TexasCHLforum.com

PLEASE no broad police bashing. On its face, this looks really bad for NYPD and the prosecutors over reaching. But all I know is what I read in below story.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/ny ... quare.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unarmed Man Is Charged With Wounding Bystanders Shot by Police Near Times Square

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
December 4, 2013

An unarmed, emotionally disturbed man shot at by the police as he was lurching around traffic near Times Square in September has been charged with assault, on the theory that he was responsible for bullet wounds suffered by two bystanders, according to an indictment unsealed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Wednesday.

The man, Glenn Broadnax, 35, of Brooklyn, created a disturbance on Sept. 14, wading into traffic at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue and throwing himself into the path of oncoming cars.

. . .

Mariann Wang, a lawyer representing Sahar Khoshakhlagh, one of the women who was wounded, said the district attorney should be pursuing charges against the two officers who fired their weapons in a crowd, not against Mr. Broadnax. “It’s an incredibly unfortunate use of prosecutorial discretion to be prosecuting a man who didn’t even injure my client,” she said. “It’s the police who injured my client.”

One should expect to be charged for an action that causes police to any force to include deadly force. Just because they missed doesn't give him a free pass .

Horrible title - back to media school for someone.. How about "Unarmed suspect charged with wounding bystanders"?


I might be able to understand a LEO shooting someone for reaching in his her pocket. PDs should advertise more effectively though - it might lead to fewer deaths: "If you don't follow directions and reach into a pocket, we will try to kill you". I'd rather see that on police cars rather than "protect and serve". It's a much more attention grabbing motto.

I don't understand why you take a shot at someone that you haven't confirmed as a deadly threat with a backdrop full of people. Maybe it's because I haven't been in that adrenalin fueled type of event? Before you even raise a gun, aren't you going to think about the backdrop?

And lastly, I don't understand a criminal justice system that charges an unarmed guy with assault when he clearly was not a deadly threat. If you follow that to it's logical conclusion, any action that I might take that results in LEO gunfire, I'm inherently responsible for, regardless of how justified or unjustified that use of force was. It's no different than having an offer club me and accidentally hurting someone else, then charging me with two crimes.

I'm calmed down by recognizing that hopefully this is a pretty isolated incident in day to day public/police interaction.

I don't agree with this at all.

Yes, the bad guy shouldn't have made stupid movements or shouldn't have been acting stupid to begin with but it was the officers' decision to shoot and they're ultimately responsible for what comes out of the barrel and where it lands in my opinion. It's not that guys fault that the NYPD can't shoot.

The NYPD and the officers involved should be held responsible for the shoot when it was clear that a Taser could be used with more effectiveness in that situation.

The NYPD really needs to work on shooting. I'm sure some of them can shoot but do they think that because they've banned guns that they don't need to worry about lethal threats or using lethal force anymore?

CoffeeNut wrote:I don't agree with this at all.

Yes, the bad guy shouldn't have made stupid movements or shouldn't have been acting stupid to begin with but it was the officers' decision to shoot and they're ultimately responsible for what comes out of the barrel and where it lands in my opinion. It's not that guys fault that the NYPD can't shoot.

The NYPD and the officers involved should be held responsible for the shoot when it was clear that a Taser could be used with more effectiveness in that situation.

The NYPD really needs to work on shooting. I'm sure some of them can shoot but do they think that because they've banned guns that they don't need to worry about lethal threats or using lethal force anymore?

Let's take this a step further. You are going 7mph over the speed limit. An officer is parked on the side of the road. As he pulls onto the road to stop you he pulls out in front of a car and kills the driver in the other car. You are now charged with vehicular manslaughter? Where does this line of logic stop? Very dangerous thought process. Hope the judge tells the DA he's an idiot.

CoffeeNut wrote: The NYPD and the officers involved should be held responsible for the shoot when it was clear that a Taser could be used with more effectiveness in that situation.

I thought that some PDs were prohibited from "switching" once that firearm was pulled? I guess you have to pop-off a few, when that doesn't work, you can then switch to non-lethal means... Ok, that's a bit mean spirited, but sheesh... Unbelievable here. It just illustrates the no-matter-what alignment between prosecutors and PDs.

On this issue, I'm good with a few people losing their ability to make a living for a while.. Especially those in the DA's office.

texanjoker wrote:One should expect to be charged for an action that causes police to any force to include deadly force. Just because they missed doesn't give him a free pass .

Agree, but I think the rub here is whether they were justified to shoot at all? Hands in his pockets, no gun. By no means do I intend to second guess as I wasn't there, but it don't sound good based solely on the report.

cb1000rider wrote:Horrible title - back to media school for someone.. How about "Unarmed suspect charged with wounding bystanders"?

doh! you're right ... tried to fix it, still not very good ... kinda says something about how convoluted the story is that you can't describe it accurately in 7-8 words

texanjoker wrote:One should expect to be charged for an action that causes police to any force to include deadly force. Just because they missed doesn't give him a free pass .

So charge him appropriately - disturbing the peace. Commit him for being a danger to himself or others. Maybe charge his with resisting...
Charging him with assault on the public? That's what our justice system is these days... I wonder if that helps deflect the civil responsibility?

A-R wrote: Agree, but I think the rub here is whether they were justified to shoot at all? Hands in his pockets, no gun. By no means do I intend to second guess as I wasn't there, but it don't sound good based solely on the report.

I pretty much accept that if you're deemed to be physically threatening (over 12 years old, under 80 years old) and you make a furtive move, you can justifiably be shot if you're not following directions. There isn't any reason why LEOs should take a beating just so a suspect doesn't get shot.. Besides, there is a greater danger if they are physically incapacitated.

I don't get the backdrop issue.. Maybe joker can weigh in here, but isn't that in consideration before shooting - or is that you're just focused on that limited area and not what is in the background?

cb1000rider wrote:

A-R wrote: Agree, but I think the rub here is whether they were justified to shoot at all? Hands in his pockets, no gun. By no means do I intend to second guess as I wasn't there, but it don't sound good based solely on the report.

I pretty much accept that if you're deemed to be physically threatening (over 12 years old, under 80 years old) and you make a furtive move, you can justifiably be shot if you're not following directions. There isn't any reason why LEOs should take a beating just so a suspect doesn't get shot.. Besides, there is a greater danger if they are physically incapacitated.

I don't get the backdrop issue.. Maybe joker can weigh in here, but isn't that in consideration before shooting - or is that you're just focused on that limited area and not what is in the background?

Agree, I just didn't see much in the way of life-threatening movements by the suspect described in the story (again, one article is only info I have).

A-R wrote: Agree, I just didn't see much in the way of life-threatening movements by the suspect described in the story (again, one article is only info I have).

The only way that *ever* works out in a suspects favor is if there happens to be a camera.
Hey, why not give the LEOs 48 hrs to make sure there weren't any?

I wonder how differently this story would read if a CHL feared for his life and missed his target hitting two bystanders?

texanjoker wrote:One should expect to be charged for an action that causes police to any force to include deadly force. Just because they missed doesn't give him a free pass .

I would agree that you should expect to be charged for an ACTUAL action you committed....not so much in this situation...at least AS it is reported. If he was fighting with them, I see no problem with them using physical force or a Taser to control him, but the only action reported, was that he was "wading into traffic and throwing himself in the path of oncoming vehicles". Doesn't make much sense to shoot him, to prevent him from hurting himself. It does not say that he ever struck one of the officers physically, and he was only facing misdemeanor charges. Unless there's a lot more to the story, I can't see how the officers could justify shooting at him in that situation, and I think charging him with assault for the injuries actually caused by the officer's conduct is ridiculous.

talltex wrote:

texanjoker wrote:One should expect to be charged for an action that causes police to any force to include deadly force. Just because they missed doesn't give him a free pass .

I would agree that you should expect to be charged for an ACTUAL action you committed....not so much in this situation...at least AS it is reported. If he was fighting with them, I see no problem with them using physical force or a Taser to control him, but the only action reported, was that he was "wading into traffic and throwing himself in the path of oncoming vehicles". Doesn't make much sense to shoot him, to prevent him from hurting himself. It does not say that he ever struck one of the officers physically, and he was only facing misdemeanor charges. Unless there's a lot more to the story, I can't see how the officers could justify shooting at him in that situation, and I think charging him with assault for the injuries actually caused by the officer's conduct is ridiculous.

This is about attempting to move liability from the police to elsewhere. This has more to do with the lawsuit than it does justice.