Unarmed man charged with assault, police miss

[Willie Krash]

On Sept 14 a man stumbling in NY traffic was shot at by police. They missed. They hit two bystanders and now the man is charged and could face 25 years.

This interest me as I have mixed emotions.
From the story,
"At first, police charged Broadnax with menacing, drug possession, and resisting arrest, but the Manhattan District Attorney pushed for assault charges because Broadnax "recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death."

Here is the story,
http://gawker.com/unarmed-man-charged-wi...1477036868

[PonderThis]

From your link: "For the crime of being difficult to shoot, a Manhattan grand jury has charged an unarmed, mentally unstable man with assault after police officers opened fire at him, missed, and wounded two bystanders as the man was blocking traffic last September in Times Square..."

This seems totally ridiculous to me. The answer to everything is not "shoot".

[tvguy]

The story given is totally biased.The First words of the story are inaccurate and misleading. This is the crap people want to see so that's what the media gives out.

For the crime of being difficult to shoot, a Manhattan grand jury has charged an unarmed, mentally unstable man with assault

When you read the article and what and why he was charged it should be clear that they did not charge him with assault because he was difficult to shoot.


The loon was charged with assault because he recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death.

Makes sense to me. The guy is a nut that doesn't mean he won't or shouldn't be charged with a crime. The fact that he's mental will come out later in a trial.

IMO these cops genuinely thought this man was going for a gun. They may have jumped the gun. Pun intended, don't know, I wasn't there.

[cletus1]

The story given is totally biased.The First words of the story are inaccurate and misleading. This is the crap people want to see so that's what the media gives out.

For the crime of being difficult to shoot, a Manhattan grand jury has charged an unarmed, mentally unstable man with assault

When you read the article and what and why he was charged it should be clear that they did not charge him with assault because he was difficult to shoot.


The loon was charged with assault because he recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death.

Makes sense to me. The guy is a nut that doesn't mean he won't or shouldn't be charged with a crime. The fact that he's mental will come out later in a trial.

IMO these cops genuinely thought this man was going for a gun. They may have jumped the gun. Pun intended, don't know, I wasn't there.

It always does.

[csrowan]

Meanwhile, in Iceland...

[Willie Krash]

Somebody is always reaching for a gun. If you drive the get away car you are as responsible as the "bank robber."
To me the question is both parties have a responsibility. The burden ought to rightly be on the police as they reacted but was it in a justifiable way?
Does reaching constitute justification?

[tvguy]

Somebody is always reaching for a gun. If you drive the get away car you are as responsible as the "bank robber."
To me the question is both parties have a responsibility. The burden ought to rightly be on the police as they reacted but was it in a justifiable way?
Does reaching constitute justification?

That's a good question but "reaching" isn't something that can be easily defined.

If your hand starts moving toward your pocket at one point is it reaching? And at what point is a cop supposed to wait and see? When the gun comes out?
We need to allow police to protect themselves but we can't have the cops blasting people for swatting away a gnat.

[Willie Krash]

If you are going to try and kill someone, yes you should know, not guess or suppose.

[tvguy]

If you are going to try and kill someone, yes you should know, not guess or suppose.

I think if a person is told to stop by a policeman and show their hands or to put them up . And instead they reach in to their pocket then a cop has a right to assume he is in grave danger and react with deadly force.

How is the cop supposed to "know" if it's a gun without waiting to see what the guys pulls from his pocket?
I have a compact pistol that I could pull from my pocket and I doubt that you would have enough time to TRY and identify it before I shot you.




But like I said "reaching" isn't something that can be easily defined.

[PonderThis]

How would a cop know the guy wasn't deaf?

[Willie Krash]

If you are going to try and kill someone, yes you should know, not guess or suppose.

I think if a person is told to stop by a policeman and show their hands or to put them up . And instead they reach in to their pocket then a cop has a right to assume he is in grave danger and react with deadly force.

How is the cop supposed to "know" if it's a gun without waiting to see what the guys pulls from his pocket?
I have a compact pistol that I could pull from my pocket and I doubt that you would have enough time to TRY and identify it before I shot you.




But like I said "reaching" isn't something that can be easily defined.

The standard you wish is set too low. It is not the America I know. People have been shot and the police found out the weapon was an Italian sub wrapped in tin foil.

To put it it another way you understand the police shot two bystanders right? It is a weak argument that you get to shoot because you thought something, without knowing.

On the news last night they interviewed police doing cold weather training, one said you need to be able to act and know if they have a gun (well pretty close to that).

If one of the bystanders died would the rationale be supported, shoot first check later?

[Prospector]

Old saying

"Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target."

[tvguy]

If you are going to try and kill someone, yes you should know, not guess or suppose.

I think if a person is told to stop by a policeman and show their hands or to put them up . And instead they reach in to their pocket then a cop has a right to assume he is in grave danger and react with deadly force.

How is the cop supposed to "know" if it's a gun without waiting to see what the guys pulls from his pocket?
I have a compact pistol that I could pull from my pocket and I doubt that you would have enough time to TRY and identify it before I shot you.




But like I said "reaching" isn't something that can be easily defined.

The standard you wish is set too low. It is not the America I know. People have been shot and the police found out the weapon was an Italian sub wrapped in tin foil.

To put it it another way you understand the police shot two bystanders right? It is a weak argument that you get to shoot because you thought something, without knowing.


On the news last night they interviewed police doing cold weather training, one said you need to be able to act and know if they have a gun (well pretty close to that).

If one of the bystanders died would the rationale be supported, shoot first check later?

You just insinuated I supported a rational that you get to define. I haven't said anything close to "shoot first and ask questions later.
But you sure are right about the fact that TWO people got shot and and that's hard to explain.
I think without being there and seeing exactly what transpired neither of us know enough to pass judgement. I just want to make sure the police have a right to protect themselves.

[Willie Krash]

Well you did write,
And instead they reach in to their pocket then a cop has a right to assume he is in grave danger and react with deadly force.

Now I don't disagree that they protect themselves bit in the context of what we know (tho' limited) it poses a good question, else wise we could never question, and two bystanders were shot. That we do know.

I was just asking what are the standards, seeing a weapon imho is all that should allow deadly force with few exceptions, and seeing a weapon means it has to be a weapon, or innocent people might get shot. I really don't think we disagree all that much.

[tvguy]

Well you did write,
And instead they reach in to their pocket then a cop has a right to assume he is in grave danger and react with deadly force.

Now I don't disagree that they protect themselves bit in the context of what we know (tho' limited) it poses a good question, else wise we could never question, and two bystanders were shot. That we do know.

I was just asking what are the standards, seeing a weapon imho is all that should allow deadly force with few exceptions, and seeing a weapon means it has to be a weapon, or innocent people might get shot. I really don't think we disagree all that much.

I don't either, what's appropriate or not in these kind of situations is impossible to say with out witnessing these events.

This time the cops seemed to have not acted appropriately or at least were careless.

[PonderThis]

This time the cops seemed to have not acted appropriately or at least were careless.

[Wonky]

This time the cops seemed to have not acted appropriately or at least were careless.

I like emotions. (Yeah Tia, I remember back when, I said they were unnecessary)

These seem to indicate that you (Ponder) are all thumbs up and smiling that:
1. TVGuy admits the cops screwed the pup.
2. That cops maybe do it more often than not.
3. I misread the emotions.

My own view…worth about a penny. I feel the police have one hell of a tough job and most of the time do it well. We live in a violent society and it's important to remember the cops are on the streets on our behalf.

This stuff is very layered and complex. I'm glad I don't have to "Serve and protect". That said, when the cops do mess up they should be held accountable. First, let's gather all the facts and make sure they (cops) did mess up.

[PonderThis]

I am thrilled, shocked, and happy (in that order, according to emoticons used) that TV has acknowledged anything bad about any cop ever anywhere in recorded history.

And means of course I know there have been exceptions, and TV will howl furiously at each and every one of them.

[tvguy]

I am thrilled, shocked, and happy (in that order, according to emoticons used) that TV has acknowledged anything bad about any cop ever anywhere in recorded history.

And means of course I know there have been exceptions, and TV will howl furiously at each and every one of them.

I have admitted when cops were wrong a lot of times. It's not as rare as some cop haters on this forum try to insinuate. On the contrary there are many here who almost never admit that the cops were justified.

It has to do with the human mind remembering only what they want to hear and excluding what they don't. And of course their own past experiences with police.

[PonderThis]

I've hated authority figures since the day I was born. And what I couldn't undue I stored up until I could.