have rational and calm cops that are ready and capable of taking immediate action to protect themselves and others RATHER than overly sensitive types that tie themselves into emotional, indecisive knots trying to relate to any nuances that are hard to decipher after the fact, let alone at the time.

Hold still, do what they say at the time. IF they abuse their position, there will time to deal with that legally and later, while still alive.


This post is a digression from the thread, just thoughts on Joe's couple of comments. I see those flavor of comments a lot.

As I said, I'll give the cops the benefit of the doubt since I was not there. However, I have been there. I would not have fired until I saw a weapon. I've actually held my fire even after a weapon was presented. Two people walked away from bad situations because I knew I was good enough that I had time to talk them down. Most police are not. That's why I'm giving these guys a break.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[ChrisD 0]

ya know I understand where yo are coming from, what with all of the media and spin on everything that exists every day but this is wrong and really is a "what if" in disguise. I'm sorry that so many of you can't see this for what it really is.

Quote

Of course it's situational - but:

1 - "I don't completely agree with it" Cops are under no obligation to wait until they get shot before returning fire. They 'should' get the safety margin and benefit of protecting themselves.

What you call a "safety margin" is murder.

Cops have to wait, this poor victim, and yes he is a victim is going to pay the price.

They knew this when they put on the badge. But in the new Americka I guess this is ok. Too bad it happens with ever increasing frequency and most goes unreported.

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[champu 1]

My posts thus far in the thread have just been about the DA and the charges being pursued, but there are a few issues. 1) That the cops opened fire 2) That they missed and hit bystanders 3) That the DA is charging the guy for negligent failure to be hit when shot at.

I've posted a couple times in the past about LEOs opening fire too readily (to much contempt), and I want to point out one of the key differences here which makes me more okay with the idea in this case. In the case of the guy who was looking for something in his back seat and the kid with the replica rifle, the police shot the person in the process of making contact with them. That is to say, if you approach someone from behind and start yelling things at someone (I don't care if it's "Hey you!" or "Police, don't move!"), there's a decent probability they will get up/turn/make some form of motion to make eye contact with you to figure out what the hell is going on. The odds only go up if they are not an actor playing a suspect in a cop drama. If you put yourself in a position where you feel you have no choice but to shoot the person for making a predictable motion like this in response to you yelling at them, then they never really had a chance, and whatever protocol you were following needs to be reviewed.

As you and others have qualified I wasn't there for this incident so I can't say for sure, but it sounds like here the police had established contact with the person and it was some reasonable amount of time after the contact was made that he went for his pocket and they shot at him. So while I still may not like it, I'm less disgusted by it.

[davjohns 1]

PSA -

It has been some time since I was last pulled over. The tag on my Jeep had fallen down and wasn't readily visible. (YJ Wranglers had tags that folded down to reveal the cas cap).

I rolled down my tinted window, turned on the interior light, and placed my hands on the wheel in plain view. This was to help the officer see what was going on in the vehicle and that there was no threat. When he reached my window, I explained that my license was in my portfolio along with a pistol. That was why I had not gone after it as yet. He thanked me and told me to go ahead and pull it out. We had a brief, polite conversation and went our separate ways.

Keep in mind that in any situation, most police are trying to make sure they go home alive. They have a secondary concern about everyone else going home alive. Keep this in mind and act accordingly. Making a person with a badge and a gun nervous is not a good idea. For all you know, this is his/her first day on the job.

My first felony stop (police jargon for a full blown takedown of a suspect vehicle), I remember being cold all out of proportion to the weather and I was so tense I don't think I could turn my head for an hour afterwards. I hate to think what would have happened if I wasn't following my training officer's lead and the stop went badly.

I am NOT making excuses for the police in this story. I am inclined to say they need to be off the streets. I just recognize that I don't have all of the facts and the media is terribly misleading.

As to the DA...they tend to be elected. They do things to appease voter emotional reactions. That always goes well, doesn't it?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[champu 1]

davjohns

I rolled down my tinted window, turned on the interior light, and placed my hands on the wheel in plain view. This was to help the officer see what was going on in the vehicle and that there was no threat. When he reached my window, I explained that my license was in my portfolio along with a pistol. That was why I had not gone after it as yet. He thanked me and told me to go ahead and pull it out. We had a brief, polite conversation and went our separate ways.

Keep in mind that in any situation, most police are trying to make sure they go home alive. They have a secondary concern about everyone else going home alive. Keep this in mind and act accordingly. Making a person with a badge and a gun nervous is not a good idea. For all you know, this is his/her first day on the job.

I'm fully on board with all of that. That's all also happening after the LEO has made contact with you. He or she has their lights on, you've identified them in the rear view mirror, it's clear they want you to pull over... great... make your actions count in your favor.