GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — A reasonable officer in a situation similar to Christopher Schurr's would not have fired his gun, an expert witness said during testimony in the former Grand Rapids police officer's second-degree murder trial.
"In order to justify a use of deadly force, it's generally accepted in policing that there has to be an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm," said Seth Stoughton a professor at the University of South Carolina's law school.
"In my opinion, that was lacking in this case," he said.
On Tuesday, Stoughton sat in the witness box for more than three hours as he commented on how officer-created jeopardy — a term that refers to how a police officer's actions can put themselves at risk — played a part in the shooting death of Patrick Lyoya.
Notably, the defense objected to discussion of officer-created jeopardy.
"We ask this court not to accept this theory. It has no bearing whatsoever on this matter," said defense attorney Matthew Borgula.
Judge Christina Mims disagreed, permitting Stoughton — considered by the court to be an expert on police use of force — to testify on the topic.
Shooting death of Patrick Lyoya
LIVE UPDATES: Trial of Christopher Schurr
Officer-created jeopardy
In the traffic stop that led to the shooting death of Patrick Lyoya, officer-created jeopardy played a "relevant role," Stoughton said during testimony.
Particularly, the expert witness said Schurr put himself at risk when he chased after Lyoya, who ran from the then-officer after failing to produce his driver's license.
In doing so, Stoughton said Schurr disregarded the potential threat posed by a passenger in the car.
"Letting someone flee from a traffic stop for an improper plate is certainly better than getting into a fight and losing or getting shot in the back by an assailant that you couldn’t keep an eye on," he said.
A former police officer himself, Stoughton also said it was "feasible" for Schurr to warn Lyoya before using deadly force against him.
"There was time," he said. "Several seconds."
Then, after objection from the defense, Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker asked if an "objectively reasonable officer" in a situation similar to Schurr's would have made the decision to fire their gun.
"No," Stoughton said, claiming Lyoya did not "reasonably appear" to have the intention, ability and opportunity to cause death or great bodily harm to the then-officer.
Cross-examination
During his cross examination of Stoughton, Borgula focused on whether it was specifically reasonable for Schurr to be "in fear of incapacitation" as he and Lyoya struggled over Schurr's taser.
If such was the case, Borgula claimed, the officer could have reasonably used deadly force.
While Stoughton said it was "theoretically plausible" that Lyoya could have used Schurr's taser against him as a means to disarm the officer, unholster his firearm and fatally shoot him, such a scenario seemed "unlikely."
"[In] the history of the introduction of taser use, that has never happened in American policing or internationally," Stoughton said, speaking to his own knowledge.
Borgula also brought up the Grand Rapids Police Department's use of force policy which, at the time of the shooting, said officers needed only to give a directive — rather than a warning — before using deadly force.
Therefore, when Schurr told Lyoya to "drop the taser" during the struggle, the officer would have been in compliance with department policy, Borgula said.
While Stoughton agreed, he added that GRPD's policy on warnings would also subsequently have been out of compliance with generally accepted police practices.
Editor's note: Less than a year after the shooting of Patrick Lyoya, GRPD Chief Eric Winstrom instituted a policy requiring officers give a verbal warning before using deadly force.
Expert testimony on tasers
On Tuesday, an expert witness on tasers also testified.
During the struggle that preceded the shooting, the witness said Schurr's taser was discharged twice, though it did not successfully connect with or incapacitate its target.
Generally speaking, this meant Schurr's taser could only be used to drive stun, which refers to when the device is pressed up against a person or animal to create a pain compliance effect.
"It causes pain, but it does not cause the muscles to contract," said Bryan Chiles, a senior manager at Axon Enterprise, the manufacturer of Schurr's taser.
While Chiles claimed Schurr's taser was "designed to be safe," he also it "could be dangerous" in the hands of an untrained person, regardless of whether its cartridges had been discharged.
Continued cross-examination
During his cross-examination of Stoughton, Borgula brought up Chile's testimony on tasers, claiming it conflicted with the law professor's.
While Stoughton noted he was not an expert on tasers, he said he was "certainly" an expert on use of force.
"I really can't explain the magic that goes on inside a bullet to project it," said Stoughton, using a gun analogy. "I just know that it comes out of the muzzle of a gun, and I can, as an expert, talk about when it's appropriate to send it that way."
For FOX 17's previous coverage of the trial of Christopher Schurr and the death of Patrick Lyoya, click here.