1) The jurors had the opportunity to put themselves in Liang’s shoes when they were allowed to pull the trigger on Liang's gun for themselves. They could see that a quick flinch when surprised would be insufficient to fire the weapon. It had to have been a conscious decision, even if there was no intent to strike a person. This is the important part of the jury instruction and the charge of reckless manslaughter: the law doesn't require intent to harm a person, but rather requires that a person does conduct with a conscious disregard for a known risk (such as firing a gun into a dark hallway when you don't know who or what is there).
2) The situation Liang was in was different than other high-profiles cases where police officers took a life. The officers in the Amadou Diallo and Sean Bell cases were able to contend they were in “imminent danger.” This gave those officers the ability to tell a jury "you don't know what I saw; you cannot second guess my actions." Liang saw nothing but darkness.
3) Liang's conduct in the moments after the shooting undermined his credibility. The expression "the cover-up is always worse than the crime" applies here. Liang failed to alert 911 operators that an ambulance was required when he eventually did call; he searched the stairwell for his spent bullet but didn't notice that Gurley was dying until he came across him several floors below; Gurley's friend Melissa Butler made frantic attempts to save his life using CPR, but Liang still did not provide any aid to the dying man; his partner Officer Landau testified that Liang was more concerned with having discharged his weapon which might get him fired than whether or not Gurley was injured.
This case ends with a dead father on his way home, an officer on his way to prison, and a society still struggling to find a way to live safely. No winner. What a sad reality!
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
