Unarmed Man Charged In Shooting After Cops Missed Him But Hit Women

Man is indicted on the theory that he was responsible for injuries suffered by bystanders

  • Share
  • Read Later

Like TIME on Facebook for more breaking news and current events from around the globe!

After New York City police shot at but missed an emotionally disturbed man who was throwing himself in front of cars near Times Square, the man is now being charged for assault of the two bystanders who cops shot instead.

According to an indictment unsealed Wednesday, 35-year-old Glenn Broadnax of Brooklyn has been charged with assault on the theory that he was responsible for the wounds suffered by two bystanders in September, the New York Times reports. After he lurched into traffic, police officers tried to contain Broadnax. He then allegedly reached into his pocket, prompting two police officers to open fire. They missed, hitting two women nearby while a police sergeant brought Broadnax down with a Taser.

Broadnax was initially arrested for menacing, drug possession and resisting arrest, but a grand jury said he “recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death.” The felony assault charge carries a maximum sentence of 25 years.

A lawyer for Broadnax said that he suffers from anxiety and depression, but a court-ordered psychiatrist determined he is competent to stand trial. On Wednesday, a Manhattan judge set his bond at $100,000.

[NYT]

19 comments
messy1
messy1

Some Grand juries will indict a turnip if asked.

Bullsgt
Bullsgt

This is SOP for ADA's to charge suspects if anyone is hurt during the commission of a crime. In this case it seems counterintuitive. I'm sure the officers are being scrutinized (disciplinary) internally for their actions.


I don't think that would/should stop civil action on part of the injured.

baldwin.johnm
baldwin.johnm

So...now it's the citizens fault if cops shoot other people instead of them because they didn't log enough hours at the shooting range? Getting rediculoussssss.....lol

Bry2013
Bry2013

I am usually Pro Police because many do a lot of good in their communities.  I don't think we know the whole story but based on what has been presented so far in this case NYPD is simply seeking to pass the buck rather than take responsibility for their Officers lack of marksmanship skills and poor situational judgment.  Still trying to figure out why an unarmed person presented such a threat that they felt the need to use deadly force.  More to the point, they completely missed their target and hit the "innocent.  How does that happen?   A few years ago they shot at someone 41 times and all he did was pull out a wallet.  There was also a case where some bystanders were shot when NYPD attempted to foil a crime.  Unfortunately, this is a shining example of what some of the pro gun people (with sense) are talking about regarding defense. If you are in trouble in NY and the only people that show up are the perpetrator that you are dealing with and Cops with poor marksmanship as well as bad judgmental skills is your family really better off??

PatOrsban
PatOrsban

I bet if a civilian had done that they would be in jail. The time has come when we need to ban high capacity magazines for the police. If an armed civilian can stop a bad guy with one or two shots, why do the cops need 16? They did not shoot so many innocent victms when they had revolvers. And their "need" for assault weapons has vastly exceeded any real justification for needing that kind of firepower.

emeraldseatown
emeraldseatown

The standard for police shootings should be something along the lines of; "knowing how it turned out, would you do it again?"


If the area beyond your target is not cleared, you must assume that some rounds will hit bystanders, and you should only open fire if the threat is worse than likely hitting bystanders.


Also, don't miss.  I don't have a problem with police officers shooting someone ten times, if they have a clear field of fire and clear justification, but police should face the same scrutiny that private citizens would, and I guarantee that any private citizen in NYC who fired rounds in public like this would be in jail, looking at remaining there forever.




Denesius
Denesius

I haven't heard all the details, but why is lethal force being used to subdue unarmed individuals (the mother in DC comes to mind)? Are cops too fat or out of shape to take someone down?

I don't know if this article was meant to be humorous, but I laughed anyway. I recall not that long ago the same bunch of incompetents chased a killer onto busy NYC sidewalks, and undertook the current police submission tactic: spray & pray. I believe 9 bystanders were wounded. Good thing that perpetrator died- I can just imagine the charges he'd be facing.

Openminded1
Openminded1

Good thing the by standers did not die, he would be charged with murder>

SherriLucas-Gibson
SherriLucas-Gibson

How in the hell did you guys allow laws like that to be passed.. you are being served and protected by the keystone #$%^&*( Cops


#libtardedamerica
#libtardedamerica

so it's this guys fault that the officers are too incompetent to hit their intended target from close range? yeah, ok

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

@Bry2013

It's not NYPD to blame here.  It's the prosecutor's office for bringing this to a grand jury (or the morons on the grand jury who agreed that the cops shouldn't be held liable for not being able to hit the broad side of a barn door). 

As for the pro gun idiots, let's face it, they don't even REMOTELY get to the range as often as cops do, nor are they put in positions where they're shooting at something that's shooting back.  If you think the cop's shooting was bad, you should see what happens to these nutless wonders the first time they're put under fire.  Most freeze, the rest panic and start shooting anything that's moving.

 Another thing to consider is that this wasn't a situation where some "good moron with a gun" would be shooting in the first place.  I mean, the person acting crazy shouldn't have been shot at in the first place because he was unarmed.  The taser is what put him down and got him under control and here the prosecutor is desperately trying to shift the liability away from the city's employees who screwed up and put it on the crazy guy.

If you want to defend yourself, you have two choices when it comes to firearms: Be nutless and carry one or explore every other option. Frankly, if you're THAT afraid of the world (considering crime is at a 30 year low), buy a ballistic vest and wear that.  In every situation, it will serve you much better than a gun ever will - especially in situations were the people who are shooting guns and missing their targets are COPS at which shooting back to "defend yourself" is a really, really, really bad idea.

Bry2013
Bry2013

@PatOrsban I understand and respect what you are saying but I wholeheartedly disagree.  These guys need more training and less prejudgment when handling their assigned duties.

YungPerry
YungPerry

@#libtardedamerica I never heard that excuse be4 if they were called 2 help him y in the world would they send scary quick  to pull a trigger cops to help?

 internet news expose so much injustice

hyperlite111
hyperlite111

@DeweySayenoff Dewey your mouth is just flapping nothing but non-sense.  Reading your post makes me loose faith in the human race.  Are we really this stupid????? God help us!

phil05sporty
phil05sporty

@DeweySayenoffWow an anti-gun idiot. Imagine that.You are a special kind of stupid aren't you? If you think cops go to the range more then properly licensed citizens you are very wrong. I have been shooting over 40 years for fun and in competition. 95% of the people I shoot with, out shoot and 100% are safer then 99% of the cops out there. Except for those that are in specialized units.

You don't like guns? Don't own one. Don't tell us responsible, law abiding citizens we can't legally defend ourselves. Did you know cops have no legal obligation to protect you? Good luck with that vest when you are the next knockout game victim. Assuming you are Caucasian that is.

AndrewJohnMasters
AndrewJohnMasters

@DeweySayenoff @hyperlite111  According to what study?  You're using weasel words now to try and get your point across, for all any of us know your "study" was conducted by you.  And you support evolution I take it, yet you are implying that the development of medicine and advancement of technology are counterintuitive to evolution.  In what way, sure if most of us were dropped in the jungle with nothing but our clothing we would die off fairly quickly, but if you took almost any animal and took it out of its natural environment it would most likely die.  And yes I say that cities and houses have become our natural environment, through evolution.  How in the hell are those things not aiding in the survival of our species.  Next time you become violently I'll with your holier and smarter than thou self and require antibiotics to continue on your delusional quest to inform all of the internet how dumb they are, look back on the day you typed in your evolutionary theory for others to be misinformed by, and say "Well, looks like I'm no longer fit enough to survive doc, guess it's my time"  and refuse the medicine.  Or take it, survive and tell the tale of how medicine saved your smartass and allowed you to pass on your intelligence genes to what I assume will be the next Einstein.  As for your opinion on the carrying of firearms by citizens, I disagree but that is only my opinion.  As for your comment mentioning how just owning a firearm increases the chance of being killed by a gun, I totally agree, in the same way I would agree that owning a car increases the chance of death from traffic accident, or owning a toaster increases risk of death from electrocution.  But toasters don't decrease risk of death from assault the way a gun can.  BTW, you're risk of injury from gunfire in America is roughly the same as injury from a traffic accident.  Do your homework preacher.aquarium


DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

@hyperlite111@DeweySayenoff Wow, such hostility.

By the way, yes, you are that stupid.  The western world has lost 14 IQ points on average since Victorian times (I'll even do the math for you - that's about 1 IQ point per decade) according to one study.

Furthermore, rightists live in a delusional world.  That's a clinically delusional state, by the way - not an insult.  They refuse to accept reality like evolution, global climate change, the vastly increased chances of dying by firearms simply by owning a firearm.  They make up their minds about things and that's the way it is - like a religion.  Religions, by necessity, negatively impact the ability to reason and think critically - which explains the path to a clinically delusional existence.

Now, as for "stupid", this shouldn't necessarily be taken as a measure of IQ.  There are a lot of low IQ people who can think rationally and there are a lot of high IQ people who can't.  The measure of stupidity is based less on intelligence than it is a willingness to learn new things.  Those who refuse to learn new things (such as keeping up with facts to support their world view rather than relying on poorly supported or unsupported rationalizations that never change) are stupid.

I also mention evolution for a reason because it's real.  One of the things driving it is the notion of adaptability - survival of the fittest. Those species who can adapt will survive.  Those who can't, won't.

But mankind no longer supports the natural evolutionary state.  Ever since Victorian times, with modern medicine saving people who would otherwise have died, we no longer propagate the "fittest".  We protect the unfit. It's a very humane thing to do, but it's contrary to the survival of our species.

I point to people like you as an excellent example.

Delusional states aren't necessarily mandated by genetics, but the genetic predisposition toward becoming delusional has a basis in reality, and who else breeds more delusional people than anti-abortionist, conservative, church-going rightist?

No one.

If humanity as a whole was smart, there would be a test to ensure the offspring of a couple would not be genetically predisposed toward delusion and would be raised in a household that didn't foster it - leftist or rightists.  But we're not smart.

So yes, Sparky, humanity is, in fact, doomed.  We will forever give up our right to life because we were too stupid to see that nature always wins.  And we'll do it to ourselves.  There's a 70 percent chance it will happen in the next 25 years.  My only solace in this is knowing one of us is going to die looking stupid and surprised and the other will be laughing at them as they also die.

And I do love to laugh.

mrpomojr
mrpomojr

@phil05sporty

Actually police have a duty to protect the public in general and a specific duty to protect an individual person under the appropriate circumstances. The police cannot he held liable in Tort for a breach of the general duty.  The police, however, can be held liable in Tort for breaching the specific duty.

Generally, police are not liable in Tort for the failure to prevent a crime. By way of illustration, the police are normally not liable for money damages if they are late arriving on the scene to prevent or respond to a crime.  However, a police officer can be liable if he fails to protect a person from an assault being committed in his presence.

Police officers are required by their standing orders and regulations to respond to and intervene in crimes involving imminent death or injury to a person. 


The leading case on the issue is that of Warren v. District of Columbia(444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)  I suggest you take the time to read it.

Your comment that "police have no legal obligation to protect" a person is at best a misconstruction of the law . It is a fiction popularized and perpetuated by pro-firearm advocates in support of expansive Second Amendment rights.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,104 other followers