Akai Gurley Gets Justice

The Brooklyn DA did what the Queens DA failed to do in the case of Sean Bell. This is a model for future prosecution of police misconduct and negligence.

I learned from the Sean Bell case that many of us, including me at the time, considered every homicide to be a murder. We did not understand that a homicide can be many things including murder but that murder requires criminal intent. Unlike the common citizen,a police officer takes an oath to uphold the law and apprehend those engaged in criminal activity. The very job description makes it very hard to prove criminal intent when a police officer kills someone in the line of duty or under the color of law. One of the few ways you can prove such intent would be to run a sting and catch a police officer stating in no uncertain terms that what he or she is doing is against the law and they simply do not care.

Since very few police are dumb enough to get caught making such a clear statement of criminal intent, it is next to impossible to convict a police officer of murder. This is why even though Isnora shot two clips into Guzman (which IMO showed intent) he could get away with the argument that he feared for his life and all that jazz.

Hence when you go after a police officer in court you hit him with a charge that only requires neglect or disregard for life, etc.

Manslaughter and/or criminally negligent homicide is when you don't have the intent to kill anyone but through one's actions someone is dead. Furthermore it is reasonable to believe that you should have known that the actions would have lead to the death of an individual. This is the charge that Liang was found guilty of and it fits. Let's understand why:

Liang, a rookie officer who was on stairs patrol, discharged his weapon in a stairwell that is used by residents and their guests, when he heard a sound. He was startled and pulled the trigger which his finger was already on.

“I heard something on my left side ... It startled me (then) the gun just went off,” Liang testified during the trial.

Firstly, as I've said many times, guns are inanimate objects, they do not "just go off". Liang is STILL not taking responsibility for pulling the trigger. Also as others have said: if this individual was so nervous about the job, he should not have been there. After the shooting, Liang and his partner argued about who would call the shooting in and failed to give first aid to Gurley as he lay bleeding to death.

Liang said he initially thought he’d accidentally fired his weapon but not hit anyone. He and Landau bickered over who should report the screwup, and Liang eventually called his sergeant’s cell phone — instead of reporting it over the radio, which is recorded.

This would be an attempt to cover up the shooting. Liang and his partner showed a reckless disregard for the lives of residents when they let this nervous rookie walk the darkened staircase with a nervous trigger finger. As someone who often uses stairs simply because I like the exercise, I could easily have been a victim of such disregard for public safety. I'm certain that the jurors (at least some of them) could see this as well.

At this point I'd like to point out that comparisons to Eric Garner are NOT appropriate. Garner, whether we like it or not, was engaged in behavior that under NY law would lead to arrest. While we can agree that he should not have been put in a choke hold AND that laws against selling "loosies" are of questionable value, Eric Garner was going to be arrested whether he wanted to or not because he broke the law. In the case of Gurley, there were no laws broken. There was no reason for him to have any contact with a police officer and ought never have met a bullet in the staircase. He was as innocent as you get.

Eric Garner Given The Sean Bell Treatment?

To those of us who pay attention to the facts, we know that the proper comparison here is not to Mike Brown but to Sean Bell.

When the Sean Bell was killed and his buddy Guzman shot up, I watched that trial closely and learned a few things that I discussed in a post after that verdict came down:

If you read all the counts you'll note that there is NO second degree manslaughter charge against Isnora or Oliver for shooting at Guzman. This is significant because first degree manslaughter charges requires the proof of intent. I said back in march of 2007 that intent would not be provable. Second degree manslaughter requires no intent. Once it was shown in court, by both Isnora and Oliver that the target of their weapons fire was Guzman, it didn't matter what happened to Bell (case wise) Bell becomes collateral damage from the assault on Guzman. So the question that needs to be asked is why was there no second degree manslaughter (or attempted manslaughter if such a charge exists) leveled at Isnora and Oliver? If the prosecutor did not ask for such an indictment, was he or his office acting in concert with the police department to assure that the officers would be acquitted?

This is significant. We do not know what charges the grand jury in this case were given, thus we cannot cast aspersions on those jury members because they cannot indict someone on charges that they were not told to consider.

What is most problematic with this is that Eric Garner, who was admittedly resisting arrest, did not pose any threat to any of the 3-4 police officers who were surrounding him. Garner did not assault any of the officers. He had no weapons. He was not a suspect of a felony. He was not a suspect of a just committed crime. He was not a fugitive from justice. He had his hands in full view with palms facing the officers. There is no debate as to whether Eric Garner posed a threat to anyone at any time. Therefore it is without dispute that it was the police officer(s) that were responsible for escalating what appears to be a civil offense (a ticket or desk appearance).

Secondly, while it is not illegal for a police officer to use a choke hold, it is in fact banned by the NYPD. The officers on the scene knew this. It is clear to anyone watching the video that a choke hold was applied to him. This is beyond dispute.

It is beyond dispute that the officer using that hold used that pressure on his neck to take him to the ground, severely limiting his ability to breath and possibly causing damage to his trachea. For a person who suffers asthma, that is deadly.

Thirdly we hear Garner say clearly that he could not breath. Yet the officer kept applying pressure to Garner's head in total disregard for his distress.

These actions were clearly negligent. There is no doubt about that. If the DA did not ask the Grand Jury to consider any charge that included negligence then we have yet another piece of evidence of systemic failure to hold the police responsible for their actions.

If the grand jury was instructed to consider any charge that included negligence (or non-intent) and they failed to indict (which is not the same as finding someone guilty) then the jury made a grievous error.

I understand that there is a request to have some of the evidence presented to the public. I would be interested to see what they considered and what exactly they heard or saw, aside from the self serving testimony of the police officer, that would make them decline to indict on any charge that did not require intent.