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


Recommended Posts

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?s office persuaded a grand jury to charge Mr. Broadnax with assault, a felony carrying a maximum sentence of 25 years. Specifically, the nine-count indictment unsealed on Wednesday said Mr. Broadnax ?recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death.?

?The defendant is the one that created the situation that injured innocent bystanders,? said an assistant district attorney, Shannon Lucey.

 

The two police officers, who have not been identified, have been placed on administrative duty and their actions are still under investigation by the district attorney?s office, law enforcement officials said.  They also face an internal Police Department inquiry.

 

Mr. Broadnax?s lawyer, Rigodis Appling, said Mr. Broadnax suffered from anxiety and depression and had been disoriented and scared when the police shot at him. He was reaching for his wallet, not a gun, she said. ?Mr. Broadnax never imagined his behavior would ever cause the police to shoot at him,? she said.

After his arrest, Mr. Broadnax was taken to Bellevue Hospital Center, where he told a detective that ?he was talking to dead relatives in his head and that he tried throwing himself in front of cars to kill himself,? according to a court document released on Wednesday.

 

A judge ordered a mental evaluation, and a psychiatrist later found Mr. Broadnax competent to stand trial, Ms. Appling said.

On Wednesday, Justice Gregory Carro set bail at $100,000 bond or $50,000 cash.

 

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.?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/unarmed-man-is-charged-with-wounding-bystanders-shot-by-police-near-times-square.html?_r=1&

 

Police opened fire, miss a guy, hit bystanders, and then they tazer him...  LOL  :s  :s  and it's his fault because cops can't shoot!!....

post-56913-0-04845400-1386278361.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.