|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 6, 2013, 09:51 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
Unarmed Man Charged in NY Shooting
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/ny...KKqRtR4kMw85A& |
December 6, 2013, 09:57 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
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....
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
December 6, 2013, 10:54 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
December 6, 2013, 11:02 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
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.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
December 6, 2013, 11:11 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
December 6, 2013, 11:19 AM | #6 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
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.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; December 6, 2013 at 11:31 AM. Reason: accused's lawyer, not accused lawyer :) |
December 6, 2013, 11:22 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
December 6, 2013, 11:56 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
Here is a link to ones mans perceptive on the issue.
He does more than enough "cop bashing", but IMO he does get to the hart of the Legal matter as well. If there is to much "cob bashing" and not enough Legal response, please delete. http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/12...y-for-bad-aim/ |
December 6, 2013, 12:06 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I read it - meh - he's just ranting and goes off the edge with his discussion of drunks. Doesn't do us much good, IMHO.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
December 6, 2013, 01:59 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
December 6, 2013, 03:38 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,315
|
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.
|
December 6, 2013, 04:23 PM | #12 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
We've discussed issues of immunity and liability in another recent thread involving bystanders injured by police gunfire. Some of the questions in this thread are answered there.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
December 6, 2013, 04:43 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
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.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
December 6, 2013, 10:04 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
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. |
December 6, 2013, 10:09 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 26, 2012
Posts: 191
|
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. |
December 6, 2013, 10:21 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
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. |
December 7, 2013, 08:53 AM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
Quote:
|
|
December 7, 2013, 12:16 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
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... |
December 7, 2013, 12:37 PM | #19 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
December 7, 2013, 01:18 PM | #20 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
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. |
December 7, 2013, 01:35 PM | #21 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
There are several more acts to this drama that will need to play out before we can begin to understand the whole story.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
December 7, 2013, 02:39 PM | #22 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,820
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A guess is all we can do until (as already pointed out) the details of the case (evidence such as witnesses, Psychology report, video, etc.) are gone through by both sides. From there an offer may go back and forth as to final charges and maybe sentence limits between the prosecution and defense in the attempt to make a deal. Then again one side or the other may decide to make no offer and choose have it heard in court believing they have a better chance or no choice but to do so and play the hand dealt them.
__________________
If you ever have to use a firearm, you don't get to pick the scenario! |
|||
December 7, 2013, 03:06 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
The grand jury should have indicted the prosecutor for something (perjury? civil rights violation?) for even bringing that charge. Yes that is within their power, it's just *highly* unusual.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
December 7, 2013, 04:43 PM | #24 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,820
|
Quote:
Quote:
Often in cases of homicide a person may be charged with first degree murder with little to no evidence that the offender planned the crime but it doesn't mean the final charges end up that way. In fact with many cases of homicide, premeditation is hard to prove to a degree that warrants a first degree murder charge. It is part of the game. Even someone who stole a car and ran from police may initially have as many as 3-4 additional charges tacked on such as reckless driving, speeding, running a stop sign and failure to yield. Not to mention resisting arrest, fleeing and eluding, driving under suspension. It all depends on the details and even then many of the charges will be dropped. It is part of the game.
__________________
If you ever have to use a firearm, you don't get to pick the scenario! |
||
|
|