Peter Liang on trial (NY1 News)
A Brooklyn district attorney recommends that Peter Liang gets no jail time for the shooting and killing of Akai Gurley in November 2014.
Liang was found guilty of second-degree manslaughter last February for Gurley’s death. The New York City police officer was also convicted on a charge for officer misconduct since he knowingly did not give CPR to Gurley as he was dying. He faces 15 years in prison for the two counts, but Brooklyn district attorney Ken Thompson doesn’t want the sentence to happen.
A statement released Tuesday recommends Liang be put under house arrest for six moths instead, serve five years of probation, and perform 500 hours of community service.
According to the New York Post, Thompson says in the statement that “Peter Liang was indicted, prosecuted and subsequently convicted by a jury because his reckless actions caused an innocent man to lose his life. There is no evidence, however, that he intended to kill or injure Akai Gurley. When Mr. Liang went into that building that night, he did so as part of his job and to keep the people of Brooklyn and our city safe.”
Though Thompson says there are “no winners” and maintains that his requested sentence is “just and fair under the circumstances of this case,” Twitter shows opposition to the decision.
https://twitter.com/BlackAutonomist/status/712757697637191685
To @BrooklynDA, the fictional "people of Brooklyn" #PeterLiang was fictionally keeping safe trumped actual dead Brooklynite #AkaiGurley.
— Benjamin M. (@BenjaminM1019) March 23, 2016
https://twitter.com/RobinGrearson/status/712753552289046532
Thompson’s full statement, reported by NY1 News, can be read below:
Peter Liang was indicted, prosecuted and subsequently convicted by a jury because his reckless actions caused an innocent man to lose his life. There is no evidence, however, that he intended to kill or injure Akai Gurley. When Mr. Liang went into that building that night, he did so as part of his job and to keep the people of Brooklyn and our city safe.
In sentencing a defendant, the facts of the crime and the particular characteristics of that person must be considered. Mr. Liang has no prior criminal history and poses no future threat to public safety. 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.
Justice will be best served if Mr. Liang is sentenced to five years of probation, with the condition that he serves six months of home confinement with electric monitoring and performs 500 hours of community service. I have provided this sentencing recommendation to Justice Chun.
As I have said before, there are no winners here. But the sentence that I have requested is just and fair under the circumstances of this case. From the beginning, this tragic case has always been about justice and not about revenge.”
