Civil Jury Clears NYC Officers of Slaying

Guardian ^ | 11/17/03 | Tom Hays

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

NEW YORK (AP) - A jury found Monday that five police officers were justified in shooting a hammer-wielding man to death in 1999.

The jurors deliberated for a day before clearing the officers and the city of any liability in the death of Gidone Busch, a 31-year-old Hasidic Jew with a history of mental problems. The officers were never charged criminally or disciplined for the shooting.

Busch's family members were outraged by the verdict, and demanded a Justice Department review.

``It's a disgrace!'' the victim's stepfather, Howard Boskey, shouted as jurors filed out the courtroom following a monthlong trial.

The city's Law Department, in a statement, said the verdict ``reflects the judgment that although the death of (Busch) was sad and unfortunate, the police officers involved were not at fault and acted properly.''

Some members of the Jewish community had likened the case to the police killing of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed West African immigrant who was shot 41 times in the Bronx in 1999.

The family sought unspecified damages, alleging the patrolmen used excessive force on Aug. 30, 1999, while responding to a report of an ``emotionally disturbed person'' in a predominantly Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn.

The officers testified that after confronting Busch on the street, he attacked a sergeant with an 11-inch household hammer. When Busch refused to drop the hammer, the officers said, they responded with a barrage of bullets. He was hit 12 times, including once in the back.

A lawyer for Busch's family, Myron Beldock, claimed the victim never lunged at the officers and criticized them for not using stun guns or other non-lethal means. He accused the officers of ``lying to protect themselves.''

[sinkspur]

Cops don't carry "stun guns"; they carry real guns. And, a hammer can be deadly.

No payday.

[Alberta's Child]

I remember this story -- this guy was a bit of an oddball with quite a reputation, and a substantial number of his neighbors apparently breathed a sigh of relief after he met his fate.

[Rifleman]

Unless the guy was a giant or a martial arts master any cop or cops that could not disarm and arrest him without the need to shoot him a dozen times is not up to the job. Don't they issue battons or pepper spray any more?

[Alberta's Child]

1. A guy who assaults a police officer with a hammer has no business complaining about the treatment he receives from them in response.

2. Pepper spray does not always work against agitated suspects, particularly those under the influence of drugs.

3. If the police had used batons against him in an attempt to subdue him, the city and police officers would have faced identical criminal and civil investigations/lawsuits, and the reaction of this guy's family to the verdict in their lawsuit ("Busch's family members were outraged by the verdict, and demanded a Justice Department review.") would have been the same.

4. The cops in the Rodney King incident used their batons "so we didn't have to shoot him" (from the testimony of one of them afterward) -- a lot of good it did them, huh?

[dead]

If that hammer struck the officer in the head just once, it could have killed him. Multiple officers responded to prevent that.

It's a shame that the guy was crazy, but it's not some cop's job to die in sympathy.

[Rifleman]

If several cops can't subdue one loonie, what the hell good are they? What are we paying them for? If they are going to shoot anyone who resists them, well, I could do that myself. The idea is to enforce the law without killing people right and left.

These guys were not up to their job. Let them find careers more in line with their abilities.

[FeliciaCat]

What if one of those "several cops" was knocked in the head with the hammer in the course of subduing the the suspect and died? Is one cops life worth it? Remember- the nutty guy with the hammer is NOT the victim in this, he is the perp. You go after a cop with a hammer, you will suffer the consequences.

[Teacher317]

Funny thing... Rodney King is still alive (and still being a massive jerk), and was able to have a trial. The victim here is not, and will never. Which do you think is more just?

(Also curious that you assert that the cops would have a hard time subduing a drugged-up with mere batons, and then you cite a case where they did just that... against a PCP-raging freight-train of a perp who was rather large.)

[Rifleman]

I may be one of the few Americans that saw the whole King video. Except for the last ten seconds or so, those cops were doing their jobs. But they had him down and subdued, and a couple of them kept whaling on him. They should have been suspended for a month and given some training, not convicted of assault.

If several cops cannot subdue one loonie armed with a hammer, they are not skilled enough at their job. I watched a skinny (about 170 lb) veteran cop disarm a drunken violent 280 lb Bubba armed with a Bowie knife, with two strokes from his baton. He broke the drunks arm, but did not need to shoot him. Bubba was on the ground and cuffed before he knew what happened.

That was skilled police work by a cop who knew that his job was to "serve and protect", not to kill people and break things like so many militarized departments seem to do these days.

And no, the cops right to go home safe at the end of the watch does not trump the safety and rights of the citizens that they are supposed to serve and protect. Even agitated loonies. Any cop that doesn't see it that way needs to change jobs.

[dead]

Don't they issue battons or pepper spray any more?

They already used pepper spray. It further enraged the deranged man, who struck an officer twice with the hammer and was swinging it again at his head when the other officers finally opened fire.

These guys were not up to their job.

You’re the last guy I’d want watching my back when somebody was trying to split my skull open with a hammer. Perhaps you could sing Kumbaya to him while my brains spill onto the floor.

Let them find careers more in line with their abilities.

Perhaps you should look for another line of business. You are not very good at your current career of self-appointed Monday-morning-quarterback for the police.

The prosecuters never charged the police with any criminal offense (which politically-motivated NYC prosecuters love to do.) And the jury ruled unanimously that the officers acted in self defense. A jury which heard alot more details of the case than you.

These policeman remain on the job, despite your uninformed second-guessing and impotent rage.

[Alberta's Child]

Funny thing... Rodney King is still alive (and still being a massive jerk), and was able to have a trial. The victim here is not, and will never. Which do you think is more just?

Funny thing . . . The "victim" here (you're joking about that, aren't you) is dead, while Rodney King basically got himself a wooden shampoo at the hands of the LAPD. And yet this incident occurred four years ago without attracting any media attention -- I'll bet most people here on this thread never heard about it before today. And the Hasidic neighbors of the "victim" didn't burn down their neighborhood, either.

If Mr. King had been a white guy, the LAPD could have shot him 100 times and dumped his body off a bridge without so much as a mild reprimand.

Based on these observations, I'd say that justice was rendered in the New York case. Justice clearly was not rendered in the Rodney King case, since he is still alive to talk about his experience.

[Rifleman]

That the loonie managed to hit a cop, twice, with that hammer is just another sign that they messed up. They lost control of the situation and chose to escalate the level of violence. A loonie with a broken forearm cannot hit anyone with a hammer. Someone who actually understood what a baton is used for would probably not even needed to break bones.

I do not doubt that the loonie hurt the cop. Unless the loonie was a giant or a martial artist, the cops should not have let him.

I am not saying that the cops intended to mess up, just that they did mess up. It is their job to control such situations, and if they need to shoot people to control them, then they are not up to the work.

The fact that the persecutors didn't charge them impresses me not at all. They may not have committed a crime. Being bad at your job is not criminal.

Impotent rage? Whose posts are you reading?

[Alberta's Child]

That was skilled police work by a cop who knew that his job was to "serve and protect", not to kill people and break things like so many militarized departments seem to do these days. And no, the cops right to go home safe at the end of the watch does not trump the safety and rights of the citizens that they are supposed to serve and protect. Even agitated loonies. Any cop that doesn't see it that way needs to change jobs.

If some loony-tune is causing a ruckus in your neighborhood, you had better be able to deal with him yourself. The instant you call 911 to bring in "someone else" to deal with your problem, you effectively lose any right to criticize those who are called in to fix it for you. If there were no such thing as a police department, this moron would have been offed by his neighbors years ago. Only a lazy, hapless society that expects a police department to "serve and protect" them would ever have the patience to put up with an @sshole like this for any length of time.

There is an easy way to address this problem -- simply require every member of the legal profession to spend one month of the year serving as law-enforcement officers. One would assume that a person who was competent enough to pass a bar exam would know enough to apply the law in a rational, reasonable manner in any given situation.

But that will never happen, because when it comes to dealing with the police it's much easier to be a Monday-morning quarterback than to put your own life and reputation at risk. The lawyer who represented the family in this lawsuit wouldn't even think of working a single shift in an NYPD uniform without being armed to the teeth -- even in New York City's safest neighborhood.

[Alberta's Child]

Also curious that you assert that the cops would have a hard time subduing a drugged-up with mere batons, and then you cite a case where they did just that... against a PCP-raging freight-train of a perp who was rather large.

If Rodney King had been swinging a hammer at those police officers, he would not have been alive to tell us all to just get along. If he had been a white guy swinging a hammer at the LAPD officers, he would have been shot on the spot and his story wouldn't even have made the news until his family lost their idiotic lawsuit. Kind of like this story unfolded, huh?

[dead]

This argument could go on all day.

I certainly do not take the cop's side all the time, or anything even near most of the time.

But when somebody is killed while attacking a policeman with a deadly weapon, I really can't muster up too much to criticize about their actions.

Sorry you disagree.

[Rifleman]

I am unimpressed. I have never been a cop, but I once disarmed a drunk with a shotgun (stealth not muscle, as I am a middle aged fat guy) while waiting for the cops to get to the scene. So don't give me the "you wouldn't understand" BS. And I do not have to be a cop (or a doctor or a lawyer or an engineer or a mechanic) to tell if the job is done well or badly.

Cops were once peace officers, and thought of themselves that way. These days they are LEO's,ie, muscle for the State, and think of themselves that way. I prefered the old style cops.

[Alberta's Child]

And I do not have to be a cop (or a doctor or a lawyer or an engineer or a mechanic) to tell if the job is done well or badly.

And yet a jury hearing this case decided that the police did absolutely nothing wrong. Next time, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs should call you up as an expert witness to show them all how it is done.

Notice that there were five police officers on the scene in this case, to do something that you claim could have been done by one person (yourself). In case anyone was wondering why they sent so many cops to the scene . . . They knew exactly what they were dealing with, and they were prepared to do something that none of his neighbors were willing to do.

Cops were once peace officers, and thought of themselves that way. These days they are LEO's,ie, muscle for the State, and think of themselves that way. I prefered the old style cops.

If you prefer the old style cops, then move to a place where the most serious crime is petty theft. The New York City police department is not "muscle for the State" -- it actually functions as a sanitation department for a population that is too stupid to be trusted with sharp objects and too lazy to lift a finger to protect themselves.

[Rifleman]

What a jury decides in a case has nothing to do with me or my opinion. I am commenting on the case as described in the article. If the truth is something different, point it out, and you can easily change my mind.

Your second 'graph simply makes no sense. I never claimed that I could "do it myself". I claim that five cops who can't subdue a loonie are not up to the job. And are you suggesting that this guy "needed killing" and the cops did just that? If you are saying that the neighbors took no action, what would you have them do? Self defense is frowned upon in NYC. You go to gaol for shooting muggers and thugs.

As to old style peace officers, most of the local county force (West Central Mo) qualify, to my mind. And they are currently fighting (and have mostly cleaned up) a very active crank (meth) market in this area. And trust me, crank crazed rednecks are just as tough and dangerous as urban ute drug gangs. And these peace officers _usually_ look and act like they are policing Mayberry. They don't put their manhood and self esteam on with the badge and the gun.

The NYC police force that you describe is not what self governing free people need, but I guess that NYC is not made up of such, according to you.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Right.