Unarmed Man Goes On Shooting Rampage

[CaféAuLait]

I searched and only found the original story where the police shot the 2 bystanders they pulled their weapons to shoot this man who was trying to kill himself and threw himself in front of a car. When he reached for his wallet, police thought he had a gun, opened fire and shot two bystanders.


Now they are charging the man with assault of the two women police shot.

An unarmed, emotionally disturbed man shot at by the police as he was lurching around traffic near Times Square in September has been charged with assault, on the theory that he was responsible for bullet wounds suffered by two bystanders, according to an indictment unsealed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Wednesday.

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.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/n...ce-near-times-square.html?smid=re-share&_r=1&

So this guy was mentally disturbed, believed he was speaking with dead relatives and wanted to commit suicide.

Seems to me like the police don't want to pay out in the civil case filed against them and are shifting the blame. One of the women believes the same way:

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.”

 

[Manchester]

One in the eye for the gun control lobby I suppose.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I always keep my gun in my back pocket ... .


I am in agreement that police should have NEVER fired a gun into a crowd of people; that was pretty stupid.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Unarmed Man Goes On Shooting Rampage

Like air guitars ... Air guns. An idea whose time has come.

(That really is a funny subject line.)

 

[CaféAuLait]

Unarmed Man Goes On Shooting Rampage

Like air guitars ... Air guns. An idea whose time has come.

(That really is a funny subject line.)

Speaking of, have you heard the new craze in Japan? "Air Sex". I kid you not.

In fact they have "air sex' championships.

 

[CaféAuLait]

I always keep my gun in my back pocket ... .


I am in agreement that police should have NEVER fired a gun into a crowd of people; that was pretty stupid.

I agree, the fact they are charging the man the cops were tying to shoot for assault when he never touched them is beyond me.

 

[Pogo]

One in the eye for the gun control lobby I suppose.

Actually it's "one in the eye" of the gun culture. Without that culture, these cops wouldn't have made such an assumption and nobody would have been shot.

 

[Godboy]

Just lock him up for being crazy.

 

[Iceweasel]

One in the eye for the gun control lobby I suppose.

Actually it's "one in the eye" of the gun culture. Without that culture, these cops wouldn't have made such an assumption and nobody would have been shot.

Yes, because going on shooting sprees is what most gun owners do for a hobby. Shrewd analysis there. I guess you think most women are whores because they have the equipment.

 

[jknowgood]

One in the eye for the gun control lobby I suppose.

Actually it's "one in the eye" of the gun culture. Without that culture, these cops wouldn't have made such an assumption and nobody would have been shot.

Kinda like the united states did with prohibition? That worked out well.

 

[R.D.]

One in the eye for the gun control lobby I suppose.

Actually it's "one in the eye" of the gun culture. Without that culture, these cops wouldn't have made such an assumption and nobody would have been shot.

Two idiot cops who couldn't even hit an unarmed 250lb target - they shouldn't have been shooting at to begin with - get a pass because of the second amendment isn't abolished?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

And the best thread title of the month goes to....

 

[Pogo]

One in the eye for the gun control lobby I suppose.

Actually it's "one in the eye" of the gun culture. Without that culture, these cops wouldn't have made such an assumption and nobody would have been shot.

Yes, because going on shooting sprees is what most gun owners do for a hobby. Shrewd analysis there. I guess you think most women are whores because they have the equipment.

Worst analogy ever. Thanks for playin' and be sure to play the home version.

 

[Pogo]

Actually it's "one in the eye" of the gun culture. Without that culture, these cops wouldn't have made such an assumption and nobody would have been shot.

Two idiot cops who couldn't even hit an unarmed 250lb target - they shouldn't have been shooting at to begin with - get a pass because of the second amendment isn't abolished?

What in the wide world of blue fuck does culture have to do with Constitutional amendments?
And who suggested abolishing any of them?
And who suggested "giving them a pass"?

Weird post. Are you in the wrong thread?

 

[Iceweasel]

Yes, because going on shooting sprees is what most gun owners do for a hobby. Shrewd analysis there. I guess you think most women are whores because they have the equipment.

Worst analogy ever. Thanks for playin' and be sure to play the home version.

In other words you can't refute it. But I don't see how you could.

Let me break it down to baby sized chunks so you'll at least have a shot at it. If owning guns makes citizens a potential threat, owning a vagina makes women potential whores.

So, it's the misuse that's the issue, not the possession of said equipment.

 

[CaféAuLait]

One in the eye for the gun control lobby I suppose.

Actually it's "one in the eye" of the gun culture. Without that culture, these cops wouldn't have made such an assumption and nobody would have been shot.

What's strange to me is how they finally took the guy down, with a Taser, he was in the middle of the street running around.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, because going on shooting sprees is what most gun owners do for a hobby. Shrewd analysis there. I guess you think most women are whores because they have the equipment.

Worst analogy ever. Thanks for playin' and be sure to play the home version.

In other words you can't refute it. But I don't see how you could.

Let me break it down to baby sized chunks so you'll at least have a shot at it. If owning guns makes citizens a potential threat, owning a vagina makes women potential whores.

So, it's the misuse that's the issue, not the possession of said equipment.

You must be a profound idiot. No I can't "refute" your unworkable analogy, because it refutes itself. Duh. Trying to compare gun owners with women?
That's pathetic.

"Owning guns makes citizens a potential threat" is your strawman. I've said nothing about owning or possessing guns at all. Or about women. And this just in from Captain Obvious -- a woman doesn't have a choice whether to own a vagina.

Dumbass.

The comment simply means that without the gun culture in which we live, it would not have occurred to these cops to imagine this guy was pulling a gun. Because it would not be something that would be expected. But I already said this.

That has nothing in the world to do with "gun owners".
That has nothing in the world to do with "whores" or women.
And while we're at it that has nothing in the world to do with "amendments" or "abolishing amendments" or "giving cops a pass".

Is the term "culture" some kind of totally new concept to you people?

 

[Noomi]

Ain't surprising. Trigger happy cops want to shift the blame onto some poor mentally ill bastard.

 

[Iceweasel]

Let me break it down to baby sized chunks so you'll at least have a shot at it. If owning guns makes citizens a potential threat, owning a vagina makes women potential whores.

So, it's the misuse that's the issue, not the possession of said equipment.

You must be a profound idiot. No I can't "refute" your unworkable analogy, because it refutes itself. Duh. Trying to compare gun owners with women?
That's pathetic.

I said vaginas. To you women are vaginas? I guess that makes you a dick.

"Owning guns makes citizens a potential threat" is your strawman. I've said nothing about owning or possessing guns at all. Or about women. And this just in from Captain Obvious -- a woman doesn't have a choice whether to own a vagina.

What's that got to do with it? The analogy was possessing the equipment. Or a man as a potential rapist. Owning the equipment doesn't make you suspect. Misuse of said equipment does. No wonder you made the ill informed comment you did, it isn't the 2nd Amendment's fault that some people misuse firearms and driver bozos like you to distraction.

Dumbass.

The comment simply means that without the gun culture in which we live, it would not have occurred to these cops to imagine this guy was pulling a gun. Because it would not be something that would be expected. But I already said this.

Yes, it was stupid then and stupid now. Maybe stupider since the folly was explained.

That has nothing in the world to do with "gun owners".
That has nothing in the world to do with "whores" or women.
And while we're at it that has nothing in the world to do with "amendments" or "abolishing amendments" or "giving cops a pass".

Is the term "culture" some kind of totally new concept to you people?

Who's you people? I almost never see a gun apart from my own. Once in a blue moon someone open carries or I see an armed cop. Where is this gun culture that frightens you so much?

 

[Peterf]

I searched and only found the original story where the police shot the 2 bystanders they pulled their weapons to shoot this man who was trying to kill himself and threw himself in front of a car. When he reached for his wallet, police thought he had a gun, opened fire and shot two bystanders.


Now they are charging the man with assault of the two women police shot.

An unarmed, emotionally disturbed man shot at by the police as he was lurching around traffic near Times Square in September has been charged with assault, on the theory that he was responsible for bullet wounds suffered by two bystanders, according to an indictment unsealed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Wednesday.

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.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/n...ce-near-times-square.html?smid=re-share&_r=1&

So this guy was mentally disturbed, believed he was speaking with dead relatives and wanted to commit suicide.

Seems to me like the police don't want to pay out in the civil case filed against them and are shifting the blame. One of the women believes the same way:

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.”

I don't know much about 'Grand Juries' but on the evidence of this story I must assume that they are carefully selected from among those with serious learning difficulties who can be relied upon to do whatever they are told to by the police.