Source: Sean Pavone / Getty
A New Mexico jury has convicted a white cop of voluntary manslaughter with a firearms enhancement after he shot and killed a Black man at a gas station in 2022.
According to the Associated Press, now-former Las Cruces police Officer Brad Lunsford was convicted Thursday by a jury of his peers for the fatal shooting of Presley Eze, who had been accused of shoplifting by the gas station clerk. Lunsford pleaded not guilty to the charge against him, and his attorney, Jose Coronado, objected to the verdict and told AP he would ask the judge to review the legality of it.
“While I respect the jury’s verdict, I am extremely disappointed in it. I don’t believe the state met its burden,” he said. The prosecution obviously disagreed.
From AP:
Prosecutors said he shot Presley Eze at point-blank range in a scuffle after police responded to a 911 call from a gas station attendant who reported that Eze stole beer. Eze allegedly placed his hand on a second officer’s stun gun before being shot.
Attorney General Raúl Torrez said the use of deadly force was not reasonable, noting that Brad Lunsford immediately drew his service weapon and shot Eze in the back of the head.
“Today’s verdict reaffirms a fundamental principle: no one is above the law — not even those sworn to uphold it. Officer Brad Lunsford’s actions were not just a tragic lapse in judgment; they were an egregious abuse of power that cost Presley Eze his life,” Torrez said in a statement after the verdict was announced.
With the firearms enhancement, Lunford’s conviction carries a sentence of up to nine years in prison, which many would consider an insufficient sentence for someone whose first response in a situation that could have presumably been de-escalated was to immediately shoot a man in the back of the head.
Still, some legal experts appear to believe the prosecution’s victory happened at the end of an uphill battle.
“It is incredibly difficult for a prosecutor to obtain a conviction in a jury trial in one of these cases, and that’s because jurors are very reluctant to second guess the split-second, often life-or-death decisions of an on-duty police officer in a potentially violent street encounter,” said Philip Stinson, a professor of criminal justice at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. “Anything can happen, but it’s only in the most egregious cases.”
But should it be that way? It has often been asked why cops get to use the “I was in fear for my life” whenever those “split-second” decisions result in an unarmed person being killed, but citizens, who lack the tactical training and (supposed) de-escalation training that officers receive, are expected to respond and comply with a cop’s demands perfectly regardless of how fearful they might be during those same “split-second” moments.
Cops aren’t the only ones who face “life-and-death decisions” during police encounters. That’s why it’s important that cases like these end with police accountability.
SEE ALSO:
Alabama Judge Dismisses Case Against Black Man Attacked By Police Dog
