In all of the melee resulting from the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson, the media has overlooked a number of other very important shootings of unarmed civilians by police officers. One of the most egregious offenses is that of Officer Joseph Weekley’s fatal shooting of 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones.
Officer Weekley recently saw manslaughter charge dropped against him, for shooting the 7-year-old while she slept.
The Detroit police officer had been on trial for involuntary manslaughter who was shot and killed during a 2010 police raid.
But early in October, Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Cynthia Gray Hathaway granted a motion which Weekley’s attorney had filed, arguing for the dismissal of the felony charge he faced in the young girl’s death.
The trial was brought to an end while the Michigan Court of Appeals reviewed an emergency appeal of the ruling.
Presiding Judge Michael Talbot issued the order to deny the appeal and allow the judge’s dismal to stand.
“Although I find that the trial court erred in form and substance in granting defendant’s motion for directed verdict, we are barred from reviewing that decision,” Talbot wrote.
The shooting happened just after midnight, back on May 16, 2010.
A SWAT team had conducted a raid to search for a murder suspect. Weekly ended up being first through the door.
There was even a film crew on hand to film for a reality show about murder investigations. Weekley says that another SWAT member had thrown a flash-bang grenade, which temporarily blinded him. That’s when he fired the shot that killed Aiyana who was asleep on the couch in the front room of the house.
Doubling down on this claim, in court he actually testified that Aiyana’s grandmother had somehow “touched” his gun, which made him fire the shot. But he failed to explain how he could tell she had done this when he claimed he couldn’t see anything at the time.
The prosecution noted that even having his finger on the trigger of his submachine gun was improper. “He could have avoided injury if he had followed his training,” Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Robert Moran explained.
“He didn’t, and as a result of him not following his training and not following the mandates of ordinary care, someone was killed.”
But ultimately, the arguments and reason didn’t win out.
Roland Lawrence, the chairman of the Justice for Aiyana Committee, issued a statement after the court’s decision was announced.
“Surely, the death of a baby by a well-trained police force must be deemed unacceptable in a civilized society,” Lawrence said.
Steve Fishman, Weekley’s attorney, claimed that even though he did not dispute that his client pulled the trigger and killed the girl, “there is absolutely no evidence, none, that’s in the least bit credible, that Officer Weekley knowingly created a danger or, more importantly, intended to cause injury.”
After the dismissal, the only charge Weekley faced, was a relatively minor misdemeanor charge of “careless discharge of a firearm causing death.”
Dominus Atheos wrote:Yes he did, he knowingly had his finger on the trigger.
Carelessness is not the same thing as deliberate malice. You would be shocked by the number of people who immediately put their finger on the trigger when they have a weapon in their hands. Even in the military where they drill you on weapons handling more than the police ever do, this happens. I am reminded of the Pacific mini series.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
This is why I am not a fan of part time SWAT teams. That there are too many SWAT teams is another problem all together. And of course the over use of SWAT or other tactical teams in situations that do not call for them. Combine all those with insufficient training and its a recipe for disasters such as this one.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
In situations like this, I tend to be a bit more sympathetic to the boots on the ground, and far less sympathetic to the people who sent them in. It seems a lot of these "No Knock" raid tragedies are because of poor intel and planning. If a swat member is sent into a situation expecting heavily armed gang members, sure they should take care, but they are already put in a bad situation where a mistake like that can happen. Yet rarely do I see the people who in charge held accountable for screwing up the address, or for going off old or unreliable information.
Here's a question: why is the charge “careless discharge of a firearm causing death.” a relatively minor one? Is this the kind of thing we really want to punish with a slap on the wrist? "Now, now, Joey, you shouldn't be carelessly discharging your firearm again."
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
At the very least there should be a 'neglient manslaughter' charge. Intentions be damned; a child is dead by the direct action of this guy. It's far more clear-cut than that SWAT grenade case earlier this year. You can add incompetence as well-- he shouldn't have been going into that house if he was 'temporarily blinded' by a flashbang.
SCRawl wrote:Here's a question: why is the charge “careless discharge of a firearm causing death.” a relatively minor one? Is this the kind of thing we really want to punish with a slap on the wrist? "Now, now, Joey, you shouldn't be carelessly discharging your firearm again."
A great deal has to do with specific intent. Actus Reas (guilty act) vs Mens Rea (guilty mind). Guilty acts can be criminal, but they are generally much less harshly charged and punished than when guilty mind and guilty act are in concert.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
SCRawl wrote:Here's a question: why is the charge “careless discharge of a firearm causing death.” a relatively minor one? Is this the kind of thing we really want to punish with a slap on the wrist? "Now, now, Joey, you shouldn't be carelessly discharging your firearm again."
A great deal has to do with specific intent. Actus Reas (guilty act) vs Mens Rea (guilty mind). Guilty acts can be criminal, but they are generally much less harshly charged and punished than when guilty mind and guilty act are in concert.
Well, of course, and this is why murder is punished more harshly than manslaughter, which is punished more harshly than involuntary homicide, etc. But this "carless discharge" offence -- not even a felony -- carries a maximum penalty of two years. In other words, a person is dead because the person who committed the crime couldn't be bothered to take appropriate care while handling a deadly weapon, and the absolute worst that the offender faces is two years in prison. Careless discharge, dead body, two years. Seems a little light from here.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
