On September 14, Glenn Broadnax, 35, allegedly jumped in front of cars in New York’s Time Square. He was reportedly disoriented and, according to his counsel, was communicating with dead relatives in his mind. However, two police officials feared that the unarmed Broadnax was reaching for a weapon. They responded with a barrage of gunfire that cut down two bystanders. Now, prosecutors have charged Broadnax with assault for the shootings by the police officers on the theory that “recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death.”
The New York police have been previously criticized for the use of lethal force in crowded areas including the prior case where nine innocent people were shoot by New York police. It is a pattern that puts into sharp relief a country like Iceland where officers this week killed the first person in the country’s history in a police raid and only after he wounded two officers.
In this case, the officer fired when Broadnax put his hands in his pocket. Many question that response and the danger created to bystanders. However, police blame Broadnax for their actions. Thus, not only are police not liable or disciplined for the use of force, but they can charge the suspect with their alleged excessive response.
Broadnax was never hit. Instead, the officers hit two women standing nearby. He was brought down with a taser.
Notably, Broadnax was arrested on misdemeanor charges of menacing, drug possession and resisting arrest. However, because the police responded to an unarmed man with lethal force, he is facing a felony carrying a maximum sentence of 25 years as part of a nine-count indictment.
Counsel for one of the victims Sahar Khoshakhlagh has gone public to denounce the charge and say that it is the officers who should be criminally charged and that this is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion [in] prosecuting a man who didn’t even injure my client . . . It’s the police who injured my client.”
The video below shows how crowded the area was when officers fired their shots. The charges in my view are excessive in these circumstances and raise serious implications in future cases of abusive conduct. It is true that criminal law has allowed for defendants to bear the consequences of their crimes where they lead to injuries or deaths, particularly in felony murder cases where you do not have to actually pull the trigger to be held for the fatalities. However, this was an unarmed man with police acting in a way that was highly questionable. Rather than recognize the disconnect between the man conduct and the police response, prosecutors appear to want to establish that it was his fault and not the police for the shootings.
What do you think?
Source: New York Times
randyjet – I disagree with his assessment that he has to give the cops the benefit of the doubt. There is sufficient information on this incident to realize that the cops were trigger happy and that a good police dept would either fire or severely discipline these cops. By taking a pass on this clear cut an instance of poor judgment he is just ensuring that this kind of behavior will recur.
I especially hate to hear the cops say it is better to be judged by twelve rather than be carried by six. Police know that there are risks in that line of work and we give them weapons and power to use deadly force. The cops willingly take that risk. By saying that they need to ensure their OWN safety FIRST by using deadly force negates any possible claim for heroism Such cops insist that WE take their risks for them, and to make themselves safe at OUR expense and risk. There is nothing decent or heroic about laying all the risks on the public to ensure police safety.
DITTO
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the statement by Thomas Jefferson that to maintain liberty it must be washed occasionally with fresh blood.
I do believe that with all of this unchecked abuse, murder and corruption by the many police agencies throughout the United states that we are rapidly approaching a point wherein a few citizens are going to head the words of Jefferson and start fighting back. When this happens more will join the few and begin doing what was required the first time we as Americans defended our liberty.
I think Brit was referring to really good cops like himself. I agree with him that a real cop would feel regret at having to use his weapon. In his case, I can believe him and it is too bad that we don’t ensure that all cops have his mindset. The charges against this man are bogus and are for CYA purposes only.
I disagree with his assessment that he has to give the cops the benefit of the doubt. There is sufficient information on this incident to realize that the cops were trigger happy and that a good police dept would either fire or severely discipline these cops. By taking a pass on this clear cut an instance of poor judgment he is just ensuring that this kind of behavior will recur.
I especially hate to hear the cops say it is better to be judged by twelve rather than be carried by six. Police know that there are risks in that line of work and we give them weapons and power to use deadly force. The cops willingly take that risk. By saying that they need to ensure their OWN safety FIRST by using deadly force negates any possible claim for heroism Such cops insist that WE take their risks for them, and to make themselves safe at OUR expense and risk. There is nothing decent or heroic about laying all the risks on the public to ensure police safety.
There are a lot of secret competitions going on, like with the New Orleans Saints football team which was paying players for physical injury to opposing teams.
This case makes one wonder if there is a similar contest among LEO tards to see who can get away with the most public wrongful death.
These guys seem to be in first place at the moment.
We live in a society in which the construction of the Second Amendment has been twisted and distorted beyond anything that the Founders would recognize. As a consequence, every act of violence produces insistence upon a further arming of the citizenry. And the police have come to view every encounter with the public as potentially fatal. Fear now routinely overcomes reflection.
Nevertheless, the only reckless conduct in this instance was the reaction of the police, and liability should follow accordingly. The criminal charges are negotiating tools to reduce the size of the check which will ultimately have to be written.
“It is never pleasant, to discharge a service weapon in the line of duty.”
This screams for a caveat. When police officers high five and fist bump after shootings, I am inclined to believe they enjoyed it.
In the words of the incomparable Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff (AKA Groucho Marx), the prosecutor “has the brain of a four year old old… And I’ll bet he was glad to get rid of it!”
Just remember no matter what happens the police are never wrong.
When the only tool you have is a hammer , all our problems look like nails.
Our society, as well documented in these pages, is fast becoming myopic to the human, not to mention citizen, needs, issues and problems.
It increasingly seems that because we are loosing control of our nation and cities – the governors feel the need to spy on everyone, everywhere and have “Total Information Awareness” as if that will “keep us safe”.
And when anything challenges that mindset of less than compliant, behaviour, whatever the cause : a wan appeal to the law and demanding a search warrant, trying to assemble to protest; being in your house unlucky enough to be close to where a raid is going on (alluding to a few prior posts); or in this case just being confused …
Force is required to solve the problem. And if the force turns deadly… oh well. Sometimes it happens. And it is your fault anyway…
It is not just these two officers… though in this instance they are the agents of the madness.
The cause is more fundamental, more systematic, and very much predicable as we continue to cultivate a society based on fear, abandon the deep principles of the Bill of Rights that once were considered inalienable, and have come to rely on “might” not right to maintain this state…
In such a state… every problem seem to need a bullet.
Michael
I cast my vote with Gene and Blouise, but would add that charging him was an abysmally stupid thing to do that won’t in the end relieve the financial liability. The officers should also be punished for their bad behavior.
Well, as Friday Morning Quarterback, and not seeing what the officers saw or what made them conclude that the use of deadly physical force was justified, a few items are disturbing.
Reasonable fear, will exist, with a belligerent subject, who is not complying or, for a reason places the officer’s life or life of a third party in jeopardy.
Having one’s hand(s) in a pocket and not complying with lawful order at that point does constitute a custody. Back in the Good Old Days.., the service weapon (revolver) would be drawn and aimed, but you would have to earn a few gray hairs and wait for either an empty hand or weapon to be produced. The subject may, simply take his hand out and say, “Okay, okay…”, or, he might produce a weapon or charge at someone leaving conclusion that use of deadly physical force is authorized per New York State Penal Law, Article 35, Justification For The Use Of Deadly Physical Force. Nothing in legal text say “shall shoot”, or “must shoot”.
When I was a younger man, I responded to a robbery in progress. The gunman was firing. I couldn’t get out of his way, so I charged him like a linebacker. It was instinct. He started to run, but a fit ex-Marine that ran a total of twelve miles daily, it was no contest. I grabbed him and he started to fight and point his handgun. Punches exchanged. Cuffs went on. Then, I got yelled at by the sergeant. I didn’t shoot because people were right behind him in the doorways of the bar, and the beauty salon. What if I missed? Also, he appeared to be young. He was 15 years old. I can imagine the headlines…
Problems started when the service weapon went to semi-automatics. Revolvers placed emphasis on shot placement, and not Hollywood, shooting all over the place. I also shot 400 rounds every day. The cops today, I believe are tromboning. Like the big band era, the attention is on the slide and not what is going on. That is my opinion.
What was the proximity of the suspect to the officers in distance?
Why was no chemical agent utilized?
Why was no Tazer device utilized?
Why couldn’t one officer cover the suspect with a service weapon, while the other officer advanced the suspect?
Was the suspect being arrested for felony weight charge that lead to the discharge of service weapons?
Why couldn’t the suspect have been given room to run if too many people were in the immediate area, and back up units could respond to swarm the suspect at a different and hopefully more remote location?
What is the authorized service ammunition [124gr. FMJ], and that is prone to ricochet, rather than other [i.e.: 150gr HP] ammunition?
It is terrible to learn of such an incident. It is terrible to have to think in hindsight, all of these terrible questions. But I was not there to witness it, or experience it, and would like to give benefit of the doubt to the officers. It is never pleasant, to discharge a service weapon in the line of duty.
I conclude my comment, Counselor.
I’ll respond as succinctly and eloquently as I can given what I have just read… WTF!!!
The plutocrats and overseers must be laughing at the insanity they have created. Guns produced and sold by the millions with little regulation leads to police fearing that everyone has a gun, which leads to innocent people being shot on a regular basis. So if everyone is considered armed and dangerous, then the police get a free pass to shoot at anyone who has a empty hand that is not in clear view. If you want to live with less fear of the steady dose of deadly gun violence of police, fearful populace and criminals, you may have to move to Iceland, or some other sane country.
Agree with Gene. Money is at the root of this evil.
As the parent of autistic children, one of whom is non-verbal and will likely be over six feet tall, this scares the hell out of me.
And in Iceland:
“…When Police Kill a Gunman, They Apologize”
Excerpt:
“The police regret this incident and wishes to extend its condolences to the man’s family,” said national police chief Haraldur Johannessen.
Details of the event have yet to emerge, but this much is clear: Iceland is a weird place. The population of the island is 325,000, while the number of registered firearms is 90,000, which when you consider that Iceland also has children, suggests that more than a third of the population is armed.
Well…. When felons have gun…. The felony murder rule should apply…. Heck they should have just charged him with conspiracy….. With two unnamed….defendants…..
Stinks to high heaven.
Another example of police and prosecutors working together to protect the police and blame someone else.
No wonder that American justice is now becoming an international oxymoron.
I smell the pungent whiff of an attempt to avoid liability by the city for actions that were clearly the fault of the police.