DPD Trial - Mistrial declared in manslaughter trial of Detroit cop

[Johnnny5]

Him being a 'highly trained officer' is exactly why he should be convicted. They should not be making such mistakes, even if she did grab it, which another officer testified she did not.

^ With a firearm, there's no such thing as an accident in the sense you're referring to. Especially in the hands of a trained police officer who is required to maintain control of the weapon at all times. There is only negligence.

Meddle, I'm not sure where you got the idea that training somehow makes someone superhuman and impervious to mistakes or accidents. Officers need to be held to a high standard, but considering the difficult work they do to expect that nothing will ever go wrong is not a reasonable expectation.

[ccal]

Did Officer Weekley intentionally kill Alyana Stanley-Jones? Did he even know she was in the house? Do you think they went to a picnic, or that this is some kind of video game? The perp JUST murdered someone, I believe, "because he didn't like the way the guy looked @ him". Went BACK and murdered him. This is a horrid tragedy, but if I were sent in to apprehend the perp, my finger would be on the trigger and the safety off. You don't get a do-over. Grandma should have picked up the 7 year old and headed for cover, not played tug-o-war with someone's loaded weapon in the middle of a police raid. My first thought would have been GTFO, not "I can take him". I can't entirely fault the cop in this.

Right, because everybody knows what to do when suddenly woken up by a flash bang in the middle of the night

[Honky Tonk]

Right, because everybody knows what to do when suddenly woken up by a flash bang in the middle of the night

You just grab the guy's gun, silly. Especially if they're cops.

[Meddle]

Grandma should have picked up the 7 year old and headed for cover, not played tug-o-war with someone's loaded weapon in the middle of a police raid.

You just grab the guy's gun, silly. Especially if they're cops.

So far as I've heard, the shooter was the only one using that excuse and it was contradicted by other witnesses including another officer in the room. When you have conflicting testimony from two officers, do you believe the one who killed a child or the one who didn't?

[Honky Tonk]

So far as I've heard, the shooter was the only one using that excuse and it was contradicted by other witnesses including another officer in the room. When you have conflicting testimony from two officers, do you believe the one who killed a child or the one who didn't?

Let me ask you, do you believe Officer Weekley went to the house to do intentionally kill Alyana Stanley-Jones?

[ccal]

You just grab the guy's gun. Especially if they're cops.

Flash Bang goes off, which is used to disorient a person[[as its designed to do) and you dont know whats going on and if you're not familiar with it you might think a gun was going off and when guns go off black people get low, they don't run towards guns either.

[ccal]

Let me ask you, do you believe Officer Weekley went to the house to do intentionally kill Alyana Stanley-Jones?

That is a silly question because I believe they didn't even know she was in the house, let alone in the front room. Mistake or not this officer is responsible and should be held accountable, "oops, my bad" is not going to cut it.

[Zacha341]

What do others do when a gun goes off? Sip tea? I know Asians tend to get pretty upset by Godzilla........

....when guns go off black people get low, they don't run towards guns either.

[ccal]

What do others do when a gun goes off? Sip tea? I know Asians tend to get pretty upset by Godzilla........

Wrong bait.

[courtney]

And an elderly woman watched him kill a 7 year old.

So, what was your point again?

Elderly? The grandmother is 50. Hardly in the "elderly" category. But I'm guessing an image of a stereotypical aged grandmother is more sympathetic than that of a 50 year old woman.

[Bobl]

And an elderly woman watched him kill a 7 year old.

So, what was your point again?

My point was clearly stated in my post:

"...And, it all could have been avoided if the family of this child had done the same..."

[Zacha341]

I have to agree here - if she's elderly, so am I. Not!

Elderly? The grandmother is 50. Hardly in the "elderly" category. But I'm guessing an image of a stereotypical aged grandmother is more sympathetic than that of a 50 year old woman.

[Zacha341]

No, I was not going 'there'... I was trying to see where you were coming from.

Wrong bait.

[Zacha341]

Who's testimony has changed the most...? That usually points to the truth.

[48009]

I saw officer Weekley on the reality show Detroit SWAT and on screen he seems like a decent person. While shows like that and 48 Hours gives people some insight into the personalities of these officers the need to show the raids is a bit much. Raids are inherently dangerous many things can go wrong. Why didn't they just surround the house and waited the guy out ?

I believe surprising the murderer while he is asleep is better than any other alternative.

[jt1]

I believe surprising the murderer while he is asleep is better than any other alternative.

I would argue that an alternative that doesn't result in a dead 7 year old is the better alternative

[TKshreve]

I would argue that an alternative that doesn't result in a dead 7 year old is the better alternative

With all due respect to the young girl..... may she rest in peace.

That said: This does fall directly on the shoulders of the little girls parents/grandparents. If they knew there is a fugitive hiding out inside/upstairs/next door...... they should have gotten her and themselves out of harms way. Or gotten the fugitive away from those they want to protect. That is parental instincts. THAT was the alternative.

To act anyway but this is where the negligence should properly fall.

[SWMAP]

I don’t understand why Weekly is being tried. He was acting under orders in a dark, stressful raid where return fire was expected – after all, they were flushing out a cold-blooded assassin. Weekly was the pointman – but he did not give the order. Why isn’t his boss on trial? Doesn’t the chain of command stop with the boss?
Many things about this case are smelly. There is a public outcry in Detroit over a murderer’s daughter’s accidental death [[no one suggests that Officer Weekly deliberately killed that child) and so someone has to take the fall.
But other places, an officer operating under the same conditions who makes a mistake while under orders, would never be hauled into court on manslaughter charges.
For example I read this in the NYT yesterday:
The F.B.I. takes very seriously any shooting incidents involving our agents, and as such we have an effective, time-tested process for addressing them internally,” a bureau spokesman said.
But if such internal investigations are time-tested, their outcomes are also predictable: from 1993 to early 2011, F.B.I. agents fatally shot about 70 “subjects” and wounded about 80 others — and every one of those episodes was deemed justified, according to interviews and internal F.B.I. records obtained by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
The last two years have followed the same pattern: an F.B.I. spokesman said that since 2011, there had been no findings of improper intentional shootings.
Occasionally, the F.B.I. does discipline an agent. Out of 289 deliberate shootings covered by the documents, many of which left no one wounded, five were deemed to be “bad shoots,” in agents’ parlance — encounters that did not comply with the bureau’s policy, which allows deadly force if agents fear that their lives or those of fellow agents are in danger. Critics say the fact that for at least two decades no agent has been disciplined for any instance of deliberately shooting someone raises questions about the credibility of the bureau’s internal investigations. Samuel Walker, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha who studies internal law enforcement investigations, called the bureau’s conclusions about cases of improper shootings “suspiciously low.”

[Meddle]

That said: This does fall directly on the shoulders of the little girls parents/grandparents.

No, it falls on the shoulders of the person that fired the shot.

[Meddle]

But other places, an officer operating under the same conditions who makes a mistake while under orders, would never be hauled into court on manslaughter charges.


Critics say the fact that for at least two decades no agent has been disciplined for any instance of deliberately shooting someone raises questions about the credibility of the bureau’s internal investigations. Samuel Walker, a professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha who studies internal law enforcement investigations, called the bureau’s conclusions about cases of improper shootings “suspiciously low.” [/I]

We don't need those kinds of cover ups. As the unbolded part of that last line says, something stinks in Denmark and it ain't the rotten fish. Hopefully the FBI will be taken to task for that.


In my eye, nearly every time an officer kills or seriously injures a citizen, they should go to trial. I don't believe in immunity for those cases. Exceptions would be when the suspect is armed and placing others in immediate danger as in active shooter situations.

[compn]

I don’t understand why Weekly is being tried.

hes on trial because the laws of this country apply to everyone, equally.
a little girl is dead.
weekly admitted to pulling the trigger.

or maybe you think some people are above the law?

why havent you written the governor to pardon officer weekly of this charge?

[SWMAP]

I wonderwhy his boss isn't on trial. This tragic accident happened under his supervision.
Are you asserting that Weekly ran in that house with deliberate intention to murder anyone? After 15 years of tense and brave service he suddenly becomes a killer?
Again, it wasca tragic accident that happened when his bosses decided to make that trip.

[compn]

his boss isnt on trial because his boss didnt fire the gun.

people have accidents that kill others all the time.
they get charged with reckless endangerment or vehicular manslaughter or similar.

if a bus driver runs over a kid, the bus drivers' boss doesnt get charged with a crime. its a silly question.

[rb336]

So far as I've heard, the shooter was the only one using that excuse and it was contradicted by other witnesses including another officer in the room.

It wasn't contradicted, it just wasn't confirmed. There is a HUGE difference

[SWMAP]

No, but if the driver's supervisor sent him out knowing that, for example, his vehicle was in disrepair and then, due to his inability to properly drive, the child was run over - then the supervisor bears responsibilty.
In the Weekly case, the boss decided to run the scenario - even after he was told there were children. With small children in the house, it was an accident waiting to happen. How would anyone think that there wouldn't be collateral damage when a place holding a cold-blooded assassin is stormed in the dark? And who most likely to get hurt but a small child?

It was the boss who decided to create chaos with the flash/bang even though there were children.

Dear friend, i am a very educated and experienced adult. I don't ask "silly questions."