NEW YORK (AP) — A prosecutor said Wednesday he has recommended that the New York police officer who shot and killed an unarmed man in a darkened public housing stairwell serve no time behind bars.
Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth Thompson said justice will be served if the now-former officer serves probation.
The 28-year-old Peter Liang was convicted of a manslaughter charge in February after the 2014 shooting death of Akai Gurley. The rookie officer was dismissed following the verdict.
Thompson said Wednesday he has recommended a judge sentence Liang to serve five years’ probation, along with six months of home confinement and 500 hours of community service. Though the charge carries no requirement for prison time, Liang faced up to 15 years in prison.
“Because his incarceration is not necessary to protect the public, and due to the unique circumstances of this case, a prison sentence is not warranted,” Thompson said in a news release announcing his recommendation.
The rookie officer had been patrolling at the public housing high-rise with his gun drawn when he said a sudden sound jarred him and he fired. The bullet ricocheted off a wall and hit the 28-year-old Gurley on a lower floor.
Prosecutors argued Liang’s actions were reckless and he shouldn’t have had his gun out.
The shooting happened in a year of debate nationwide about police killings of black men. Activists have looked to Liang’s trial as a counterweight to cases in which grand juries have declined to indict officers, including the cases of Michael Brown in Missouri and Eric Garner in New York. Like Gurley, Brown and Garner were black and unarmed. Liang is Chinese-American.
More than 10,000 of Liang’s supporters railed in New York and across the U.S. after the verdict, protesting his conviction.
Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Being a policeman is a license to kill these days.
This story is unusual in that the killing was somewhat accidental. The cop was a rookie in a dark stairwell, not an experienced officer shooting someone at point blank range.
I noticed at the time that no other officers were being held accountable and the uproar was growing. And then Lo and behold this Asian American was singled out for retribution.
I really believe he was a scapegoat. His having his weapon drawn was not all that uncalled for. He didn’t mean to shoot the victim although he did have his gun out and was on guard. A noise scared him and his gun went off. Perhaps he shouldn’t be a cop but he was a rookie.
This is nothing like the blatant executions perpetrated by many of the other killer cops.
Now don’t come down on me as someone who excuses cops for wrongdoing. I have read every @pbmom post about this topic and have commented at the unfairness of all these cases.
If this is what really happened, then it seems to me that this is a case of extremely poor judgement (having the weapon drawn when it was not warranted), negligence (firing the weapon when it was not warranted), and an extremely unfortunate accident (the bullet ricocheted - the gun was not aimed at the victim). But, again, if this story is what really happened, it does not sound like police brutality.
I agree. This just has a very different vibe. A tragedy, to be sure, but not the same kind as, say, the virtual execution of Tamir Rice (which has become my “go to” example of criminal behavior by the police).
“…believe he was a scapegoat”
I’ve thought a lot about this case and agree 100%. I rarely holler “scapegoat,” but I believe he certainly was offered up as a sacrifice. This light sentence is the DA’s way of stopping short of turning him over to the hangman.
And yes, I think the shooting was more accidental than deliberate. These shoot-don’t shoot scenarios just cannot be rehearsed except in training environments.
My son, not now a cop, graduated police training maybe 15 yrs ago. told me about shoot-don’t shoot training and how stressful it was. They made it quite realistic. Someone might have, say, a phone in his hand that could be mistaken for a weapon. Or the person might be deaf or not speak English. Maybe poor lighting. Maybe a hostage. Maybe a person with with some disability.
And with all that ambiguity one has to make a decision. Shoot. Don’t shoot.