這是哪位大牛？梁彼得槍機械故障走火強帖推薦

在黑人視頻下面看到一個華人大牛寫的梁彼得槍機械故障走火原因的文章，非常好，強推！做了不少研究，把有關此類槍走火的資料查了不少。講的很有說服力。

 

如果再能加上muscle memory， sympathetic muscle contraction 的理論就很完整地合理解釋了梁走火的原因。各種可能的原因都包括了。基本上可以證明走火是無心之錯，

 

這是版上哪位專業律師吧？是不是可以加入梁律師團隊？

 

African-Americans have protested for years that they are directly targeted and punished in a much more aggressive way than white people, and they view this as the biggest crime and injustice in the U.S. criminal justice system. Does this mean that they care less about the innocent victims than the offenders whose acts of violence, theft, or murder have destroyed the lives of innocents? Does this mean that African-Americans want the 「white privilege」? Of course I don』t think so. It is the same for Chinese Americans. We are not angered that Liang didn』t benefit from white privilege as we have been accused of by some (http://racisminamerica.org/be-real-asians-are-protesting-because-killer-cop-peter-liang-didnt-benefit-from-white-privilege/). We are angered that Liang is used as a scapegoat for the failure of the justice system and we believe his conviction was unjust.

 

The facts reported in the news clearly speak for themselves and they suggest – very strongly – that the supposed recklessness exhibited by Liang was not reckless at all, and therefore the most significant basis for his manslaughter conviction is weak and far from 「proven beyond a reasonable doubt」. The shooting of Timothy Stansbury (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Timothy_Stansbury ) in 2004 at a housing project in Brooklyn not far from the Pink House where Liang shot Mr. Gurley had a very different outcome. The situation was almost exactly the same except Stansbury was shot directly instead of by a ricocheting bullet, and the case was ruled as an accident by the grand jury. 

 

The NYPD failed Liang and Mr. Gurley by pairing up two rookie officers with less than eighteen months in the force to do a vertical patrol at Pink Houses, the most dangerous job at one of the most dangerous NYC housing projects. Just a week before Liang』s conviction, two NYPD officers were shot in the stairwell of a housing complex while conducting a similar routine vertical patrol. In all the professions, from sports to law, medicine, engineering, and etc., we don』t let rookies to do the most difficult or dangerous work, but the NYPD did just this. 「Even before this fatal November 2014 encounter, NYPD brass under Commissioner Bill Bratton had identified the pairing of rookies as a ticking time bomb.」 (https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160212/civic-center/nypd-phases-out-programs-that-pair-rookie-officers-fight-crime) But they made Liang the scapegoat for the failures of the 「strategies such as 『Operation Impact』 that routinely deployed new officers fresh out of the Police Academy to high crime posts — often together.」

 

The New York City government and the NYPD failed Liang and Mr. Gurley by not providing police officers with enough CPR training as both Liang and his partner had testified, and then made Liang the scapegoat by prosecuting him for not doing things that he wasn』t adequately trained for. This (http://www.procpr.org/en/articles/correct-cpr-certification) CPR training website said: 「CPR certification simply means that you took a formal CPR training and passed the written exam. On the day of the training, you were able to perform adequate CPR skills in order for the instructor to certify that you had comprehended the minimum requirements for certification. It is no guarantee that you will respond, it is no guarantee that you will remember how to do CPR, and it is not a license to perform any CPR at all」. A reader commented under this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steph-yin/peter-liang-protests_b_9289990.html) piece that 「the police should also be required to have monthly CPR refresher lessons. I was CPR certified for 3 years and I forgot how to do CPR a month later. If you don't use it or are reminded of it, you forget how to do it correctly」.

The NYC government and the NYPD failed Liang and Mr. Gurley by being cheap and providing its officers with unsafe guns and then made Liang the scapegoat by prosecuting him for the failing of the poorly designed gun. Just Google the key words 「Glock accidental discharge」, one can find plenty of articles, like this (http://bearingarms.com/is-the-glock-inherently-unsafe/ ) and this(http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-owens-glock-accidents-20150508-story.html), about the safety issues of Glock, which was the gun used by Liang. This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/dcpolice/deadlyforce/police4page2.htm) Washington Post report said that, 「Officers found it difficult in tense street situations to keep their fingers off the triggers of their Glocks」. 「Officers in stressful situations might begin the process of squeezing the trigger safety in order to be primed to fire, several firearms experts said」. This is exactly the situation Liang was in when he accidentally discharged his gun. Then-Deputy Chief of D.C. police Rodwell Catoe wrote in an internal memo in 1990, "An unholstered Glock in the 'street load' mode with the trigger safety mechanism pressed is a profoundly dangerous weapon, even in the most ideal conditions」.

 

The legal system failed Liang by making it too expensive for ordinary citizens, especially the poor, to be able to adequately defend themselves against mighty government with unlimited resources, African Americans are victimized the most by this system. Had Liang had the money or NYPD helped him to hire the gun and CPR experts to testify on his behalf, the result could be different. 

 

Many of us are mad at, as one Chinese community leader put it (https://www.change.org/p/danny-chun-call-for-leniency-in-peter-liang-s-sentencing/u/15575606), that 「lies were 「leaked」 to the press that Officer Liang waited to call for help, was texting his union rep on his cell phone after he shot Mr. Gurley, or he did not follow orders from his supervisor while on duty. Though unfair, these lies successfully swayed the public to perceive Officer Peter Liang as someone who was heartless」. We consider this as deliberately setting Liang up to be the scapegoat.

 

The fairness of DA Ken Thompson in this case also should be questioned. Instead of hiring outside experts to fully review the case, he only had experts to testify the modifications made to police guns that increase the amount of pressure required and finger on the trigger needed to discharge a bullet. No one testified if NYPD』s training is enough for officers to perform CPR or how officer will likely act when in a dangerous situation; although one can easily find the answers by a quick Google search. What』s more, the prosecution changed story in the closing arguments and presented to jurors a new argument which 「was a departure from their theme during the previous days of the trial」 as New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/nyregion/peter-liang-akai-gurley-trial.html) reported. It seems to us that Mr. Thompson cares about neither the truth nor the Officer Liang』s life, only the conviction.

 

It is unjust to punish Liang - a rookie officer from a poor family in Chinatown – for the mistakes of the police commissioner and the Mayor of NYC, and be used as a scapegoat to pacify public anger over white police brutality against African-Americans.

 

This is why 「I believe that his conviction was unjust and I do not believe that the charge of reckless manslaughter is supported by any reasonable view of the evidence submitted at trial」- as stated in the petition to judge Chun