JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
<broken link removed>

In the latest turn to a developing case an unarmed man involved in an altercation with New York City police near Times Square, which resulted in the shooting of two bystanders, the district attorney's office is holding him responsible for their injuries.

According to an indictment unsealed on Wednesday Glenn Broadnax, 35, of Brooklyn, NY, has been charged with assault over the September 14 incident which left many wondering whether the use of force by police in a crowded area was justified.

He began wading into busy lanes of traffic in the bustling Times Square area, drawing a crowd and the attention of police officers who attempted to contain Mr. Broadnax, a 250-pound man described as emotionally disturbed.

Under the assumption that he was armed, two officers opened fire when Broadnax reached into his pants pockets, instead hitting two women bystanders. The bullets struck a 54-year-old woman in the knee and grazed another 35-year-old woman.

Broadnax was then subdued when an officer shot him with a Taser gun.

Video and photos released of the scene depicted a chaotic situation, with a group of officers attempting to corral Broadnax while onlookers yelled at police not to shoot him.

He was taken to Bellevue Hospital Center for evaluation, where, according to a court document, Broadnax told a detective that*"he was talking to dead relatives in his head and that he tried throwing himself in front of cars to kill himself."*A psychiatrist later found him competent to stand trial, reports The New York Times.

Though he was initially facing misdemeanor charges of drug possession, resisting arrest and menacing, the district attorney's office successfully argued in front of a grand jury to charge Broadnax with assault, with a maximum sentence of 25 years.

According to assistant district attorney Shannon Lucey, it was Broadnax*"that created the situation that injured innocent bystanders."*

The nine-count indictment alleges he*"recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death."

A lawyer representing one of the women struck by an officer's bullet, Mariann Wang, disagrees with the district attorney, saying that it should be the two officers who fired their weapons who should be facing charges.

"It's an incredibly unfortunate use of prosecutorial discretion to be prosecuting a man who didn't even injure my client,"*said Wang.*"It's the police who injured my client."

Broadnax's lawyer, Rigodis Appling, said his client suffered from clinical depression and anxiety, and was disoriented during his encounter with the police.

"Mr. Broadnax never imagined his behavior would ever cause the police to shoot at him,"*said Appling.

The two police officers who shot and struck members of the crowd still face an internal Police Department Inquiry and were placed on administrative duty, reports The Times.

The September event quickly drew critics to cite another high profile incident in August of 2012, when nine bystanders were injured by bullets fired by NYPD officers involved in a confrontation with a gunman near the Empire State Building.

Police guidelines instruct officers to avoid endangering innocent people, though they are permitted to use deadly force if they judge themselves to be in imminent threat of serious injury or death./
 
Ya, it's his fault, if he would have held reeeeal still.....................maybe, they could have hit him.........:s0092:
 
Well, as bad as it is what the NYPD did, I can't hold the "victims" blameless either. If I'm in NY, with their track record of accuracy when shooting at "suspects", I would be nowhere near any kind of confrontation. They shouldn't have been standing around telling the cops not to shoot him, they should have been running for cover, knowing that the least likely person to get shot would be the guy they are aiming at.

Yes, this is sarcasm. I don't really blame the women that got shot, but crowding around police attemtping to make an arrest is not a good idea.
 
Well, as bad as it is what the NYPD did, I can't hold the "victims" blameless either. If I'm in NY, with their track record of accuracy when shooting at "suspects", I would be nowhere near any kind of confrontation. They shouldn't have been standing around telling the cops not to shoot him, they should have been running for cover, knowing that the least likely person to get shot would be the guy they are aiming at.

Yes, this is sarcasm. I don't really blame the women that got shot, but crowding around police attemtping to make an arrest is not a good idea.

Nowhere in the article does it say the two women were crowding around the police saying anything. They could have been yelling don't shoot him, while running for cover because they realized they were the backstop.

A bigger issue here is the policies and or training in use of force. Just because a person reaches in their pocket or won't remove their hands from their pocket does not mean that your life is in danger or they have a gun. Maybe the guy was reaching for a breath mint because he had that not so fresh feeling in his mouth. With two Officers there is an advantage to have one deploy the taser and the other backing him up with deadly force as a last resort. If it were just one officer responding then presenting deadly force and using it as a last resort would be the only option.

As for the post about the guy holding still so the officers could shoot him, that's not far from the truth. The majority of police training happens on a range with stationary targets while standing still shooting. I have always considered myself to be a better than average shot; that is until I went to threat dynamics and shot the 300 degree scenarios. I would shoot the bad guy and continue shooting until he was no longer a threat. Problem was when I hit the guy with the first few rounds he started to fall to the ground, which left a nice group where he was standing. For the most part Police do not train with dynamic tagets while on the move themselves.
 
the big question is why did they use their guns first then use the taser? I thought that they were to use only enough force to stop the bg
or did he become a less of a threat after seeing the cops could not hit him.
 
the big question is why did they use their guns first then use the taser? I thought that they were to use only enough force to stop the bg
or did he become a less of a threat after seeing the cops could not hit him.

Thank you. I'm glad someone said it.
 
Wait...so they're trying to say that he was responsible for the injuries of the people around him?

*If this guy got into an actual shoot-out with the police I could see the arguement.
*If police were chasing him in a car and a wreck ensued (an unforseeable occurance due to the rapid change in environment) then I could see the arguement.
*If he actually tried to attack someone in the crowd I could see the arguement.

As for the NYPD, I think I should quote Firearm safety rule #4:

Be aware of your target; what is behind it and beyond it.

**Video** - Two bystanders struck by NYPD cops opening fire on suspect near Times Square - NY Daily News

35 seconds in he threw a cop into a car, grounds to shoot this guy right there as far as I'm concerned.


But this brings up last year's shooting near the Empire State Building where NYPD officers injured nine people trying to hit a guy that just murdered a coworker. That story was a little different since the guy actually had a gun and the threat was imminent...however, it does goes into the entire concept of accurate fire and should drive the point home about stress fire tests (not just static qualification). There comes a point where you need to weigh the consequences of your actions- if you are doing something to protect the community but it endangers more people (i.e. performing a high-speed car chase in a school zone or shooting at a guy in the middle of times square) then you stop, reassess and reevaluate.

It should also be noted that many of those nine people from the above were mostly injured from the framentation of bullets- not the actual bullets themselves.

Sooooo- maybe if you're on foot patrol/bike patrol you should be carrying frangible bullets in your primary.

But what do I know, right?
 
Wow, what did they have, like 30 officers there? And they still felt like they needed to shoot the unarmed guy? That is just pathetic.

I'm not knocking the police for shooting him...he chucked a cop like a softball into the car at 35 seconds- come at me after that and you're getting the mag in your chest- unarmed or not. I'm knocking them for screwing off firearm rule #4...just because you can you shoot someone doesn't automatically mean you should.

*edit*

Top that off with the DA trying to tag the injured civilians on the subject from the officers and I'm with the "F*** NY" crowd.
 
Top that off with the DA trying to tag the injured civilians on the subject from the officers and I'm with the "F*** NY" crowd.

Thats what they are doing. So I guess if they want to charge someone with murder thay can just shoot an innocent and say it was because they were shooting at a perp so they can now insure their conviction of the crime by proxy................
This country has sunk to Soviet style legal tactics now.
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top