The overall ethical dilemma is that a police rookie, Peter Liang accidentally killed an unarmed man, Akai Gurley in a dark stairway during a routine patrol. While it is true that Liang killed an innocent man, he had a right to take precaution of his life by drawn gut his gun while patrolling the Pink Houses with his partner landau.
Specifically, Liang was first accused of breaking a major rule in which he had been trained to “never put his finger on the trigger unless he was ready to shoot”. However, he broke that rule and his negligence led to the death of an innocent man. Moreover, after the shooting, Liang and his patrol partner Shaun Landau never attended to the man in spite of having been trained on how to do a Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) but left Akai’s girlfriend Mellissa Butler and a neighbor Mellissa Lopez. Instead of attending to the dying man, Liang was more worried about being fired for his recklessness. However, this raises a dilemma because Liang’s capability to offer CPR in the state of mind he was in after the shooting cannot be ascertained. However, the fact that Liang voiced his fears that he would lose his job as a result of his actions, shows that it was the fear of being sacked that occupied him rather than the concern to help the injured man. Apparently, he could have asked his partner to help the injured man if he deemed himself to be incapable of doing so himself at the time.
The case took on a racial twist because it involved the shooting of a black man (Akai Gurley) by an officer of Asian-American descent. There were street protests with protesters calling for the charges against Liang to be dropped as was the case with the dropping of charges against white officers in the previous “accidental” murders of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.
The decisions made were that Peter Liang would answer to charges of manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide and official misconduct. He faces an imprisonment of up to 15 years for the charged being leveled against him. Liang’s lawyer, Rae Koshetz, called for the dropping of the charges arguing that Liang’s finger was not on the trigger. The issue of Liang’s finger having been on the trigger brings about a huge ethical violation because he was contravening instructions issues to him as a trained police officer. The issue that elicits ethical considerations was to charge Liang with official misconduct on account of his failure to act once he had shot an innocent man.
Liang’s case continues and is bound to do so because he evidently violated rules. However, it is his inaction of not helping the injured Akai that fuels the continuation of his indictment. Liang admitted to firing by stating that the gun went off by accident. As such, the criminal justice system in Brooklyn is right to press on with the charges since there is plentiful of ethical violations in the incident. Liang’s failure to act in spite of being trained and not urging his partner Landau to help in case he was not in the right state of mind to do so show that he acted unethically. The fact that he voiced his concern over the possible loss of his job on account of misconduct while the injured man bled to death supports his indictment on official misconduct and it a sound outcome to address the unethical conduct of Liang.
There have been protests calling for the release of Liang and referral of his case to the disciplinary mechanisms of the NYPD. The protesters argue that Liang being an Asian-American is being taken as the scapegoat. They state that the state is pretending to act on rogue cops while indeed white officers who shot Brown and Garner in similar circumstances to Akai were released and referred to the NYPD. However, the jury has decided that evidence presented in court sustains the case against Liang to proceed to full trial in January 2016.
One of the alternative courses of action would be to refer the case to the New York Police Department (NYPD) for disciplinary action to be taken on Peter Liang and dropping it entirely from the criminal justice system. However, this position would lack support since the accused had confessed to shooting Akai but claimed to have done so accidentally. The ethical violation of having drawn out his gun and readied himself to shoot into a dark stairway means that in as much as Liang was violating a work ethic, there are laws against the same in the public domain for which he ought to face a public court system. The other alternative was for Liang to face both the criminal justice system and the NYPD for disciplinary action because his actions bordered on acute negligence of instructions and ethical misconduct in worrying more about his job than saving a life.
It is improbable that Liang should continue as a police officer because he faces negative public scrutiny. The best course of action was to charge him with the criminal charges leveled against him as a measure to put to a stop numerous cases of unethical misconduct by police officers.
References
Carrega-wooby, C. (2016, January 25). Jurors hear 911 audio in Akai Gurley trial as prosecution says NYPD rookie Peter Liang worried about his job while victim bled to death. Retrieved January 26, 2016, from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/shot-akai-gurley-bleed-death-prosecutor-article-1.2508668?cid=bitly
Matthias, C. (2015, June 23). There Will Be A Trial In The Death Of Akai Gurley. Retrieved January 26, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/23/akai-gurley-trial_n_7649468.html
