On September 30, I posted “New York City Police Shoot Up The Citizenry Again,” which chronicled the misadventures of several police officer who, in trying to subdue an unarmed, emotionally disturbed man–one Glenn Broadnax–shot two female bystanders, one of whom was using a walker. Did I need to tell you that they shot her in the leg? Did I also need to tell you that the emotionally disturbed man was, apparently, not hit?
There is a new, and even more absurd development in this case. Scott Shackford at Reason.com has the story:
Even though Broadnax was not armed, an indictment unsealed Wednesday is charging him with assault for the injuries caused by police gunfire. From the New York Times:
The man, Glenn Broadnax, 35, of Brooklyn, created a disturbance on Sept. 14, wading into traffic at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue and throwing himself into the path of oncoming cars.
A curious crowd grew. Police officers arrived and tried to corral Mr. Broadnax, a 250-pound man. When he reached into his pants pocket, two officers, who, the police said, thought he was pulling a gun, opened fire, missing Mr. Broadnax, but hitting two nearby women. Finally, a police sergeant knocked Mr. Broadnax down with a Taser. …
Yes, you’re right. The officers probably should have thought of the taser first, but let’s return to the story where things are morphing into a bad Twilight Zone episode:
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.’
‘The defendant is the one that created the situation that injured innocent bystanders,’ said an assistant district attorney, Shannon Lucey.
Broadnax was taken to Bellevue Hospital after they got him down and told police he was hearing voices of dead relatives and was trying to commit suicide. But a psychologist has nevertheless found him competent to stand trial.
Is this sort of thing usual? I’m afraid not. It is not unusual for criminals to be charged with murder, for example, if during the commission of a felony, one of their fellow crooks is killed by the police, but to charge someone obviously mentally impaired when the police mistakenly shoot two bystanders?
The news accounts of the original incident are not sufficiently detailed to tell me whether the officers were justified in shooting. One does not shoot unless they are certain they are facing an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. People reach into their pockets all the time for a variety of reasons. Someone being approached by police officers might reach for his identification, anticipating they will be asked for it. Simply reaching for a pocket does not provide justification for shooting. The police are expected to be sufficiently well trained and experienced to be able to wait an extra few fractions of a second to understand without question that they are or are not facing a deadly threat. “Maybe” just doesn’t cut it. If they can’t or won’t do this, they belong in another line of work because they are going to, sooner or later, shoot up innocent women in walkers.
News accounts suggest that Broadnax was shot as he was reaching into his pocket, or moments after removing his empty hand from the pocket. At least one account suggested that someone in the crowd surrounding the officers (yes, that’s not a good thing either) yelled “gun!” as some point, but it does seem that not only were the officers lacking in tactical sense, they were trigger-happy, and displayed the marksmanship for which the NPYD is becoming justly infamous. Take the link at the top of this article for links to three other articles that explain why NYPD officers are going to continue to shoot the innocent. The original explains how to fix the problem.
Back to the Reason article:
One of the women shot by the police is absolutely not having it:
Mariann Wang, a lawyer representing Sahar Khoshakhlagh, one of the women who was wounded, said the district attorney should be pursuing charges against the two officers who fired their weapons in a crowd, not against Mr. Broadnax. ‘It’s an incredibly unfortunate use of prosecutorial discretion to be prosecuting a man who didn’t even injure my client,’ she said. ‘It’s the police who injured my client.
Quite so, Ms. Wang. Quite so.
The indispensable Mark Steyn gets to the heart of the matter:
Ah, yes: the ‘situation’ injured the innocent bystanders. If you outlaw guns, only situations will have guns.
The defendant is looking at 25 years in jail for the crime of provoking law enforcement into shooting random citizens. If this flies in New York, then there is no law.
Law in NYC is whatever the Mayor says it is. Hasn’t it always been thus?
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Situations like this are becoming more common. You often write about how police officers should be trained to wait the fraction of a second to make sure the person in question is pulling out a gun not a wallet or cell phone. Frankly Mike, I think the time when police officers were trained that well is history. The number of innocent citizens who are killed or injured each year by law enforcement officers who have no fire discipline is amazing. Equally amazing is that nothing ever seems to be done to correct the wrongs.
A young man, who was serving in the Army in Afghanistan, had been given leave to attend his Father’s funeral. Distraught with grief and most likely having trouble making the quick adjustment from a war zone, he called 911 and said he was going to shoot himself. The “good old” SWAT Team was called and after not being able to get him to drop his weapon they killed him with 1 shot. I guess all the criticism of shooting Jose Guerena, USMC, 22 times has established a new set of guidelines for SWAT. Now they just use a ‘sniper’ with 1 shot. The spokesperson for the SWAT Team stated, “The officers felt threatened.”
Not only is there no fire discipline, there seems to be not an ounce of human kindness. Whatever happened to the “Policeman is your friend.”?
“Whatever happened to the “Policeman is your friend.” — when all you have is a tool belt full of hammers…
Excellent reply, RuleofOrder! Having a tool belt full of hammers is a big problem, especially the Bearcats, etc. that are supplied by the federal government. However, I don’t think just because people (law enforcement included) have weapons means they use those weapons. Think of all of the private gun owners in this country who handle their weapons responsibly. There are millions of guns that private citizens handle safely on a daily basis. If one truly believes that, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” then the discussion turns to the people behind those guns. One would expect that law enforcement would be the most highly trained in ‘fire discipline”. Yet, time and time again we have innocent citizens being injured and killed by the very people who should have the very best training with weapons.
It is easy to attribute these incidents to “situational” because law enforcement officers are exposed to more danger. But looking at what actually took place when citizens were injured or killed, by law enforcement, very often shows total lack of training and fire discipline. One look at the video of the Jose Guerena killing is enough to want to take all weapons away from law enforcement officials. Mike has pointed-out many such incidents of poorly trained law officers. The book by Radley Balko, “The Rise of the Warrior Cop” is not to be read by the faint-of-heart as it describes (with facts!) similar situations of citizens being injured or killed by law enforcement all over the country.
Perhaps it is time to consider the training AND the culture behind law enforcement individuals and weapons.
Dear Carol:
Thanks, as always, for your insightful comment. Like you, I wonder about contemporary officers. So many seem to get away with things that no supervisor of which I was ever aware would have allowed. Feeling “threatened” is never, under the law, sufficient to justify the use of deadly force. Far more is required. That the law is not enforced may not be an automatic indictment of police training and procedure, but may be.
As you suggest, fire discipline is a must. At least in the past, police officers were very reluctant to shoot anyone, at the very least because they had an active conscience. Now? We tend to hear only about the worst things that happen, but we hear about enough that I wonder.
Pingback: Ray Kelly: Self Defense For Me But Not For Thee | Stately McDaniel Manor