Did a police officer’s Taser pose a threat against him? Murder trial centers on weapon

GRAND RAPIDS (AP) — There’s no question about how Patrick Lyoya, a 26-year-old Congolese immigrant, was killed.

Lyoya was fatally shot in the back of the head while on the ground by a Michigan police officer, who was subsequently charged with second-degree murder. The question before a jury this week is whether the use of deadly force against the Black man was justified.

High-ranking Grand Rapids officers defended Christopher Schurr’s actions Thursday, the fourth day of trial, as his attorneys tried to show that he was forced to use his gun after Lyoya got possession of his Taser. If convicted, Schurr faces up to life in prison.

“We don’t have to wait for someone to hurt us to do something,” said Capt. Chad McKersie, a Taser expert in the Grand Rapids department.

Schurr pulled over a vehicle driven by Lyoya for improper license plates in April 2022 in a residential neighborhood in Grand Rapids, roughly 150 miles (240 kilometers) west of Detroit.

Video footage shows Schurr struggling to subdue Lyoya as they grappled over the officer’s Taser. Schurr told him to stop resisting and drop the weapon multiple times throughout the encounter.

While Lyoya was facedown on the ground with Schurr on top of him, the officer took out his gun and shot him once in the back of the head.

McKersie told the jury that Lyoya had “complete control” of Schurr’s Taser, a weapon that fires electrically charged probes intended to freeze muscles and stop an aggressor.

It’s possible that Lyoya could have pressed the Taser against Schurr in “drive stun” mode after two cartridges were already spent, McKersie said.

“It’s perceived like a blowtorch. It’s unbelievably painful,” he testified.

But during cross-examination, prosecutor Chris Becker asked McKersie to point to a Grand Rapids policy that says deadly force can be used when an officer’s Taser is taken away.

“You’re looking for the black-and-white answer. It’s the totality of the circumstances at that time,” McKersie replied, noting that Schurr was exhausted and Lyoya wouldn’t stop resisting during a fight that lasted more than two minutes.

Grand Rapids Officer Jason Gady, a firearms instructor, said there was nothing unreasonable about the shooting. He said training does not recommend officers fire a warning shot or a shot to the extremities if presented with a deadly threat.

Schurr, 34, was fired by city officials at the recommendation of Chief Eric Winstrom after he was charged. At the time, Winstrom said his recommendation was based on video of the encounter, the prosecutor’s review of a state police investigation and Schurr’s interview with internal investigators.

Police spokesperson Jennifer Kalczuk declined to comment Thursday about testimony from local officers in support of Schurr, saying it would be inappropriate. The trial will resume Friday.

Earlier in the week, a representative from Axon, the company that makes Tasers, said Schurr’s device was fired twice but apparently didn’t strike Lyoya. Bryan Chiles agreed with defense lawyers that the officer could have been seriously injured if Lyoya had turned the Taser on Schurr and used in “drive stun” mode.

Lyoya’s death prompted calls to reform the police department. People who support Schurr and the victim have protested outside the Kent County courthouse during the trial.

Mary and Frank Hillyard, retired teachers, stood outside Thursday with signs that said “Justice 4 Patrick.”

“I have a lot of people that I know in law enforcement,” Frank Hillyard said. “I appreciate their service. But this kind of stuff is just out of bounds.”

Prosecutors rested their case Wednesday after calling witnesses in the neighborhood who saw the fight, as well as two experts in the use of force.

Seth Stoughton, a South Carolina law professor and former police officer, said deadly force can be justified if there is an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm against an officer.

“In my opinion, that was lacking in this case,” Stoughton told the jury.

He noted that Schurr had time to tell Lyoya that he might shoot him, a warning that might have defused the conflict.

Nicholas Bloomfield, an expert from New Mexico and a former police officer, said the shooting was “unreasonable, excessive and contrary to generally accepted police practices.”

He noted that the video shows Lyoya trying to get away from Schurr — not get closer. Bloomfield said Schurr should have known that Lyoya couldn’t use the Taser to incapacitate the officer because the weapon’s two powerful electric cartridges had already been fired.

“Patrick Lyoya did grab ahold of the officer’s Taser and there was a struggle over the Taser,” Bloomfield testified. “But again, in this circumstance, there was nothing that we termed to be aggressiveness or combativeness on the part of Mr. Lyoya toward the officer.”