Cops shoot at jaywalker, miss and hit passers by. Charge jaywalker with assault

[fleshconsumed]

So they must wait until the perp pulls a gun and possibly shoots someone, gotcha.

Essentially yes. In a volatile situation like this with a lot of potential for deadly collateral damage (it's a times square ffs) the first rule is to not to escalate. Any action by the police should have been reactionary. So even if he appeared to pull a gun on them they shouldn't have done anything until he started shooting. Tough? Yes. However that is the correct course of action. You do not escalate situation if there is potential for harm for innocent bystanders. It's the same reason why police does negotiation when hostages are involved and they resort to squad operation only if they feel the situation has deteriorated to the point where the hostage taker might harm the hostages. Back to the times square incident, until the suspect starts shooting no one will be harmed. Now if he does start shooting, then the proper response is to put down the thread as soon as possible. But until the suspect starts shooting, the police shooting at him are escalating the situation and putting lives of innocent bystanders at risk. Which is precisely what happened.

 

[WelshBloke]

So they must wait until the perp pulls a gun and possibly shoots someone, gotcha.

Well yes.

Otherwise they are just shooting people for standing in the road and not doing what they are told.

 

[werepossum]

If this guy pulled out a gun then the cops could try to shoot. I say try because it appears cops are terrible shots. But under your litmus test for the use of deadly force. The cops can justify shooting innocent bystanders all day long. We thought he was dangerous and thus our actions to shoot were justified. And because we cant hit the broad side of the barn. We will charge our percieved threat with assault from our horrible shots as icing on the cake.

Pretty much. Proper procedure would be to have ONE designated officer with a rifle; once he gets on the scene and gets into position, all the other cops put up their weapons, 'cause once someone starts firing they're all going to start firing. If the decision is made to fire, then he puts ONE bullet into the guy's thorax and no one else gets hit. One center-of-mass 7.62mm will put down almost anyone.

I'd like to see one story anywhere on the internet where people are upset that cops didn't kill someone fast enough. Where cops are blamed for the damage done by a perp. Just one.

Columbine. The cops lingered outside for hours while the building was cleared - and people bled to death. That literally changed most department's SOP. Pre-Columbine, it was assumed that innocents were less likely to get killed if the police operated slowly and methodically. Post-Columbine, it is assumed that innocents are less likely to get killed if the police rush in. (Which is of course much more dangerous to the cops.) I wonder if this sort of mentality has now backfired, so that police are so rushed to take down the perp that they are actually shooting innocents before the perp has even started shooting.

 

[werepossum]

And that's why nobody in here has the balls to work as law enforcement. You get crapped on by the suspects, the administration, and by the people you're protecting.

Well, I don't, and I'll admit it. We had an officer locally, Julie Jacks, who did not shoot an unarmed man who was ignoring commands and approaching her in a hostile fashion. That man took away her gun and murdered her with it. I know personally that I would not risk my life like that; ergo I did not go into law enforcement. But I would not condemn a cop who similarly shoots someone physically threatening him/her, either.

That said, there MUST be a differentiation between someone actually threatening the cop or innocents and someone who MIGHT threaten the cop or innocents. Failure to make that differentiation makes the cops a greater danger to innocents than is the perp.

 

[BUnit1701]

I could see your reaction had the perp shot several people......WTF were those MFin cops thinking, allow that perp to get to his gun and shoot grandma and little billy.

Your entire premise is flawed. If the perp is shooting at people, then it is a legitimate time to start shooting back, marksmanship not withstanding. Same if there is a plainly visible firearm. IF the perp is unarmed (as was the case here) then where is this 'eminent threat' that required two bystanders to be shot? And I'm sorry, but anyone who would say the cops should be psychic and shoot before the incident starts are twice as flawed in their reasoning as you are.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I forgot that at the first sign of danger the police are supposed to cower in fear and either observe or run away.

Positively identify a weapon does not come into it? Only wounded bystanders? Guess they forgot to empty their weapons like they did to the Haitian man that reached into his pocket for id.

 

[WHAMPOM]

So they must wait until the perp pulls a gun and possibly shoots someone, gotcha.

They must wait until the perp pulls a gun, period. Hitting the perp would be a plus.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Essentially yes. In a volatile situation like this with a lot of potential for deadly collateral damage (it's a times square ffs) the first rule is to not to escalate. Any action by the police should have been reactionary. So even if he appeared to pull a gun on them they shouldn't have done anything until he started shooting. Tough? Yes. However that is the correct course of action. You do not escalate situation if there is potential for harm for innocent bystanders. It's the same reason why police does negotiation when hostages are involved and they resort to squad operation only if they feel the situation has deteriorated to the point where the hostage taker might harm the hostages. Back to the times square incident, until the suspect starts shooting no one will be harmed. Now if he does start shooting, then the proper response is to put down the thread as soon as possible. But until the suspect starts shooting, the police shooting at him are escalating the situation and putting lives of innocent bystanders at risk. Which is precisely what happened.

No, perp pulls a gun , perp gets shot. Positive ID of a weapon a plus.

 

[piasabird]

I could defend the cops if they were being shot at by the defendent. I dont think the police would just shoot someone for jaywalking, unless he was some kind of a murderer or was on a rampage or something like that. Killing 2 people in a known busy location like this will not go well. Just try them like any other thugs.

People often takes news like this out of context any time a police officer is involved. How the law should read is if you commit a crime and the police have to draw weapons and kill a bystander then you should be guilty of Murder because you are a criminal.

Any criminal that draws a weapon and shoots at people in public should be automatically assumed guilty of Murder in the first degree.

 

[Sonikku]

Essentially yes. In a volatile situation like this with a lot of potential for deadly collateral damage (it's a times square ffs) the first rule is to not to escalate. Any action by the police should have been reactionary. So even if he appeared to pull a gun on them they shouldn't have done anything until he started shooting. Tough? Yes. However that is the correct course of action. You do not escalate situation if there is potential for harm for innocent bystanders. It's the same reason why police does negotiation when hostages are involved and they resort to squad operation only if they feel the situation has deteriorated to the point where the hostage taker might harm the hostages. Back to the times square incident, until the suspect starts shooting no one will be harmed. Now if he does start shooting, then the proper response is to put down the thread as soon as possible. But until the suspect starts shooting, the police shooting at him are escalating the situation and putting lives of innocent bystanders at risk. Which is precisely what happened.

You really have to hand it to the cops that do just that and take great risk to themselves all for a fairly low wage and get nothing in return but resentment by everyone around them. The media doesn't care if a cop risks his life by not escalating the situation and follows procedure, they only care when it's something they can slam them with. The disproportionate amount of coverage in this country has to be the reason Americans now believe flying on a plane is significantly more dangerous than being in a car.

 

[mizzou]

Essentially yes. In a volatile situation like this with a lot of potential for deadly collateral damage (it's a times square ffs) the first rule is to not to escalate. Any action by the police should have been reactionary. So even if he appeared to pull a gun on them they shouldn't have done anything until he started shooting. Tough? Yes. However that is the correct course of action. You do not escalate situation if there is potential for harm for innocent bystanders. It's the same reason why police does negotiation when hostages are involved and they resort to squad operation only if they feel the situation has deteriorated to the point where the hostage taker might harm the hostages. Back to the times square incident, until the suspect starts shooting no one will be harmed. Now if he does start shooting, then the proper response is to put down the thread as soon as possible. But until the suspect starts shooting, the police shooting at him are escalating the situation and putting lives of innocent bystanders at risk. Which is precisely what happened.

that doesnt make any sense. what if he pointed an actual gun or pretend gun at a group of children in front of police? by your logic, dont shoot him unless he shoots kids???? or is it just ok for him to shoot police?

every situation is different man, and unless you are there you dont know shit . you can hindsight everything but when you have seconds or miliseconds to save lives you HAVE to do something

 

[Nintendesert]

I forgot that at the first sign of danger the police are supposed to cower in fear and either observe or run away.

Good thing he didn't aim a wallet at them or 41 bystanders would have been shot.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Most in this thread would end up dead from waiting until they know the person has a gun before acting.

I guess the police should have waited until a pedestrian was injured or killed by a vehicle swerving to miss this person before taking action.

 

[classy]

Good thing he didn't aim a wallet at them or 41 bystanders would have been shot.

LOL, while that is not funny, it does have serious irony......................

 

[classy]

I also don't think they will get a conviction.

 

[halik]

It's an indictment by a grand jury. There is no defense in a grand jury indictment, the prosecution gets to present a one-sided case. I don't doubt that the DA argued that Broadnax was the "proximate cause" of the injuries to the bystanders, ignoring the fact that a proximate cause argument requires an unbroken chain of reasonable events. I would guess that the defense attorney rips that argument to shreds at trial (assuming there is no plea and the defendant is competent to stand trial). It will also be torn apart by the plaintiffs' attorneys when the bystanders sue the NYPD for civil reckless endangerment.

sactoking = esq?

 

[Jaskalas]

Most in this thread would end up dead from waiting until they know the person has a gun before acting.

I guess the police should have waited until a pedestrian was injured or killed by a vehicle swerving to miss this person before taking action.

My first reaction is to say they are condemned by him not having a weapon.

But that does not speak to his intent, which may have been suicide by cop. Nor the likelihood that other people who do that will have an object to pull out. Must they stop while it is pointed at them, identify it as a weapon, and only THEN shoot?

It must be clear that as soon as the suspect has identified the cops, his reaction was threatening. Aren't they, in turn, obligated to respond to that threat?

 

[NoStateofMind]

I forgot that at the first sign of danger the police are supposed to cower in fear and either observe or run away.

Jesus can you be any more of a State worshipping apologist? Most are at least able to see that shooting at an unarmed man and hitting bystanders is horrible and worthy of disciplinary action but to also charge the one being shot at with assault? And you post this mess? can I get a


WTF?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Most in this thread would end up dead from waiting until they know the person has a gun before acting.

Yeah generally when using dealy force you want to guard against excessive use.

I guess the police should have waited until a pedestrian was injured or killed by a vehicle swerving to miss this person before taking action.

So a man is in danger of being hit by a car...quick shoot him!

GTFO.

 

[M0RPH]

It's really disturbing how quick the police seem to be to shoot nowadays. Shooting should really be an absolute last resort, but police all over the country seem to have gotten the message that shooting is a fine precautionary measure when you think a suspect might be armed or could pose a danger. Same thing that's happening with the taser -- instead of last resort, it's the first thing a lot of these cops think of doing when someone does something. We need more training in non-lethal policing.

Pigs want to use their toys.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

By all means allow a deranged person to run into traffic. No way would people swerve to miss him and potentially injure or kill some with their car.

 

[WelshBloke]

By all means allow a deranged person to run into traffic. No way would people swerve to miss him and potentially injure or kill some with their car.

Yeah. They should shoot him and a few extras to keep everyone safe.

 

[Soundmanred]

Damn, not even the Devil himself would want this threads obvious devil's advocate. LOL

Were these cops wearing white helmets and body armor?

 

[classy]

By all means allow a deranged person to run into traffic. No way would people swerve to miss him and potentially injure or kill some with their car.

This is after the fact. All the police saw was a man run into traffic. He could have been running from someone in fear or running towards someone to help them. He could have been mentally sick..............which he was. He could have been drunk. There are a lot of reasons why he could have did what he did. Under no circumstances should the police have decided to shoot him.

 

[werepossum]

Most in this thread would end up dead from waiting until they know the person has a gun before acting.

I guess the police should have waited until a pedestrian was injured or killed by a vehicle swerving to miss this person before taking action.

Speaking to all cops on my own behalf:

Please do not shoot me to reduce the chance I am hit by a car, whether I am playing in traffic or someone else nearby is playing in traffic. I'll take my chances with the cars, thank you.

As far as waiting until they know the person has a gun before acting, anyone anywhere COULD have a gun. Most people do not accept cops shooting everyone around them as a sound precaution, even assuming the cops can hit everyone and not, you know, everyone else.

YMMV