Police shoot at you and hit someone else? Your fault!

[forindooruseonly]

Ok, I'm not one to post news articles, but this blew my mind. So, to summarize, NYPD shoots at and misses an unarmed man, but wound two bystanders. Now the unarmed man is being charged with assault against the two bystanders because he was responsible for the officers shooting at him...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/ny...uare.html?_r=0

Really? I mean REALLY? Something has got to give here. Say someone died, now he'd be up on murder charges. The other disturbing thing is this fella clearly doesn't have the resources to hire a good legal team, he'll probably get an overworked public defender and plead out, making a bad case law example...

And sorry if this has been posted and I missed it.

[GaryS]

It's part of the Felony Murder rule. Look that up, it's not new. People have indeed been tried and convicted for murder even if they didn't fire a shot.

Take a case where two guys rob a bank and then get in a shoot out with the police. The police kill one and capture the other. The suspect is then charged and tried with murdering his accomplice.

[zzzippper]

I believe. Don't agree but I believe it. Years ago in St. Louis an off-duty cop died in a traffic accident while responding to a crime almost 30 miles away. The perp was charged with murdering a cop.

[Doug M.]

"Transferred intent."

[forindooruseonly]

I realized that if you were committing a crime, then you were responsible for whatever unfortunate event that occurred during the crime in which you were an accomplice to. I'm fine with that.

I'm less fine with the circumstances in this instance. Not the same scenario, and one that's already drawing a lot of scrutiny about the use of force and the responsibility of such an act. It's a question of restraint, or lack there of, and different standards for different classes of people.

Years ago in St. Louis an off-duty cop died in a traffic accident while responding to a crime almost 30 miles away. The perp was charged with murdering a cop.

Sad. Why was an off duty cop responding to a call thirty miles away?

[ChuckS1]

Only two hit? If I read the article correctly, two officers were trying to subdue him and in the process, they drew and fired when the perp reached into his pocket. So, I would guess the officers were, say, within 15 feet of the perp. And seeing how the perp was 250 lbs, you'd think the officers could have hit him at that distance. Interesting that he was finally subdued with nonlethal force by a third officer. Guess he didn't have ammo...

[Rastoff]

Rule 4: Be aware of your target and what's in line with it.

Sorry, I don't agree with this at all. I am responsible for every shot I take, officials should be too. In this particular case, the suspect wasn't attacking the cops and didn't even have a gun. This was not a good shoot in any case. Tazer yes, shooting no.

If anything, this should be an indication that better training is needed.

[M29since14]

Originally Posted by Doug M.

"Transferred intent."

"Transferred Responsibility"

[2ndAmendmentNut]

That would be along the lines of me getting blamed for a cop causing a car crash when he busts a U-turn on the highway while trying to pull me over for going 76 in a 75. Sure I might be breaking the law to a certain extent but does it justify anything and everything the cop does from there? The ends justifies the means...

[LVSteve]

Cannot read the article, it requires a login. With the required New York trigger weight it is probably easy to miss a 250 lb guy at 15 feet.

[GaryS]

Originally Posted by 2ndAmendmentNut

That would be along the lines of me getting blamed for a cop causing a car crash when he busts a U-turn on the highway while trying to pull me over for going 76 in a 75. Sure I might be breaking the law to a certain extent but does it justify anything and everything the cop does from there? The ends justifies the means...

It's called the Felony - Murder rule. Not the traffic violation - car accident rule.

[Rastoff]

What felony was the guy in this article committing?

[GaryS]

Originally Posted by Rastoff

What felony was the guy in this article committing?

Don't know. I also don't know enough about New York law to know if the DA is "bootstrapping" a misdemeanor to get to the felony charges. In which case I'd expect defense counsel to move to dismiss those charges.

I also don't know if the shooting was justified or not. If the police justifiably believed that he was reaching for a firearm, then it was. If they had other, less lethal options, then it wasn't.

The attorney for one of the victims is already attacking the basis for the charges. For her client there is a much better chance of a settlement if she can show that the officers weren't justified in shooting.

From this and other high profile incidents, I have to question the competency of the firearms training NYPD conducts. Not just the proficiency with the weapons, but the shoot - don't shoot training. Which would be another possible route for the victims attorneys. Negligence in training and supervision is usually a pretty good route to go for plaintiffs if there is evidence to support that.

[nicky4968]

Whose responsibility it is is determined as if the intended target were hit.
If the police, or whoever, would have been justified in shooting you, the responsibility is yours.

If they weren't, the responsibility is theirs.

[zzzippper]

Originally Posted by forindooruseonly

Sad. Why was an off duty cop responding to a call thirty miles away?

I recall thinking at the time that the guy was a cowboy.

[Ranger514]

I wasn't there. I can't fault the cops for drawing weapons and firing if the guy disobeyed a direct order to keep his hands in plain view, and then made a threatening move. The cops who fired will have to convince others that their actions met the "reasonable" standard set forth in Graham v. O'Connor. Seems like the man was trying to commit suicide, since according to the news article, he had tried to step in front of oncoming vehicles before the shooting. My gut feeling is that the DA is blowing smoke to plead down to a lesser charge, and NYC will end up picking up a big bill in the upcoming tort claims filed on behalf of the wounded bystanders. But then, what do I know? Just my two cents.

[finesse_r]

Originally Posted by GaryS

It's part of the Felony Murder rule. Look that up, it's not new. People have indeed been tried and convicted for murder even if they didn't fire a shot.

Take a case where two guys rob a bank and then get in a shoot out with the police. The police kill one and capture the other. The suspect is then charged and tried with murdering his accomplice.

Just because it is accepted law does not make it right.

[Rpg]

The idea is that if you participate in a crime, you are responsible for the outcome. Even if you didn't do the outcome.

Really a pretty good idea.

[GaryS]

Originally Posted by finesse_r

Just because it is accepted law does not make it right.

Just because you don't like it, does not make it wrong.

[SgtLumpy]

Originally Posted by finesse_r

Just because it is accepted law does not make it right.

Actually, because it's an "accepted law" that does indeed make it right.

Laws aren't things that are passed and then left up to people to obey or disobey because they personally feel they are right or wrong. We're a nation of laws, not of men.

Lots of illegal aliens think it's not "right" that they can't come over the border and not get arrested or sent back. To them that law is "wrong" even though it's accepted.

I've known a LOT of drunks who think it's wrong that I arrest them for DWI, even though that law is accepted.

Wife abusers, child abusers, drug dealers, car thieves, shoplifters, lots of those people think the laws against what they do is "wrong".

If everyone simply disobeyed whatever laws they didn't think were right, we'd be somewhere on the sociological development scale equivalent of Somalia.



Sgt Lumpy

[finesse_r]

Originally Posted by SgtLumpy

Actually, because it's an "accepted law" that does indeed make it right.

Laws aren't things that are passed and then left up to people to obey or disobey because they personally feel they are right or wrong. We're a nation of laws, not of men.

Lots of illegal aliens think it's not "right" that they can't come over the border and not get arrested or sent back. To them that law is "wrong" even though it's accepted.
I've known a LOT of drunks who think it's wrong that I arrest them for DWI, even though that law is accepted.
Wife abusers, child abusers, drug dealers, car thieves, shoplifters, lots of those people think the laws against what they do is "wrong".
If everyone simply disobeyed whatever laws they didn't think were right, we'd be somewhere on the sociological development scale equivalent of Somalia.
Sgt Lumpy

If Americans followed your logic we would still be a British colony. Some laws need to be changed, and speaking out about them is vital to any kind of free society.

No one advocated breaking any law. Only that to be charged with a crime you should actually have committed that crime. If the cop shot at someone who was unarmed and hit someone else, I think it was the cop that committed assault, not some one standing there unarmed being shot at.

[nawilson]

Originally Posted by finesse_r

If Americans followed your logic we would still be a British colony. Some laws need to be changed, and speaking out about them is vital to any kind of free society.

No one advocated breaking any law. Only that to be charged with a crime you should actually have committed that crime. If the cop shot at someone who was unarmed and hit someone else, I think it was the cop that committed assault, not some one standing there unarmed being shot at.

Not exactly... their actions will be evaluated under New York laws as enacted by New York legislators who were elected by New York citizens. Drawing a comparison to the colonists who were ruled by laws passed by those they did not elect isn't exactly a valid comparison.

The felony murder doctrine has been with us a long time. In any case, no one here has any knowledge that didn't come from a sensationalized news story. Let's allow the criminal justice system to work. It usually does. And thanks to the protections built into the system, the guilty are far more likely to walk than the innocent are to be convicted- Hollywood not withstanding.

[SgtLumpy]

Originally Posted by finesse_r

...No one advocated breaking any law. Only that to be charged with a crime you should actually have committed that crime...

Well, I disagree that you have to have "actually committed that crime". If I agree to drive you past a rival gang banger's house while you shoot the kids having the birthday party, I think I'm just as guilty of murder as you are.

If you pull a fire alarm for a prank and the firemen crash on the way to the reported fire and die, I think you are guilty of the appropriate crime of their death, typically something like manslaughter.

If a suspect does something that causes the cops to rightfully fire on him but they miss and hit you, I think that original suspect is guilty of causing the situation in the first place.

So there's always going to be someone who thinks it's right and who thinks it's wrong. Just like those dopers and thieves and illegal aliens. Change the law if you don't think it's right. Apparently 51 of the people DO think it's right. While 49 of them either don't think it is, or didn't care about it enough to say anything about it.

So my original point, if it's an "accepted law" that does indeed "make it right" to the majority of the people.


Sgt Lumpy

[forindooruseonly]

If I shot into a crowd at a person I thought was armed and pulling a gun and my strays hit bystanders, who would be responsible - me or the guy I was shooting at?

If I was seriously in fear of my life and ended up shooting a bunch of bystanders, who's responsible and how would I be portrayed? Do I have the same legal deflection as the officers as to responsibility?

[finesse_r]

Originally Posted by SgtLumpy

So my original point, if it's an "accepted law" that does indeed "make it right" to the majority of the people.


Sgt Lumpy

Slavery was an accepted law until some people pointed out it was an unfair law.

[ladder13]

Fortunately to those of us who believe in the Constitution, the rights of the minority are to be protected. God help us if a mere 50%+1 runs roughshod over the 50%-1.

I guess y'all hunky dory with Obamacare, eh? It's the law.

[rwsmith]

Well, it can't be first degree, or second, third or fourth. Have they invented a 5th degree of murder?

[sierra255]

Here is an incident not involving a firearm that I was part of. A subject in a stolen car was spotted by one of our officers, and a pursuit ensued.
About 10 minutes into the pursuit the suspect turned into a dead end road followed by five units. The suspect foot bailed, and the officer in the lead began to chase him but after about 50 yds. the officer collapsed. Medics transported him to the emergency room, however he died prior to arrival. The suspect was apprehended by officers in the original chase and the suspect was charged with these crimes.
1. 2nd degree murder (non-premeditated) 2. Felony elude 3. Felony Reckless Driving 4. Possession of a Stolen Vehicle 5. Felony theft 1st degree. 6. Reckless Endangering .

The officer died of a heart attack (36 yrs. old and in good physical shape)and the suspect was convicted of the murder charge along with one or two of the other felonies. I think it's pretty simple to understand, that the suspect caused the entire episode, and you just have to have these kind of laws on the books. You can add a lot of what if this or that happened, and your can second guess the actions of LEO's. In 30+ years on the job, nothing was routine and crazy things and situations happen.

I recall a law suit against our department that a family filed. Two of our officers were responding to an "officer needs help call". They both passed a slow moving vehicle with lights and siren being properly used. The operator of the slow moving vehicle had a medical emergency and pulled off the roadway. He died from a heart attack and the family blamed the two officers who were driving with their lights and siren on. The case was dismissed, but as I said, nothing is routine in the LE business.....

[cmort666]

Back in the '80s there was a guy in Chicago who went to a dope house to buy his girlfriend a bag of weed for her birthday (I didn't say he was a SMART guy).

He went in, put down his money and waited for the proprietor to get him his product. While he was waiting, the cops raided the place, breaking in from the front and rear simultaneously.

The proprietor took off running for the back door with the cops in pursuit.

Somewhere in between, the cops met and started shooting at EACH OTHER. One cop shot and killed another cop.

During all of this, the hapless customer just hid out, waiting for the excitement to die down.

The proprietor cut some kind of deal and got jail time.

The customer, who literally did NOTHING during the raid, was charged under the felony murder rule, indicted, convicted, and SENTENCED TO DEATH. His sentence was eventually commuted. If I remember correctly, the case was one of those cited when the Governor instituted a moratorium on the death penalty.

[OLDFED]

No doubt a "new" law in NY called the Misdemeanor/Wounding Act. It's a downgrade level from the Felony/Murder.

[cmort666]

Originally Posted by sierra255

The suspect foot bailed, and the officer in the lead began to chase him but after about 50 yds. the officer collapsed. Medics transported him to the emergency room, however he died prior to arrival.

I think there was a similar case in Cleveland about ten years ago. I believe the defendant was convicted for the death.

It's a question of:

• Proximate Cause
• Reasonable Foreseeability

If you knowingly go into a liquor store with an accomplice to commit a strongarm robbery, you can't POSSIBLY claim that you have no REASONABLE belief that no likely harm could come from that. If your confederate gets shot by the clerk, a customer or the cops, that happened as a result, even if indirectly, of a voluntary act in which you engaged. You didn't shoot him, but you willingly took part in a series of events which led directly to his death.

One of the first high profile self-defense shootings in Ohio after the passage of legal concealed carry legislation involved a couple of teenagers, one of them on probation for... armed robbery. They tried to rob a guy on his own front lawn. One of them, Arthur Buford, was shot and killed by the victim. The accomplice bailed. When apprehended, I BELIEVE the accomplice was charged with felony murder in the death of Buford, who was shot by the victim. I don't know whether that charge was dropped or whether he as convicted on it.

[brucev]

"Apparently 51 of the people DO think it's right. While 49 of them either don't think it is, or didn't care about it enough to say anything about it." No. The legislature that writes the laws is owned and operated by those who pay the cost of campaigns. And those who pay those bills are no where near 51%. But they have the money. They pay the costs of campaigns. So, the legislators write the bills to suit their owner operators. And it doesn't matter if those owner operators are a teachers union, a police union or a group of industrial interests, etc. Pretending that law is the result of a willing majority is fantasy.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I don't know anything about police work, but wouldn't it have been better to tase the two women and shoot the perp?

[Old TexMex]

"In my country, it is unwise to touch a naked crazy man." (Translated from the Spanish)

How close do you have to get to tase in NewYork (I'm assuming they have special restrictions on TASERs in NY too)?

Are NYPD officers held to "see weapon first" before shooting?

[Lost Lake]

Reading the article I saw this:

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.”

Now why would an attorney wish to sue the city for the officers' actions instead of suing the crazy guy who hears voices in his head???

I wonder who has more money, the city or the crazy guy???

.

[ladder13]

Originally Posted by SgtLumpy

Actually, because it's an "accepted law" that does indeed make it right.

Laws aren't things that are passed and then left up to people to obey or disobey because they personally feel they are right or wrong. We're a nation of laws, not of men.

Lots of illegal aliens think it's not "right" that they can't come over the border and not get arrested or sent back. To them that law is "wrong" even though it's accepted.

I've known a LOT of drunks who think it's wrong that I arrest them for DWI, even though that law is accepted.

Wife abusers, child abusers, drug dealers, car thieves, shoplifters, lots of those people think the laws against what they do is "wrong".

If everyone simply disobeyed whatever laws they didn't think were right, we'd be somewhere on the sociological development scale equivalent of Somalia.



Sgt Lumpy

So then, you give every speeder you pull over a speeding ticket, for the exact speed they were doing, correct? No exceptions? Even for cops? Perhaps one of your co-workers? Speed limits are "accepted law", right?

[Kanewpadle]

I'm not a cop and I mean no disrespect to them but this law is BS.

If while chasing a bad guy, the chase is called of because it's too dangerous, why wouldn't the same logic apply to shooting and possibly hitting a bystander?

I understand that a split second decision must be made. But if an average citizen shot someone by accident, they are going to jail. I don't agree that cops are not held to the same standard.

And it's widely known that many cops don't train and practice on a regular basis. To them it's just a job and many of them don't carry off the job.

Sounds to me this law was passed to prevent cops and cities from being sued for a mistake on their part.

Again, no disrespect to you good coppers out there. Maybe because you've been there done that you can educate me a little more.

[hangnoose]

The crime breaker got the ball rolling, so WHO is ultimately responsible for ANY out come? Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Nobody said life is fair, especially when you go outside the law. Are ALL laws fair and just? Heck no, but THEY ARE on the books. If the shooter cops can be proven negligent, reckless, going against policy, using excessive force etc. They could be tried (no lawyer here) possibly criminally or civilly I'd imagine. Knowing full well it was within my CONSTITUTIONAL rights I used to c/c a gun at times & always have a loaded one within arms reach for decades before ccl's became all the rage, but I knew I was breaking the law. Choose your battles carefully.

[SgtLumpy]

Originally Posted by ladder13

So then, you give every speeder you pull over a speeding ticket, for the exact speed they were doing, correct? No exceptions? Even for cops? Perhaps one of your co-workers? Speed limits are "accepted law", right?

Yes, it's "accepted law" that driving over the speed limit is illegal.

No, not every violator I ever stopped got a ticket.

No, not every suspect in the situation of this thread (the one the cops shot at) gets charged or convicted in the injury/death of bystanders in the crossfire.

Look, I get that you think more highly of suspects who threaten cops than you do of cops. I get that you think the laws were made by some group of people that you don't agree with or think don't represent your personal beliefs.

Still, I think it might be prudent to 1) not speed and 2) not make threatening gestures toward cops. For the simple reason that - it's the law.


Sgt Lumpy

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Discussion threads typically work a lot better when we keep our criticisms and critiques focused on the subject and not aimed at each other.