« Bloomberg canonizes himself | Main | Chicago "reduces crime" by cooking the books... »
Unarmed man goes on shooting rampage
It's the title of this piece, by Mark Stein. NYC police open fire on an unarmed mentally ill person. They miss him but hit two bystanders. So the DA charges the person they tried to shoot with aggravated assault, on the theory that his conduct caused the officers to shoot the bystanders. As Stein concludes, "If this flies in New York, then there is no law." Which probably means it will fly.
8 Comments | Leave a comment
I suspect there's a union angle to the prosecution. Less chance of finding the shooters at fault if somebody else is blamed.
It's Steyn, not Stein.
By the way, this is an old article, Dec. 2013 in NRO. Why now?
If the police open fire on an unarmed man, which is likely not necessary, then why is the unarmed man responsible for harm resulting from the irresponsible behavior of the police? I might but the argument if the guy was armed and there was reason for police to fire, but that does not seem to have been the case here.
Didn't see the original news piece.
Mentally disturbed? That could mean the fellow just had a fight with his wife. Or the boss. Or was hurrying trying to not miss his train.
This is the fruit of TV's "Law & Order" where they were always trying to convict people of crimes they did not commit, because a train of events involving the defendant somehow led to someone getting hurt or someone else committing the crime.
Exactly what act is the DA alleging the defendant committed that resulted in the injury by NYPD cops' guns and bullets? That would be some creative indictment writing.
Jon, at what point in time was it justifiable to shoot an unarmed person? Is New York City now restricting the issue and use of tasers?
Jim has it completely right in this situation, if the person had been armed with a knife or a club or a firearm then the police would have been justified in using deadly force to subdue the "mentally ill person." They would also be justified in charging him for their misplaced shots. But with the absence of a weapon and other safer means available to subdue and UNARMED person the officers in question should be the ones charged, they failed to use good judgement in the situation. But what it boils down to is the police do not want the image of the police department marred, the union wants to make sure the officers who screwed up don't loose their jobs and the city wants to make sure there is someone to blame even though nothing will come of it since the person has already been determined to be mentally ill and will likely be found incompetent for their actions.
The blue wall is often times spattered in the blood of innocents.
I remember the case. The man was a drug abuser and was trying to jump in front of traffic to get killed. Cops open fire when he reached into his pocket to get his wallet. Cops missed and hit two women.
However I never heard if Glenn Broadnax was convicted
Putting aside the gun-control aspects of this, it's totally reasonable from a legal perspective. If you break the law, you can be held liable for the damage done by the police in trying to stop you.
Imagine the situation where, during a high-speed chase, a police car trying to stop you hits another car. Why is it unreasonable that you be held liable for that damage? Some states even go so far as to allow you to be charged with homicide if the police kill your co-conspirator.
Does this create bad incentives for the police? Maybe. Does it allow them to shirk responsibility? Most definitely. But as a matter of law, it's not that crazy.