• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NYPD Officer found guilty of manslaughter in fatal shooting

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
lol so if i shoot someone in my house and they die later in the hospital, i can't be held liable because they didn't die at my house?

edit - nice ninja edit there Ackmed!
 
EOM said:
lol so if i shoot someone in my house and they die later in the hospital, i can't be held liable because they didn't die at my house?

edit - nice ninja edit there Ackmed!
Click to expand...

Sure you can be. That is not the same thing however. The fact he that he was obese, and had medical problems already that contributed to "increasing his vulnerability to positional asphyxia".

A Dr hired by the Gardner family stated, “Obese people especially, lying face down, prone, are unable to breathe when enough pressure is put on their back. The pressure prevents the diaphragm from going up and down, and he can’t inhale and exhale.’’ Cops where on his back trying to cuff him, he was resisting. He is out of shape and obese breathing heavily, he has medical problems that contributed to it. The "choke hold" is not what killed him. There is no sense going around and around again, there is a whole thread about it. He didn't die while the cop had his arms around his neck. The medical personnel should have helped more, which was part of the problem.
 
Police shouldn't be in the business of hog tying obese people and ignoring their pleas for help as they die, choking on the ground, all because of some loose cigs. Treat him like a human instead of an animal to be controlled. He was completely non-violent until the little twerp jumped him.
 
lol they don't even try to hide it anymore..

But Chun said that for manslaughter to stand, the prosecution had to prove that Liang not only "created a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a death would occur" but also that the the officer "was aware of and consciously disregarded that risk."
"There is no evidence either direct or circumstantial that the defendant was aware of Akai Gurley's presence and still disregarded any risk by firing the weapon," Chun said. "The evidence showed that it was a quick reaction to perhaps a sound, which in my opinion only amounts to failing to perceive a unjustifiable risk."
Click to expand...


So imagine if a normal pleb had done the same! They'd have thrown the book at 'em!
 
stlc8tr said:
I think there's a kernel of truth in this.

Also, his partner Landau was given immunity for testifying against him. He was basically hung out to dry (so to speak).
Click to expand...

Gonad the Barbarian said:
Yeah, I'm having a hard time reconciling this guy getting convicted over a ricochet vs all the other far more egregious incidents that go completely unpunished.
Click to expand...

PokerGuy said:
That was my thought as well. I haven't seen much detail on this particular case, but if indeed the bullet ricocheted off a wall before hitting the guy, it seems much more likely to have been an accident. I don't know if that was true though.

I've seen / read about much more egregious incidents where the cops deserved to go to jail for a long time where nothing was done, this hardly seems like one of those textbook "cops out of control with impunity" cases.
Click to expand...

all of this. what a shitshow.

This verdict is really just more proof that the scummery and corruption is far worse than imagined. This type of crap only exacerbates the problem. Would be nice to see a long, investigative journalism piece on this case, because it's pretty clear that the idea was to string this rookie out because there is no pension involved, no "comrade" to feed to teh wolves, and they all pretty much think this will create some air of "justice served" in the eyes of the public, when this is very much just one more crooked arm of the beast.
 
His problem was that this was an accident. If he had shot the innocent man on purpose it would never even go to trial.
 
The judge is out to lunch. In a rare change. I think the prosecution will win on appeal to uphold the original conviction.
 
GarfieldtheCat said:
Surprising probably no one, Liang gets off for killing a completely innocent man with no jail time.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/us/nypd-officer-shooting-sentence/

Judge overturned the manslaughter (despite the jury conviction) and downgraded it into criminally negligent homicide, and only gave him probation. No jail time. So tell me again how cops are treated like the rest of us?

Anyone surprised? Bueller? Bueller?
Click to expand...

Wait, judges can do that???? Overturn a juries verdict just because they say so? WTF is the point of a jury trial if some judge can reverse the juries verdict with no new evidence?
 
Darwin333 said:
Wait, judges can do that???? Overturn a juries verdict just because they say so? WTF is the point of a jury trial if some judge can reverse the juries verdict with no new evidence?
Click to expand...

isn't that basically how the appeals court works?
 
Darwin333 said:
Wait, judges can do that???? Overturn a juries verdict just because they say so? WTF is the point of a jury trial if some judge can reverse the juries verdict with no new evidence?
Click to expand...

Yes, they can. However, on appeal the court's decision to overturn a jury verdict is reviewed on a stricter standard than the verdict itself. Which is to say, on appeal, it is a lot easier to overturn a judge's decision to overturn a jury verdict than it is to overturn a jury verdict itself. The jury's decision is entitled to deference on appeal. Not so the judge's decision to overturn said verdict. I know this is true in civil cases, and it's likely also true in criminal cases.
 
Ns1 said:
isn't that basically how the appeals court works?
Click to expand...

Yes, but like I said to Darwin above, if a litigant wants to overturn a jury verdict on appeal, it is a tough argument to win. The appeals court will only overturn a jury verdict if no reasonable jury could possibly have come to that verdict. It isn't enough that the appellate court just disagrees with the verdict. However, if what is being appealed is a judge's decision to overturn a jury verdict, that is a much easier argument to win on appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top