Why was Peter Liang found guilty of all charges?

I read several articles in the Chinese media about Liang Peter's case a few days ago. At first, I was confused as to why a manslaughter by accident would be given such a severe sentence. Until yesterday, I accidentally saw Peter Liang's firearm. Due to my long-term firearms training, I instantly realized that those articles probably only selectively disclosed part of the facts. So I looked for relevant English reports and found that the jury's verdict in Peter Liang's case was not unfair as some Chinese media said. Peter Liang was found guilty of all charges mainly for the following reasons.

1

At the time of the incident, Liang was using a Glock G19 pistol, the standard equipment of the New York patrol. People who are familiar with firearms may have realized the problem when seeing this, that is, this pistol almost never misfires. Generally speaking, there are two situations when firearms misfire. One is due to a malfunction of the firearm and it fires without pulling the trigger; the other is when the user is nervous or frightened and accidentally pulls the trigger. The design of the G19 is very special. It has a safety on the trigger. When the trigger is not pulled, the safety will automatically pop up against the trigger. This safety will only open when the trigger is pulled. The firearms instructor at the New York Police Academy also confirmed this. G19 fires in the New York Police Department only occur about 20 times a year, and they are rarely caused by the firearm itself.

Not to mention that in order to prevent accidental firing, the G19 ordered by the New York Police Department is a customized version with the trigger spring replaced, and the trigger pull force reaches 12 pounds (approximately 5.44kg). You must know that the G19's original clamping force is only 5.5 pounds, while the P226 pistol, another pistol widely used by the US military and police, is only 6.5 pounds. In other words, it takes a lot of force to fire an NYPD customized version of G19, and the possibility of accidentally firing it is very low. After testing by firearms experts, the actual pulling force of Liang's G19 pistol was 11.5 pounds. All 12 members of the jury tried this pistol and concluded that "it is not easy to pull the trigger."

II

In Chinese media reports, Liang Peter is generally described as a rookie, and his mistakes are excusable because of his inexperience. The New York Police Department’s standard for identifying rookie police officers is that they have been on the job for less than 2 years, but in fact Peter Liang has been on the job for almost 18 months, which is one and a half years. When he testified, he also admitted that he had inspected the building nearly a thousand times. Therefore, Peter Liang cannot be considered a rookie in the true sense, and the argument of inexperience is difficult to hold in front of the jury.

A key factor in the second-degree manslaughter charge against Liang is recklessness, which means that the prosecution must prove that Liang knew subjectively that there was a risk of causing the death of others, but still allowed it to happen regardless of the consequences. . There are three details worth paying attention to here. First, Liang pulled out the gun before he pushed the door and entered the stairwell. In other words, he was not in danger at that time. Second, Liang and his partner were doing vertical movements from top to bottom when the incident occurred. Patrol (Vertical Patrol), when they entered the stairwell from the 8th floor and encountered the deceased on the 7th floor, they were in a high position for shooting; in the end, Liang knew that the stairwell at the time of the incident was very narrow and there was a high possibility of stray bullets injuring people.

Liang's defense for these three points was that he was in a high-crime area at the time, and through the small window on the door he saw the stairwell was dark and felt that he was in danger, so he drew his gun in advance to protect himself. From a personal point of view, I think Liang's statement is reasonable, and his behavior of drawing a gun in advance is not excessive. But lawsuits in court are very literal and pay attention to causation. There is a very subtle difference in causal logic as to whether Liang pulled out the gun before pushing the door or after pushing the door; and since Liang had an advantageous position over the deceased and knew that the stairwell was narrow, he had already lost the case in the eyes of the jury.

Three

Although the above points are detrimental to Liang, they are not the real reasons for his conviction. The reason why Liang was found guilty of all charges was because of a series of shocking actions he committed after shooting, something that was ignored in almost all Chinese media reports. That is, he did not call an ambulance after shooting, nor did he take the initiative to rescue the victim, nor did he immediately notify the main station.

Liang explained at the trial that he did not immediately realize that the bullet had hit someone, and it was only a few minutes before he found Akai Gurley lying in a pool of blood.

Akai Gurley was with his girlfriend at the time of the incident, only one floor away from where Liang shot. The girlfriend of the deceased said that Akai Gurley ran downstairs screaming after being shot, and finally collapsed on the 5th floor from exhaustion, while his girlfriend was crying for help on the 5th floor. I guess the deceased didn’t understand what was going on at the time and thought it was a gang seeking revenge. After being shot, his first reaction was to run downstairs. But think about it, is it possible for a person to not make any sound after being shot? Would Liang not be able to hear Akai Gurley's screams, footsteps and falling to the ground? Not to mention that his girlfriend later cried for help, so the possibility is very low.

Furthermore, Liang’s series of behaviors after shooting were very abnormal. According to the testimony of his partner Landau, Liang immediately went to find the bullet casing after shooting and said personally, "He is going to be fired"; Then he refused to let Landau inform the main station, and asked to call his superiors for help first. He then lost contact for a full six and a half minutes before responding to the main station's call (Liang admitted all the above points in the trial, and explained that he did not want to alert others). You must know that if the firearm goes off without injuring anyone, it will not result in expulsion. Liang's various illogical reactions indicate that he was most likely fully aware that he hit the person. He said he didn't realize it was just an excuse, and the prosecutor directly accused him of lying in court.

So what happened that night? According to reports from the trial, Liang spent the first two minutes after the shooting looking for bullet casings and told Landau he was going to be fired. At the same time, Akai Gurley's girlfriend and neighbors called the police and an ambulance, and tried to save Akai Gurley with CPR. After receiving the report, the New York Police Headquarters immediately used radio to contact Liang and Landau but did not receive a reply. Within the next 2 to 4 minutes, Liang and Landau had a dispute over whether to report to the headquarters. Liang prevented Landau from reporting to the headquarters and asked him to borrow his mobile phone to call his boss. Landau borrowed the phone and took it back, but Liang was unable to contact his supervisor. Within the next 4 to 6 minutes, Liang and Landau walked to the fifth floor and found Akai Gurley lying in a pool of blood. However, Liang still did not perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation on Akai Gurley. Instead, he used his mobile phone to send text messages to contact police union representatives for help. The union representative responded to a text message asking him to report it, and Liang then responded to the main station's call to confirm that a shot had been fired. At this time, six and a half minutes had passed since he fired.

Four

Peter Liang’s failure to rescue Akai Gurley in time after the shooting was the key to his conviction of second-degree manslaughter and dereliction of duty. Emergency rescue may not be able to save the victim 100%, but the legal difference is very big. There was a case in the past where a girl resisted sexual assault and accidentally stabbed the criminal several times. Afterwards, she was too panicked and watched the criminal slowly die in a pool of blood without saving her. Because she failed to rescue in time, what was originally self-defense ended up being manslaughter. This is the behavior of ordinary people towards criminals, not to mention that Peter Liang, as a police officer, shot an innocent passerby. From the beginning to the end, there was no rescue. He only thought about how to reduce his responsibility and not lose his job. The prosecution even used the words "Care only about himself in the minutes after firing, not whether anyone had been hurt" to describe him. In other words, Peter Liang failed to fulfill the duty and responsibility that a police officer should have.

There is another very important reason why the jury found Liang guilty of all charges: they believed that Liang's integrity was problematic. A few days after the incident, the New York Police Department held an internal cross-examination hearing. While Liang and his partner Landau were in isolation, their descriptions of the entire incident were inconsistent, and the hearing report finally He was handed over to the jury again, and Landau later went to court to testify against Liang, which was very fatal to the credibility of Peter Liang's testimony.

Not to mention that Liang has always denied that he put his finger on the trigger. His testimony is simply untenable in the face of ballistic identification and firearms analysis. Liang also said that he called the ambulance through the police radio after the incident, but the prosecutor showed the radio recording at the time and Liang did not call the ambulance. In addition, he has always insisted that he did not hear the sound and did not realize that he shot anyone, etc., which left a very bad impression on the jury.

I saw someone comparing Peter Liang to previous cases in which white police officers negligently led to death but were not prosecuted. First of all, many of the cases being compared occurred later than the Peter Liang case. It is not that the police officers involved have not been prosecuted, but are still waiting for prosecution (it must be reminded that the Peter Liang case occurred in 2014 ). Secondly, Akai Gurley in the Peter Liang case was completely innocent, while many cases that have been compared, such as the black man in the Ferguson case, attempted to attack the police. The two are not comparable at all. I searched for similar cases, and the one closest to Peter Liang's case is the "Richard S. Neri Killed Timothy Stansbury Jr." that also occurred in New York in 2004. The police officers in that case were indeed not prosecuted.

But the policeman did something that Peter Liang did not do, and that was to attend the hearing in person, explain and testify before the jury before the jury decided whether to indict. You must know that in many highly controversial cases, the police officers involved will choose to attend the hearing, because this is not only an explanation and testimony, but also an excellent opportunity to show remorse and apology, and gain understanding from the jury and the public. Just imagine a strong male police officer crying bitterly in front of the public and the jury for accidentally killing a civilian. That is very shocking and makes people sympathize. However, Peter Liang rarely refused to testify in front of the jury. He gave people the impression of being very insincere and afraid of being questioned. My personal guess is that Peter Liang did not know how many facts and evidence the prosecutor had at the time. He was worried that he might accidentally contradict himself when testifying in front of the jury, so he chose to give up the opportunity.

Five

After reading countless reports and articles in the past two days, my biggest feeling is that "the stance determines the narrative, and the narrative guides the rhetoric." The original intention of writing this article was just to add some details that are missing in most Chinese media, hoping to help people who don’t know the inside story make better judgments. In the process of writing, I was also careful not to sway to either side.

I think Liang Peter’s case should be divided into two parts: the mistaken shooting during the incident and the lack of rescue after the incident. Peter Liang was found guilty of all charges, more because of the second half. However, the major Chinese media almost avoided talking about it and only emphasized that Liang Peter's mistake in shooting in the first half was actually suspected of misleading. Official account for studying abroad and immigration). From my own point of view, I think this manslaughter was indeed an accident, and Liang did not intentionally make a mistake; but considering his actions at the time of the incident and his subsequent attitude, he cannot be said to be innocent when he was convicted of second-degree manslaughter and dereliction of duty. . In addition, the verdict of this case has only just been completed, and the specific sentencing will have to wait until April. The 15 years circulated on the Internet is the maximum sentence, and the actual sentencing range is between 5 and 15 years.

Some people say that Liang is very pitiful. His promising future was ruined at such a young age. But isn’t the most pitiable person the innocent passerby Akai Gurley who was shot and killed because of Liang’s mistakes and inaction? And Akai Gurley is also the father of two newborn children. If Peter Liang is sentenced too lightly or even acquitted, then that would be a real injustice, right? Liang's mistake was the reason for his mistake, not the reason for his mistake.

Just imagine, if a police officer can draw a gun and point randomly because he feels in danger, and the punishment for accidentally killing someone is very light, how many people will dare to take to the streets? Think about it again, if it was Akai Gurley who pushed the door in from the 8th floor, he took out his pistol in advance because he felt danger, and then accidentally shot and killed Peter Liang who had just come out from patrol on the 7th floor, then the jury would How to judge? I'm afraid it's not as simple as manslaughter. It is estimated that Akai Gurley will have to go to jail. I would like to remind you that the status of the police does not mean that they are naturally morally correct. As a symbol of law enforcement power, they often bear stricter standards than ordinary people. I also sympathize with Peter Liang, but he should be punished for what he did. We really can't use an understatement like "mistake" to write it off. It was an innocent life.