Cops charge unarmed man in shooting

[Forever_frost]

Bizarre police logic has led prosecutors to hold a Brooklyn man responsible for the shooting injuries of two other people, even though the man was unarmed at the time and the police were the ones who opened fire.

The incident dates back to September, when Glenn Broadnax, a mentally disturbed man, tried to throw himself in front of traffic near Times Square. The police tried unsuccessfully to restrain the 250-pound man, and panicked when he reached for his pockets. Thinking that Broadnax was about to draw a gun, two officers shot at him. They missed, and struck two bystanders instead, according to The New York Times.

Broadnax was, in fact, unarmed. He was reaching for his wallet.

Broadnax later said that imaginary voices had instructed him to commit suicide. He was deemed sane by a police psychologist, however.

He was arrested for resisting police, drug possession and menacing behavior. But according to a recently unsealed grand jury indictment, the Manhattan district attorney is also charging Broadnax with felonious assault. He is responsible for the shootings, not the police, said Assistant District Attorney Shannon Lucey.

“The defendant is the one that created the situation that injured innocent bystanders,” said Lucey in a statement.

That explanation rings false to one of the shooting victims.

“It’s an incredibly unfortunate use of prosecutorial discretion to be prosecuting a man who didn’t even injure my client,” said Mariann Wang, lawyer for shooting victim Sahar Khoshakhlagh, in a statement. “It’s the police who injured my client.”

The officers involved in the shooting were placed on leave pending an internal investigation. They have not been charged with any crime.

So far, the only person being held responsible for the shootings is an unarmed man.

Follow Robby on Twitter

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/05/cops-shoot-bystanders-charge-unarmed-man-with-shootings/

[line-em-up]

And people wonder why others like Donner use them for target practice. Karma's a bitch.

[Chili]

I can see that, in a way. My understanding is that if you are committing a crime, and while committing that crime, someone else is injured, you are considered responsible for that.

Kind of like if you are driving drunk, and are involved in an accident, you are considered at fault even if you did not directly cause that accident. Because, in theory, you should not have been on the road in the first place, therefore, had you not been driving, an accident likely would not have occurred.

[GrayStangGT]

I don't understand how anyone could live in that town, I'm not sure I would even want to visit there any more.

[Scott Mc]

I can see that, in a way. My understanding is that if you are committing a crime, and while committing that crime, someone else is injured, you are considered responsible for that.

Kind of like if you are driving drunk, and are involved in an accident, you are considered at fault even if you did not directly cause that accident. Because, in theory, you should not have been on the road in the first place, therefore, had you not been driving, an accident likely would not have occurred.

I usually agree with you but so you are saying that a person driving above a . 08, lets say a 1.1, 4 beers is driving and gets broad sided by someone running a red light. Its their fault? Just playing devils advocate, I minutely agree with the thought of him being responsible but ultimately the cops are responsible for their actions.

[Forever_frost]

I can see that, in a way. My understanding is that if you are committing a crime, and while committing that crime, someone else is injured, you are considered responsible for that.

Kind of like if you are driving drunk, and are involved in an accident, you are considered at fault even if you did not directly cause that accident. Because, in theory, you should not have been on the road in the first place, therefore, had you not been driving, an accident likely would not have occurred.

Except this man didn't injure anyone. Trigger happy cops who couldn't wait to get their gun off on an unarmed man shot innocents. Those cops should be charged with attempted murder and civil rights violations. To think these cops are not guilty is to charge Dorner (before he was killed) with the multiple attacks on civilians by the police officers looking for him. Like opening fire on two trucks without seeing who was in them.

[Craizie]

Except this man didn't injure anyone. Trigger happy cops who couldn't wait to get their gun off on an unarmed man shot innocents. Those cops should be charged with attempted murder and civil rights violations. To think these cops are not guilty is to charge Dorner (before he was killed) with the multiple attacks on civilians by the police officers looking for him. Like opening fire on two trucks without seeing who was in them.

That might be a bit much. A lunatic, that is trying to kill himself, reaches into his pockets..... Well I'd probably assume the worst, too.

**edit** Directed at the first half of your post.

[Chili]

I usually agree with you but so you are saying that a person driving above a . 08, lets say a 1.1, 4 beers is driving and gets broad sided by someone running a red light. Its their fault? Just playing devils advocate, I minutely agree with the thought of him being responsible but ultimately the cops are responsible for their actions.

I'm not saying I agree with the law, I'm just saying I can understand why that could be applicable under the "law".

I think the premise is kind of stupid, personally.

[Chili]

Except this man didn't injure anyone. Trigger happy cops who couldn't wait to get their gun off on an unarmed man shot innocents. Those cops should be charged with attempted murder and civil rights violations. To think these cops are not guilty is to charge Dorner (before he was killed) with the multiple attacks on civilians by the police officers looking for him. Like opening fire on two trucks without seeing who was in them.

These cops reasonably feared for their lives, as he was disobeying commands he made a perceived threatening action to the cops. The fact that their aim sucks ass is moot, IMO.

I will acknowledge that this is a very grey area, but would not automatically take an FTP stance based on the facts presented in the story.

[Scott Mc]

I'm not saying I agree with the law, I'm just saying I can understand why that could be applicable under the "law".

I think the premise is kind of stupid, personally.

LOL ok, that is more of what I was expecting.

[LANTIRN]

I can see that, in a way. My understanding is that if you are committing a crime, and while committing that crime, someone else is injured, you are considered responsible for that.

Kind of like if you are driving drunk, and are involved in an accident, you are considered at fault even if you did not directly cause that accident. Because, in theory, you should not have been on the road in the first place, therefore, had you not been driving, an accident likely would not have occurred.

That is Saudi logic.

[Chili]

That is Saudi logic.

Saudi logic is an oxymoron, isn't it?

[Forever_frost]

These cops reasonably feared for their lives, as he was disobeying commands he made a perceived threatening action to the cops. The fact that their aim sucks ass is moot, IMO.

I will acknowledge that this is a very grey area, but would not automatically take an FTP stance based on the facts presented in the story.

If I am defending myself from a lethal threat, I am personally responsible for every round that leaves my barrel. I hold officers who are supposedly experts, to the same standard.

[GhostTX]

Can NY cops shoot anything they're aiming at?

[71chevellejohn]

The other component to the story is that when they did take him down, they tazed him. Seems to me that the police should have used the non-lethal method first when their target has a crowd around him.

As far as charges go, are the shooting victims not able to press charges against the police?