BREAKING: Judge Dismisses Official Misconduct Charge as Arguments Close in Trial Against Peter Liang

February 9, 2016
NYPD officer Peter Liang, accused of manslaughter in the killing of Akai Gurley, at the first day of his trial. (Photo credit: Twitter)
NYPD officer Peter Liang, accused of manslaughter in the killing of Akai Gurley, at the first day of his trial. (Photo credit: Twitter)

Arguments came to a close today in the trial against NYPD officer Peter Liang, charged with manslaughter and two counts of official misconduct in the shooting death of Akai Gurley, who was unarmed and visiting a friend at the time he was killed.

Two weeks of evidence came to a close when Liang took the stand to tearfully testify that he pulled the 11.5-pound trigger of his service weapon and a fired a shot into the darkened stairwell of a residential building when he was “startled” by an unknown, and that he failed to give CPR when confronted by a dying Gurley in the stairwell of the Louis H. Pink Houses because he didn’t feel like he had sufficient training to perform the life-saving measures and that Gurley’s friend — who had never learned CPR — would be better for the task. As for why he never called for help, Liang’s defense claims that his call for an ambulance was never recorded in official transcripts of the incident because reception in the stairwell was “spotty”.

Prosecutors summarized their case in the closing remarks by saying:

“It’s not true that this was a one in a million shot,” Assistant District Attorney Joe Alexis said. “Peter Liang fired a shot right at where Akai Gurley stood because he heard a sound on the seventh floor. An innocent man is dead because he heard a sound, a sound he can’t even describe.”

Reporters who have been live-tweeting the case for the last two weeks now reveal in a startling turn of events that Judge Danny Chun, who is overseeing the case against Peter Liang, has dismissed one of the two official misconduct charges against Liang.

Explaining the unexpected decision, Chun reportedly said he is a “judge  of the law”, presumably suggesting that he felt that the prosecution had failed to present evidence rising to the standards of the charge.

This turn of events is likely to be disheartening to supporters of Akai Gurley who are hoping that the criminal justice system will hold Liang and other police officers accountable for causing the deaths of unarmed (often Black) civilians. Sadly, however, it never seemed likely that Liang would face repercussions for shooting Gurley: studies have shown that America’s police officers are rarely indicted by a grand jury in cases of on-duty civilian shootings, and are even more rarely are they found guilty for having committed any crime.

The criminal justice has always given law enforcement officers “every possible benefit of a doubt“, even perhaps beyond what is reasonable. It seems increasingly clear that we were naive to believe this system would suddenly prioritize the rights of Black and Brown civilians over the watchmen we’ve empowered with a license to brutalize and oppress them.

Jurors have begun deliberations in the case, with a verdict expected soon.

Comment Policy

Before posting, please review the following guidelines:

  • No ad hominem attacks: A person's identity, personal history, or background is not up for debate. Talk about ideas, not people.
  • Be courteous: Respect everyone else in this space.
  • Present evidence: This space endeavours to encourage academic and rational debate around identity politics. Do your best to build an argument backed not just with your own ideas, but also with science.
  • Don't be pedantic: Listen to those debating you not just for places to attack, but also where you might learn and even change your own opinion. Repeatedly arguing the same point irrespective of presented counterfacts will now be considered a violation of this site's comment policy.
  • Respect the humanity of all groups: To elevate the quality of debate, this site will no longer tolerate (racial, cultural, gender, etc.) supremacist or inferiority lines of argumentation. There are other places on the internet where nationalist arguments can be expressed; this blog is not those places.
  • Don't be an asshole: If you think your behaviour would get you punched in the face outside of the internets, don't say it on the internets.
  • Don't abuse Disqus features: Don't upvote your own comments. Don't flag other people's comments without reasonable cause. Basically, don't try to game the system. You are not being slick.

Is your comment not approved, unpublished, or deleted? Here are some common reasons why:

  • Did you sign in? You are required to register an account with Disqus or one of your social media accounts in order to comment.
  • Did your comment get caught in the spam filter? Disqus is set to automatically detect and filter out spam comments. Sometimes, its algorithm gets over-zealous, particularly if you post multiple comments in rapid succession, if your comment contains keywords often associated with spam, and/or if your comment contains multiple links. If your comment has been erroneously caught in the spam filter, contact me and I will retrieve it.
  • Did a comment get flagged? Comments will be default be published but flagged comments will be temporarily removed from view until they are reviewed by me.
  • Did you not play nice? You may have gotten banned and a bunch of your comments may have been therefore deleted. Sorry.

I monitor all comment threads, and try to address comments requiring moderation within 24-48 hours. Comments that violate this comment policy may receive a warning and removal of offensive content; overt or repeat violations are subject to deletion and/or banning of comment authors without warning.

I reserve final decision over how this comment policy will be enforced.

Summary:

Play nice and don't be a jerk, and you'll do just fine.