Ex-NYPD officer gets no jail time in shooting death

[Erod]

Ex-NYPD officer gets no jail time in shooting death - CNN.com

New York (CNN)Former New York City police Officer Peter Liang will not serve jail time in the 2014 shooting death of Akai Gurley in a New York housing project.


Liang was sentenced to 800 hours of community service and five years' probation Tuesday after Judge Danny Chun reduced his manslaughter conviction to criminally negligent homicide in the shooting death of Gurley, 28, who was not armed.

Here's hoping for no New York riots on election night this evening.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Great... If I did something like that I would be looking at 20 to life.

 

[Tigerace117]

Ex-NYPD officer gets no jail time in shooting death - CNN.com



Here's hoping for no New York riots on election night this evening.

This wasn't so much malice as it was the guy being inexperienced and panicking as far as I've heard, so.....

 

[Beaudreaux]

Great... If I did something like that I would be looking at 20 to life.

The officer's gun discharged accidentally, the bullet hit a wall and ricocheted into the chest of Mr. Gurley. It was a true, sad accident. The officer broke no laws or policies with his actions, and added to it being an accident, that is why the judge threw out the previous conviction and reduced it to negligent homicide, although I feel that was still too much since there was no criminal negligence given that the officer was following all legal and procedural requirements at the time of the accident.

 

[Gaius46]

The officer's gun discharged accidentally, the bullet hit a wall and ricocheted into the chest of Mr. Gurley. It was a true, sad accident. The officer broke no laws or policies with his actions, and added to it being an accident, that is why the judge threw out the previous conviction and reduced it to negligent homicide, although I feel that was still too much since there was no criminal negligence given that the officer was following all legal and procedural requirements at the time of the accident.

The jury and the judge both disagree. The jury convicted on manslaughter and the judge reduced it to criminally negligent homicide. In NY that basically means he killed the guy accidentally but took such disregard to normal standards of care that he is criminally liable. It's a class E felony that normally carries a sentence of 1 to 4 years, though the judge only gave him 800 hours of community service. The prosecutor wrote a letter to judge asking for no jail time because the officer didn't "represent a threat to society."

I wonder if I, fine upstanding non-cop citizen that I am, accidentally killed someone with my legally owned handgun if the prosecutor would write a nice letter to judge for me as well since I don't represent a threat to society and whether the judge would be so accommodating.

 

[ttwtt78640]

This wasn't so much malice as it was the guy being inexperienced and panicking as far as I've heard, so.....

so... anyone (that is inexperienced and panicking) who draws a gun, fiires it and accidentally kills someone ahould be able to get that form of "just us".

 

[Tigerace117]

so... anyone (that is inexperienced and panicking) who draws a gun, fiires it and accidentally kills someone ahould be able to get that form of "just us".

Careful you might cut yourself on all those edges.

The guy's probably never going to be able to get a policing job again.

 

[Paleocon]

Great... If I did something like that I would be looking at 20 to life.

Neither manslaughter nor negligent homicide carry that penalty, so no.

The officer broke no laws

Other than the law against negligently killing someone.

Accident though it may be, a court has determined that he failed to take proper precautions, and he has to live with the consequences of his behavior.

 

[Paleocon]

The guy's probably never going to be able to get a policing job again.

There's nothing probabilistic about it. As a convicted felon, it's illegal for him to fulfill one of the basic requirements of being a police officer in the US.

 

[Tigerace117]

There's nothing probabilistic about it. As a convicted felon, it's illegal for him to fulfill one of the basic requirements of being a police officer in the US.

That's what I figured as much

 

[Beaudreaux]

The jury and the judge both disagree. The jury convicted on manslaughter and the judge reduced it to criminally negligent homicide. In NY that basically means he killed the guy accidentally but took such disregard to normal standards of care that he is criminally liable. It's a class E felony that normally carries a sentence of 1 to 4 years, though the judge only gave him 800 hours of community service.

The reason he was convicted of the higher crime by the jury, IMHO, is because of the emotion and outrage surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement and the timing of the trial that coincided with a number of other high profile cases across the country.

The prosecutor wrote a letter to judge asking for no jail time because the officer didn't "represent a threat to society."

I wonder if I, fine upstanding non-cop citizen that I am, accidentally killed someone with my legally owned handgun if the prosecutor would write a nice letter to judge for me as well since I don't represent a threat to society and whether the judge would be so accommodating.

He may.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Careful you might cut yourself on all those edges.

The guy's probably never going to be able to get a policing job again.

As a convicted felon one would certainly hope that is the case.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Other than the law against negligently killing someone.

Accident though it may be, a court has determined that he failed to take proper precautions, and he has to live with the consequences of his behavior.

Context recognition, reading capability, and comprehension skills matter Paleocon... read the remainder of the sentence to see to which laws I was referring.

 

[Gaius46]

The reason he was convicted of the higher crime by the jury, IMHO, is because of the emotion and outrage surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement and the timing of the trial that coincided with a number of other high profile cases across the country.

I'm not sure the BLM has anything to do with it. I live in NY and the case didn't generate a lot of the passion that other police killings have. It's largely been a non-event here. I think that's primarily because it was an accident. It wasn't like Liang (the cop) purposefully shot an unarmed man. He was just incompetent.

The difference between criminally negligent homicide and manslaughter (2nd degree in this case) is a matter of degree. Of exactly how grossly reckless he was. He had the weapon out when there wasn't a threat, had his finger inside the trigger guard, if not on the trigger itself, had it pointed in a direction where there might be people, as opposed to at the floor, opened the door with his gun hand and discharged the weapon. In short he did everything my father told 8 year old me you never do with a gun. That seems pretty grossly reckless to me.

He may.

I'm not holding my breath. Much more likely I'd get measured for an orange jumpsuit.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Neither manslaughter nor negligent homicide carry that penalty, so no.

What makes you think I would be facing the same charge?

 

[Paleocon]

Context recognition, reading capability, and comprehension skills matter Paleocon... read the remainder of the sentence to see to which laws I was referring.

"no laws"

That seems pretty grossly reckless to me.

Recklessness requires that you're consciously aware that what you're doing may result in (whatever the proscribed result is, in the case of manslaughter, death). If he thought he could successfully open the door without pulling the trigger, then it would seem not reckless.

What makes you think I would be facing the same charge?

Your specification of a similar act in your hypothetical.

 

[Gaius46]

Recklessness requires that you're consciously aware that what you're doing may result in (whatever the proscribed result is, in the case of manslaughter, death). If he thought he could successfully open the door without pulling the trigger, then it would seem not reckless.

The New York manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide statues are based on reasonable person standards not what the defendant believes. The terms reckless (for manslaughter) and criminal negligence (for crim. negligent homicide) are defines by NY as follows:

3. "Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is
aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk
must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person
would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts
recklessly with respect thereto.

4. "Criminal negligence." A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining
an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The
risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation.

So whether the defendant thought it was safe to open a door with his gun hand doesn't factor into it. It's what a reasonable person would do. He probably shouldn't have had the weapon drawn at all and in truth he was violating orders by being there in the first place

 

[OrphanSlug]

Your specification of a similar act in your hypothetical.

Keyword... "Act."

If you are going to assume everyone faces the same standard of law, or even application of law because of some "act," then you are fooling yourself.

 

[reinoe]

As a convicted felon one would certainly hope that is the case.

He can always get a job at Cleveland PD. They don't do background checks.

 

[Napoleon]

Great... If I did something like that I would be looking at 20 to life.

Which would be wrong if the circumstances were the same. Prison is supposed to be a place to stash people in need of rehabilitation who are otherwise a danger to society. Too often it is leveraged as a method of revenge rather than justice. The crime was an accident, he is remorseful, and he is not a danger to society so prison is not a suitable sentence.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Which would be wrong if the circumstances were the same. Prison is supposed to be a place to stash people in need of rehabilitation who are otherwise a danger to society. Too often it is leveraged as a method of revenge rather than justice. The crime was an accident, he is remorseful, and he is not a danger to society so prison is not a suitable sentence.

I am still on the fence with the accident part, having a hard time with the "accidental discharge" bit.

 

[Napoleon]

I am still on the fence with the accident part, having a hard time with the "accidental discharge" bit.

Whether or not the gun accidentally discharged doesn't change the fact that the bullet was not intended for Mr. Gurley. For that, you'd have to put physics on trial instead of Peter Liang. The only reason why he should be charged with anything and punished is that he put the public in unnecessary risk by wandering around in the dark with his gun drawn in a building he wasn't supposed to be in and the end result was that someone was killed because of his carelessness, but the punishment needs to be commensurate with the crime and prison isn't the right answer.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Whether or not the gun accidentally discharged doesn't change the fact that the bullet was not intended for Mr. Gurley. For that, you'd have to put physics on trial instead of Peter Liang. The only reason why he should be charged with anything and punished is that he put the public in unnecessary risk by wandering around in the dark with his gun drawn in a building he wasn't supposed to be in and the end result was that someone was killed because of his carelessness, but the punishment needs to be commensurate with the crime and prison isn't the right answer.

The problem I have with this is a seemingly double standard.

This ex-officer is effectively having a manslaughter (involuntary?) conviction reduced to criminally negligent homicide. What I contend is if I did what this officer did I would end up with the manslaughter charge straight up. In this state, I would probably be looking at 20 years.

 

[Paleocon]

The New York manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide statues are based on reasonable person standards not what the defendant believes. The terms reckless (for manslaughter) and criminal negligence (for crim. negligent homicide) are defines by NY as follows:





So whether the defendant thought it was safe to open a door with his gun hand doesn't factor into it. It's what a reasonable person would do. He probably shouldn't have had the weapon drawn at all and in truth he was violating orders by being there in the first place

A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is
aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists.

Keyword... "Act."

If you are going to assume everyone faces the same standard of law, or even application of law because of some "act," then you are fooling yourself.

I never said the same, just that there's a difference between negligent homicide and murder.

 

[Napoleon]

The problem I have with this is a seemingly double standard. This ex-officer is effectively having a manslaughter (involuntary?) conviction reduced to criminally negligent homicide. What I contend is if I did what this officer did I would end up with the manslaughter charge straight up. In this state, I would probably be looking at 20 years.

If true, I think that would mostly be a result of the fact that people who do not carry any legitimate authority are neither expected or permitted to wander around in the dark in random buildings with a gun drawn. Likewise, I do not believe that this officer would have been convicted of manslaughter in a pre-BLM social environment.