Virginia prosecutor finds 2018 police shooting justified

FILE - In this June 2, 2018, file photo, family members, including Princess Blanding, center right, sister of Marcus-David Peters, her daughter, Tionna Blanding, center left, cousin Rachel Melvin, right, and others pray after a march for Peters in front of Richmond Police Headquarters in Richmond, Va. Around the U.S., protesters have been calling for prosecutors to take a second look at police killings of Black people, including Peters. Peters was shot May 14 by a Richmond police officer after a confrontation on Interstate 95. (Daniel Sangjib Min/Richmond Times-Dispatch via AP, File)

By DENISE LAVOIE Associated Press (11/06)

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The fatal police shooting of an unarmed Black man who ran onto a highway during a mental health crisis was justified, a Virginia prosecutor said Friday.

The finding by Commonwealth’s Attorney Colette McEachin mirrors an earlier finding by her predecessor, former Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael Herring. McEachin said in a 10-page report released Friday that the officer’s use of deadly force on Marcus-David Peters was a “reasonable response” to the danger posed by Peters.

Peters was a 24-year-old high school biology teacher when he was shot by a Richmond police officer on May 14, 2018.

Police said Peters struck several vehicles with his car, then crashed into brush in a grassy area next to a highway ramp. Body camera video showed Peters climb out of his car — naked— and run into rush hour traffic on Interstate 95. He laid down on the highway, rolled around and flailed his arms and legs.

The officer, who was also Black, pointed a stun gun at Peters, who then ran toward the officer while shouting and threatening to kill him. The officer deployed the stun gun, which appeared to have no effect, then shot Peters with his service weapon.

Peters died later at a hospital.

Three months later, Herring cleared the officer of any wrongdoing, finding that a reasonable officer in those circumstances would have believed Peters was capable of overcoming him and taking control of his gun.

At the urging of Peters’ family and police reform advocates, McEachin agreed to review the case. She reached a similar conclusion, finding that “the officer’s ultimate decision to use lethal force was a reasonable response to the imminent danger presented to himself and the public by Mr. Peters’ continued violent behavior due to his mental deterioration.”

Peters’ sister, Princess Blanding, said the officer — who said over his police radio that he was dealing with a man who was “mentally unstable” — should not have used deadly force on someone who was in the throes of a mental health crisis.

She said Friday that she disagrees with McEachin’s finding.

“Marcus was not violent toward anyone. He ran to the highway. He was not violent to anybody. He was in his own world,” Blanding said.

Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Posted in: Mental Illness, Police, Policies & Practices, Protests/Civil Unrest, Racial Issues, Shootings, Stun Guns

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

fifteen + 1 =

Terms of Use for Posting Comments

Terms of Use

This site (the “Site”) is operated and maintained by Law Enforcement Education Foundation, Corporation (“Company”). Throughout the Site, the terms “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Company.  The words “user,” “you” and “your” as used herein refer to you.

Please read these terms and conditions of use (“Terms of Use”) carefully before contributing content. If you do not agree to these Terms of Use, please do not contribute content. Your use of the Site is subject to the Terms and Conditions found here .

By contributing content to the Site, you represent and warrant that you are at least eighteen (18) years old and that you have read and understand these Terms of Use and any amendments thereto and agree to be bound by them. If you are not at least eighteen (18) years old or you do not agree and accept these Terms of Use, you are prohibited from contributing content.

From time to time, we may permit users to submit content to the Site.  You hereby acknowledge and agree that by submitting remarks, comments, suggestions, ideas, graphics, feedback, edits, concepts, comments, photographs, illustrations and other materials (other than personal information and/or registration information) through the Site (individually and collectively, “Submissions”), you (i) grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable, irrevocable and fully sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, distribute, publish, create derivative works from and publicly display and perform such Submissions throughout the world in any media, now known or hereafter created, without attribution to you; (ii) grant us the right to pursue at law any person or entity that violates your and/or our rights in your Submissions; and (iii) forever waive any and all of your rights, including but not limited to moral rights, if any, in and to your Submissions, including, without limitation, any all rights or requirements of attribution or identification of you as the author of the Submission or any derivative thereof.  We reserve the right to remove any of your Submissions from the Site, in whole or in part, without notice to you, for any reason or no reason.

Submissions are made voluntarily. Any submissions which include personally identifiable information are subject to our Privacy Policy found here .  You may not upload or otherwise publish content on the Site that (i) is confidential to you or any third party; (ii) is untrue, inaccurate, false or other than an original work of your authorship; (iii) that relates to or impersonates any other person; (iv) violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property rights of any person or entity; (v) contains any content, personally identifiable information or other information, or materials of any kind that relate or refer to any other person or entity other than the provider of the products, goods or services to which the Submission relates; or (vi) violates any law, or in any manner infringes or interferes with the rights of others, including but not limited to the use of names, information, or materials that (A) libel, defame, or invade the privacy of any third party, (B) are obscene or pornographic, (C) are harmful, threatening, offensive, abusive, harassing, vulgar, false or inaccurate, racially, sexually, ethnically or are otherwise objectionable or otherwise contrary to the laws of any place where such Submissions may be accessed; (D) constitute personal attacks on other individuals; (E) promote criminal, immoral or illegal activity; (F) promote or advertise any person, product or service or solicit funds; or (G) are deemed confidential by any contract or policy.

You are solely responsible for any Submissions you make and their accuracy. We take no responsibility and assume no liability for any Submissions posted by you or any third party.

Unless approved by us in writing in advance, you agree not to: (i) provide or create a link to the Site; or (ii) create any frames at any other sites pertaining to any of the content located on the Site.

We reserve the right, in our discretion, to update, change or replace any part of these Terms of Use for Posting Comments by posting updates and/or changes to our Site.  It is your responsibility to check this page periodically for changes.  Your continued use of, and/or access to the Site, following the posting of any changes to these Terms of Use for Posting Comments, constitutes your acceptance of those changes.