Connect with us

National

How Cases Involving 2 NYC Cops and 2 Unarmed Men Measure Up

Published

on

Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth Thompson speaks during a news conference in New York, Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2015. Peter Liang, a rookie police officer, pleaded not guilty Wednesday to manslaughter, official misconduct and other charges in the shooting death of a man in a pitch black stairwell of a Brooklyn public housing complex. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth Thompson speaks during a news conference in New York, Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2015. Peter Liang, a rookie police officer, pleaded not guilty Wednesday to manslaughter, official misconduct and other charges in the shooting death of a man in a pitch black stairwell of a Brooklyn public housing complex. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press
TOM HAYS, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — The indictment of New York Police Department Officer Peter Liang Wednesday on charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the stairwell shooting of Akai Gurley comes two months after a grand jury declined to charge Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the chokehold death of Eric Garner. Both were unarmed black men who died at the hands of police, and the officers became the subject of criminal investigations.

“But the similarities stop there,” criminal law professor James Cohen said. Garner’s death touched off massive protests and calls for police reform. The encounter was captured on video and widely viewed online. The officer testified before the grand jury.

Gurley’s death occurred during a chance encounter on a pitch black stairwell in a Brooklyn housing project. Liang fired a single shot and his finger never should have been on the trigger, prosecutors said, but no one believes he intentionally wanted to kill Gurley. Liang didn’t testify in his defense.

Here’s a look at the two cases:

THE CIRCUMSTANCES:

Akai Gurley, 28, was having his hair braided by his girlfriend at her apartment in the Louis Pink Houses in Brooklyn on Nov. 20. He had just given up waiting for the elevator so he could leave when he stepped into a darkened stairwell to walk to the lobby. Meanwhile, Officer Peter Liang and his partner were patrolling the stairwells of the public housing complex. Liang, 27, had his gun drawn, his finger on the trigger, prosecutors said. As he pushed open the door with his shoulder, he fired one shot that ricocheted, striking Gurley on the floor above. Gurley made it down two flights before collapsing and later died. Liang is Chinese-American. His lawyer says the shooting was an accident.

Eric Garner, 43, was standing outside a Staten Island convenience store and was suspected of selling loose cigarettes on July 17. Officer Daniel Pantaleo and others accused tried to arrest him but he resisted. In an incident captured on video and widely viewed, the officer tries to take the heavyset Garner down, wrapping an arm around his neck. He cried “I can’t breathe,” lost consciousness and later died. The officer said he was using a legal takedown maneuver but critics said it was a chokehold, banned under NYPD policy. Pantaleo is white.

THE BOROUGHS:

Staten Island, where Garner died, is by far the least populated of the city’s five boroughs, with about 472,000 residents, the most conservative and least racially diverse, dominated by homeowners rather than renters, and home to many current and retired police officers. According to the 2010 census, it’s the only borough where non-Hispanic whites make up a majority — 64 percent. It had the lowest percentage of blacks at 9.5 percent. The borough leans Republican.

Brooklyn, where Gurley was killed, has 2.5 million people, and houses some of the wealthiest and poorest in the city. According to census figures, the borough is 36 percent non-Hispanic white, and 35 percent black. The median household income is $49,000. It contains areas with some of the highest crime rates in the city, and also the highest level of police involvement.

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS:

Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson won a contentious race in 2013, displacing the longtime incumbent, and his tenure so far has been marked by a series of exonerations. The bulk of the cases stem from concerns about the investigative tactics of a now-retired detective. On Wednesday, Thompson said Liang’s case was not to be seen in the shadow of Garner. “This case has nothing to do with Ferguson or Eric Garner or any other case,” he said. “This case has to do with an innocent man who lost his life and a young New York City police officer who has now been charged with taking his life,” he said.

Staten Island District Attorney Daniel Donovan has held the job for a little over a decade. He is currently planning to run for the Congressional seat formerly occupied by disgraced Rep. Michael Grimm in a special election. Donovan asked for some details of the Garner grand jury to be released, but not a transcript of the minutes. The New York Civil Liberties Union and others asked a court to order Donovan to release the transcript, detailed descriptions of evidence and other documentation. A judge is weighing a request.

NOW WHAT:

Federal prosecutors are reviewing the Garner case, and the family has filed paperwork to sue the city.

Liang likely will face a judge, not a jury, and experts say it will be difficult to win a conviction because they will have to prove he knew there was a substantial risk of causing someone’s death and disregarded it to be convicted on the top charges. “It’s a very tough sell,” said Bennett Gershman, a Pace University law professor and former prosecutor. “I give the DA a lot of credit; it was a courageous use of authority here. Now comes the tough part. It’s easy to get a grand jury to indict; it’s quite different to win a conviction.” The family of Gurley also has filed paperwork to sue the city.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare. 

Published

on

Rhonda M. Smith.
Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

on

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.
Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values. 

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Continue Reading

Activism

Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion

“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

Published

on

Pope Leo XIV. Screenshot.
Pope Leo XIV. Screenshot.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.

The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.

In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.

“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.”

Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.

Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.

“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.