Thursday, December 5th, 2013

Why Do You Keep Making Cops Shoot People, Crazy Man?

So far all anyone has to say about the Manhattan District Attorney charging a crazy man with assault because two cops opened fire on him (while he was unarmed) and shot bystanders is… "wait, what?"

This is also pretty choice:

After his arrest, Mr. Broadnax was taken to Bellevue Hospital Center, where he 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,” according to a court document released on Wednesday.

A judge ordered a mental evaluation, and a psychiatrist later found Mr. Broadnax competent to stand trial, Ms. Appling said.

Either they sure patched dude up pretty seriously in three months or our threshold of "competent to stand trial" is getting real low.

Anyway, I've been digging for precedent on this one and all I'm coming up with is a discarded "Good Wife" plotline? Anyone?

1 Comments / Post A Comment

KarenUhOh (#19)

I flail around in traffic about as well as anyone, so I'll take a shot (!) at the tortured logic:

Charge is assault; assault, usually, is something along the lines of "putting one in apprehension of a battery." That's civil law, to be sure, but many criminal statutes ape that, or gussy it up. Battery, of course, is the actual physical attack. Which. . .

DA says cops don't fire until/unless the guy reaches in his pockets. . .of course, for a gun, right? Nutty fella, willing to fling himself off cars, you bet he's carrying, and now his attention must have turned to shooting up the street. So the cops do it for him, thus delivering him, and the State, his victims.

Yes, tortured indeed. But it's at least a case. For now.

The "competency" part, well…you know psychiatrists. Consider the source.

Post a Comment