Jury Acquits Police Lieutenant Who Killed Unarmed Tenant

An old friend regularly visits this neighborhood when his occupation calls for him to, and is far more familiar with it than I. He has has business within the building in question and is aware of this particular event. That the policeman shot and killed a man he felt was threatening to do him grievous harm is not the real story, as all men of good will would most likely agree that it is within the right of every man on earth to protect himself from such an aggressor.

But in NYC this "right" is granted to a precious few. From firsthand knowledge of the actors in question, John offered that he was on the side of the cop, in that his attacker was well known to be violent. So be it. Originally, I had wondered why the officer shot and killed an unarmed man, with a witness present no less, and am withdrawing my incredulity based upon this information, but will never side with a system that permits a selected few to protect themselves while leaving the majority to run, hide, or take a severe beating because they simply aren't special enough to reside under the protection of the same criminal justice system.

"An off-duty police lieutenant who shot and killed his unarmed tenant during an argument was found not guilty of criminal charges yesterday evening.

“I feel good,” the lieutenant, Shamik Walton of the 67th Precinct in Brooklyn, said as he walked out of the state courthouse in Brooklyn. “I feel vindicated.”

The Police Department will most likely review the case next week, a spokesman said. Lieutenant Walton, who was free on $30,000 bail as his case came to trial this week, has been on modified duty since the shooting in May 2005.

He was charged with second-degree manslaughter in the death of Byron Hearst, 27, a tenant in a building owned by Lieutenant Walton in Bedford-Stuyvesant. Mr. Hearst was shot three times, once in the chest and twice through the side.

In a four-day trial, a witness described watching the men argue, standing near each other on the building’s stairs, before Lieutenant Walton drew his gun and fired. Prosecutors argued that he failed to identify himself as a police officer, overreacted to the confrontation, improperly introduced deadly force and recklessly caused Mr. Hearst’s death.

“Nothing other than simple physical force by Byron Hearst was ever used,” said a prosecutor, Kenneth M. Taub, in his closing argument. “Sometimes you may have to take a punch rather than shoot a person.”

Lieutenant Walton, 43, testified in his own defense, telling jurors he feared for his life and had no choice but to shoot Mr. Hearst.

The jury deliberated all afternoon, asking to hear some testimony read aloud before returning a verdict around 6 p.m. After the verdict, Lieutenant Walton clasped his arm around his defense lawyer, Anthony L. Ricco, then removed his glasses and rubbed his eyes..."

David Codrea at The War On Guns wonders why NYC has established this particular Castle Doctrine so that the constabulary and they only may stand their ground. I myself don't know why, but its possible it might very well be in the patrolman's handbook, listed under "Health Benefits", or some other job extra.