Unarmed Man Charged in NY Shooting

S

steve4102

New member
If this is inappropriate for this forum. please delete.

It appears that in the city of NY you can be charged with assault and "wounding" bystanders even if you did not have a gun and did not do any shooting.

Glenn Broadnax, of Brooklyn was shot at by NY city police as they thought he was reaching for a gun.
They missed and wounded two bystanders. Now Mr. Broadnax is being charge with felony assault on the two wounded bystanders.
It appears that you can be charged with Gun Violence in NY even if you do not have a gun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/n...=1&adxnnlx=1386266736-ykwAo5EZxKKqRtR4kMw85A&
 
Sheesh, sounds like a prosecutor trying to take the heat off the police. I don't see how he can be convicted of anything given the circumstance in the article. If he were running around saying "I have a gun" and making threats that would be a whole other thing.

One would think that the police would have used the taser first.... :confused:
 
Let's not have a police bash. A discussion of tactics is not appropriate here UNLESS it specifically speaks to the legal issue.

Next, this seems to be a precise legal matter. Not my area and our legal eagles may contribute.

If you drive the car to a shooting at a robbery - you are part of the deal, IIRC.

So the issue is if you cause the police to righteously (to use the phrase dear to the Internet) shoot at you, do you own the bullets they launch?

They may be responsible for them also but you were the causal agent that started the incident. We will see.
 
My understanding is that if you are committing a crime you are culpable for any collateral damage that results from committing the crime. That is just one of many reasons I have decided not to pursue a life of crime.
 
So the issue is if you cause the police to righteously (to use the phrase dear to the Internet) shoot at you, do you own the bullets they launch?
Click to expand...

That is a good question as the situation was ultimately resolved without the (possibly mentally ill) guy being hit. Therefore no rounds "needed" to be fired at all.
 
Charging a person with the results of their criminal acts is pretty standard. We all applaud when a robber is charged with the death of his comrade from a righteous defensive shooting.

(I am no lawyer)

The question will be one of mental competence and (I assume) one of officer justification.

It would seem that the first question would be one of if the shots were justified. Extreme example, the cops can't shoot at someone for simple trespass and then charge the trespasser with murder if their bullets kill a bystander. The shots weren't justified.

The accused's lawyer has already stated that, "Mr. Broadnax never imagined his behavior would ever cause the police to shoot at him".

So, would a reasonable person expect to be shot at by police under those circumstances? It certainly wouldn't seem so, IMO, but not having been there, there's a lot missing from my interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Mod hat -

Don't discuss whether the police needed to be better trained, etc.

A furtive movement can be reasonably seen as a threat that can be met with lethal force. I'm sure if a disturbed man came to your drive way and stuck his hand in his pocket and you shot him - many on the forum would regard this as a "GOOD SHOOT - Enuf said!!!".

The issue of interest is if one does cause the police to shoot at oneself with a reason - and they miss (of course, you won't if you were theyas you are the William Tell of the 45), does the collateral damage fall on you.

Let's stick to that.
 
So, would a reasonable person expect to be shot at by police under those circumstances? It certainly wouldn't seem so, IMO, but not having been there, there's a lot missing from my interpretation.
Click to expand...

There is always more to it. That link Steve posted seems a lot of idle speculation on the "more to it".
 
So the jist of all this is redirection of liability? So poor dumb crazy probably doesn't have the pockets for this. Ability to pay will hold more water when the victims attorneys' take their shots.
 
Kind of apples to peanuts with those suits. That was an active shooter engaged with the police, who was actually shot by the police. Not so much with this case.
 
As Brian points out, the felony murder rule is used in many states/jurisdictions. That is, if you, through violating the law by commission of a felony, set a chain of events in motion that results in the death of another, that is considered murder by the state.

There was a fellow here in MO who was doing something naughty, got the police to chasing him, and a MO Highway Patrolman was killed in a car accident as part of the chase. The man was charged (and IIRC, convicted), of the murder of that state trooper.

So, I would tend to look at it like this- if you could be charged for getting up to no good and starting something that kills someone else (even if your actions weren't the ones directly causing the death), then why couldn't you be charged with a lesser charge if you do something that causes an innocent person to be harmed (but not killed)?

Granted, if you haven't brought violence into it but the police respond with lethal force, things may have spiraled well out of your control. But that's something to be considered if you set out to cause trouble.
 
As to the question of liability, I'm not qualified to address that.

My skills lie in technology, which I feel could be better applied in this type of scenario.

In dealing with a threat in a crowded area, police today rely on pretty much the same technology today as they did in the fifties. They now have semi auto pistols instead of revolvers.

They have been supplied with the very best communication and computer equipment, but still rely on good old lead bullets at any distance greater than hand-to-hand.

Isn't it strange that we can put a 500 pound missile through a 30" window from 200 miles, but can't yet direct non lethal force across the street?

I'm not bashing the police, they can only use the tools we provide.
 
The key phrase in the story is that the grand jury charged he “recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death.” It's one thing to engage in a course of conduct where it is reasonably foreseeable someone could get injured, such as driving 150 mph or forcibly robbing someone, but it's quite another to think throwing yourself in front of a car would create such a high risk of death from the actions of another.

A cynical person might think the prosecutor over-charged to divert attention from the actions of the police.
 
If in throwing himself in front of a car the man had caused the driver to veer into a crowd thus causing injury, I 'might' be able to be convinced that his actions justify the current charges...

However, I'd have to first be convinced that the man was 'in his right mind' in order for me to vote for a true bill in that Grand Jury, and that would be very hard for me to conceive with the facts as given in the 3 articles I have read...
 
Salmoneye said:
...I'd have to first be convinced that the man was 'in his right mind' in order for me to vote for a true bill in that Grand Jury, and that would be very hard for me to conceive with the facts as given in the 3 articles I have read...
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the grand jury did indict. It's pretty much a certainty that they had more information than was published in those three articles.
 
Does anyone know what the actual law under which he was charged says? I have known for some time that many (most? all?) states have laws saying that if you are perpetrating a crime and someone dies as a result of something related to that crime (an example might be that you have an accomplice who is shot and killed by the intended victim), YOU can be charged with the murder of the person who died.

I'm just not seeing the felonious intent here that I would have thought necessary to lead to charging him with murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top