Unarmed Man Charged With Assault Because NYC Police Shot At Him And Hit Random Pedestrians
from the NYPD:-Times-Square-is-the-hottest-third-person-shooter-on-the-market dept
Stop me if you've heard this one:
An emotionally disturbed but unarmed man walks into heavy traffic near Times Square. Police officers arrive on the scene and try to apprehend him. The unarmed man reaches into his pocket, prompting police to open fire in a crowded area. Man is unwounded but two bystanders are shot.
I don't really remember the middle part of this joke but the punchline is this:
An unarmed, emotionally disturbed man shot at by the police as he was lurching around traffic near Times Square in September has been charged with assault, on the theory that he was responsible for bullet wounds suffered by two bystanders, according to an indictment unsealed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Wednesday.While you're letting that sink in, here are some more details.
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.”Here are some more details from the original coverage of the incident.
“The defendant is the one that created the situation that injured innocent bystanders,” said an assistant district attorney, Shannon Lucey.
The police arrived and the crowd grew. The hulking man continued on, ignoring the officers’ commands while eluding capture. Then the man reached into his pants pocket, withdrawing his hand as if it were a gun, the police said, and pretended to shoot at some of the officers.As Scott Greenfield points out, this descriptive wording is a prime example of Creative Writing 101 (Law Enforcement Edition).
Note the language of the article. “Hulking” man. “Withdrawing his hand as if it were a gun.” These aren’t the words of a news account, but the language of justification and excuses.Broadnax didn't even have a gun, as officers plainly saw before opening fire. He had a Metrocard in his hand, and no matter how hulkingly he pointed it at officers, it still didn't turn into a weapon capable of wounding other people. His weaving around in traffic was potentially dangerous, but more to himself than others.
Returning once again to the "language of justification and excuses" deployed by the DA's office: someone wandering around in traffic in New York City is hardly creating a "grave risk of death." NYC has plenty of pedestrian traffic, not all of which crosses only at the corners. The man certainly created a "disturbance" but the shots fired by the responding officers created the only injuries. And yet, it will be the man shot at (and missed) who will pay for the mistakes of the officers.
The narrative being pushed (back at the time of the incident and again by the DA's office) is that the officers had no choice but to risk firing shots in a crowded area because the man wouldn't cooperate (and menaced officers with a Metrocard). But recordings of the incident suggest the cops actually had many more options are their disposal.
There are no doubt times when shots must be fired, and there are no doubt times when a bullet will strike a bystander despite the best, and most competent, efforts of police. But the video of this, taken by a bystander who was not shot, shows a great many cops in the area before the two cops shot at Broadnax, and makes it difficult to understand why the newspapers don’t question why all those cops couldn’t manage to take down one big crazy guy without shooting up the bystanders.The video Scott Greenfield posted back in September no longer exists. But this video shows a swarm of NYPD officers attempting to apprehend Broadnax before the shots are fired.
Broadnax was finally subdued by a single officer with a Taser but not before two pedestrians had been shot in an effort to ensure their safety. Holding the arrestee responsible for the bad decisions (and worse aim) of two cops basically sends the message to officers that irresponsible gun usage is perfectly fine, as long as the intentions are pure. If in the future officers hit other bystanders by firing in crowded areas (as they have in the past), the blame will be passed along to the intended target for "forcing" the police to make unwise decisions.
[Postscript: Ken White at Popehat has more thoughts on the NYPD's resemblance to Ike "Don't Make Me Hit You" Turner.]
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: assault, nyc, nypd, pedestrians
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've heard this excuse before
It seems the more power people have the less they think they are responsible for using it properly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blues Brothers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
it also shows exactly how bad they are when it comes to hitting their target. i was of the opinion that annual shooting 'exams' had to be performed to ensure those using a firearm were competent enough to do so. if correct, how did these manage to get through?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now more than ever nowadays it seems the opposite when you have cases like this where due process is out the window and your right matter not one iota.
It seems now that covering up police misdeeds and the blue wall of silence are at the forefront. This is the reality. The bad thing is that the Policeman's word carries more weight with the court than some average joe and even more so if you have any kind of a criminal record.
If it wasn't for cameras recording and these types of events being reported , the average joe wouldn't even have a chance.
The mere fact that they will charge you (whether you are guilty or not) is a travesty in itself as the mantra now seems to be we will charge them and make the story fir to the event innocent or not.
It is almost now if you call the Police you had better have someone recording it for YOUR safety and security otherwise you could be behind bars.
I guess teh old days where the police were proud and had integrity is long gone, and you wonder why people have a distrust for the police.... events like this are why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sounds to me like the NYPD is trying to find ways to take non-criminals and punish them for doing nothing. It's just raising the bar on "disorderly conduct", "resisting arrest", and any other buzzwords cops throw around (in specific cases to try to drum up extra charges and get themselves out of an investigation).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I didn't mean to hurt you baby....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Innocent" bystanders? Are you sure?
Alternatively, they could be charged following the computer "hacker-security" model: since these bystanders have shown how poor the marksmanship of these police is, they must now pay for rudimentary firearms training for the police. If not for the action of these bystanders (getting shot) the lack of skill and proper training would never have been a problem for the police.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One thing's clear
Hay, the NRA will love this - "guns don't kill people, people do, and not the ones with their fingers on the triggers either."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Throwing bottles at the wrong department...
As mentioned in the article:
"the Manhattan district attorney’s office persuaded a grand jury to charge Mr. Broadnax with assault..."
If your Justice system is corrupt then you don't have a hope in hell of getting a normal response to any incidents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Pretty sure that's a Federal thing under the Lewinski Act of 1998
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The NYPD are pussies and cowards
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Throwing bottles at the wrong department...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hysterical
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Attempt succeed or fail?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
times square
I think that that makes it 10 people shot by cops in Midtown in the last year, one person shot by a non-cop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Parallel Case in Manchu China
The Seventeenth Century was a hard time in North China, a time of failing governments and barbarian invasions and bandit uprisings and earthquakes and famines. The harsh conditions brought out all the submerged animality of deprived peasants. It was the kind of time and place where sadistic killers could not conceive of anyone objecting to their killings. These officers in New York obviously said to themselves that they had always wanted to shoot into a crowd of innocent bystanders, and that if there was a crazy street person present, they could do it and claim self-defense. The Twenty-First century is a hard time in New York...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Does this mean that I can charge police with assault with a deadly weapon if I hit someone whilst aiming at the police?
That's....weirdly awesome, in a dark way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Really
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Throwing bottles at the wrong department...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Really
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Really
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMBLA members in NYPD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Really
But he didn't pull a gun, ergo, a gun to return fire was never neccessary. But no, gun-happy cops fire without thought to the crowd. Brilliant.
But at least one right thinking cop did bring him down with a taser that should.have.been.done.in.the.first.place.you.moron.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What the f*ck? Trying to kill someone who doesnt even have a weapons is a good thing? This kind of shit only happens in america. Even the streets of iraq are safer than an american city.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: NAMBLA members in NYPD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Police Integrity
I have high praise for them here, even when they have had to pull up the young ones for doing stupid activities, like one of my sons and a mate of his.
Our local churches here pray for them regularly, particularly since ICE has become a scourge in our community. We let them know it as well. They seem to appreciate that someone cares for them and their work and are willing to support them.
I know that there are other areas that do not have the quality of personnel that we have and in those locations the reputation is much lower. The nearest city's public transport system has their internal enforcement group and the general opinion is that they are a bunch of power hungry, megalomaniac thugs. This opinion has been documented as being well deserved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why use real bullets?
And then the shot him.
With a bean bag from a shotgun type weapon.
He went down, was handcuffed, and then was taken away in an ambulance.
I know we are very suspicious of police here, but this seemed like a totally appropriate handling of a potentially dangerous situation.
Shooting at someone with real bullets in the middle of a crowded area is stupid. Police have beanbags, tasers, and pepper spray for a reason. And if any of those had been used, this would be a non-event.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Really
There is no such thing as 'unbiased' or 'two-sides of every story', it is has to do with the Government its automatically "THEY ARE EVIL".
what were these people doing there anyway, rubbernecking ?? standing around video it ?
oh there is a crazy man and some cops with guns "LETS GO THERE !!!!" no, lets not run away and take cover and let the police do their job. Lets go there and video it and put ourselves in harms way. The people who were shot should be charged for stupidity !!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why use real bullets?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Really ??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Really
Had he presented a legitimate threat to the lives of those around him, lethal force might have been justified, though even then they had options other than opening fire in a crowded area.
Instead, they opted for lethal force, firing three shots, hitting two bystanders, and completely missing their target. If the idea was to cause more harm, then they succeed with flying colors. If however they were trying to contain and prevent harm, then I'd say they failed spectacularly.
Now, on it's own this would just be a case of lousy judgement on the part of the officers, obviously they should have gone with non-lethal methods(what finally took the man down was a taser, so they did have the right tools available, they just didn't use them properly), where it gets completely ridiculous is then charging the one they were shooting at with assault, a felony level charge, as though it was somehow his fault the cops on the scene were so trigger happy two people got shot.
As the popehat coverage of the incident points out, this is 'abusive spouse' type thinking, where it's somehow the victim's fault for the aggressor's actions, as the agressor is unable to be mature enough to be responsible enough for their own actions, blaming others for 'forcing' them to do something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: NAMBLA members in NYPD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Blues Brothers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Really
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Really
I'm not making the connection, somehow...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Really
oh that's right, they didn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Really
he was a threat, that is clear, it was not known if he was armed, but considering the large number of armed people in the US it is only sensible to assume he is.
so he was a threat and the idiots who were hanging around rubbernecking deserve to be shot in crossfire, because they put themselves into that situation.
The crazy man was charged because his actions led to the actions of the police, if he was not acting in a threatening manner the police would not have acted, but he did, so the police did.
How brain dead do you have to be to hand around a crazy man and police with guns?
oh there are some cops with guns, and a crazy man, it must be safe to go there and hang around and get your camera out and take some "happy snaps" !!!... brain dead does not even come close to explaining the actions of some people !!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Other States
[ link to this | view in thread ]
did you hear the story about the police officer who did not react immediately and take action, but waited to see if it was a credit card or a gun, he was killed because it was a gun.
on average more than once a week the person who reaches into their pocket and pulls out something IS A GUN, and the police officer is shot by that gun.
The police officer has to live with that risk every day, the crazed man only has to do it once.
so if I am a cop in America, and someone pulls 'something' out of their pocket and makes actions like he is shooting you, I am not going to take a few extra seconds and triple check if it is a gun or something else, I am going to shot (at) that idiot, and if someone is stupid enough to be hanging around there and rubbernecking I don't give a shit about them either, if they are too stupid to get out of harms way, that is their problem not mine..
I guess I don't have the same level of hatred for anything "Government" as most here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: NAMBLA members in NYPD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The solution
Ban all Metrocards!
see, so easy, problem fixed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the answer is
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"they had no choice"
But I get it. The police can never be wrong. The police can never be held accountable. And they are sooo misunderstood, such a difficult job.
And, anyone else disturbed that a grand jury should buy this juvenile argument?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bah
Kind of like if someone breaks into another person's house, with no intent of harm, but the scare an elderly person and they have a heart attack, those thieves can be charged with man slaughter.
I still question trying to throw the book at this person and get them on every technicality for the sake of revenge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Welcome!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Really
Granted I will give you that people are stupidly drawn to crazy events like that but take that away and the street was still too crowded to fire off shots like that. And if people would have moved into stores to get away....well bullets penetrate glass really well. If the cop had hit a 12 year in the head and killed them how different would you feel?
As long as we are discussing long shots for who is to blame... the bad actions of the police in the last few years has been very public and so a lot of that current draw has been increased because people want to get it on film and get their few minutes of fame.
in general I think your view and the police view is too paranoid... not everybody has a gun, not everybody who does something whacky is a threat to all of humanity. Like it was said before some people just take out their wallets and that doesn't justify getting shot. I am all for police taking precautions to protect themselves but if you are that afraid of being shot to the point you shoot first with no gun in sight then you shouldn't be a cop.
A gun is a tool... some people use tools to do great things and others just well... just suck at using them and shouldn't rely on them in their daily lives or vocations. The cop behind the gun has the responsibility to use that tool correctly, but because of the blue line, militarization and the general trend of society to pass off personal responsibility to others that good judgement of when to fire a weapon is becoming less common.
And what if he had a gun? Just having a gun does not mean you will use it. If he had a toy gun visible in his pocket does that mean the cops can start spraying with a MP5 to stop him and later blame him for the multiple deaths? Where does the line stop? If the end justifies the means what is the end what the end the cops are trying to get to here? Self preservation at the cost of innocent bystanders? If so then reread my previous paragraphs.
On a different but related note... people need to stop using the term "non-lethel" options since they really are "less than lethal". There are plenty of examples of people that have died from Tazers or pepper spray or being at the wrong end of a police baton.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Really
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Really
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
USA Police State
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But cab drivers are actually much more likely to be wounded, or killed, by violence committed with a knife or gun or other weapon, on the job, than police officers are.
We admire diligent and professional officers of the Law, and depend on them in many ways. Police are granted special permissions and allowances to enable them to do their job properly. But at the same time as we grant these privileges -- because we grant them these privileges -- we demand the aforesaid competence and professionalism, and inevitably and rightly despise those who act like thugs or clowns, yet expect to still receive special treatment and undue allowance for bad behaviour..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Really
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Really
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Time for a little perspective.
Put plainly, police work isn't even close to the most dangerous job a person can take, and yet somehow they're supposed to get a pass when they pull and gun and shoot someone, intentionally or not, in the line of duty?
Source statistics for those curious:
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0259.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
1) Why do you have your gun drawn in the first place (before he pulled anything out of his pockets)? Do you draw your gun in every encounter whether or not shooting the person is justified?
2) Why do you even HAVE a tazer if you aren't going to use it here?
3) Why can't you hit where you are aiming? If it HAD been a gun you would have been dead ANYWAY because you missed!
4) Why don't you just let the crazed man walk around? By your logic, people will automatically get out of his way, and those that don't deserve whatever they get, right?
5) Why are they in harm's way? The guy is unarmed. Maybe some of them even know that.
6) If you "don't give a shit" about people, why are you even responding to the call, and for that matter why are you an officer in the first place?
7) How would those rules apply to other people? If I, not a police officer but perhaps in a dangerous line of work like night clerk at a frequently-robbed convenience store, see someone take something out of their pockets, can I shoot them before I see what it is? Or do you want a special rule just for you that lets you shoot people first and ask questions later?
8) According to Popehat, "Overall the NYPD usually requires about 331 rounds to hit 54 targets, of which 14 will be innocent bystanders, 24 will be dogs, and 16 will be people the NYPD was actually aiming at." Given those numbers (out of every 30 people shot by police 14 are bystanders), should you really be shooting at people who are not CLEARLY armed when you're literally in Times Square?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
not surprised but....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Really
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Really
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Really
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Really
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]