NYPD shoots bystanders; suspect charged

[texanjoker]

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 .

Agree, but I think the rub here is whether they were justified to shoot at all? Hands in his pockets, no gun. By no means do I intend to second guess as I wasn't there, but it don't sound good based solely on the report.

Whether the shooting is justified or not is another argument. Even if the shooting was not a 'good shoot' this guy apparently did some stuff and was arrested. NYPD had the charges right, all being misdemeanor charges. I think people are not reading the entire article because it was the DA"s office that upped the charges to felony assault.

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.”

[texanjoker]

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.

You defiantly need to know your target, no disagreement there. I am not even debating whether it's a good shoot or not, just pointing out the fact one doesn't get a free pass because of a leo action to stop a threat. If you read my other post, I quoted from the article that NYPD arrested the guy for appropriate misdemeanor charges. It was the DA that upped the charges. The title is misleading because it should refer to the DA trumping up the charges and not the police.

[cb1000rider]

Whether the shooting is justified or not is another argument. Even if the shooting was not a 'good shoot' this guy apparently did some stuff and was arrested. NYPD had the charges right, all being misdemeanor charges. I think people are not reading the entire article because it was the DA"s office that upped the charges to felony assault.

If you can't follow police orders and put your hands anywhere, you may get shot. I accept it as fact. It should just be more widely advertised.. :-)

And my real beef is with the DA that ran these charges up the flag pole. Ridiculous.. It makes every person suspected of a crime responsible for LEOs actions during that interaction.

[texanjoker]

The NYPD and the officers involved should be held responsible for the shoot when it was clear that a Taser could be used with more effectiveness in that situation.

I thought that some PDs were prohibited from "switching" once that firearm was pulled? I guess you have to pop-off a few, when that doesn't work, you can then switch to non-lethal means... Ok, that's a bit mean spirited, but sheesh... Unbelievable here. It just illustrates the no-matter-what alignment between prosecutors and PDs.

On this issue, I'm good with a few people losing their ability to make a living for a while.. Especially those in the DA's office.

Not true. One can use whatever force is reasonable and necessary to stop a threat. I couldn't see any dept having a policy that would preclude one from stepping down from deadly force.

[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.

I am not even debating whether it's a good shoot or not, just pointing out the fact one doesn't get a free pass because of a leo action to stop a threat.

I didn't suggest that the subject shouldn't be charged with something; I'm saying that charging him with assault because of the LEOs' reckless conduct and incompetence is absurd. That's not getting a pass, that's simply a matter of a prosecutor and/or LEO charging him for a legitimate offense and not making up the law as they go along. It doesn't matter if the police referred the case to the DA with the assault charges, or whether the DA added the assault charges without LEO input. The charge is bogus, based upon the facts. I say this with some reservation, but only because I don't know if New York State has a criminal code provision that would justify this absurdity. Texas does not.

Your post expressly stated that "One should expect to be charged for an action that causes police to any force to include deadly force." You are a Texas peace officer, so I'm sure you know that is not the law in Texas, unless the "felony murder" rule applies.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

Why didn't you answer the question that was asked?

Chas.

[texanjoker]

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.

I am not even debating whether it's a good shoot or not, just pointing out the fact one doesn't get a free pass because of a leo action to stop a threat.

I didn't suggest that the subject shouldn't be charged with something; I'm saying that charging him with assault because of the LEOs' reckless conduct and incompetence is absurd. That's not getting a pass, that's simply a matter of a prosecutor and/or LEO charging him for a legitimate offense and not making up the law as they go along. It doesn't matter if the police referred the case to the DA with the assault charges, or whether the DA added the assault charges without LEO input. The charge is bogus, based upon the facts. I say this with some reservation, but only because I don't know if New York State has a criminal code provision that would justify this absurdity. Texas does not.

Your post expressly stated that "One should expect to be charged for an action that causes police to any force to include deadly force." You are a Texas peace officer, so I'm sure you know that is not the law in Texas, unless the "felony murder" rule applies.

Chas.

Yes sir my post did say that. That doesn't say charge him with assault or the felony murder rule nor did I say that. It says he should be charged for the action that causes the police to use force. In this case based on the NYPD arrest he was resisting arrest and 2 other misdemeanor charges and that is what he should be charged for, which is what NYPD did. He should not be allowed to just walk free because of what transpired. The DA then got involved and trumped up the charges.

[Excaliber]

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.

I am not even debating whether it's a good shoot or not, just pointing out the fact one doesn't get a free pass because of a leo action to stop a threat.

I didn't suggest that the subject shouldn't be charged with something; I'm saying that charging him with assault because of the LEOs' reckless conduct and incompetence is absurd. That's not getting a pass, that's simply a matter of a prosecutor and/or LEO charging him for a legitimate offense and not making up the law as they go along. It doesn't matter if the police referred the case to the DA with the assault charges, or whether the DA added the assault charges without LEO input. The charge is bogus, based upon the facts. I say this with some reservation, but only because I don't know if New York State has a criminal code provision that would justify this absurdity. Texas does not.

Your post expressly stated that "One should expect to be charged for an action that causes police to any force to include deadly force." You are a Texas peace officer, so I'm sure you know that is not the law in Texas, unless the "felony murder" rule applies.

Chas.

I think we'd all agree that "causing an officer to use force" isn't in the penal code here, and last I checked in wasn't in New York's either.

I didn't take Texanjoker's post as suggesting otherwise. I read it to mean that, when you think about it, there are very few things one could do that would justify an officer's use of force but that don't involve a chargeable offense, and arrest is very often the result. (Someone who attempts to strike out in the midst of a psychotic break might be such an exception).

If one does something that meets the conditions for justifiable use of force, one should not be surprised when the cuffs are applied. The basis of the arrest in that case is the underlying chargeable action, not the fact that the action necessitated an officer's use of force.

[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.

Why didn't you answer the question that was asked?

Chas.

Because I don't think it was a fair question. It's like asking when you stopped hitting your wife. The question is framed based on assumptions and in such a manner as to elicit a given response not actually have something answered. The question shouldn't be is it fair if we take it to an absurd limit but is it fair as is or in comparison to a situation of a more equal basis. The theory of legal liability for events as a consequence of illegal activity is well established. Your main issue is that Texas law requires a felony and you think it lets cops off the hook right? Well it happened in NY so unless there is some incite into NY state law I'm not sure how one can castigate the DA for operating under NY law and the fact that one can ascribe legal liability to a lawbreaker does not prevent the DA from holding police officers accountable. There is no legal bar that I know of them to prevent both parties from being charged. Yes I understand that would make both cases infinitely harder to win but that does not prevent anyone from trying AFAIK

[WildBill]

Insert comment here: <>

[texanjoker]

I always wanted to visit NY but don't think I ever will. That place is just bonkers.

[Jaguar]

Maybe it's time to rise the force required to pull a trigger on a NYPD firearm, 15 pounds doesn't seem to be enough.



I'm thinking welding them so it takes about 2000 pounds of pull. That might help keep the citizens of New York safe.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

Why didn't you answer the question that was asked?

Chas.

Because I don't think it was a fair question. It's like asking when you stopped hitting your wife.

Yes, it is a fair question. The bottom line seems to be that you seem to feel that if a person commits any offense, regardless of the severity, then they should be criminally responsible for any and all outcomes regardless if intervening causes. In this case, the intervening causes would be the reckless conduct and incompetency of the responding officers. In civil cases, the injuries must be "reasonably foreseeable" to hold a defendant liable in damages. I think the reason Texas law requires the commission of a felony and a related death before charging a defendant with murder is to somewhat extend this same concept to criminal law.

The theory of legal liability for events as a consequence of illegal activity is well established. Your main issue is that Texas law requires a felony and you think it lets cops off the hook right?

Wrong! Try reading my posts before you start attributing position statements on my behalf. My complaint is with the charges that were filed against the defendant, i.e. assault charges due to the reckless conduct of the officers. I'm not saying one thing about charging the officers, or letting them "off the hook" as you say. Why do you feel the need to rush to the officers' defense when I'm not saying they should be prosecuted?

Well it happened in NY so unless there is some incite into NY state law I'm not sure how one can castigate the DA for operating under NY law and the fact that one can ascribe legal liability to a lawbreaker does not prevent the DA from holding police officers accountable. There is no legal bar that I know of them to prevent both parties from being charged. Yes I understand that would make both cases infinitely harder to win but that does not prevent anyone from trying AFAIK

Again, for purposes of this thread, I don't care one whit about the officers, so you can leave them out of any responsive posts.

You apparently don't know what NY law is either, but NY and NJ have a very poor track record in terms of filing frivolous charges. The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund is involved in at least three cases where peace officers from others states were arrested by NY COPs for unlawfully carrying handgun. When the officers said LEOSA makes it legal, the response in all three cases was, "this is New York and we don't [care] about federal law." More importantly I made it clear I'm talking about Texas law and the absurdity of charging the subject in NYC if that State's law allows for such charges.

Chas.

[jmra]

I always wanted to visit NY but don't think I ever will. That place is just bonkers.

[VoiceofReason]

This is crazy just crazy!!![attachment=0]C4.jpg[/attachment]