Jump to content

30 posts in this topic

Posted

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.

A curious crowd grew. Police officers arrived and tried to corral Mr. Broadnax, a 250-pound man. When he reached into his pants pocket, two officers, who, the police said, thought he was pulling a gun, opened fire, missing Mr. Broadnax, but hitting two nearby women. Finally, a police sergeant knocked Mr. Broadnax down with a Taser.

 

The shootings once again raised questions about the police use of firearms in crowded areas and drew comparisons to a shooting a year ago, when officers struck nine bystanders in front of the Empire State Building when they killed an armed murder suspect.

 

Initially Mr. Broadnax was arrested on misdemeanor charges of menacing, drug possession and resisting arrest. But the Manhattan district attorney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sounds like the police officers need better training on how to use a firearm.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They shouldn't always assume that reaching into pockets means they have a weapon. :/ Also, I thought police were meant trained to hit with accuracy. :s

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As discussed in the Issues forum previously, police weapons training in a great many US jurisdictions is abysmal, with a civilian licensed to carry several times less likely to hit an innocent party than cops are. It's such a huge problem the Dept. of Justice and FBI are waving red flags all over the place. Worse, many cops may only re-qualify with their weapon once or twice a year, maybe 50-100 rounds each time. IOW, they can't hit the broad side of a bulls ass.

This is a great example.

OTOH, the law is that if you commit a crime you are responsible for the fallout. If, for example, your partner in crime is killed by the victim you could be charged with murder. If this idiot hadn't done what he did the cops wouldn't have been involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Pushing blame onto someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It sounds like the police should have used tasers in the first place. Thankfully everyone is still alive.

 

Charging the guy with assault on the women is insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wow, putting the blame on the suspect when the suspect didn't fire a shot. Bravo..The police need to own up to their mistakes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

as a result of his actions, 2 people were wounded... "blame" always follows the chain of "cause"... he is too blame in the end.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As discussed in the Issues forum previously, police weapons training in a great many US jurisdictions is abysmal, with a civilian licensed to carry several times less likely to hit an innocent party than cops are. It's such a huge problem the Dept. of Justice and FBI are waving red flags all over the place. Worse, many cops may only re-qualify with their weapon once or twice a year, maybe 50-100 rounds each time. IOW, they can't hit the broad side of a bulls ass.

This is a great example.

OTOH, the law is that if you commit a crime you are responsible for the fallout. If, for example, your partner in crime is killed by the victim you could be charged with murder. If this idiot hadn't done what he did the cops wouldn't have been involved.

A lot of police officers are good shots.  Most qualifiers are 70 or 80%.  Of course the difference between a good shot and a great shot is huge, but it all comes down to funding for training.  You're right that most officers only qualify once a year and might shoot 30-50 bullets for the whole year.  Unfortunately due to cutbacks in funding a lot of departments outside of the federal government can't afford an "endless" supply of bullets for training and allocate the bare minimum.

 

That said a lot of officers do shooting on their private time at private ranges with their own money.  But that adds up over time and when you need to buy other duty equipment constant shooting falls to the back burner.  As for these NYC officers I pity them honestly.  99% of officers will never fire their gun in their entire career.  However that one time you have to fire it, dumb luck seems to show it's either going to be a head shot or you're going to miss completely and hit something else.

 

I'd like to be in DHS right now.  The amount of bullets they purchase each year gives each agent at least 1500 rounds just for training for the year, in some cases a lot more.  But we have to make do with what we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What did you expect from the super LIBERAL City of New York, that the cops actually had sense AND aim? You all cray 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Should of just tazed him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Tastes only have a range of from 15 to 35 feet (4.5 to 10.6 meters), depending on the model. If the cops were further than that they'd be useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Tastes only have a range of from 15 to 35 feet (4.5 to 10.6 meters), depending on the model. If the cops were further than that they'd be useless.

Get closer then lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Would it matter? A 2006 NYPD report had its officers hitting the mark 18% of the time. If they can't hit perps with a pistol what makes you think they can with an even less accurate and wind sensitive Taser?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Would it matter? A 2006 NYPD report had its officers hitting the mark 18% of the time. If they can't hit perps with a pistol what makes you think they can with an even less accurate and wind sensitive Taser?

id rather a taser hit someone than a bullet. The police should only use them as last resort. I'm not sure it was a last resort situation in this case.  I mean creating a disturbance is grounds for being shot these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

id rather a taser hit someone than a bullet. The police should only use them as last resort. I'm not sure it was a last resort situation in this case.  I mean creating a disturbance is grounds for being shot these days?

 

What do you expect? With a society that lives by the gun, dying by the gun will be commonplace.

 

Sorry dude, but that's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

id rather a taser hit someone than a bullet. The police should only use them as last resort. I'm not sure it was a last resort situation in this case. I mean creating a disturbance is grounds for being shot these days?


Some of the reports haven't been that enlightening about this guy. He had a LONG rap sheet, including firearms charges, and was well known to the NYPD. He was also a formidable ~250 lbs, and when the cops fired he had reached into his pocket and acted like he was brandishing a weapon.

The bad part of this was how poorly the cops performed in terms of clearing the background before firing and just p*ss poor marksmanship & shot selection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What do you expect? With a society that lives by the gun, dying by the gun will be commonplace.

 

Sorry dude, but that's life.

I don't accept that answer. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean they have to use it. 

 

Some of the reports haven't been that enlightening about this guy. He had a LONG rap sheet, including firearms charges, and was well known to the NYPD. He was also a formidable ~250 lbs, and when the cops fired he had reached into his pocket and acted like he was brandishing a weapon.

The bad part of this was how poorly the cops performed in terms of clearing the background before firing and just p*ss poor marksmanship & shot selection.

Doesn't matter if he had a long criminal history, they wouldn't know that till they ran his name anyway, they could of gotten close enough with 3 or 4 police officers to tase this guy as he was reaching into his pocket. The police preformed poorly on all aspects in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't accept that answer. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean they have to use it. 

 

 

Tell that to all the gun toting US citizens and cops that seem to have developed a "Shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

someone must've shouted; "he's in the minaret" just as the cop drew...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Tell that to all the gun toting US citizens and cops that seem to have developed a "Shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy.

You might want to actually head over to a forum like Calguns.net and say that to them. I know for a fact that the majority of gun owners are not the shoot first and ask questions later kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You might want to actually head over to a forum like Calguns.net and say that to them. I know for a fact that the majority of gun owners are not the shoot first and ask questions later kind.

 

Read the ENTIRETY of my sentence.  I'm not pointing at all gun owners, dude. Just the ones with a "shoot first ask later" philosophy.  I was quite specific, you know. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Read the ENTIRETY of my sentence.  I'm not pointing at all gun owners, dude. Just the ones with a "shoot first ask later" philosophy.  I was quite specific, you know. ;)

The point is I don't know of anyone that has that mindset. I have several shooting buddies I even have a friend that owns a gunshop, plus the countless hours I spend on firearms forums. I haven't came across anyone that advocates shooting first and asking questions later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You must not have any cops on your message boards then. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You must not have any cops on your message boards then. :laugh:

We do, lots of cops and military both active and retired. The cops do tend to get protected on the forums though. Like a thread like this would be shut down within minutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.