NYPD shoots bystanders; suspect charged

[philip964]

It would seem violating rule 4 would trump the DA's charges. But that's just me. Had the suspect been armed, well then you have a case.

Did the police believe he was armed?

[WildBill]

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 agree, if it was justifiable for the police to use deadly force. Based on his alleged statements, he may get a "free pass" to a long stay at Bellevue.

[JP171]

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 .

sorry boss, can't agree, if I have to use my weapon and hit a bystander the person that caused me to use my weapon isn't going to get charged I am, and so should the 2 NYC police ...... they should have tried other means as according to the story there was no clear threat and not even an indication of one other than suicidal ideation and attempt. Specially when their supervisor took him out with a taser

[jmra]

Has anyone ever seen a news story where a NY cop actually hit something he was aiming at?

[rbwhatever1]

I haven't seen any. I assume that would be big news from coast to coast. Shooting innocent bystanders is getting so normal that now they're shifting blame for those "errant bullets" to the "unarmed huddled masses" they were shooting at.

Wake up NYC! If you're being shot at by the State you need to move closer to the shooter and try to catch all those bullets before you get in more trouble.

[EEllis]

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?

Because it you wait until you see and confirm it's a gun you will be shot. It's been shown to be true time and time again. Get a friend and try out some scenarios. Have him use a couple of different items and you only shoot when you "know" it's a gun. He should get you most of the time.

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.

You are making an argument based on a logical fallacy here. You say "when he clearly was not a deadly threat" but that is not a given so the rest of your statement does not follow. What if the guy was doing something like trying to commit suicide by cop? Making moves that were designed to make others believe he had a firearm when he didn't? He then would be trying to look like he was a deadly threat to induce the suicide by cop so obviously a person can be unarmed and still present like a deadly threat.

[EEllis]

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.

But why don't we leave it where it is. The officer doesn't pull out in the street and hits anyone but instead crashed into a car in minute 5 of your police chase that occurred when you failed to pull over. Where does the logic stop? With the Jury. We need to trust the jury can understand the difference between the two scenarios and apply the law reasonable and correctly.

[Excaliber]

Words aren't sufficient here.

The legal thought behind this charging decision merits a triple face palm.

[jmra]

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.

But why don't we leave it where it is. The officer doesn't pull out in the street and hits anyone but instead crashed into a car in minute 5 of your police chase that occurred when you failed to pull over. Where does the logic stop? With the Jury. We need to trust the jury can understand the difference between the two scenarios and apply the law reasonable and correctly.

I don't think so. If the judge has any sense whatsoever this charge never makes it to a jury.

[rbwhatever1]

Too bad we can't "beam away" all the idiots...

We could rebuild this nearly empty city into a 2nd Amendment loving big gulp drinking haven.

[EEllis]

I don't think so. If the judge has any sense whatsoever this charge never makes it to a jury.

That isn't and shouldn't be how it works. Now we don't have all the details so it's hard to speak to this particular case but it's clear that a person can act n such a way that they should know, and that they even want, cops to act using deadly force. If a person does so in a manner and location that results in bystanders being hurt or killed then they are of course legally liable. Unless a judge rules that there is in no possible way a jury could ever find that someone acted in such a manner they shouldn't dismiss such a case. In this case while the article is clearly written with the obvious belief of the reporter that the shooting was unjustified no real evidence or proof is given. And the prosecution, if they are at all ethical, can't really talk about their case or the reasoning behind their decisions until after the case has been tried.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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 think that's too broad of a statement, especially when the injuries to or death of an innocent 3rd person is caused by the gross negligence or recklessness of the officer(s).

In Texas and many other states, if a person participates in a felony (other than manslaughter) and in doing so a person is killed (even one of the criminals), they are guilty of "felony murder" per TPC §19.02(b)(3). This is how the get-away driver in a robbery can be charged with murder if the clerk or even one of the robbers is killed during the robbery or the escape.

I have no idea what NY law is on assaults, but if this event happened in Texas, I don't see any assault charge that could be brought against the subject and rightfully so. He didn't attack anyone and even if one of the LEO's victims had died, the subject was not committing a felony, so the "felony murder" rule wouldn't apply in Texas. I do not agree with making the unintended injury or death of an innocent person a strict liability criminal offense for either LEO or non-LEO; it depends upon all of the surrounding circumstances. However, I also don't agree with shielding an officer from prosecution for reckless conduct. If anything, they should be held to at least the same standard as non-LEO's if not a higher standard. Again, it depends upon the totality of the circumstances. The NYC shooting was worlds apart from Luby's in Killeen in 1991. If a LEO or non-LEO had fired on George Hennard and inadvertently hit an innocent person, then that clearly would not have been reckless conduct because of the need to stop the mass murderer. Even in a NYC-style event in Texas, if the subject actually produced a weapon it may have justified engaging even with innocent bystanders as a backstop, but other factors such as actual skill level, etc. would still have to be addressed. The bottom line is this -- engaging a target knowing that innocent bystanders are in the line of fire is not action to be taken lightly for LEO or non-LEO.

Chas.

[VMI77]

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.

I think you called it on this one. The charge is too ridiculous to actually be brought to trial. They're probably trying for a plea so they can say the guy accepted liability by agreeing to the plea.

[cb1000rider]

You are making an argument based on a logical fallacy here. You say "when he clearly was not a deadly threat" but that is not a given so the rest of your statement does not follow. What if the guy was doing something like trying to commit suicide by cop? Making moves that were designed to make others believe he had a firearm when he didn't? He then would be trying to look like he was a deadly threat to induce the suicide by cop so obviously a person can be unarmed and still present like a deadly threat.

I mean clearly he wasn't a deadly threat (after the fact). No way the LEO could have known that up front.
I dunno what you do in a situation where you've got a back drop full of people and you're sure he's a deadly threat. I guess you take the shot because it's going to get bad either way. Up until that point, it's a tough call and understand why it might go badly.

However, in regard to charging that guy with assault, how is it any different that an officer involved accident while trying to catch up to me to give me a speeding ticket? Shouldn't we charge motorists with any accident between when the pursuit starts and the motorist stops (I'm not talking about a non-pursuit case here where the civilian is being caught up to)?

[rbwhatever1]

Good thing NYPD was not carrying tommy guns....